Originally Posted by Dodens Grav
I don't understand why the article would have made you less confident in a deal.
Mike Wallace is not better than Vincent Jackson. I don't believe he will be getting a contract quite as large as that.
I don't believe he will be getting a contract quite as large either, I think that's what he will want. Jackson has been playing longer then Wallace and has 3 years where he was the #1 WR and started all season, where Wallace only has 2, so that works against him. But if you look at their stats in the past 2 productive years I believe he is better.
Wallace (2010&2011): 132rec, 2450 yards, 18.8 avg., 18 TD's including a 95 yarder
Jackson (2009&2011-injured most of 2010): 128 rec, 2273 yards, 17.8 avg., 18 TD's
So Wallace's numbers are slightly better, but when you factor in age and Wallace's incredible speed, I think it's a valid argument.