PDA

View Full Version : For or against giving Wallace 9 Million a year?


pancake
05-10-2012, 06:59 PM
Would you be opposed or against a 9 million a year for Wallace for 4-6 years?

pancake
05-10-2012, 07:04 PM
I haven't voted yet, but I'm leaning on "for it". I think that will become a normal price for #1 wr.

steeltheone
05-10-2012, 07:23 PM
It's Wallace or Brown...One or the other

Steelersfan87
05-10-2012, 11:37 PM
It's Wallace or Brown...One or the other

No it's not.

For it.

fer522
05-10-2012, 11:38 PM
I haven't voted yet, but I'm leaning on "for it". I think that will become a normal price for #1 wr.

He's not a #1 receiver
He's still a one trick pony IMO

Black N' Yellow
05-11-2012, 12:22 AM
He has the potential to rack up the yardage to make him worth Fitzgerald/Johnson money in the future. Brown's a great receiver, but I think he largely benefits from Wallace. But next year they will both benefit from forcing teams to cover both of them and still account for Sanders and Cotchery who are both more than capable of being number 2 receivers on several teams...

If things work out, we are going to be ridiculously stacked at receiver in the future.

BLACK_AND_YELLOW
05-11-2012, 12:26 AM
He's not a #1 receiver
He's still a one trick pony IMO

Wallace has made some good plays going across the field just like the 53 yard TD catch he did against the Raiders...

Bruce never gave him a chance to go across the middle

Mistah_Q
05-11-2012, 01:01 AM
Totally against it.

Sign Brown and Sanders long term to be our 1 and 2 - that's going to be real nice for us. Cotchery is our slot guy for potentially a few more years, develop some of these other guys for depth and situational play.

Wallace will sign his tender; if he takes his demands and services elsewhere the next season we're not going to miss him really. It's time we started sinking our luxury spending into the O-line and D-line. if you can always win the trenches, the rest can fall into place.

TheVet
05-11-2012, 01:20 AM
Against it. Love Wallace, but I'm looking for him to take a few more steps. It's premature until he does.

tony hipchest
05-11-2012, 01:22 AM
im for it. 4 years from now, $9 mil will be dirt cheap for his services.

He's not a #1 receiver
He's still a one trick pony IMO

buddy ryan once tried to convince everyone that viking's great chris carter was a 1 trick pony. "all he does is catch touchdowns".

Totally against it.

Sign Brown and Sanders long term to be our 1 and 2 - that's going to be real nice for us. Cotchery is our slot guy for potentially a few more years, develop some of these other guys for depth and situational play.

Wallace will sign his tender; if he takes his demands and services elsewhere the next season we're not going to miss him really. It's time we started sinking our luxury spending into the O-line and D-line. if you can always win the trenches, the rest can fall into place. im certainly not against this fiscally sound line of thinking either. giants, patriots, packers, saints didnt need top 5 paid wr's to make it to the superbowl, lead the league in offense or scoring, break passing records etc.

BLACK_AND_YELLOW
05-11-2012, 03:28 AM
"all he does is catch touchdowns"


Thats what counts at the end of the day. :drink:

IowaSteeler927
05-11-2012, 03:51 AM
Against it at this point. Would like to see him take on the team mentality of the rest of the players. Guys are taking pay cuts and he wants more money. He hasn't showed me he's dominant enough yet to warrant a pay raise. He disappeared late last season and didn't impress me.

pancake
05-11-2012, 04:00 AM
im for it. 4 years from now, $9 mil will be dirt cheap for his services.

This is why I decided to be for it... :drink:

Kingmagyar
05-11-2012, 04:21 AM
Times are a changin and salaries are going up. If someone told me Lawrence Timmons would be making close to 9 million per year I never would have believed it.

Wallace must show this year he can play consistently week to week, fight for more balls, be a true game changer in big games, and become a better red zone threat. If he is being eliminated from games because of a defense's game plan you can't pay him 9 mil per to be a decoy and the Steelers will not.

I can't see the Steelers paying him, but like I said above "These times are a changin...."

pete74
05-11-2012, 05:14 AM
against for the simple reason that the money would have to come from another player. were going to be strapped next season and need to resign Brown. if we pay Wallace that much then will we be able to resign Brown? what about Pouncey the following year? im against paying any WR that much. i know teams do it but its not needed to win super bowls. i hope we resign him but not for that much

TheVet
05-11-2012, 05:19 AM
Plus, Wallace still needs to show some growth. His second year progress was good, but last year was spotty - a step forward, then a step backward. He's no longer a one-trick pony, but he's not fully a two-trick pony, either.

Galax Steeler
05-11-2012, 05:27 AM
When Wallace can go across the middle and make some plays then I would say yes but as now I say no.

Steelersfan87
05-11-2012, 05:40 AM
against for the simple reason that the money would have to come from another player. were going to be strapped next season and need to resign Brown. if we pay Wallace that much then will we be able to resign Brown? what about Pouncey the following year? im against paying any WR that much. i know teams do it but its not needed to win super bowls. i hope we resign him but not for that much

Brown is not a worry until 2014, when the new TV contracts hit and the salary caps sky rocket by double digits. By the time Pouncey is on deck, contracts like Hampton's and Harrison's and Foote's will be off the books. Maybe Clark too. Hell, maybe even Polamalu.

steeltheone
05-11-2012, 06:50 AM
Until Wallace or Brown show up in "Big Games" they should not be mentioned in the same breath as Fitzgerald money.....

Wallace 16-141-1 4 games ( playoff games )
Brown 10-160-0 4 games
Fitz 42-705-9 9 games

I realize they are both very talented and young, and stats dont tell the whole story. But big paydays require clutch performances when it counts!

MDSteel15
05-11-2012, 07:00 AM
I say give him 3yrs at 6mil until he proves he is worth the 9! He has to get better than this to be worth all that...
And you can't compare him to Fitz because for 1, Fitz is all Arizona has! His stats are going to be inflated compared to any of our WRs!!! He is young and immature and being given bad advise from some shifty SOBs...

Fire Arians
05-11-2012, 12:52 PM
$9 mil hell yeah, will he take that money though? that's the question.

PhantomJB93
05-11-2012, 01:18 PM
9 mil a year for 5 years would come out to 54 mil (plus bonuses). In comparison to other star wideouts that sounds reasonable to me.

xbroughneck
05-11-2012, 01:48 PM
im for it. 4 years from now, $9 mil will be dirt cheap for his services.



buddy ryan once tried to convince everyone that viking's great chris carter was a 1 trick pony. "all he does is catch touchdowns".


Carter was known for great hands, running precise routes, and for acrobatic leaps. He had remarkable body control and footwork when making catches near the sidelines. At the Citrus Bowl at the end of the 1985 season, Carter caught a ball that quarterback Jim Karsatos was intending to throw away out of bounds as he was being tackled. Karsatos has claimed that catch by Carter was the greatest in the history of college football: "When I finally saw it on film, he was tiptoeing the sidelines and he jumped up and caught the ball left-handed by the point of the football at least a yard out of bounds. Then he somehow levitated back in bounds to get both his feet in bounds. I swear to this day he actually levitated to get back in bounds. When I saw it on film, it just blew me away."

Until Mike Wallace proves he's improved on those areas where Chris Carter excelled coming out of college, he's a one trick pony.

Potential is there, but he's TODAY and average route runner with arguably above average hands (as in doesn't always make catches away from his body).

No..not worth it yet.

austinfrench76
05-11-2012, 01:58 PM
Against it. Pay Brown, Sanders and Cotchery and develop another very good TE (which then gives us 2) and you've got the NFL today. He is a luxury on a team that cannot afford it due to the number of star palyers we have. As always we sacrifice a few to keep the many. Go Steelers!

cbrunn
05-11-2012, 02:31 PM
really not worth 9 Mill a year??? ... are you people serious ??? ... now i think 9 mill is about the max he's worth ... would be great if we can get him for like 6 mill a year .... but 9 isn't that much for somebody who takes the top off the defense and demands a safety over top ...

do people not remember his like 9 straight games of 100 yards plus ??? ... oh yeah because i do and that's when teams was like hey we got to keep somebody over top this man .... and then what happened??? ohh ohh i know ... wala on comes Brown to the scene ...

don't get me wrong i love Brown, but him and Wallace complement each other so perfect ...

really ppl want to leave go of Wallave and sign Sanders ?? the person who can't stay healthy ??? lol some times i wonder about some of you fans ...

and people saying other players have been taken pay cuts and Wallace wants a raise ??? the ppl that are taking pay cuts have been making 5+ mill a year for how long now????? ... Wallace didn't make over a Mill yet a year i don't think ... lets be serious of couse the man wants some money now ...come on...

Now with a much improved Oline ... and having to keep a Safety over top Wallace... the running game should open up a lot ... were shaping up to have a real potent offense here

and about another TE, uh Miller is getting up their in Age , and i love Miller he's one of the most underrated TE in the game i think, because he's an All Around TE ... but he's not a Match up Nightmare

MasterOfPuppets
05-11-2012, 02:56 PM
all i got to say is the truly elite receivers in the league ( fitz , megatron, andre johnson , etc.) see double coverage on a regular basis and they still produce . :noidea:

one thing that's missing from wallace's highlight reel is him and a defender going up after a ball and him coming down with it.

steeltheone
05-11-2012, 03:21 PM
I say give him 3yrs at 6mil until he proves he is worth the 9! He has to get better than this to be worth all that...
And you can't compare him to Fitz because for 1, Fitz is all Arizona has! His stats are going to be inflated compared to any of our WRs!!! He is young and immature and being given bad advise from some shifty SOBs...

Yes Fitz is all Arizonia has and he still " amazingly " puts up awesome numbers.

truesteelerfan
05-11-2012, 03:34 PM
Do we need a #1 receiver? Couldn't we be just as effective with say 3 - #2 receivers on our team that the opposition has to all cover equally - you can't double everyone - and 3 - #2 guys might be just as economical as the stud #1?

casteeler
05-11-2012, 04:21 PM
I can't believe anyone can be FOR this! Wallace is a weapon and a very good reciever but last time I checked a 9 million dollar reciever needs to catch big time receptions in the playoffs or at least show up in the last half of the season.

BengalDestroyer
05-11-2012, 04:42 PM
5.5-6 mil a year, Brown depending on this years performance a little more, 6-7 mil a year. Sanders I would let go IF he gets hurt again...

Hawaii 5-0
05-11-2012, 05:05 PM
I thought this was a good article by Ed regarding this subject:


Ed: What Is Mike Wallace Worth?

TUESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2012 WRITTEN BY ED BOUCHETTE

Good morning,

Mike Wallace is back in the news this week because franchise tags were first permitted to be issued by teams Monday. No surprise the Steelers did not tag Wallace, although they can still do that until March 3.

Kevin Colbert pretty much acknowledged on 93.7 The Fan the other day that the Steelers were in no position to franchise Wallace because they had salary cap problems. The Steelers are about $10 million over the cap now. Franchising Wallace at more than $9 million for 2012 would put them close to $20 million over the cap.

Here is another issue that is more important -- Does anyone think Wallace should get more than $9 million in 2012? And, once they do that, the Steelers would have to start there if they wanted to negotiate a longer-term deal. Wallace is good, but not $10 million annually good. So, they will make him the more reasonable restricted free agent one-year tender and see what develops. Other teams can sign Wallace to a contract after free agency begins . The Steelers would then have two options -- do nothing and receive a first-round 2012 draft choice in return from the team that signed him, or they could match the contract he signed with the other team and keep him.

The Steelers are willing to have Wallace test the market, and if indeed he signs a contract and they deem it too high, they'll take a first-round draft choice in return and have two first-round picks for only the second time since the 1970s NFL merger (the other was 1989). So what is Mike Wallace worth? His first three seasons have been rocket-like, with him climbing higher and higher. However, in the middle of what seemed to be his best and record-setting season, Wallace fizzled.

Through the first eight games, Wallace caught 43 passes for 800 yards, on pace for a 1,600-yard season that would have obliterated the team record by more than 200 yards. However, in the final eight games he caught 29 passes for only 393 yards. He averaged 18.6 yards a catch in the first half of the season, just 13.6 in the second half to finish with a career low average of 16.6 yards per catch.

He topped it off with a miserable playoff game in Denver, where he caught three passes for 26 yards.

Here's the question the Steelers and other prospective suitors in free agency must determine: Did defenses figure out Mike Wallace finally as the one-trick pony that Mike Tomlin long declared he was? Wallace is at his best running the "go" routes and outside flag patterns, where he has a chance to outrun someone. However, when faced with cover two defenses and safeties hanging deep, he's not as effective. He does not seem to fight for the ball at times and even gives up on some when covered.

During this slump by Wallace in the second half of the season, Antonio Brown emerged like a Jeremy Lin. He clearly was the team's best receiver in the second half of the season. Curiously, Brown's rise should have helped Wallace because Brown's best asset is taking a short to medium range pass and running with it.

Maybe all the final eight games and one playoff game merely was a slump for Wallace and he will return to the kind of production he had in the first half of 2011. But as teams turn on the tape, they have to be surprised at the difference between the first half Wallace and the second half Wallace of 2011.

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/114962-ed-what-is-mike-wallace-worth

Steelersfan87
05-11-2012, 09:51 PM
People focus too much on the disparity between the first and second half of the season. He's a Pro Bowl wide receiver. And his production suffered with an injured Roethlisberger.

lloydwoodson
05-11-2012, 09:58 PM
I don't want to see Wallace walking away for no compensation. I would rather have him stay with the team for an appropriate salary which is really high for WRs now. It is what it is.

pancake
05-11-2012, 10:20 PM
If he has a great season, 9 million will be a low price.

Stevie Johnson money (7.5 mil) would be perfect.

TheVet
05-12-2012, 04:31 AM
People focus too much on the disparity between the first and second half of the season. He's a Pro Bowl wide receiver. And his production suffered with an injured Roethlisberger.
Actually, his production fell off before Ben's injury. He was becoming sloppy, and the production declined accordingly.

But forget the stats; if you watched the games closely, you could see that things were starting to go wrong for Wallace, even before the production drop. He took a definite step backwards.

The Steelers are playing this one perfectly. Wallace, despite the great upside, is still unproven.

Steelersfan87
05-12-2012, 04:59 AM
I know his production fell over before Ben's injury. But he was averaging 100 yards a game. There are not that many 1600 yard seasons. He made the Pro Bowl. And his production clearly suffered when Roethlisberger got injured as well.

TheVet
05-13-2012, 05:29 PM
It's not the 100 yards per game, but the way they came. It's great to have a high-reward gambling opportunity, but teams get wise to that. All-or-nothing is too fragile. Wallace needs to develop his route-running, and contribute more on the possession routes, and he needs more reliable hands. After initial improvement, there was a drop-off in those other areas. That's the concern.

I hope Wallace signs his tender and gets into camp. He really needs to take that next step, and it's going to be even more difficult given the new offensive schemes. This is a 3-year player with definite areas for improvement, and this is the year where he needs to show what he's got.

pancake
05-13-2012, 05:37 PM
It's not the 100 yards per game, but the way they came. It's great to have a high-reward gambling opportunity, but teams get wise to that. Wallace needs to develop his route-running, and contribute more on the possession routes, and he needs more reliable hands. After initial improvement, there was a drop-off in those other areas. That's the concern.

I hope Wallace signs his tender and gets into camp. He really needs to take that next step, and it's going to be even more difficult given the new offensive schemes. This is a 3-year player with definite areas for improvement, and this is the year where he needs to show what he's got.

I agree with you, but if he takes the next step, his price will be way higher than 9 mill a year.

FrancoLambert
05-13-2012, 05:45 PM
Would hate to lose his deep threat in Haley's offense. But if it means keeping Brown and Sanders let him go (not literally). I got turned off with some of his in-game histrionics last year and his "me first" attitude is showing more and more. He doesn't fight for the ball enough, his hands aren't elite but his speed certainly is. He's a nice weapon but not at the expense of losing a few others. Our front office found Wallace, Brown, and Sanders. There are others out there, maybe one was drafted/signed this year. Don't sacrifice depth elsewhere to keep Wallace.

TheVet
05-13-2012, 05:56 PM
I agree with you, but if he takes the next step, his price will be way higher than 9 mill a year.

Yes, I've worried about that. The best scenario would be for him to make some progress this year, have the Steelers could arrange a long-term contract, and then the progress could continue.

But I'd still love to seem him achieve everything that he can this year. He has the chance to be very special - it would be great to see him blow it out. If that means he becomes unaffordable to the Steelers, well, that would be a bummer.

And I agree with FrancoLambert about the attitude. I'd like to see improvement there as well.

Hawaii 5-0
05-14-2012, 04:08 PM
WallaceHate

May 14, 2012
by Neal Coolong

Youíve probably noticed BTSC hasnít run a Mike Wallace-specific story in a little while now. It could be a record for amount of time passed without featuring him. Part of the reason is Wallace hasnít said or done anything newsworthy recently. It makes me ask myself if he even has at any point this offseason.

Sure, thereís the RFA tag, the possibility of a franchise tag, the contract negotiations and alleged desire for a "Larry Fitzgerald" contract, but Wallace hasnít said a word. Weíve spoken plenty for him though.

Itís dumb to suggest he doesnít deserve criticism. Iím of the belief a good quarterback makes an average receiver look much better, but itís more important to look at the converse of that statement. A bad/injured quarterback makes a good receiver look worse. Part of the reason, Iím guessing, Wallace doesnít have a long-term deal in place is because the two sides arenít very close in their initial offers. You can make arguments for both sides, too. On Wallaceís side - few, if any, have the stretch of big-play dominance he has in three years. On the teamís side - the offense hasnít been all that productive overall, and it was stuck in third gear much of the time when Wallace was getting eight targets a game, as well as when he was getting four a game.

Is that big play threat conducive to a highly productive offense? The risk involved with the deep pass is much higher than of a short pass, so it seems as if the better big-play option would be a guy who can take a short throw a long way. Higher percentage pass, less likelihood of it resulting in a sack or interception.

Roethlisberger really doesnít throw a great deep pass on schedule. Things go off schedule, pocket breaks down and heís moving, heís pretty solid. But sitting in the pocket, he just doesnít look comfortable.

Maybe a better route is to basically give Wallace the chance this year (since heís not going anywhere) to put up or shut up. If youíre not, as his haters call him, a "one trick pony," letís get you in space and see you make guys miss. Heís made those plays in his career, and Iíd like to see more of it.

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2012/5/14/3019679/Pittsburgh-steelers-news-update-todd-haley-offense-mike-wallace-ben-roethlisberger