PDA

View Full Version : Wide receiver Wallace within Steelers' reach


mesaSteeler
02-23-2012, 11:33 PM
Wide receiver Wallace within Steelers' reach

By Scott Brown
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, February 24, 2012

INDIANAPOLIS The Steelers cleared about $8 million in salary cap money Thursday by restructuring quarterback Ben Roethlisberger's contract, a move that may ultimately allow the Steelers to lock up receiver Mike Wallace to a long-term contract.

The Steelers have shaved close to $30 million off their 2012 salary cap and should be in compliance when the cap number is released early next month.

Wallace is the Steelers' most coveted free agent, and the team's salary cap situation had fueled speculation that it wouldn't be able to use a franchise tag on the Pro Bowler.

General manager Kevin Colbert said Thursday at the NFL Scouting Combine that the Steelers were likely to make the highest tender offer to Wallace, a restricted free agent. The one-year deal is worth a projected $2.7 million. The Steelers would receive a first-round draft pick if Wallace signs with another team when free agency begins March 13 and they decline to match that offer.

But that was before the Steelers reworked the six-year, $102 million contract Roethlisberger signed in 2008.

Roethlisberger is the fifth Steelers player this month to restructure his deal. The move could bring the franchise tag into play with Wallace.

The tag comes with a one-year deal that would be worth just under $9.5 million and is guaranteed as soon as Wallace signs it. If the Steelers guarantee themselves exclusive negotiating rights with Wallace by tagging him, they would do so with the idea of later signing him to a multiyear contract.

Colbert said he is confident Wallace, a third-year veteran, isn't going anywhere.

"We want Mike to finish his career with the Steelers," Colbert said. "I'm very confident Mike wants to finish his career with the Steelers and play with a quarterback like Ben Roethlisberger and the other receivers we have. Usually when you have two parties that share the same goal, it's easier to achieve that goal."

Wallace said Wednesday during an interview with SiriusXM NFL Radio that he wants to stay with the Steelers but that he is also keeping an open mind.

San Francisco and New England are among teams that need help at receiver and could target Wallace.

Not that 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh ventured near that topic yesterday. Asked if he preferred adding a receiver through free agency or the draft, Harbaugh said, "This is just a period of speculation and making hypotheticals. It doesn't benefit us to get into that arena."

Colbert left no doubt the Steelers have identified Wallace, 25, as a core player, even though he endured a second-half slump in 2011. Despite that, Wallace went over 1,000 yards receiving for the second consecutive year and made the Pro Bowl as a starter.

"We think he's only scratched the surface in what he can do," Colbert said. "There's a lot left there that can still be developed. We're anxious to see it happen as a Steeler."

Scott Brown can be reached at sbrown@tribweb.com or 412-481-5432.


Images and text copyright 2012 by Trib Total Media, I

Read more: Wide receiver Wallace within Steelers' reach - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/print_783301.html#ixzz1nH51GjSU

BKAnthem
02-24-2012, 03:08 PM
Wallace signs...Ward is gone

OX1947
02-24-2012, 03:24 PM
Wallace signs...Ward is gone

I think you might be right.

lloydwoodson
02-24-2012, 03:33 PM
Lock up Ward to a long-term deal!

Buddha Bus
02-24-2012, 03:41 PM
Wallace signs...Ward is gone

I honestly think it's more of a case of "Wallace leaves... Ward definitely stays". I also believe it's closer to "Cotchery signs.... Ward is gone".

I think if Wallace leaves, the team will attempt to bring back BOTH Ward and Cotchery. If Wallace stays, they will try to keep EITHER Ward OR Cotchery, not both, with them leaning more towards Cotchery.


Just a hunch. :hunch:

Curtain_of_Steel
02-24-2012, 03:49 PM
Wallace doesnt sign Ward should be gone as the 2 are no comparasion or substitute.

Let Ward finish is 80 hours of community service and be done.

Fire Arians
02-24-2012, 03:53 PM
I'm sure ben restructured his contract because he wants wallace to stay. he's ben's favorite toy

Kingmagyar
02-24-2012, 04:03 PM
If the Steelers sign Wallace to a big deal, the nightmare is going to happen all over again with Antonio Brown next year. It will be the exact same situation of him being a restricted free agent and getting a #1 draft pick or franchising him for well over probably 10 million next year.

i don't see how the Steelers can afford two 9 million dollar receivers. Their stats are almost identical.

If we were talking about Antonio Brown this year instead of Wallace there wouldn't even be a question as to sign him or not. We would want him staying at all costs. The fact the Steelers will have to go through this nightmare all over again next year worries me.

It may be best if Wallace leaves or is franchised for just one year.

If we do lose Wallace we need a lot better then Ward or Cotchery.

pete74
02-24-2012, 04:05 PM
If we did lose wallace then how would we be able to sign someone better then ward or cotchery? If ee had monet to sign a big name guy then why wouldnt we just sugn wallace. Regardless we will sign wallace to a multiyear deal foe about 7the million a year

Buddha Bus
02-24-2012, 04:08 PM
If we do lose Wallace we need a lot better then Ward or Cotchery.

That might be true, but I think we'll be fine. They'll most likely draft another good young receiver and I think Brown, Sanders, Cotchery, and Ward would be fine with the new guy mixed in.

Factor in Heath and Saunders and Todd Haley calling the plays and we should be a damn good receiving offense even without Wallace.

Atlanta Dan
02-24-2012, 04:10 PM
I'm sure ben restructured his contract because he wants wallace to stay. he's ben's favorite toy

Nope - plan is to clear out cap space to bring Kemo back

Steelers playing with the cap and "restructuring" everyone's contract is the NFL version of the subprime lending bubble - eventually the house of cards falls

Buddha Bus
02-24-2012, 04:23 PM
Nope - plan is to clear out cap space to bring Kemo back



:toofunny:

Lokki
02-24-2012, 04:27 PM
Nope - plan is to clear out cap space to bring Kemo back



http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/roflmfao.jpg

BKAnthem
02-24-2012, 04:28 PM
I honestly think it's more of a case of "Wallace leaves... Ward definitely stays". I also believe it's closer to "Cotchery signs.... Ward is gone".

I think if Wallace leaves, the team will attempt to bring back BOTH Ward and Cotchery. If Wallace stays, they will try to keep EITHER Ward OR Cotchery, not both, with them leaning more towards Cotchery.


Just a hunch. :hunch:

I don't think i can see them keeping 5 Wr, unless Ward is willing to play for the min....especially with a Miller who can serve as a 5th wideout actually

Buddha Bus
02-24-2012, 04:38 PM
I don't think i can see them keeping 5 Wr, unless Ward is willing to play for the min....especially with a Miller who can serve as a 5th wideout actually

They did last year. :hunch:

The 5th WR would primarily be a special teamer anyway until he could learn the offensive system and get his legs under him. Besides, we have a vacancy there with the departure of Battle (who actually was technically a WR bringing our total up to 6 last season).

Kingmagyar
02-24-2012, 04:47 PM
I don't want to get in this Ward debate again but the guy is done. When you are throwing a receiver passes at the line of scrimmage or gimmick plays to get to 1,000 catches you have no ability to get open. I'm betting on this as fact, Ward will not be on this team this year.

And I like Cotchery but the guy still dropped a easy catch in Denver that would have kept an early red zone drive alive and maybe would have led to a TD if not a TD itself. He is known for dropping some easy ones.

So like I said if we lose Wallace "We need better then Ward and Cotchery" I''m ok with "Cotchery and __?__", just not Ward. If you had Cotchery for 1.5 and Ward for 1.0, would you rather have Burress for 3.0 mil?


*The team better be thinking as well on how they are going to sign Antonio Brown next year during this whole thing as well.

TRH
02-24-2012, 04:52 PM
It's like the choice is Mike Wallace.....or Antonio Brown next year. We can only sign one. NO WAY we can keep both, its impossible.

Buddha Bus
02-24-2012, 04:56 PM
And I like Cotchery but the guy still dropped a easy catch in Denver that would have kept an early red zone drive alive and maybe would have led to a TD if not a TD itself. He is known for dropping some easy ones.

Yikes! One drop and he's no good? Everything I've ever heard and seen of him suggests he has great hands and is a possession type receiver. You don't get a reputation as a possession receiver if you drop a lot of balls.

If you had Cotchery for 1.5 and Ward for 1.0, would you rather have Burress for 3.0 mil?

No. Burress is a locker room cancer and, as far as I've seen, drops a lot of balls himself looking for flags instead of making an effort. :headshake:

*The team better be thinking as well on how they are going to sign Antonio Brown next year during this whole thing as well.

I agree with you here. I'd rather keep Brown than Wallace. It would be nice to keep both, but probably unrealistic cap-wise.

BKAnthem
02-25-2012, 12:39 PM
They did last year. :hunch:

The 5th WR would primarily be a special teamer anyway until he could learn the offensive system and get his legs under him. Besides, we have a vacancy there with the departure of Battle (who actually was technically a WR bringing our total up to 6 last season).

That ST could also be an extra DB or LB or even a TE,,WR isn't exactly a neccessity

Curtain_of_Steel
02-25-2012, 01:13 PM
I'd take Burress for 3million over Cotchery and Ward. There are a lot of people I would take over Ward period.

Burress will want a muti year deal though, we offered him a multi year last year and he wanted a 1 year deal.

Buddha Bus
02-25-2012, 02:10 PM
That ST could also be an extra DB or LB or even a TE,,WR isn't exactly a neccessity

I never said a special teamer HAD to be a WR. I was just pointing out that the statement that we wouldn't carry 5 WRs is blatantly false as we carried 6 last year (counting Battle) and that if we DID carry a 5th WR, he'd most likely be primarily a special teamer unless injuries dictated otherwise.

I'm not saying it's a necessity to carry a 5th WR, but we have as recently as least season and may likely do so again if the position becomes uncertain through some departures (see Wallace, Ward, and/or Cotchery). We may want to go with quantity if we have some unknowns filling the position on the depth chart to give us a better chance of one panning out.

ricardisimo
02-25-2012, 05:05 PM
When was the last time we carried only 4? :huh:

DanRooney
02-25-2012, 06:10 PM
I don't want to get in this Ward debate again but the guy is done. When you are throwing a receiver passes at the line of scrimmage or gimmick plays to get to 1,000 catches you have no ability to get open. I'm betting on this as fact, Ward will not be on this team this year.

And I like Cotchery but the guy still dropped a easy catch in Denver that would have kept an early red zone drive alive and maybe would have led to a TD if not a TD itself. He is known for dropping some easy ones.

So like I said if we lose Wallace "We need better then Ward and Cotchery" I''m ok with "Cotchery and __?__", just not Ward. If you had Cotchery for 1.5 and Ward for 1.0, would you rather have Burress for 3.0 mil?


*The team better be thinking as well on how they are going to sign Antonio Brown next year during this whole thing as well.

Sounds familiar... :drink: