PDA

View Full Version : Mike Wallace or 1st Round Pick



steelnavy
03-26-2012, 11:56 AM
My first post in the new site.

I like Mike Wallace and think he adds a lot of value to the offense. BUT, what good is his speed to get open when Ben doesn't have the time to wait in the backfield? Given, Mike opens up the secondary, but two high pick linemen from this year's draft provides so much more versatility in the long run. What the Steelers lose from Mike leaving, they gain in a solid line which increases both passing and running efficiency (lets the tight ends make catches instead of staying behind and blocking), and extends Ben's health. I don't see the team keeping Mike and Antonio down the road. Why not get a 1st round if you can and use that Mike money on someone else? (not that the Steelers have much say in the matter). If some team makes him an offer, I am ecstatic. BTW, I am still on cloud nine since BA was fired. Thank Gawd! Wonder if the colts O is going to look just like the Steelers did the last few years? Except that their qback won't be able to save plays with Ben style sandlot football. In other words, they are going to suck even more.

My two cents. But what do I know? I am still a rookie...

BradshawsHairdresser
03-26-2012, 12:14 PM
Actually, you're a "senior member." :D

Shawn
03-26-2012, 12:14 PM
I really like Wallace, and I believe him to be an elite WR who has more value than just his numbers. With that said, I have several reservations about keeping him. #1 is that he will command 8-10 million per season. Two, speed is the first thing to go in a players game...see Willie Parker. Three, the bird in the hand principle...I like the thought of having a first round pick instead of maybe having Wallace one more season, or overpaying him for speed of yesterday. If forced to pick, I take the draft pick and use the first two picks in the first round to solidify our OL for the next decade.

Oviedo
03-26-2012, 12:18 PM
I'd love to keep Mike Wallace as long as rumors about his demands for salary are false. Nothing more than $8M per year. If we know right now that is what he expects them I hope he gets signed and we get a #1 back.

I'm sure the organization has hear from Wallace's agent about what he wants. Anything more than $8M per is a bad investment for WR who is superior in one aspect of WR skills but is lacking in others. The strength of a good WR group is to have many of different styles. That means that you can't break the bank on one and then risk losing the others. If Wallace could not get open with the season that Brown had in the second half last year why would anyone think he gets open if Brown would ever leave.

Oviedo
03-26-2012, 12:20 PM
I really like Wallace, and I believe him to be an elite WR who has more value than just his numbers. With that said, I have several reservations about keeping him. #1 is that he will command 8-10 million per season. Two, speed is the first thing to go in a players game...see Willie Parker. Three, the bird in the hand principle...I like the thought of having a first round pick instead of maybe having Wallace one more season, or overpaying him for speed of yesterday. If forced to pick, I take the draft pick and use the first two picks in the first round to solidify our OL for the next decade.

Very well stated. The key question is if both Wallace and Brown both lost a step who would still be able to perform to the higher level. For my money it is Brown which is why you can can't break the bank on Wallace. IMO, except for speed, Brown does all the other things a WR is suppose to do better.

steelnavy
03-26-2012, 12:22 PM
Actually, you're a "senior member." :D

How did I go from Rookie to Senior Member?!? And what exactly IS a senior member?

Jigawatts
03-26-2012, 01:44 PM
I'm a huge fan of the big play capability that Mike Wallace brings, but I think if he goes we'll miss him about as much as we miss Willie Parker.

focosteeler
03-26-2012, 02:32 PM
If someone is willing to give up a 1st round draft pick and it is between 1-15 do it no question. anything higher than that I think we should try to keep him. Mike's value is worth a top 15 pick in my opinion. I would take 16-20 but nothing higher than that

RuthlessBurgher
03-26-2012, 03:22 PM
Willie Parker's speed was the first thing to go, because he touched the ball an average of 300 times per season (not even taking into account the additional wear and tear during extended playoff runs during this time period) from 2005 to 2008 (his rushes plus receptions for those 4 regular seasons are 273, 368, 344, 213). When you admittedly run a guy until his wheels fall off (very often right up the middle with a craptastic o-line), then his wheels are bound to fall off. Mike Wallace has a total of 186 touches (171 receptions and 15 carries) in 3 seasons. His body doesn't have near the wear-and-tear Parker's did, so I wouldn't expect him to suddenly slow down (he is only 25).

RuthlessBurgher
03-26-2012, 03:27 PM
I'd take the #3 overall pick from Minnesota for Wallace. Then I'd draft Kalil at #3, trade our #24 pick and our 2nd rounder to move up for DeCastro. Kalil-DeCastro-Pouncey-Colon-Gilbert. Yeah, bay-bee...that's a line that could give Ben plenty of time to throw deep to Walla...oh wait...he'd already be gone in this scenario. Gosh-darn-it! ;)

Shawn
03-26-2012, 04:52 PM
Willie Parker's speed was the first thing to go, because he touched the ball an average of 300 times per season (not even taking into account the additional wear and tear during extended playoff runs during this time period) from 2005 to 2008 (his rushes plus receptions for those 4 regular seasons are 273, 368, 344, 213). When you admittedly run a guy until his wheels fall off (very often right up the middle with a craptastic o-line), then his wheels are bound to fall off. Mike Wallace has a total of 186 touches (171 receptions and 15 carries) in 3 seasons. His body doesn't have near the wear-and-tear Parker's did, so I wouldn't expect him to suddenly slow down (he is only 25).

I think you make valid points and that would certain relate to why Parker lost his speed so quickly. With that said, when watching an athlete what I have noticed is that other skills may still be intact but they lack burst, top end speed as they age. That is supported by the medical literature that speaks of sarcopenia (muscle loss) associated with aging tends to be type IIa muscle fibers which are fast twitch. It's likely why you will see a fighter like George Foreman lose speed but not knock out power.

So, when it comes to WRs who rely mainly on stupid speed to be dominant...I stand leary. They are possibly one injury, or one more season away from losing a step...and when that was what made them special...they are no longer special. Combine that with long term high money contracts and I could understand the Steelers leaning in a different direction.

Sugar
03-26-2012, 06:07 PM
I'd keep Mike Wallace. We can draft a LB and get a decent OL later.

williar
03-26-2012, 07:05 PM
Keep Mike Wallace! Why would some fans want to give up a proven offensive talent, just entering into his prime for some unknown, unproven prosect that could come in here and fall flat on his face. Even if they do pan out are they going to be better than Wallace? Have some of you forgotten already that this is the AFL (arena football league). Why do you think that WR's are at such a premium. Be stupid and let Wallace walk. We'll be spending the next 5-8 years trying to find his replacement, meanwhile Wallace will be somewhere dancing in the endzone after catching his 30th touchdown pass from Tom Brady.

Everybody wants OL, OL, but I still maintain that our OL isn't half as bad as it's made out to be because of the way our QB plays. The broncos have always had good OL's. Enter Tim Tebow and their OL looked like JV running around not knowing who to block. Watch how good that OL looks when 36 year old Peyton Manning steps under center. Translation - there is a correlation between QB holding the ball, scrambling into defenders vs. QB making quick decisions and getting the football out of his hands. Translation- Until our QB improves his play by making quicker decisions and getting the ball out of his hands, our OL will continue to look like chopped liver. I don't care how many 1st rd picks you put in front of him.

focosteeler
03-26-2012, 07:54 PM
Keep Mike Wallace! Why would some fans want to give up a proven offensive talent, just entering into his prime for some unknown, unproven prosect that could come in here and fall flat on his face. Even if they do pan out are they going to be better than Wallace? Have some of you forgotten already that this is the AFL (arena football league). Why do you think that WR's are at such a premium. Be stupid and let Wallace walk. We'll be spending the next 5-8 years trying to find his replacement, meanwhile Wallace will be somewhere dancing in the endzone after catching his 30th touchdown pass from Tom Brady.

Everybody wants OL, OL, but I still maintain that our OL isn't half as bad as it's made out to be because of the way our QB plays. The broncos have always had good OL's. Enter Tim Tebow and their OL looked like JV running around not knowing who to block. Watch how good that OL looks when 36 year old Peyton Manning steps under center. Translation - there is a correlation between QB holding the ball, scrambling into defenders vs. QB making quick decisions and getting the football out of his hands. Translation- Until our QB improves his play by making quicker decisions and getting the ball out of his hands, our OL will continue to look like chopped liver. I don't care how many 1st rd picks you put in front of him.

Yes they didn't look very good when throwing the ball but they we're able to run the ball VERY well. Our O-line can't pass block and they can't run block. That is why we need to upgrade

ramblinjim
03-26-2012, 08:36 PM
I'd take the #3 overall pick from Minnesota for Wallace. Then I'd draft Kalil at #3, trade our #24 pick and our 2nd rounder to move up for DeCastro. Kalil-DeCastro-Pouncey-Colon-Gilbert. Yeah, bay-bee...that's a line that could give Ben plenty of time to throw deep to Walla...oh wait...he'd already be gone in this scenario. Gosh-darn-it! ;)

Wallace would be gone but I could run behind that line. Well, once or twice. :-)

Shawn
03-27-2012, 08:28 AM
Wallace would be gone but I could run behind that line. Well, once or twice. :-)

Shoot maybe even a guy like me could run behind a line like that. :)

steelblood
03-27-2012, 09:13 AM
I think you make valid points and that would certain relate to why Parker lost his speed so quickly. With that said, when watching an athlete what I have noticed is that other skills may still be intact but they lack burst, top end speed as they age. That is supported by the medical literature that speaks of sarcopenia (muscle loss) associated with aging tends to be type IIa muscle fibers which are fast twitch. It's likely why you will see a fighter like George Foreman lose speed but not knock out power.

So, when it comes to WRs who rely mainly on stupid speed to be dominant...I stand leary. They are possibly one injury, or one more season away from losing a step...and when that was what made them special...they are no longer special. Combine that with long term high money contracts and I could understand the Steelers leaning in a different direction.

I agree with Doc. Signing Wallace long term makes me very nervous. I also feel that his duck-footed running style and thin legs leave him more exposed to potential injury. When Wallace begins to lose his speed, he will become very average as most of the rest of his game is average. He could keep that speed for another 5 to 7 years. But, for some reason, I've overly concerned that he won't.

Oviedo
03-27-2012, 11:08 AM
I'd keep Mike Wallace. We can draft a LB and get a decent OL later.

I think most of us agree to keep Mike Wallace but the real question is "at what cost?" The "cost" question is central to the argument. I don't care what other teams have spent on WR this off season, IMO it doesn't mean that we should do something stupid too.

Mike Wallace for <$8M per year is a GO for me; Mike Wallace for >$8M per year is a NO GO for me

Sugar
03-27-2012, 11:34 AM
I think most of us agree to keep Mike Wallace but the real question is "at what cost?" The "cost" question is central to the argument. I don't care what other teams have spent on WR this off season, IMO it doesn't mean that we should do something stupid too.

Mike Wallace for <$8M per year is a GO for me; Mike Wallace for >$8M per year is a NO GO for me

I was simply responding to the thread. If given a choice between Mike and an additional first round pick I would choose Mike and it's not even close. While I'm cool with the BPA philosophy of the Steelers, I hope that they can find an ILB in round one but I don't think another draft choice is needed.

I don't worry about the cost. Colbert and Khan will figure that out.