Depends on your definition of gone. If we can find someone willing to pickup the contract, we would entertain trades I am sure but that is a big if. Don't see him cut as there is too big of a cap hit this year versus waiting one more year. My guess is he will stay put.

 

Overpaid, miscast, and disruptive. Gone.

 

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

 

The only people who think wallace will be gone are wishful thinkers. Unless they get a favorable trade offer (which they wont because hes coming off a mediocre year and Desean Jackson fetched only marginal returns and was coming off a much better year last year), the team isnt going to absorb a significant cap hit for a somewhat productive player. Next offseason is a much more realistic time to cut bait with Wallace. You draft his replacement this year...

 

This..

 

Philbin's job is on the line, and maybe Hickey's. Wallace is their best WR. Think they care about rollover cap they're trying to keep their jobs! I'd be shocked if they got rid of Wallace without executing a plan to replace him first.

 

The obligatory Wallace/Tannehill Thread of the Week.

Here's my contribution:

^#*&#$#EW($&#^@*(^$#@(*$^#@(*$^#*($^$*(@^$#(@*$^#U&$^&&#&#&@(@#*#*$#*$^#*@(

#&$^#&
#$#*

#$*&#&9!!!

 

If we let him go, we better trade for his replacement ASAP or we won't win more than 6 games. Actually, that might mean Philbin gets fired... hmm.... Maybe we should make Hartline our #1 receiver then..

 

It should be obvious they're considering it.

Everyone in any way involved in the decision has been non-committal from Tannehill to Ross. The contrast with how they treated the trade rumors last off-season couldn't be more stark. They've said everything they can reasonably say this side of damaging trade leverage. Then there's all sorts of other elements that should be common sense.

It's possible Wallace is back on the team next year, but only if the plan for the off-season explodes pretty spectacularly.

 

I think they're prepared to cut both Wallace and Hartline (or get Hartline to restructure and become a backup), and that would free the necessary money to pay a top free agent to replace Wallace. With the number of targets Hartline had in 2014, he should be viewed as replaceable by a first-round wide receiver. At that point the starting receivers would be Landry, a top free agent, and a highly-drafted rookie, and the $2.5 million in cap savings earned by cutting Wallace (along with whatever salary offset is included) is a big part of accomplishing that.

 

I have no idea if he is gone or not. All I do know is that if they do choose to trade him or cut him, they need to ensure they have a quality WR on their radar who can come in and deliver the same type of production Wallace did last year. Especially in his ability to catch TD passes.

It is obvious based on his history, Mr. one or two TD's a year, Brain Hartline ,is not capable of delivering in the clutch inside the red zone.

Many people on this forum praised the trade of Brandon Marshall a few years ago. Those same individuals then complained that the Dolphins had no top receiver for Tannehill to throw to in his rookie season.

I would prefer to see the Dolphins resolve the issues with Wallace and bring him back next year. But if they don't and he is playing somewhere else next season, I hope the same people who want him gone aren't on this forum next season making excuses for Tannehill and stating that he doesn't have quality WR's to throw the ball to.

Right now Wallace is still the best WR on the team and it isn't his fault he was signed to catch the deep ball and he has a QB who can't get him the ball. That is completely on Tannehill and a front office who signed a player for one purpose and didn't take into consideration that the starting QB didn't have the skill set to take advantage of what Wallace does best.

 

I think they are at least looking at who maybe interested. No one has given a clear indication either way, and we all know philibin doesnt like a "problem child", and wallaces actions in week 17 certainly fit the mold. Hopefully we arent dumb enough to trade him just as a means of getting rid of him. He was easily our most productive reciever this year, so i would want a fair return back. I dont see it happening though.

 

And if youre investing all those resources (significant money in a FA WR of starting caliber and a high pick for another depth WR who can play the slot/start in case of injury) at the WR position how are you improving the rest of the team?

You move forward with what you have, draft Wallace's replacement, cut Hartline, improve the rest of the roster. Hartline was such a non factor last year that whoever we draft or give snaps to in his place almost has to be better. If its someone with a better catch radius, better speed/big play ability then Hartline we can do some different things with Wallace and make this team better and re-visit the wallace argument next year. Im not saying he doesnt deserve to be cut, Im saying youre going to have almost 7M of dead money this year if we cut Wallace and Hartline...cutting both makes no sense and at least Wallace was somewhat productive imo.

 

To me, WR is not a big need at this time. It only becomes a big need if the Dolphins do as you wish and cut both Hartline and Wallace.

My hope is they keep Wallace and restructure Hartline. I would rather see them draft an offensive guard in the draft and then use their remaining draft picks to upgrade the defense.

Upgrading the secondary, the LB corp and the interior defensive line is far more of a need than upgrading the WR corp, IMO.

If they upgrade the defense in this coming draft, they can always cut or trade Wallace in 2016 and use a high round draft pick to select a replacement for him at that time. It will cost them far less against the cap in 2016 and you never know. Perhaps if Wallace is on the team in 2015, he and Tannehill will get on the same page and Wallace can be an asset to the team beyond the 2015 season.

 

Even though I don't think they should get rid of him, I think they will, and they'll get rid of Gibson too. Philbin very obviously doesn't want people with a mouth.

To be honest I really don't care that much if they do, except for the fact that it doesn't make financial sense bc we have no one waiting in the wings. It would obviously make more sense to draft someone this year and cut him next.

 

wallace makes the team better and without him the offense will suffer. wallace takes a lot of pressure off of the other receivers and is a weapon. the only way he is gone is if you can find someone better and no putting hartline in his spot is not an upgrade.

 

The problem right now is that the team is limited in its ability to be successful by the pass offense, which is far and away its biggest weakness. It's incredibly difficult to be competitive in the pass-driven NFL when your primary team weakness is the pass offense.

If the team is going to move forward with Tannehill, as it should, then having a receiving corps that fits Tannehill's strengths becomes paramount, and that means receivers who are sure-handed in the short and intermediate ranges and who can get YAC. Two of its three starting receivers (Wallace and Hartline) are miscast for those roles, and the team can hardly correct its most significant weakness with that going on.

The top priority of the offseason has to be improving the passing game, and that can't be done without remodeling the receiving corps to become a much better fit with the team's current offense and QB.

 

This offense does not have the pieces to make up for his production. It'll go backwards. Led the team in TDs and ypc. He's the only guy we have who can consistently threaten on the outside. Does anyone want to see Hartline and Landry match up with opposing teams' best CB? You want to see Tannehill regress, cut his only legit perimeter target, the only guy who might change what the defense does.

 

What if he were replaced by someone such as Jeremy Maclin, who can threaten deep and get YAC? Then you're talking about someone who preserves the deep threat Wallace presents, while also being a much better fit with Tannehill in terms of YAC on short and intermediate routes. And in considering that proposition, don't get stuck thinking about Jeremy Maclin only, but rather think of that kind of receiver as the replacement for Wallace. You're moving forward as a pass offense with Tannehill if you replace Wallace with someone of that nature.

 

Mike Wallace has done a great job of transitioning from primarily a big play guy into a possession style WR who occasionally attacks down field. It's not what he's used to or ever done but he's worked hard and done it in order to help his team. He deserves respect for that bc a lot of guys with his pedigree and contract would have balked. He's one of the few guys on the team who actually made plays for us so it'd be hella silly to be thinking about letting him go. We should looking to add more playmakers not getting rid of the handful we have.

 

Piston, I don't think it's so much that people wouldn't like to keep Wallace, it's that they don't want to keep him at the price he's at.

 

He's done that, but he also finished 75th in the league in YAC in 2014. That isn't going to get the team's YPA up where it needs to be to be competitive in the league. Watch the Patriots today, who have a passing game that also emphasizes the short and intermediate ranges, yet has four players who finished in the top 33 in the league in YAC. Watch as they move the ball much more efficiently and effectively with a quarterback who is throwing predominantly the same sorts of passes Tannehill threw in 2014.

 

Maclin would be a great fit. But like Wallace, he'll probably cost more than he's worth.

 

I agree. Ideally his cap hit would be lower but let's face it if we're forced to go the FA route then we're most likely going to over pay. The only solution is better drafting and player development. If we're able to draft a WR who can replace MWs production then I'm all for it but I disagree with letting him go simply bc he's slightly overpaid.

 

Right but if you cut Wallace and Hartline and replace them with for arguments sake Maclin and a high pick like a Kevin White you've at best marginally improved next season and the issue is that a marginal improvement probably doesn't make a big enough difference to save Philbin and hickeys job and that's the biggest issue you run in to with that scenario.

If you want to improve the passing game the quickest way is to draft Maxx Williams, resign clay, draft a wr in round 2 that has a high level of athleticism. We have a bunch of route runner and underneath types

 

I'm in favor of adding an alpha RB so that we do t need to rely on Tannehill or whoevers plYing WR on a week to week basis. 35 attempts should be the ceiling for our pass game, not the norm. IMo that was the plan this year but it fell apart with Moreno's injuries.

 

Dude, you are so eloquent...I couldn't have said it better...

 

Here we go again. As Tannehill throws the ball more, or throws the ball on a greater percentage of the Dolphins' offensive plays, his performance doesn't get any worse. His performance is uncorrelated with those variables.

 

I disagree with that. I think if you get Tannehill's YPA up to 7.2+, this team is in the playoffs with all else equal, and remodeling the receiving corps with YAC players is your best way of pulling that off in my opinion, given the relative stability of Tannehill's YPA during his first three seasons with the kind of receiving corps he's had during that period. The Julian Edelman/Brandon LaFell/Danny Amendola types New England is thriving with in the short passing game the Dolphins need to move to. That has the best chance of saving Philbin and company's jobs in my opinion, because it gives the team the best chance of making the playoffs. The team is unlikely to make the playoffs with its typical sub-7 offensive YPA.

 

I need for you to put down the calculator and understand the way football actually works.

 

In this day and age, football works such that passing efficiency (on offense, and in how you defend against it) rules the day, regardless of what else is going on, and Ryan Tannehill's passing efficiency has nothing to do with how many times he throws the ball in a game, but of course you're free to believe whatever you want. :)

 

Wallace isn't leaving unless he forces it.

Yup

 

Thats a very naive opinion. How well you run the ball, for example, and how worried the D is about the run, is critical in determining the types of coverages and alignments you'll face when you attempt to pass.

 

Those things are also partly a function of passing efficiency. How worried the defense is about the pass determines what kinds of calls you'll be facing from the opposing defensive coordinator when you try to run the ball. However, running game variables are far more weakly correlated with winning than passing game variables. And it's not even close.

 

I don't think he was correlating a high level of attempts with a poorer efficiency for Tannehill so much as he was advocating for a more run oriented ball control style. Which in theory isn't bad except that 10-12 play drives are ridiculously hard to sustain because without a big play element 1 sack could basically mess up your drive repeatedly. An Adrian Peterson or Marshawn Lynch might not be a bad idea either. Stevan Ridley would be a cheaper alternative for a thunder and lightning type combination

 

This team won't make the playoffs til you fix our choke defense and garbage coordinator. I don't care if Tom Brady, Peyton, Rodgers etc is the qb. For a unit that supposed to be elite they sure player like trash down the stretch. Coyle holds this team back imo.


New England also has the best (or 2nd depending on opinion) TE which we have a good one but not great one. That's one reason I advocate for a Maxx Williams since seam stretching TEs are the biggest mismatch position in the passing game nowadays. Having a great one next one to Clay could make this offense a lot better faster then just about anything else you can do short of adding a Megatron/Dez type wr

 

I hope you are right, but considering the track record of Philbin on this topic, he seems to have no qualms about getting rid of a player before the replacement is in place.

 

$2.5 mil in cap savings is going to be enough to buy a top free agent WR?

 

The team's primary weakness is the defense, especially the run defense.