PDA

View Full Version : Why Mike Wallace probably won't be a Steeler next year.



zulater
03-04-2012, 02:45 PM
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/18362/free-agent-preview-mike-wallace


The Book on Mike Wallace

At 25, Mike Wallace is the most promising young receiver in all of football. He's accomplished more during his first three years in the league than any other wide receiver in recent memory, despite unfavorable conditions, regular absences from his starting quarterback, and the presence of two of the league's most decorated wide receivers ahead of him on the depth chart when he entered the league. Any team lucky enough to have Mike Wallace on its roster can expect to have the best wideout in football in its uniform for the next several seasons.

An Auspicious Debut

No active receiver has put together a more impressive résumé during his first three seasons as a pro than has Mike Wallace. If you compare what Wallace has done during that time to every other active wideout over the first three years of their respective careers, Wallace's statistical record is staggering. Consider:

• Among active wideouts, Wallace's 3,206 receiving yards are the second-most accrued during a player's first three seasons, behind only Anquan Boldin.

• Among receivers with a total of 60 receptions or more during their first three seasons, Wallace has averaged more yards per catch.

• He's scored 24 touchdowns in his first three seasons, more than any other receiver in football besides Braylon Edwards.

Wallace's performance during his first three seasons compares favorably to stars like Calvin Johnson, Andre Johnson, and Roddy White over the first three years in their respective careers. The table below lists the three-year totals for Wallace, those receivers, and other notable players, ranked by receiving yards:


.................................................

Conclusion

Very simply, the chance to acquire a 25-year-old receiver with this sort of electric skills and proven track record of production does not come around frequently, if ever. Imagine that your organization could have signed Jerry Rice or Randy Moss to a contract three years into their careers while merely sacrificing a first-round pick. On the rare occasions when players of this ilk become available, they usually have baggage of some nature attached and require far more than a first-round pick. There is no such baggage surrounding Wallace, and because of Pittsburgh's salary cap situation, the league has been presented with a chance to acquire him for a price far below his true market value.

Mike Wallace isn't just a free agent. He's a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Psycho Ward 86
03-04-2012, 02:51 PM
lol, wanna bet

Chidi29
03-04-2012, 04:15 PM
Why Mike Wallace probably will be with the Steelers next year.

He's a restricted free agent.

ShutDown24
03-04-2012, 04:57 PM
Why Mike Wallace probably will be with the Steelers next year.

He's a restricted free agent.

Yeah, really. This is getting out of hand. Unless a team chooses to give him a totally ridiculous contract, there is no way the Steelers don't match it. It could happen, but the chances aren't as great as public opinion currently seems to believe.

zulater
03-04-2012, 05:02 PM
Why Mike Wallace probably will be with the Steelers next year.

He's a restricted free agent.

That doesn't mean they'd be able to match a 4 or 5 year front loaded contract. It sounds like the 49ers are going to take a run. And if you're them, why wouldn't you? You want to tell me that Wallace isn't worth the 30th pick?

XxKnightxX
03-04-2012, 05:12 PM
The steelers were very smart in tendering him instead of Franchising him. There is a big market for WRs this year, people arent gonna bust the bank with so much being available through FA and the draft. So let the fish swim with the others, and lets see who bites and if they bite hard well take the draft picks.

ShutDown24
03-04-2012, 05:17 PM
That doesn't mean they'd be able to match a 4 or 5 year front loaded contract. It sounds like the 49ers are going to take a run. And if you're them, why wouldn't you? You want to tell me that Wallace isn't worth the 30th pick?

I think the Steelers do almost whatever necessary to keep him. If another team does offer a front loaded contract, I think we offer a contract with a huge signing bonus and packed with other cap-friendly promises. You could make a contract littered with outlandish incentives and I believe that would help (IE: $500,000 bonus for starting one game, $200,00 bonus for 10 or more receptions in a season). Not 100% sure that would work; I'm not the smartest when it comes to contracts, but from what I know I believe there are enough ways to get around the cap issues that if the Steelers really wants to keep Wallace, he'll be here.

zulater
03-04-2012, 05:34 PM
I think the Steelers do almost whatever necessary to keep him. If another team does offer a front loaded contract, I think we offer a contract with a huge signing bonus and packed with other cap-friendly promises. You could make a contract littered with outlandish incentives and I believe that would help (IE: $500,000 bonus for starting one game, $200,00 bonus for 10 or more receptions in a season). Not 100% sure that would work; I'm not the smartest when it comes to contracts, but from what I know I believe there are enough ways to get around the cap issues that if the Steelers really wants to keep Wallace, he'll be here.

If I'm not mistaken the way the process works is that the 49ers ( or any other team) would sign Wallace, then the Steelers would have a specified amount of time to match the offer exactly as it's written.

polamalubeast
03-04-2012, 05:35 PM
maybe yes,maybe no....50%....

zulater
03-04-2012, 05:36 PM
maybe yes,maybe no....50%....

First realistic post yet on this thread.

BlastFurnace
03-04-2012, 05:41 PM
The Steelers survived losing Plex and Holmes. If they lose Wallace...they will survive.

X-Terminator
03-04-2012, 05:44 PM
So why are we even discussing this, then? According to damn near everybody, Wallace is as good as gone, so let's focus on something else.

polamalubeast
03-04-2012, 05:44 PM
The Steelers survived losing Plex and Holmes. If they lose Wallace...they will survive.

with cotch,Brown and sanders as WR...yes

But I hope that the first round pick will be great if the Steelers lose Wallace.

zulater
03-04-2012, 05:44 PM
The Steelers survived losing Plex and Holmes. If they lose Wallace...they will survive.

No doubt. And though the 30th pick doesn't seem like fair compensation for Wallace in one sense, in another sense, he was a 3rd round draft pick, and even without him the Steelers will have a strong receiver core. It wouldn't bum me out totally to have an extra first round pick to address other more pressing needs.

zulater
03-04-2012, 05:47 PM
So why are we even discussing this, then? According to damn near everybody, Wallace is as good as gone, so let's focus on something else.

Got some better Steeler related subject to talk about? :noidea:

X-Terminator
03-04-2012, 05:51 PM
Got some better Steeler related subject to talk about? :noidea:

The point being, people are making this out like the Steelers have absolutely no chance and no will to match whatever offer Wallace gets from the 49ers or any other team and pretty much has one foot out the door already. It's getting ridiculous AND redundant. Cap compliance notwithstanding, why in the world would the Steelers release all of these veterans and restructure contracts if they had no intention of keeping Wallace?

zulater
03-04-2012, 05:55 PM
The point being, people are making this out like the Steelers have absolutely no chance and no will to match whatever offer Wallace gets from the 49ers or any other team and pretty much has one foot out the door already. It's getting ridiculous AND redundant. Cap compliance notwithstanding, why in the world would the Steelers release all of these veterans and restructure contracts if they had no intention of keeping Wallace?

Might be they just thought it was those guys time to go? As for the restructures, you've still got Cotchery if Wallace goes, plus the entire draft class to sign. they needed the cap room regardless. I think Polamalubeat nailed it. It's a coin flip. And I think the Steelers are looking at it that way too.

XxKnightxX
03-04-2012, 06:11 PM
The point being, people are making this out like the Steelers have absolutely no chance and no will to match whatever offer Wallace gets from the 49ers or any other team and pretty much has one foot out the door already. It's getting ridiculous AND redundant. Cap compliance notwithstanding, why in the world would the Steelers release all of these veterans and restructure contracts if they had no intention of keeping Wallace?

CUZ DA ROONEYS ARE CHEAPOS!!! :car:

zulater
03-04-2012, 06:18 PM
CUZ DA ROONEYS ARE CHEAPOS!!! :car:

That's not my contention at all. If they lose Wallace it will be a calculated risk. And they will use the pick they gain from his potential loss to address other needs. The Steelers are in the business of building for championships. They won Super Bowl XL with Ced Wilson as the starting "X" receiver. If it makes sense to match Wallace they will. If it makes sense to let him go and take the pick, they'll do that and win with Antonio Brown, Emanuel Sanders, and Cotchery.

O'Malley
03-04-2012, 07:29 PM
It's all moot until the FO make the final decision... Until then fingers crossed.

BigNastyDefense
03-04-2012, 07:33 PM
IF we lose Wallace, it's not that big of a deal because we'd use that first round pick to upgrade the team in another area, not to mention the money not spent on Wallace could be used to resign Cotchery (and possibly Ward too). A receiving corps of Brown, Sanders, Cotchery, and possibly Ward isn't bad at all.

The Steelers could use the 30th overall pick to do a few things, including moving up into the teens to get DeCastro (Stanford OG) or Poe (Memphis NT)...or we can sit tight and take Hightower (Alabama ILB) at #24 and then take Glenn (Georgia OG/OT) at #30.

The Steelers can also match any tendered offer another team makes, and then the Steelers get to keep Wallace. Also, for the tender to mean anything, Wallace has to sign it. If Wallace chooses not to play for a certain team that offers him a tender, then he doesn't sign a tender and that team doesn't have a shot at him.

steelreserve
03-04-2012, 07:36 PM
If I'm not mistaken the way the process works is that the 49ers ( or any other team) would sign Wallace, then the Steelers would have a specified amount of time to match the offer exactly as it's written.

That's the way I understand it. It's possible for a team to put a poison pill in the offer, like I believe the Vikings did to get Steve Hutchinson despite the fact that Seattle used the tranny trag on him. I believe that contract had a clause saying he had to be the highest-paid lineman on the team, and since Seattle already had a guy making more than the Vikings' offer, it was impossible for them to match it.

Of course, the key is the Steelers have to match it exactly as written IF HE SIGNS the contract with the other team. If some other team makes an offer and he hasn't signed it yet, we can continue to negotiate without being locked into an exact wording and could "match" the offer another way (e.g. less frontloaded money, more guaranteed money over the life of the contract, etc.)

BigNastyDefense
03-04-2012, 07:44 PM
That's the way I understand it. It's possible for a team to put a poison pill in the offer, like I believe the Vikings did to get Steve Hutchinson despite the fact that Seattle used the tranny trag on him. I believe that contract had a clause saying he had to be the highest-paid lineman on the team, and since Seattle already had a guy making more than the Vikings' offer, it was impossible for them to match it.

Of course, the key is the Steelers have to match it exactly as written IF HE SIGNS the contract with the other team. If some other team makes an offer and he hasn't signed it yet, we can continue to negotiate without being locked into an exact wording and could "match" the offer another way (e.g. less frontloaded money, more guaranteed money over the life of the contract, etc.)

Never say "tranny tag" again.

And I think the new CBA has gotten rid of the poison pill contract. And the poison pill offered to Hutch by the Vikings required for the contract to become fully guaranteed if he played something like three or more games a season in Seattle (or something like that, I don't recall the exact number of games). But I don't think clauses like that are allowed anymore.

zulater
03-04-2012, 08:03 PM
Never say "tranny tag" again.

And I think the new CBA has gotten rid of the poison pill contract. And the poison pill offered to Hutch by the Vikings required for the contract to become fully guaranteed if he played something like three or more games a season in Seattle (or something like that, I don't recall the exact number of games). But I don't think clauses like that are allowed anymore.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2729/4225099642_7d1f564fbc.jpg

Here's an example of someone who was hit with the "tranny" tag. :lol:

Chidi29
03-04-2012, 08:50 PM
Never say "tranny tag" again.

And I think the new CBA has gotten rid of the poison pill contract. And the poison pill offered to Hutch by the Vikings required for the contract to become fully guaranteed if he played something like three or more games a season in Seattle (or something like that, I don't recall the exact number of games). But I don't think clauses like that are allowed anymore.

Correct about the CBA getting rid of poison pills, though I'm not sure how exactly they've done that. And I believe you're correct about the specifics of the Hutchinson poison pill. It was either him or nate Burleson who had that happen to him.

Chidi29
03-04-2012, 08:51 PM
That doesn't mean they'd be able to match a 4 or 5 year front loaded contract. It sounds like the 49ers are going to take a run. And if you're them, why wouldn't you? You want to tell me that Wallace isn't worth the 30th pick?

And I agree; I don't get why more teams don't pluck away RFAs.

But when was the last RFA to end up being taken away by another team?

You are correct in your later post. The Steelers have to give the same exact offer as whatever team puts in an offer sheet, should some team do so.

ShutDown24
03-05-2012, 03:02 AM
You are correct in your later post. The Steelers have to give the same exact offer as whatever team puts in an offer sheet, should some team do so.

Not if Wallace wants to stay. The Steelers can still keep him with an inferior contract if he chooses to accept it over the offer of another team. If San Francisco comes in and offers him a deal the Steelers can't match, it doesn't automaticlly mean Wallace has to go there. He is still a free agent and has a choice.

ShutDown24
03-05-2012, 04:30 AM
If I'm not mistaken the way the process works is that the 49ers ( or any other team) would sign Wallace, then the Steelers would have a specified amount of time to match the offer exactly as it's written.

That's correct, but only if Wallace signs the offer. If I'm the Steelers, I tell him not to sign until speaking with us first. I would make clear to him we intend to match most offers but the money might be offered in others ways. That puts it on him. If Wallace wants to stay the team can figure out a way to pay him.

GBMelBlount
03-05-2012, 06:57 AM
Losing Wallace would be a big blow and significantly downgrade the caliber of our receiving corps.

We would also be losing a very good proven receiver for an unproven first round pick.

Dino 6 Rings
03-05-2012, 08:35 AM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2729/4225099642_7d1f564fbc.jpg

Here's an example of someone who was hit with the "tranny" tag. :lol:

HEY! I thought Tim Lumber was banned from this board?

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 10:05 AM
Not if Wallace wants to stay. The Steelers can still keep him with an inferior contract if he chooses to accept it over the offer of another team. If San Francisco comes in and offers him a deal the Steelers can't match, it doesn't automaticlly mean Wallace has to go there. He is still a free agent and has a choice.


But if the Steelers put in an offer, it has to be the same as the offer sheet. In your situation, Wallace declines the contract and then goes back to playing on his tendered deal.

zulater
03-05-2012, 10:15 AM
Here's a question for the board. If by chance Wallace goes, let's assume the Steelers redouble their efforts and resign Cotchery. So here's your question.

What would be a better receiving core?

A. Cedric Wilson(X), Hines Ward (Y), Randle El (Z) circa 2005.

B. Antonio Brown (X), Emanuel Sanders (Y), Jerrico Cotherery (Z) circa 2012.

Dino 6 Rings
03-05-2012, 10:21 AM
Here's a question for the board. If by chance Wallace goes, let's assume the Steelers redouble their efforts and resign Cotchery. So here's your question.

What would be a better receiving core?

A. Cedric Wilson(X), Hines Ward (Y), Randle El (Z) circa 2005.

B. Antonio Brown (X), Emanuel Sanders (Y), Jerrico Cotherery (Z) circa 2012.

I'd go with 2005 because at this point, Sanders is a Question mark at this point. He has been in the league 2 years, and has a total of 50 catches.

polamalubeast
03-05-2012, 10:23 AM
Here's a question for the board. If by chance Wallace goes, let's assume the Steelers redouble their efforts and resign Cotchery. So here's your question.

What would be a better receiving core?

A. Cedric Wilson(X), Hines Ward (Y), Randle El (Z) circa 2005.

B. Antonio Brown (X), Emanuel Sanders (Y), Jerrico Cotherery (Z) circa 2012.

if sanders is heathly....B

tube517
03-05-2012, 10:28 AM
Here's a question for the board. If by chance Wallace goes, let's assume the Steelers redouble their efforts and resign Cotchery. So here's your question.

What would be a better receiving core?

A. Cedric Wilson(X), Hines Ward (Y), Randle El (Z) circa 2005.

B. Antonio Brown (X), Emanuel Sanders (Y), Jerrico Cotherery (Z) circa 2012.

Wilson, El and Ward did pretty well in the playoffs that year. Brown/Sanders/Cotch haven't played enough in the playoffs yet.

zulater
03-05-2012, 11:35 AM
Wilson, El and Ward did pretty well in the playoffs that year. Brown/Sanders/Cotch haven't played enough in the playoffs yet.

Actually all 3 of them have played well in the playoffs. Sanders in 4 playoff games has 13 catches for 172 yards. Cotchery has 31 catches for 471 yards and 3 td's in 10 playoff games. Brown has 10 catches for 160 yards in 4 playoff games. With Brown his play was very limited as a rookie, so a better barometer would be the 5 catches for 70 yards he had against Denver this past season. In fact relative to playing time the guy who tends to disappear in the playoffs has been Wallace, who has 16 catches in 4 playoff games for a measly 141 yards and 1 td. .

zulater
03-05-2012, 11:36 AM
if sanders is heathly....B

That would be my answer as well.

tube517
03-05-2012, 11:46 AM
Actually all 3 of them have played well in the playoffs. Sanders in 4 playoff games has 13 catches for 172 yards. Cotchery has 31 catches for 471 yards and 3 td's in 10 playoff games. Brown has 10 catches for 160 yards in 4 playoff games. With Brown his play was very limited as a rookie, so a better barometer would be the 5 catches for 70 yards he had against Denver this past season. In fact relative to playing time the guy who tends to disappear in the playoffs has been Wallace, who has 16 catches in 4 playoff games for a measly 141 yards and 1 td. .

I'm talking about playing together. They haven't played together as a unit except for one game.

zulater
03-05-2012, 12:04 PM
I'm talking about playing together. They haven't played together as a unit except for one game.

Neither had Swann and Stallworth after SB IX. Didn't stop the Steelers from jettisoning Ron Shanklin and Frank Lewis back in the day. :wink02:

oneforthetoe
03-05-2012, 12:44 PM
CUZ DA ROONEYS ARE CHEAPOS!!! :car:



This


Plus, they never hire their fans as a Gm's.

StaubyStyle
03-05-2012, 12:52 PM
Damn. People are making this issue too complicated. All a team has to do is offer Wallace a contract that will count for about 12 million against the cap.(I think thats the magic number without looking it up) The Steelers can't match that unless the start freeing up more cap room and he will go to another team. It depends if another team wants Wallace for that price though.

O'Malley
03-05-2012, 12:54 PM
This


Plus, they never hire their fans as a Gm's.

This is what gets me going! We as fans know better then the GM. It should be our turn to make all the decisions...:sarcasm:

Dino 6 Rings
03-05-2012, 01:30 PM
whatever, I don't own the kids Jersey, if we can sucker some team into pay the guy 9 million a year while giving us their number 1 pick this season, then so be it, if he sticks it out with us and takes our tender, then good.

for the record...#12 #75 #43 #36

BigNastyDefense
03-05-2012, 01:36 PM
But if the Steelers put in an offer, it has to be the same as the offer sheet. In your situation, Wallace declines the contract and then goes back to playing on his tendered deal.

The Steelers have to tender him with a first round tender to get the first round pick. They can still negotiate a long-term deal with him which would replace the first round tender.

Any team in the NFL can tender Wallace a contract offer, and the Steelers will have five days to match that tender exactly how it is written only if Wallace signs the tender. If Wallace doesn't sign the tender, then it doesn't matter what's on the tender from another team. The Steelers don't have to match it exactly but they can use the amounts of money in it and pay it out in different ways to resign Wallace.

Another team's tendered contract offer only must be matched exactly how it's written if Mike Wallace signs the tender.

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 02:43 PM
The Steelers have to tender him with a first round tender to get the first round pick. They can still negotiate a long-term deal with him which would replace the first round tender.

Any team in the NFL can tender Wallace a contract offer, and the Steelers will have five days to match that tender exactly how it is written only if Wallace signs the tender. If Wallace doesn't sign the tender, then it doesn't matter what's on the tender from another team. The Steelers don't have to match it exactly but they can use the amounts of money in it and pay it out in different ways to resign Wallace.

Another team's tendered contract offer only must be matched exactly how it's written if Mike Wallace signs the tender.

I know how an RFA works. I'm just saying that if another team puts in an offer sheet, we have to match that offer. Yes, Wallace would have to accept the other contract but it would seem likely that he would.

My whole point is that I highly doubt any team puts in an offer sheet. That makes everything else moot.

zulater
03-05-2012, 03:10 PM
I know how an RFA works. I'm just saying that if another team puts in an offer sheet, we have to match that offer. Yes, Wallace would have to accept the other contract but it would seem likely that he would.

My whole point is that I highly doubt any team puts in an offer sheet. That makes everything else moot.

It all depends on what the market's perception of Wallace is. I think he'll be perceived as a once in a decade opportunity for some team. Therefore I think there's going to be at least one team that will make an offer that the Steelers will have trouble matching.

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 03:12 PM
It all depends on what the market's perception of Wallace is. I think he'll be perceived as a once in a decade opportunity for some team. Therefore I think there's going to be at least one team that will make an offer that the Steelers will have trouble matching.

When was the last RFA who left?

ShutDown24
03-05-2012, 03:15 PM
But if the Steelers put in an offer, it has to be the same as the offer sheet. In your situation, Wallace declines the contract and then goes back to playing on his tendered deal.

Right, but doesn't that work with the understanding that the deal will be re-done?

zulater
03-05-2012, 03:18 PM
When was the last RFA who left?

I hate to answer a question with a question, but when was the last time a 25 year old receiver with elite speed and great first 3 season credentials available via RFA?

And oh yeah, no personal baggage either. Generally players of Wallace's age, ability, credential's and character are tendered with the franchise tag. But due to the Steelers unique situation this season, that wasn't possible.

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 03:22 PM
I hate to answer a question with a question, but when was the last time a 25 year old receiver with elite speed and great first 3 season credentials available via RFA?

And oh yeah, no personal baggage either. Generally players of Wallace's age, ability, credential's and character are tendered with the franchise tag. But due to the Steelers unique situation this season, that wasn't possible.

There have been plenty of talented players who have been tendered. They haven't left. It is extremely rare for an RFA to leave, especially one to be tendered at such a high level, I can't think of any examples.

ShutDown24
03-05-2012, 03:29 PM
When was the last RFA who left?

Wasn't there an RFA line backer who the saints signed away from St. Louis somewhere around 2001? Chris Clemons? I tried to look it up but couldn't find anything. Even if that's false, it tells you how infrequent it is. It's the only name I can remember and it was a decade ago.

I remember a couple seasons ago the Lions wanted to sign away an RFA guard from the Seahawks, I think it was Rob Sims. The teams ultimately ended up trading the player because signing a RFA away is such a difficult thing to do.

tube517
03-05-2012, 03:59 PM
I think Ricky Manning was the last RFA in 2006 to get signed by another team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Manning,_Jr.

ShutDown24
03-05-2012, 04:01 PM
I think Ricky Manning was the last RFA in 2006 to get signed by another team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Manning,_Jr.

Wow good find, I'm surprised I don't recall that.

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 04:03 PM
I think Ricky Manning was the last RFA in 2006 to get signed by another team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Manning,_Jr.

My point exactly. Likely no one since 2006. And Manning was tendered at the 3rd round level. Not the first like Wallace.

polamalubeast
03-05-2012, 04:07 PM
My point exactly. Likely no one since 2006. And Manning was tendered at the 3rd round level. Not the first like Wallace.

The difference is that the Steelers have perhaps no money to sign Wallace and Wallace is perhaps the best RFA in the NFL since 2000

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 04:22 PM
The difference is that the Steelers have perhaps no money to sign Wallace and Wallace is perhaps the best RFA in the NFL since 2000

There are always plenty of RFAs and good ones too. There were 53 two or three years ago. And no one was signed; heck, I don't know when the last time a team even put in an offer sheet. Look at the guys from two years ago.

Tyson Clabo, Harvey Dahl, D'Qwell Jackson, Miles Austin, Elvis Dumervil, Nick Collins, Demeco Ryans, Derrick Johnson, Ray Edwards, Jahari Evans, Darren Sproles, the list goes on and on.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/31/the-212-players-who-wont-be-unrestricted-free-agents/

A couple of those guys are top or near the top of their position. A few of those guys, Dahl and Edwards, got huge money when they hit the open market the next year. Teams were interested but the RFA got in the way the year before.

And if those names don't do it for you, let me give you one more RFA two years ago who wasn't given an offer sheet.

John Kuhn.

zulater
03-05-2012, 05:06 PM
Here's one way the New England Patriots can get back to the Super Bowl: Sign receiver Mike Wallace, one of the best players in free agency.

The Pittsburgh Steelers' Pro Bowler is a restricted free agent who is ripe for the taking. Pittsburgh has salary-cap issues this offseason and cut many of its veteran players. The team also could not afford to put a franchise tag on Wallace.

A first-round pick and a good contract offer are the only things standing in the way of Wallace joining the reigning AFC champions. New England should be the first team in line to throw caution to the wind and pry Wallace from Pittsburgh next week when free agency begins.

Here are several reasons why this is a smart move for New England:

Reason No. 1: Patriots have plenty of draft picks, cap space

This is the perfect year for the Patriots to pounce. Unlike the Steelers, New England has plenty of cap room and more than enough draft picks to make a solid pitch for Wallace.

The cost for Wallace would be a first-round pick and a contract extension. New England has two first-rounders (No. 27 and No. 31) and two second-rounders. Losing one of those early picks would not hurt the Patriots. New England likely would not get an immediate, Pro Bowl-caliber player at the end of the first round anyway. Wallace would count as part of the Patriots' draft class. New England could add a top-10 receiver in his prime.
.............

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/39257/why-patriots-should-sign-mike-wallace

Read the entire article.

So Chidi, you tell me, when was the last time you've seen this sort of speculation about an RFA? Again this is a unique situation, due to the Steelers cap situation, the unique skill set of the player, and the fact that he's accomplished as much as he has and isn't even 25.

ShutDown24
03-05-2012, 05:16 PM
I'm not great with the numbers, but how much would the team that offers Wallace a contract have to pay him up front? The Steelers have a little more than ten million to work with now. And if they had to they could create more. Even if another team offers Wallace a front loaded contract, are they really going to give him Larry Fitzgerald-like base salary?

I have to agree with Chidi that in the end, despite all this media chatter, no one offers him a contract.

zulater
03-05-2012, 06:47 PM
I'm not great with the numbers, but how much would the team that offers Wallace a contract have to pay him up front? The Steelers have a little more than ten million to work with now. And if they had to they could create more. Even if another team offers Wallace a front loaded contract, are they really going to give him Larry Fitzgerald-like base salary?

I have to agree with Chidi that in the end, despite all this media chatter, no one offers him a contract.

Let's say the Steelers find a way to match New England's offer. That could still work in New England's favor.

The Patriots would retain their first-round pick and cap room, while forcing Pittsburgh overpay on a front-loaded contract to keep Wallace. The Steelers, as a result, would have more issues with the cap. For the Patriots, there's no harm in trying.

New England also has options. The Patriots could quickly turn its attention to veteran receiver Brandon Lloyd, who is a viable Plan B. Lloyd wants to reunite with new Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels and would be happy to join the reigning AFC champs. Instead of the home run (Wallace), New England could settle for a triple (Lloyd).

Going after Wallace in free agency is a win-win for the Patriots, regardless of the result.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/39257/why-patriots-should-sign-mike-wallace

You can replace Patriots with a fill in the blank. But the point remains that a team that's in great cap shape could put the Steelers in a no win situation if they choose to match.

zulater
03-05-2012, 06:52 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/05/mike-wallace-can-be-yours-for-a-first-round-pick/

For the Steelers, matching a lucrative offer to Wallace would be tough. Although they’ve made several moves in the last week to free up salary cap space, they’re still not in great cap shape. And they’re in a tough spot because they know they’ll face the same situation again next year when receiver Antonio Brown becomes a restricted free agent. Brown was voted the Steelers’ MVP in 2011, and the Steelers would like to keep him beyond 2012, the final year of his current contract. If they tie up a lot of money and cap space in a new contract for Wallace this year, it may be harder to find the money and cap space to devote to Brown next year.

If Wallace ultimately just signs his one-year tender offer as a restricted free agent, he’ll come at a very affordable price of $2.7 million. But in that scenario, Wallace and Brown would both be free agents at this time next year. (Steelers receiver Emmanuel Sanders becomes a restricted free agent next year, too.)

Add it all up, and the Steelers may decide that matching an offer for Wallace isn’t in the cards, and that they’ll be glad to take a first-round draft pick from the team that signs him. At the moment, however, Steelers G.M. Kevin Colbert is stressing that it’s up to the Steelers.

“He could get offer from another team, but ultimately we get to make the decision on Mike,” Colbert said on Steelers.com today.

Of course, the Steelers already made one decision, not to franchise Wallace. But Colbert said that with the Steelers’ cap situation, the franchise tag is just not a realistic option.

“We don’t have the cap room of having the luxury of using the franchise tag this season,” Colbert said.

If he does get an offer from another team, which team would it be? One of the most intriguing possibilities is New England. The Patriots’ first-round pick is a low one (No. 31 overall), so they may not think it’s a lot to give up to give Tom Brady a speedy receiver like Wallace. And the Patriots have two first-round picks (they acquired the Saints’ first-rounder in a trade last year), so they could still be players on draft day if they give their own first-round pick away. Plus, the Patriots wouldn’t mind taking one of the best offensive players away from one of their biggest AFC rivals.

SteelGhost
03-05-2012, 06:53 PM
One more reason to say "The Patriots suck" :chuckle:

polamalubeast
03-05-2012, 07:04 PM
The reason I am very nervous, this is because of the patriots.

But the patriots are not a team that he overpays their players.

It is possible that the patriots make an offer to Wallace, but I think it is more likely to see the 49ers make an offer to Wallace.

it would be a BIG nightmare to see Wallace with the patriots.

ShutDown24
03-05-2012, 07:06 PM
For the Patriots, there's no harm in trying.

Sure there is. It's a waste of time and resources. I can see the arguement you are trying to make, but the fact is if it was such a win-win for rivals of teams in cap trouble to do this it would have been happening around the league for years already.

O'Malley
03-05-2012, 07:08 PM
This to me is much to do with nothing... Not worried one bit.. Won't know anything for almost a month. Until then I will be under the impression Mike is and will be a Steeler.

The Duke
03-05-2012, 07:29 PM
Look at the guys from two years ago.

Tyson Clabo, Harvey Dahl, D'Qwell Jackson, Miles Austin, Elvis Dumervil, Nick Collins, Demeco Ryans, Derrick Johnson, Ray Edwards, Jahari Evans, Darren Sproles, the list goes on and on.

damn!

I wouldn't have any problem with giving our 1st rounder for Evans or Dahl. And they are much better players than Wallace. Which tells me, yeah, he's safe

polamalubeast
03-05-2012, 07:33 PM
damn!

I wouldn't have any problem with giving our 1st rounder for Evans or Dahl. And they are much better players than Wallace. Which tells me, yeah, he's safe


It was a choice of first and 3rd round pick in 2010. And he did not a cap in the off-season of 2010.

Without a cap, it's 100% certain that the Steelers keep Wallace.But this is not the case.

Shoes
03-05-2012, 08:23 PM
This is another Ben/Haley story. Wallace isn't going anywhere.....now sweep up all those chewed off finger nails. :chuckle:

JayC
03-05-2012, 08:52 PM
the patriots would be stupid not to make an offer on wallace. they can't get anyone at 31 that is as much of a sure lock to be great as wallace and since the pats have the tightends, the short play receiver (welker), all they need is a deep threat and they will be unstoppable. i hope it won't happen but i got a bad feeling NE is gonna try and take him away from us

86WARD
03-05-2012, 09:34 PM
So tha Pats placed the Franchise Tag on Welker. He's going to get $9.443M for 2012 (as of now.) The Patriots are going to dump a boatload of money into Welker and then turnaround and do the same to Wallace?

st33lersguy
03-05-2012, 10:11 PM
Another concern about Wallace leaving is that it could cause Pittsburgh to panic and spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on a WR

GBMelBlount
03-05-2012, 10:35 PM
Another concern about Wallace leaving is that it could cause Pittsburgh to panic and spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on a WR

That could simply be the draft pick they got for him...

X-Terminator
03-05-2012, 10:49 PM
So tha Pats placed the Franchise Tag on Welker. He's going to get $9.443M for 2012 (as of now.) The Patriots are going to dump a boatload of money into Welker and then turnaround and do the same to Wallace?

And while needing to shore up that pathetic defense of theirs on top of it. No, I don't think the Pats break the bank to try to bring in Wallace. That would just be stupid on their part.

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 11:02 PM
Here's one way the New England Patriots can get back to the Super Bowl: Sign receiver Mike Wallace, one of the best players in free agency.

The Pittsburgh Steelers' Pro Bowler is a restricted free agent who is ripe for the taking. Pittsburgh has salary-cap issues this offseason and cut many of its veteran players. The team also could not afford to put a franchise tag on Wallace.

A first-round pick and a good contract offer are the only things standing in the way of Wallace joining the reigning AFC champions. New England should be the first team in line to throw caution to the wind and pry Wallace from Pittsburgh next week when free agency begins.

Here are several reasons why this is a smart move for New England:

Reason No. 1: Patriots have plenty of draft picks, cap space

This is the perfect year for the Patriots to pounce. Unlike the Steelers, New England has plenty of cap room and more than enough draft picks to make a solid pitch for Wallace.

The cost for Wallace would be a first-round pick and a contract extension. New England has two first-rounders (No. 27 and No. 31) and two second-rounders. Losing one of those early picks would not hurt the Patriots. New England likely would not get an immediate, Pro Bowl-caliber player at the end of the first round anyway. Wallace would count as part of the Patriots' draft class. New England could add a top-10 receiver in his prime.
.............

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/39257/why-patriots-should-sign-mike-wallace

Read the entire article.

So Chidi, you tell me, when was the last time you've seen this sort of speculation about an RFA? Again this is a unique situation, due to the Steelers cap situation, the unique skill set of the player, and the fact that he's accomplished as much as he has and isn't even 25.

It's the offseason. There isn't much going on. People probably still assume we're over the cap (since that was when the reports started). I still see reporters linking Wallace to the Ravens, even though they've come out and said they weren't going after any RFAs because they have to lock up Ray Rice and Flacco.

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 11:04 PM
Let's say the Steelers find a way to match New England's offer. That could still work in New England's favor.

The Patriots would retain their first-round pick and cap room, while forcing Pittsburgh overpay on a front-loaded contract to keep Wallace. The Steelers, as a result, would have more issues with the cap. For the Patriots, there's no harm in trying.

New England also has options. The Patriots could quickly turn its attention to veteran receiver Brandon Lloyd, who is a viable Plan B. Lloyd wants to reunite with new Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels and would be happy to join the reigning AFC champs. Instead of the home run (Wallace), New England could settle for a triple (Lloyd).

Going after Wallace in free agency is a win-win for the Patriots, regardless of the result.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/39257/why-patriots-should-sign-mike-wallace

You can replace Patriots with a fill in the blank. But the point remains that a team that's in great cap shape could put the Steelers in a no win situation if they choose to match.

No team will put in a contract offer they wouldn't be comfortable taking on in the hope of screwing with another team's cap space. That would just be insane. Because if the Steelers let him go, the Pats just took on a contract they didn't really like.

Chidi29
03-05-2012, 11:11 PM
It was a choice of first and 3rd round pick in 2010. And he did not a cap in the off-season of 2010.

Without a cap, it's 100% certain that the Steelers keep Wallace.But this is not the case.

If a team doesn't care about losing a 1st round pick, why would they care about the 3rd? Does it make that much of a difference?

And same case for the teams looking to put in an offer in the uncapped year. Those teams didn't have to worry about the cap when they wanted to put in their offer sheet. They didn't have any restrictions either.

Count Steeler
03-06-2012, 04:53 AM
Another concern about Wallace leaving is that it could cause Pittsburgh to panic and spend a 1st or 2nd round pick on a WR

I give Colbert and Rooney a little more credit than that. I don't see them panicking if Wallace leaves.

Galax Steeler
03-06-2012, 05:04 AM
I give Colbert and Rooney a little more credit than that. I don't see them panicking if Wallace leaves.

They have something in mind if Wallace leaves they are not stupid. I agree with your post.

ShutDown24
03-06-2012, 05:56 AM
I give Colbert and Rooney a little more credit than that. I don't see them panicking if Wallace leaves.

I have to totally agree with you. There is no way the team does something like that (Barring a ridiculous value somewhere ala Mendenhall 2008).

steeldawg
03-06-2012, 06:17 AM
I think they are making every effort to keep wallace and im keeping my fingers crossed that they will. If wallace does leave it will be a big loss and certainly not one that will be filled by jericho cotchery, i dont understand that at all.

BlastFurnace
03-06-2012, 09:52 AM
Question: What if a team offers Wallace a contract that doesn't have a 1st Round pick this year? Are they allowed to do that? If they are, what would the Steelers get in return?

polamalubeast
03-06-2012, 09:56 AM
Are they allowed to do that?

no

zulater
03-06-2012, 11:33 AM
I think they are making every effort to keep wallace and im keeping my fingers crossed that they will. If wallace does leave it will be a big loss and certainly not one that will be filled by jericho cotchery, i dont understand that at all.

Big if, but if he goes, I think the thought is more that Brown and Sanders would be the ones that step up, rather than Cotchery. I think Cotchery would be a great 4, or even a really good 3. But I don't think anyone's saying he'll be the guy that fills Wallace's shoes.

Sanders is the wildcard to me. Give this guy a healthy season and I think he'll really take off. If ( big if) Wallace leaves I think a healthy Sanders will fill the void to the point that Wallace did when Holmes left.

By the way I think many of the people who assumed the loss of Holmes was insurmountable are the same one's assuming the loss of Wallace would be a devastation.

Again preferably, and probably Wallace remains a Steeler. But at the off chance someone blow's the Steelers out of the water and signs him to offer sheet it doesn't make sense to match, the Steelers will be fine.

In fact I think there's a decent chance it could be for the eventual best. The reason being Brown and Sanders are a season away from free agency, can the Steelers afford to keep all 3?

And also a second first round pick would go a long way towards plugging up the holes in the middle. ( guard, nose tackle, inside linebacker)

I'm probably the only one on this board that's fine either way. He stays we win, he goes we'll win. And I think Colbert and co. agrees.

fansince'76
03-06-2012, 11:59 AM
I'm probably the only one on this board that's fine either way. He stays we win, he goes we'll win. And I think Colbert and co. agrees.

Nope, I'm fine either way as well. I think the Steelers will be OK regardless of what happens.

polamalubeast
03-06-2012, 12:01 PM
Nope, I'm fine either way as well. I think the Steelers will be OK regardless of what happens.

I agree...But it would be a nightmare for me if he goes with the patriots!

If Wallace leaves, I hope it will be with the 49ers.

ShutDown24
03-06-2012, 12:13 PM
Nope, I'm fine either way as well. I think the Steelers will be OK regardless of what happens.

Yeah, I think most everyone on this board knows the Steelers will be fine either way.

But you don't just let the biggest weapon in the league walk away without at least trying to keep him. Not for only a frist round pick.

fansince'76
03-06-2012, 12:48 PM
Yeah, I think most everyone on this board knows the Steelers will be fine either way.

But you don't just let the biggest weapon in the league walk away without at least trying to keep him. Not for only a frist round pick.

Agreed. But I'm also among those who believe the Steelers will ultimately find a way to keep him. Colbert and Khan know what they're doing. There are also a number of quality UFA WRs on the market that won't cost a 1st rounder.

steelreserve
03-06-2012, 12:51 PM
Why do the Patriots ALWAYS have two first-round draft picks? Makes this kind of thing a lot more bitchworthy.

Also, I do worry about them and several other teams trying to snatch away Wallace, some of them smartly, some stupidly. It may be rare for teams to give up a first-round pick for an RFA, and there may have been bigger names out there in the past - but the hype machine has never been cranked up for it to this level. ESPN and every sportswriter in America is practically willing this to happen. At some point, the drumbeat goes on long enough and gets enough momentum that some GM gets it in his head that you have to act boldly to make a name for yourself, etc., etc., and that's how it finally becomes reality.

fansince'76
03-06-2012, 12:52 PM
Why do the Patriots ALWAYS have two first-round draft picks?

Sucker trades with Al Davis, mostly.

NJarhead
03-06-2012, 02:04 PM
Nope, I'm fine either way as well. I think the Steelers will be OK regardless of what happens.

Agree as well.

I apologize if this has been discussed already, but has the NFL gotten rid of the "poison pill" in these tender contracts?

Chidi29
03-06-2012, 03:43 PM
Agree as well.

I apologize if this has been discussed already, but has the NFL gotten rid of the "poison pill" in these tender contracts?

Yes they have. Not exactly sure how they eliminated it, but it was reported to be gone. Was very rare to occur anyway. Can really only think of three instances.

Dino 6 Rings
03-06-2012, 05:03 PM
that kid in Buffalo kind of set the bottom mark for a contract, its like bottom of 6 mil now to keep Wallace long term.

Count Steeler
03-06-2012, 05:20 PM
that kid in Buffalo kind of set the bottom mark for a contract, its like bottom of 6 mil now to keep Wallace long term.

No, the Bills just continue to prove why they don't belong in the playoffs. Stevie Johnson getting 36mil over 5 years is a bit much. I sure enjoyed his dropped pass against us in OT in 2010. That was my first ever NFL game and the Steelers finally won it in OT after blowing a 13-0 lead at the half.

O'Malley
03-06-2012, 05:22 PM
No, the Bills just continue to prove why they don't belong in the playoffs. Stevie Johnson getting 36mil over 5 years is a bit much. I sure enjoyed his dropped pass against us in OT in 2010. That was my first ever NFL game and the Steelers finally won it in OT after blowing a 13-0 lead at the half.

That's a lot of money for a bonehead that drops passes in key moments of the game! Between his excessive celebration penalties and dopped passes IMO he hasn't yet proven his worth yet he got paid!

ShutDown24
03-06-2012, 05:23 PM
No, the Bills just continue to prove why they don't belong in the playoffs. Stevie Johnson getting 36mil over 5 years is a bit much. I sure enjoyed his dropped pass against us in OT in 2010. That was my first ever NFL game and the Steelers finally won it in OT after blowing a 13-0 lead at the half.

I agree. I would have a hard time investing that much money on a clown like Stevie Johnson. He's a good player, but is very inconsistent and is a contstant character concern.

Count Steeler
03-06-2012, 05:27 PM
I agree. I would have a hard time investing that much money on a clown like Stevie Johnson. He's a good player, but is very inconsistent and is a contstant character concern.

What he is remembered for in that Jets game was his idiotic celebration. He was schooling Revis and had his number all over the field. The Bills were winning and Johnson was the major catalyst. Then he did his infamous celebration and the game turned. The Bills ended up losing and Johnson did not get another reception. He is not worth that kind of money.

Thanks Buffalo and Buddy Nix for setting the bar so low. Idiots.

suitanim
03-07-2012, 05:31 AM
We wil start to know in a week. March 13th is the start of FA....

Moose
03-09-2012, 06:18 PM
They have something in mind if Wallace leaves they are not stupid. I agree with your post.

DITTO !!!

Moose
03-09-2012, 06:22 PM
They have something in mind if Wallace leaves they are not stupid. I agree with your post.Re: Why Mike Wallace probably won't be a Steeler next year.
Originally Posted by Count Steeler
I give Colbert and Rooney a little more credit than that. I don't see them panicking if Wallace leaves.


DITTO !!

steelreserve
03-09-2012, 09:43 PM
No, the Bills just continue to prove why they don't belong in the playoffs. Stevie Johnson getting 36mil over 5 years is a bit much. I sure enjoyed his dropped pass against us in OT in 2010. That was my first ever NFL game and the Steelers finally won it in OT after blowing a 13-0 lead at the half.

You and I see that contract (or an Al Davis contract) and say, "wow, what a bad move, they overpaid him."

A player or an agent sees it and says, "wow, they paid that clown $6M - therefore to any reasonable person, my guy is worth $10M."

The sad part is, it only takes one team to play along in order to validate that kind of reasoning, and somebody usually does.

SteelerEmpire
03-10-2012, 12:09 AM
I've been studying Wallace's communications over the last few weeks. He does not seem to be worried. Not "ONE" hint of nervousness. I think the Rooney's have assured him it's all good... cross your fingers.

Chidi29
03-10-2012, 12:11 AM
I've been studying Wallace's communications over the last few weeks. He does not seem to be worried. Not "ONE" hint of nervousness. I think the Rooney's have assured him it's all good... cross your fingers.

studying...sounds more like "stalking"

:chuckle:

SteelerEmpire
03-10-2012, 12:12 AM
studying...sounds more like "stalking"

:chuckle:

lol