If you were a GM on one of the other 31 teams would you trade for Wallace's contract knowing what his production has been?

Even if you were confident that Wallace was worth his contract with your QB and offensive scheme, you know that the 'phins are close to cutting him outright, so why offer any more than a chickenfeed pick (6th or 7th rounder).

 

Of course he's untradable. Was this in question? The team also gains very little by cutting or trading him this offseason in terms of cap space The ONLY reason to get rid of him is because he's become such a problem in the locker room that he simply cannot be kept around. Cutting him after next season is the most likely course, when the next coach cleans house.

 

The dead money makes him unreleasable. But teams will call for his services. In a team with a quarterback capable of completing deep passes, Wallace is a 1300 yard receiver minimum.

 

Its much more likely that Mike Wallace's replacement here outperforms him as a deep threat than it is Wallace goes to one of the couple of teams in the league where he's any danger of being the player he was in 2011.

Only a handful of quarterbacks have the deep accuracy to hit Wallace in stride on the numbers far down the field, and even then you need the correct offense on top of it.

 

Since hes untradeable he helps hasten the departure of the current staff.

 

Don't think so, not with Tannehill throwing the passes especially. Wallace is definitely one of the best deep threats in the NFL. If a guy like Nick Foles can connect with Deshaun, a capable quarterback can connect with Wallace.

A team like Carolina would love to have Wallace there to pair with Benjamin.

 

Like I've said before, 31 receivers in the NFL were more productive than Mike Wallace on a yards-per-target basis in 2014. The number of those receivers who counted more against his team's salary cap than Wallace is zero. And this is no different from how Wallace has performed over the past three years, including his final year in Pittsburgh.

So, if a team wants to maximize the production of its players on the basis of the ratio of their production to their salary cap hit -- which every team should if it's interested in winning -- it makes no sense to trade for Mike Wallace at his current salary and risk that he'll continue to perform as he has for the past three years.

In fact, it makes more sense to do nothing with regard to Mike Wallace, and continue to weaken another team by having him absorb an inordinate amount of the team's cap in exchange for comparatively little production. In other words, teams stand to make themselves more competitive, in a roundabout way, by keeping him on the Dolphins and having the Dolphins continue to pay him what they are. Let other teams weaken themselves by paying players a great deal more than their production warrants.

 

If we trade our best WR, I can only hope we have a plan too adequately replace him. Our young developing QB being robbed of his best weapon is hardly a recipe for success.

 

Amazing that he couldn't get his "minimum" 1300 yards a single time in Pittsburgh. His last year in Pitt is exactly what we're getting here and why Pitt fans were fine with him leaving.

 

Not sure that Wallace is Tannehill's best weapon...I hope that they can somehow figure out the dysfunction in the off-season, and start connecting deep next season.

 

Yes, untradeable. He was never a good fit for what we run (thanks Jeff), but still a 1000 yard guy and the most accomplished receiver on the team.

 

Thankfully, ol Cautious Joe has to *gasp* coach a difficult talent to maximize his contributions, sorry Joe, that is why you are drawing a paycheck, you've kicked enough talent out the door as it is...

 

Sure, but don't forget that on a yards-per-target basis, Brian Hartline is also a thousand-yard receiver over the past three years, and he counts a great deal less against the team's salary cap. In other words, if you're measuring productivity by yards-per-target (as one should in my opinion), then Brian Hartline is your far more efficient and valuable receiver.

 

Ryan had like a 117 QB rating throwing to Wallace, that's pretty damn good considering what Wallace does best hasn't been successfully exploited yet other than being a great decoy on those plays ofcourse.

 

Well considering the 180 Wallace did in his style of play, and how well he did, I guess Philbin deserves some props for doing the very thing you act like he won't....right?

No, I'm sure not.

 

According to a link someone posted, Ryan Tannehill's QBR throwing to Wallace was 114.

Doesn't mean he's not overpaid (he is), but it is clear Wallace was carrying Tanehill, not the other way around. ;)

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins_in_depth/

 

How should one make sense of the fact that, in 2013, Ryan Tannehill's QB rating when throwing to Mike Wallace was a mere 59.6?

 

Tannehill got a little better?

Are you sure you're not conflating 2013's deep pass QBR here?

 

Desean Jackson?

Jackson is a small guy but he's much more capable of bringing in passes that aren't perfect. His ability to do so is in line with much better players, while Wallace is even below average for his size.

 

That's basically entirely a function of Wallace's red zone production this year. Which is nice, but certainly not irreplaceable and likely something we can replace between higher red zone utilization of Clay and Landry.

 

We stopped throwing the deep ball at him, where both players struggled? Or that's what it seemed like...

 

Wallace is a good player but I feel like he's a bit overrated here. 1300 yards? He had one of the very best QBs in the game (IMO a top 3-4 player) throwing him the ball and he didn't crack 1300 as the primary target in that offense.

 

He was targeted fewer times overall, and fewer times deep (20+ yards downfield in the air). In 2013 Tannehill threw 9 interceptions when targeting Mike Wallace. In 2014 he threw only one.

 

Well, 10 tds in a season ain't nothing, Hartline has 12 for his entire career. There is no question that Mike Wallace is not a great fit here, but I would argue that his on-field play is not holding this team back (off-field and salary cap implications are a different story).

I would guess Landry passes both Wallace and Hartline is yards and tds next season.

I would much rather trade Wallace to, say, Arizona. Cutting the guy and letting him become a free agent means he is a Patriot and I do not want to see that.

 

i lol'ed at the send him to carolina and he'll be a 1300 yards guy. Newton is even less accurate than tannehill. Having a 6'5'' WR that can jump, and stretches out for balls, covers up newton's inaccuracy. Plus having a Big TE.

 

I don't think Wallace is untradeable. He's due $9.9 million this year and $11.5 million in 2016 and 2017. That is what a trading team will consider. And if they don't like those $11.5 million salaries they can basically look at it like he's due $9.9 million on a one year deal, because there wouldn't be any signing bonus to amortize.

A team could flip off a 7th round pick for that. Especially if they negotiate a new deal for Wallace, which they likely would.

 

He's not uncuttable either, if you have some idea of the myriad ways that salary cap accounting can be manipulated in the short term. And no that's not something that leads to "cap hell". If you're manipulating the short term cap simply to reflect the long term savings then there is no problem with that.

 

Yep, Wallace's problem in Miami wears #17

 

So.. He can be cut, but at what Time frame? Can we cut him before June?

 

Honestly it's both of them. There's no reason in the world they both didn't work together in the offseason on their own

 

I don't think there's any team in the league that's going to want 10 million of its cap absorbed by Mike Wallace. That would have equaled the sixth-highest wide receiver cap hit in the league in 2014. Negotiating another deal for Wallace won't happen unless it's by the team Wallace wants to play for, because he could simply resist any attempts at restructuring his deal, be cut, and choose the team he wants.

 

I disagree.

1302 yards is minimum.

 

7th rounder? Ouch, how the mighty have fallen

 

Yep, ol Joe needs to learn the harsh lesson that "yes snowflake, you have to deal with and motivate even guys whose talent brought them here, but their attitude you do not like"

Cautious Joe needs to put on his big boy pants, we cannot continue to discard talent because the poor dear does not like them and is incapable of dealing with them

 

First, a coach shouldn't have to deal with a player who quits on his team, especially when that player counts more against the team's salary cap than any other player in the league at his position. Obviously not quitting on one's team is only the bare minimum that should be expected from a professional football player, and the inability to rise to that level says a great deal more about the player than it does about whatever coach he's playing for.

Second, there are plenty of other reasons to discard Mike Wallace that have nothing to do with that event or any others like it that may have happened. In other words, discarding Mike Wallace really has nothing to do with the head coach's personality and whether he can "deal" with him. Certainly Joe Philbin's ability to deal with players shouldn't be judged by the extreme example of Mike Wallace, who should be jettisoned on both personality and performance grounds.

 

Desean is a completely different player. He's more shifty, can make razor cuts while keeping balance etc. Desean is pretty sick I like him more than Wallace, and I actually like Wallace but know his limitations. He's more well rounded this year obviously.

 

Tannehill's QB rating when throwing to each of our WRs in 2014:
Gibson: 77.9
Hartline: 91.1
Wallace: 114
Landry: 96.6
Matthews: 89
Williams: 118.8 (only thrown at once which was a catch for 14 yards so don't make too much of this rating)

This tells us which WR RT17 had the most success throwing to. Does that equate to being the best weapon? To me, it does.