The Official Mike Wallace Thread

[Hawaii 5-0]

Originally Posted by MACH1

Bayz is right, Wallace should go in here. We kind of slipped the last few weeks and let it slide. But it should go here instead of cluttering up the forum with a bunch of Wallace threads.

really, cluttering up the forum with new threads that draw a lot of interest? isn't that the purpose of a message board, to promote interest and discussion? if you had merged mesa's and my new Wallace threads into this huge mega-thread they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the amount of responses that our threads got, instead they would have just gotten lost in the shuffle of this huge Bermuda Triangle thread.

otherwise, why don't we just create one mega-thread for every single Steelers' player? any article about Ben goes in the "Ben" thread, any article or comment about David DeCastro should go into the "DeCastro" thread, etc.

that would make no sense and be pretty silly if you ask me...

[pete74]

Originally Posted by Hawaii 5-0

really, cluttering up the forum with new threads that draw a lot of interest? isn't that the purpose of a message board, to promote interest and discussion? if you had merged mesa's and my new Wallace threads into this huge mega-thread they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the amount of responses that our threads got, instead they would have just gotten lost in the shuffle of this huge Bermuda Triangle thread.

otherwise, why don't we just create one mega-thread for every single Steelers' player? any article about Ben goes in the "Ben" thread, any article or comment about David DeCastro should go into the "DeCastro" thread, etc.

that would make no sense and be pretty silly if you ask me...

I agree with you. More threads, especially in the offseason attracts more members. They look at the thread title when scanning for updates and nobody wants to read thru 70 pages of posts in one thread

[Atlanta Dan]

Mike Wallace and his agent continue to get no love from the media - this from Pat Kirwan

The Steelers should spell out to Mike Wallace just how much money he can lose under the restricted tag and two franchise tags over the next three years versus doing a five-year deal now with significant guaranteed money in it. He will see $23.43 million over three years ($7.81 average) under the three tags IF he stays healthy. Keep in mind the franchise tag went down $2 million from 2011. A five-year deal now averaging just over $8 million should put $18 million guaranteed in his pocket now and close to $28 million over the first three years. He may be better than DeSean Jackson, who got $51 million over five years, but Jackson came into the NFL in 2008 and had a franchise tag on him this year. Wallace came in 2009 and is only a restricted free agent and simply doesn't have the same leverage. Both players were born in 1986, and Jackson now knows his contract expires as he turns 30. If Wallace plays on three tags he will be looking for a long term deal when he's going to be 28 and any serious injuries between now and then will hurt his market value.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...ing-with-mccoy

[ricardisimo]

I'll weigh in on this again: If it involves Mike Wallace's contract situation (which was the original intent of this mega-thread) it should go here. It's the same story as it was four months ago, and people should be able to go to one place for recent developments. If it's about anything else Mike Wallace, you may have at it, go crazy and post wherever else it seems appropriate.

If we have been over-zealous with our merging powers in this regard, we apologize sincerely. But the point remains: this is one story, not four thousand. It belongs in one place.

[Hawaii 5-0]

The Business End of an NFL Contract: Is Wallace Worth it?

by Lobo2387 on Jun 25, 2012

The reason for this post is in regards to Mike Wallace and whether or not he deserves a contract equal to that of Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson. The majority of people I have spoken with or have read posts about say he's not worth that kind of money and he's nothing more than a "One Trick Pony'. I however, want to play the Devil's Advocate here because where I don't feel 100% that he is worthy of that kind of money, I do feel he certainly is close to it and if not for the fact that the Steelers had Antonio Brown to fall back on in the second half of last years season, he certainly had a chance at breaking Jerry Rice's single season yardage record, which he claimed he was going to do before the season started.

Larry Fitzgerald's rookie year had him with 58 receptions for 780 yards and 8 touchdowns. In his second year, he had 103 receptions for 1409 yards and 10 touchdowns. Year three he had 69 receptions for 946 yards and 6 touchdowns. Also note that he only played 13 games in his third year year.

Calvin Johnson's rookie year had him with 48 receptions with 756 yards and 4 touchdowns. In his second year he had 78 receptions with 1331 yards and 12 touchdowns. Year three he had 67 receptions with 984 yards and 5 touchdowns. Also note that he only played in 15 games in his rookie year and 14 games in his third year.

Mike Wallace's rookie year had him with 39 receptions for 756 yards and 6 touchdowns. In his second year he had 60 receptions for 1257 yards and 10 touchdowns. Year three he had 72 receptions for 1193 yards and 8 touchdowns.

So let's look at the totals:

Larry Fitzgerald - 230 Receptions, 3135 Yards, 24 Touchdowns, 45 Games Played

Calvin Johnson - 193 Receptions, 3071 Yards, 21 Touchdowns, 45 Games Played

Mike Wallace - 171 Receptions, 3206 Yards, 24 Touchdowns, 48 Games Played

In every stat shown, the only number that Wallace fails to compare to is the amount of touches he received and that is simply due to his yard per catch total in his first two years. He is equal to or better than both Johnson and Fitzgerald in touchdowns and has more yards than both of them through their first three years. Plus let's not forget that Wallace has played in every game since being drafted which says a lot about his durability.

Now back to the point of this post. If Antonio Brown was not as good as he is, then Ben Roethlisberger is forced to continue to throw the majority of his passes to his primary receiver, Mike Wallace. Just take a look at the first half of last year compared to the second half in regards to Mike Wallace. In his first 8 games, he has 43 receptions for 800 yards. In his last 8 games he has 29 receptions for 393 yards. It is my opinion that due to Mike Wallace being in his final year of his contract, that he was targeted less times to intentionally keep his numbers down so they could use that to say he isn't as good as those other players that have received monster contracts. Yes, I have heard all the arguments as to Mike Wallace drawing double coverage and the like but that is not entirely true as this wasn't his first trip to the rodeo. Opposing teams knew all about Mike Wallace and his speed and he drew double coverage in the first half as much as he did in the second half. So why else would they stop throwing the ball his way if not to intentionally keep his numbers down?

Neither Fitzgerald nor Johnson had two 1000+ yards in their first three seasons, Mike Wallace has. If not for the combination of Ward and Holmes in Wallace's first year, I strongly believe that Wallace would have had back to back to back seasons of 1000+ yards and if not for them targeting receivers who were not Mike Wallace in the second half of last year, I strongly believe he would have finished the year with 1500+ yards and at least another 5 touchdowns.

So before anyone makes another statement about how Mike Wallace isn't worth the money that Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson are making, you might want to ask yourself whether they themselves are worth the money they are currently getting since Mike Wallace has proven with his stats that he is currently better than they both were in their first three years. Barring injury, he is only going to get better, and as for him being a "One Trick Pony", I agree, but being better than the two highest paid receivers in the NFL is one hell of a trick!

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com...ract#storyjump

[ricardisimo]

I think suggesting that the Steelers brass purposely avoided throwing to him in order to keep his next contract down is entering tinfoil hat space.

[tanda10506]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

Mike Wallace and his agent continue to get no love from the media - this from Pat Kirwan

The Steelers should spell out to Mike Wallace just how much money he can lose under the restricted tag and two franchise tags over the next three years versus doing a five-year deal now with significant guaranteed money in it. He will see $23.43 million over three years ($7.81 average) under the three tags IF he stays healthy. Keep in mind the franchise tag went down $2 million from 2011. A five-year deal now averaging just over $8 million should put $18 million guaranteed in his pocket now and close to $28 million over the first three years. He may be better than DeSean Jackson, who got $51 million over five years, but Jackson came into the NFL in 2008 and had a franchise tag on him this year. Wallace came in 2009 and is only a restricted free agent and simply doesn't have the same leverage. Both players were born in 1986, and Jackson now knows his contract expires as he turns 30. If Wallace plays on three tags he will be looking for a long term deal when he's going to be 28 and any serious injuries between now and then will hurt his market value.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...ing-with-mccoy

I never really considered that when thinking about the situation, but how likely is it that we would franchise tag him? But the point of already being 28 when your looking for your largest contract and your BEST ASSET IS SPEED, must be something that Wallace's agent has ran by him. Any leg injury could cost him $10mil+. However if Wallace signed a 5 year, $40-45 mil deal (IMO it's a more realistic number), he would still be making good money and could pick up a "decent" contract elsewhere after those 5 years if he chose to do so. Every year some team spends decent money on a big name washed up 30+ WR, and Wallace won't even be "washed up" by then.

[Dodens Grav]

Ike Taylor again said he thinks Wallace will get a new deal. He said "do I think he's going to get the deal done during camp? Yeah". He also said that he saw Wallace on thursday and confirmed that he was staying in shape on his own time.

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2012/06...camp-contract/

[steelax04]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

I'll weigh in on this again: If it involves Mike Wallace's contract situation (which was the original intent of this mega-thread) it should go here. It's the same story as it was four months ago, and people should be able to go to one place for recent developments. If it's about anything else Mike Wallace, you may have at it, go crazy and post wherever else it seems appropriate.

If we have been over-zealous with our merging powers in this regard, we apologize sincerely. But the point remains: this is one story, not four thousand. It belongs in one place.

Maybe the title should be changed to the "Mike Wallace Contract Thread" just to be more specific. The current title makes it seem like all Mike Wallace items go here.

[mesaSteeler]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/ey...llace-steelers
Report: 'Very little negotiation' between Mike Wallace, Steelers

By Will Brinson | Senior NFL Blogger
July 6, 2012 8:03 pm ET

17 | Comments

Wallace and Pittsburgh aren't talking turkey right now. (US Presswire)

Steelers GM Kevin Colbert recently said that the team would love to reach a long-term deal with wideout Mike Wallace.

But there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of negotiation going on between the two sides. In fact, Len Pasquarelli of the Sports XChange wrote Friday that there's been "very little negotiation" between the two sides on a deal.

"With only about three weeks until the opening of camp, there has been no progress, and, in fact, very little negotiation, toward a resolution of wide receiver Mike Wallace's contract situation in Pittsburgh," Pasquarelli wrote on Friday.

This shouldn't be that big of a surprise. The Steelers like Wallace a lot, but they also risked losing him given the restricted free agent tender they gave him this offseason. Pittsburgh's already squeezed up against the salary cap as it is, and handing Wallace a pile of money well before he hits free agency isn't the most prudent thing to do.

Plus, the Steelers and Wallace might not agree on what he's worth. None of this matters all that much until training camp begins, though.

Losing Wallace for earlier portions of the offseason is a pain, and the contract chatter is certainly a distraction. But if Wallace is refusing to show up it could spur the two sides to start talking in advance of him missing out on training camp. And if those talks heat up, it's much more likely that a deal can get done.

Hearing that the two sides aren't talking in the early part of July isn't good news, but it's not a complete disaster either, even if the Steelers would prefer not to be dealing with it.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnNFL on Twitter, subscribe to our RSS Feed and subscribe to our Pick-6 Podcast and NFL newsletter. You can follow Will Brinson on Twitter here: @willbrinson.