PDA

View Full Version : Steelers WR Mike Wallace deserves Larry Fitzgerald money



hawaiiansteel
05-27-2012, 02:17 AM
Pittsburgh Steelers WR Mike Wallaces deserves Larry Fitzgerald money

David Barbour - NY Sports Examiner
May 25, 2012

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/65/fe/1337961723_wallace1.jpg

Every year in the NFL there are a plethora of players who are unhappy with their contract situations. The unhappy players universally think that the NFL team currently employing them is not paying them a salary commensurate with their true value. Not every player who makes such a claim is correct, but when it comes to Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Mike Wallace, he is absolutely correct.

Right now, the Pittsburgh Steelers have offered Mike Wallace, currently a restricted free agent, a one-year tender offer that is reportedly worth $2.74 million. Wallace has yet to sign his one-year nor should he. For a player of Wallace's ability, a contract offer like that is insulting and reeks of the Pittsburgh Steelers exploiting the level of production he provides.

As to what Wallace would prefer to be paid, reports have come out that he would like to receive a contract at least equal to the one Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald possesses. Last year, Fitzgerald signed an eight-year, $120 million contract. If the reports are providing an accurate picture of the contract Wallace feels he has earned, then they are exactly right.

Wallace does deserve a handsome payday like the one Fitzgerald received because he has the potential to be a more valuable wide receiver over his career than Fitzgerald. I am basing this claim on how the two wide receivers stacked up in their first three NFL seasons.

Using NFL.com's and Pro-Football Reference.com's pass target and play-by-play data, I removed both wide receivers' statistics from their quarterbacks' in order to gauge just how valuable they were to their respective teams' passing attacks.In three seasons in the NFL, after Wallace's statistics were removed from his quarterbacks' statistics, his quarterbacks became 1.6 percent better in completion percentage (from 63.3 percent to 64.3 percent), 7.4 percent worse in yards per pass attempt (from 8.1 to 7.5), 7.7 percent worse in adjusted yards per pass attempt (from 7.8 to 7.2), 7.1 percent worse in yards per completion (from 12.8 to 11.7), 17.8 worse in touchdown percentage (from 4.5 percent to 3.7 percent), and 11.5 percent worse in interception percentage (from 2.6 percent to 2.3 percent).

Compare that to what Fitzgerald did in the first three years of his career, which took place from 2004-06. When his statistics were removed from his quarterbacks' statistics over that time frame, his quarterbacks underwent an .8 percent increase in completion percentage (from 60.3 percent to 60.8 percent), a 4.3 percent decrease in yards per pass attempt (from 6.9 to 6.6), a 3.3 percent decrease in adjusted yards per pass attempt (from 6.1 to 5.9), a 6.1 percent decrease in yards per completion (from 11.5 to 10.9, a 33.3 percent decrease in touchdown percentage (from 3.0 percent to 2.0 percent), and a 21.9 percent decrease in interception percentage (from 3.2 percent to 2.5 percent).

In the most important statistical categories, yards per pass attempt, adjusted yards per pass attempt, and yards per completion, Wallace is the receiver who provided the most value in his first three seasons.It is worth nothing that Fitzgerald went on to have great success in his following seasons, but despite that fact, it would make more sense to give Wallace his monster contract now when he is entering his age-26 season; Fitzgerald was entering his age-28 season at the time he signed his contract, of which about $50 million was guaranteed.

Based on the fact Wallace is younger than Fitzgerald at the time Fitzgerald signed his latest contract and also demonstrated he had more potential going forward to due to a more impressive first three seasons in the NFL, he certainly deserves to be paid as well as Fitzgerald is.

If the Steelers continue to withhold that level of money from Wallace, it is only because they want to pay him below market value while receiving elite wide receiver production. There is no other reason to deny Wallace the new contract he has requested.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pittsburgh-steelers-wr-mike-wallaces-deserves-larry-fitzgerald-money (http://www.examiner.com/article/pittsburgh-steelers-wr-mike-wallaces-deserves-larry-fitzgerald-money)

BradshawsHairdresser
05-27-2012, 02:22 AM
Great. All we need is articles like this to feed Wally's fantasies...

NorthCoast
05-27-2012, 08:23 AM
It seems Wallace and/or his agent went to the Steve Jobs school of business. Keep saying something often enough, no matter how ridiculous, it eventually becomes a form of reality.

If Wallace or his agent really think he deserves Fitz money, I say the Steelers should let him walk. For someone that might only touch the ball 6 or 7 times a game, that is a lot of coin. Does anyone even remember that last quarter of the season where Wallace virtually disappeared?

Oviedo
05-27-2012, 09:52 AM
Remind how well Larry Fitzgerald's team is doing on the field after grossly overpaying for a WR and sucking up that much of their cap space to a single WR?

Sorry not the model I want to follow. If a team is stupid enough to pay Wallace that kind of money they can be a .500 or less team too. It won't be the Steelers.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
05-27-2012, 09:53 AM
Right now, the Pittsburgh Steelers have offered Mike Wallace, currently a restricted free agent, a one-year tender offer that is reportedly worth $2.74 million. Wallace has yet to sign his one-year nor should he. For a player of Wallace's ability, a contract offer like that is insulting and reeks of the Pittsburgh Steelers exploiting the level of production he provides.

It is the highest tender available and must be offered in order to retain the rights of a RFA you clueless moron!! This is not an insult as you suggest, it is a necessity.

Discipline of Steel
05-27-2012, 10:09 AM
What struck me about this article is the unconventional use of statistics to prove the point. I think there a reason we dont commonly hear these type of WR comparisons ... ie removing their stats then comparing their QBs productivity. The only thing it reflects is MWs role in our offense, a long baller. If you look at one of the most important QB stats, Yards Per Attempt, the author states that Ben was about 0.3 yards per attempt less efficient without Wallace. Multiply that by 40 attempts per game and Wallace is worth about 12 yards per game. So in essence, the author asserts that Wallace is worth about $1million per game because he improves the passing attack by 12 yards per game.

birtikidis
05-27-2012, 11:07 AM
Add in the fact that Larry had jake Plummer, Shaun king, Jeff blake and John Navarre those years.

Slapstick
05-27-2012, 11:51 AM
Add in the fact that Larry had jake Plummer, Shaun king, Jeff blake and John Navarre those years.

That's why the author had to "remove the QB's statistics"...

Now, THIS is an ACTUAL case of someone looking only at stats as Crash often accuses others of doing...

Eddie Spaghetti
05-27-2012, 12:22 PM
pretty flawed article.

every team in the NFL wants the most production for the least money. doesnt strike me as news.

wallace wont get fitz money in pittsburgh. color me unconcerned.

SteelCrazy
05-27-2012, 01:02 PM
This writer is on CRACK! Fitz shouldn't be paid 15 mil per, let alone Wallace. Wallace has done well, but there are still question marks concerning ability and potential. I think a fair contract would be 3 years/15 mil (5 mil per) and if he is still on top of the league standings, give him a huge contract or let him walk.

BURGH86STEEL
05-27-2012, 01:23 PM
This writer is on CRACK! Fitz shouldn't be paid 15 mil per, let alone Wallace. Wallace has done well, but there are still question marks concerning ability and potential. I think a fair contract would be 3 years/15 mil (5 mil per) and if he is still on top of the league standings, give him a huge contract or let him walk.

Wallace already proved himself. What more do you need to see? Wallace would be crazy to settle for 3 years at 15 million. With the Steelers or another team, Wallace needs to get as much money as he can while he can.

SteelCrazy
05-27-2012, 01:47 PM
Wallace already proved himself. What more do you need to see? Wallace would be crazy to settle for 3 years at 15 million. With the Steelers or another team, Wallace needs to get as much money as he can while he can.

I agree he needs to get all he can while he can, but as far as proving himself I disagree. He was great for 8 games then when he became a target he cooled way down. Fitz doesnt get stopped with double teams or triple teams, but Wallace did. He still needs to prove himself to the tune of not being able to be stopped. So far, he has yet to do that.

steelblood
05-27-2012, 04:26 PM
Nobody who understands football and has watched these players extensively would claim that Wallace is a talent on the level of Fitzgerald. Please. This guy has zero credibility in my book. His use of stats is convoluted as well.

Sugar
05-27-2012, 04:41 PM
While I understand the authors argument, the fact that Wallace's contributions slowed significantly in the second half of last season would give me pause. Do I believe that the Steelers have gotten an incredible bargain for the past three years? Yes. Do I think it would be stupid of Wallace to sign that tender unless/until he absolutely has to? Yes.

The biggest issue to me is not one of stats, but of consistency. That said, Wallace should be paid like a top NFL receiver because he is one.

squidkid
05-27-2012, 05:45 PM
all i can do is laugh at these piece of trash article...................seriously?

aggiebones
05-27-2012, 08:35 PM
Just ignore it. Planted article by his agent. Fitzgerland on the steelers would have a lot more touches at this time. Apples and oranges

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
05-28-2012, 10:51 AM
If someone would like to write an article that has a hint of realism, the basis for comparison would be players like Desean Jackson, Vincent Jackson, Colston, Lloyd etc.

All these guys cashed in nicely this off season and, if not restricted, Wallace would have been in the same ballpark. A story saying that he should be gunning for $10M a year would represent his market value a lot more than placing Wallace in a class with Fitz or one of the Johnsons. Those three stand above.

birtikidis
05-28-2012, 03:31 PM
That's why the author had to "remove the QB's statistics"...

Now, THIS is an ACTUAL case of someone looking only at stats as Crash often accuses others of doing...
yea, it's amazing to me that Fitz was able to put up the stats he did with those qb's

Slapstick
05-28-2012, 03:59 PM
Here is why Wallace does not deserve Fitzgerald money:

Larry Fitzgerald - 6 postseason games - 42 catches - 705 yards - 9 TDs

Mike Wallace - 4 postseason games - 16 catches - 142 yards - 1 TD (+ 1 rushing TD)

It isn't even close...

Hell, Megatron has only played in one postseason game and compares favorably to Wallace's four...

Truly elite guys step it up in the postseason...

AkronSteel
05-28-2012, 06:48 PM
The answer is not to give Wallace so called Larry Fitzgerald money but he does deserve fair market value. His market was set with Vincent and Desean Jackson!!! He probably deserves somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 years/55 Million. He does make the rest of the WR's look better because he opens up coverages underneath for Brown, Miller, Sanders and Cotch. He knows that he doesn't deserve Fitzgerald money. Fitzgerald didn't sign that kind of contract after his rookie deal, he signed that after a second deal. That's the difference to me. He shouldn't expect or deserve anywhere close to what #7 makes. If he does then his tenure in Pittsburgh will be done after 2012.

Oviedo
05-29-2012, 07:38 AM
Wallace already proved himself. What more do you need to see? Wallace would be crazy to settle for 3 years at 15 million. With the Steelers or another team, Wallace needs to get as much money as he can while he can.

Wallace proved that he can't beat double teams and he struggles when teams plan to take him out of the game. He vanished in the last half of last season and while he is a good receiver he is far from a complete receiver who deserves Top 3 money. It's really a moot point because the Steelers cap situation will not allow them to pay him anything close to that type of money...not this year or next year.

phillyesq
05-29-2012, 08:52 AM
The answer is not to give Wallace so called Larry Fitzgerald money but he does deserve fair market value. His market was set with Vincent and Desean Jackson!!! He probably deserves somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 years/55 Million. He does make the rest of the WR's look better because he opens up coverages underneath for Brown, Miller, Sanders and Cotch. He knows that he doesn't deserve Fitzgerald money. Fitzgerald didn't sign that kind of contract after his rookie deal, he signed that after a second deal. That's the difference to me. He shouldn't expect or deserve anywhere close to what #7 makes. If he does then his tenure in Pittsburgh will be done after 2012.

You are right that Vincent and DeSean Jackson are better comps for Wallace. Both guys are explosive but inconsistent. Whether Wallace gets that type of money from the Steelers remains to be seen. I still think the best approach is to let him play under the tag this year and franchise him next year. The cost next year will be high, but looking at it as a 2 year, $12 million deal, that really is pretty reasonable.

The article really shows that stats only tell part of the story.

Captain Lemming
05-29-2012, 12:08 PM
Remind how well Larry Fitzgerald's team is doing on the field after grossly overpaying for a WR and sucking up that much of their cap space to a single WR?

Sorry not the model I want to follow. If a team is stupid enough to pay Wallace that kind of money they can be a .500 or less team too. It won't be the Steelers. This is a great point. Not only is Wallace CLEARLY inferior to Fitz, NO RECEIVER can eat up that much cap space without being detrimental to the team. Fitz is the very best IMHO but giving HIM that much money is plain stupid.

feltdizz
05-29-2012, 03:00 PM
This is a great point. Not only is Wallace CLEARLY inferior to Fitz, NO RECEIVER can eat up that much cap space without being detrimental to the team. Fitz is the very best IMHO but giving HIM that much money is plain stupid.

I agree... great point by Ovi but we also need to realize AZ gave Fitz that money because he pretty much walked them into the SB with his presence.

This is why Ben is making Fitz money...

Oviedo
05-29-2012, 03:59 PM
I agree... great point by Ovi but we also need to realize AZ gave Fitz that money because he pretty much walked them into the SB with his presence.

This is why Ben is making Fitz money...

Regardless of the why, the reality is that in a cap driven salary structure where we are up against the limit again this year and next paying Wallace anything close to what the WRs made this off season in their FA signing will be near impossible. We have already restructured quite a lot with the major signings we have made over the past 2-3 years and there really isn't much room until the big TV money hits in 2014.

The key about successfully managing within the cap is that certain positions become bill payers for others. We pay our defense a large percentage of our cap which means we have to economize at other positions. If Brown repeats the season he had last year and Sanders can stay healthy it wouldn't surprise me one bit that we economize at WR and let Wallace walk

steelz09
05-29-2012, 08:45 PM
This Wallace talk is frustrating.... Look at the bright side of things, the Steelers won't pay Wallace that type of money. It'll never happen.

feltdizz
05-30-2012, 09:05 AM
Regardless of the why, the reality is that in a cap driven salary structure where we are up against the limit again this year and next paying Wallace anything close to what the WRs made this off season in their FA signing will be near impossible. We have already restructured quite a lot with the major signings we have made over the past 2-3 years and there really isn't much room until the big TV money hits in 2014.

The key about successfully managing within the cap is that certain positions become bill payers for others. We pay our defense a large percentage of our cap which means we have to economize at other positions. If Brown repeats the season he had last year and Sanders can stay healthy it wouldn't surprise me one bit that we economize at WR and let Wallace walk

I wouldn't be surprised at all... we let a few WR go who had great talent and we haven't skipped a beat.

Slapstick
05-30-2012, 09:55 AM
I wouldn't be surprised at all... we let a few WR go who had great talent and we haven't skipped a beat.

And those guys played well in the postseason...

Sugar
05-30-2012, 09:58 AM
Perhaps it's a good problem to have for the Steelers. They are so good at drafting and developing talent that they can't afford to keep it all! :tt2

Oviedo
05-30-2012, 10:09 AM
I wouldn't be surprised at all... we let a few WR go who had great talent and we haven't skipped a beat.

That's right. Plaxico leaves and we win a Super Bowl. Holmes leaves and we make it to the Super Bowl. Add in names like Yancey Thigpen and others but the bottomline is that you can't dump all your money into one WR. In today's NFL you need three very good WRs. It's nice if one is great but not necessary to win.

We saw last season that we can still win games with Wallace doing very little except being a decoy

steelz09
05-30-2012, 12:48 PM
That's right. Plaxico leaves and we win a Super Bowl. Holmes leaves and we make it to the Super Bowl. Add in names like Yancey Thigpen and others but the bottomline is that you can't dump all your money into one WR. In today's NFL you need three very good WRs. It's nice if one is great but not necessary to win.

We saw last season that we can still win games with Wallace doing very little except being a decoy

Agree... I think the Steelers have the same mindset. They won't pay Wallace that type of money. His game is driven on speed.. he stretches the field. That's great but the Steelers won't value that 1 attribute to the tune of 10-15 million a year.

papillon
05-30-2012, 02:11 PM
If you trade a player on which you have applied the first round tender, does the tender get traded with the player? Meaning, does the team you traded with only have to pay him the tender salary for the one year and then negotiate a new contract? Or, are the Steelers the only team that can retain Wallace's services for the 2.7 million for this year?

Pappy

Slapstick
05-30-2012, 02:54 PM
I honestly don't know...

It may be that, since the player isn't under contract, he can't be traded...or, perhaps only the rights to negotiate with the player can be traded...

I'll have to look it up...

Oviedo
05-30-2012, 03:25 PM
Agree... I think the Steelers have the same mindset. They won't pay Wallace that type of money. His game is driven on speed.. he stretches the field. That's great but the Steelers won't value that 1 attribute to the tune of 10-15 million a year.

I think Antonio Brown could also stretch the field if assigned to run those routes. No way is he as fast as Wallace but when he has gone deep he gets open more often than not.

hawaiiansteel
05-31-2012, 09:51 PM
Ed: Steelers Brown Won't Hold Out as RFA

THURSDAY, 31 MAY 2012 WRITTEN BY ED BOUCHETTE

--- Wide receiver Antonio Brown, who could be in the same boat as Mike Wallace this time next year, said no matter what, he does not plan to stay away from OTAs.

“Whatever the case may be, I plan on being here.”

Of course, a lot can happen between now and then and Brown did not state he definitely would not stay away, just that his plans are to be here. He and Emmanuel Sanders both could be restricted free agents one year from now. If the Steelers do not sign Wallace and he goes elsewhere as a free agent next year, a twin holdout by Brown and Sanders would leave the cupboard at wide receiver pretty bare.

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/116569-ed-steelers-brown-wont-hold-out-as-rfa

Oviedo
06-01-2012, 08:32 AM
Ed: Steelers Brown Won't Hold Out as RFA

THURSDAY, 31 MAY 2012 WRITTEN BY ED BOUCHETTE

--- Wide receiver Antonio Brown, who could be in the same boat as Mike Wallace this time next year, said no matter what, he does not plan to stay away from OTAs.

“Whatever the case may be, I plan on being here.”

Of course, a lot can happen between now and then and Brown did not state he definitely would not stay away, just that his plans are to be here. He and Emmanuel Sanders both could be restricted free agents one year from now. If the Steelers do not sign Wallace and he goes elsewhere as a free agent next year, a twin holdout by Brown and Sanders would leave the cupboard at wide receiver pretty bare.

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/116569-ed-steelers-brown-wont-hold-out-as-rfa

The attitude that a team guy should have. We'll see if it lasts.

If you add up what we have read recently: Need to sign three WRs starting next year, more use of TE Heath Miller, more use of RBs in passing game, running more, etc. Why then would you even consider paying Wallace $9-10M per year because other teams over paid other WRs?

RuthlessBurgher
06-01-2012, 03:21 PM
The attitude that a team guy should have.

Is Troy Polamalu not a team guy because he had not been attending the voluntary OTA's for the last several seasons?

BURGH86STEEL
06-01-2012, 04:45 PM
The attitude that a team guy should have. We'll see if it lasts.

If you add up what we have read recently: Need to sign three WRs starting next year, more use of TE Heath Miller, more use of RBs in passing game, running more, etc. Why then would you even consider paying Wallace $9-10M per year because other teams over paid other WRs?

Because Wallace is the teams best and most explosive offensive weapon.

I keep reading people suggesting that players get X amount of dollars per year. That's not fact in regard to NFL contracts. The NFL is not the NBA or MLB where contracts are guaranteed. Many NFL contracts are back loaded with money that many players will never see. The money that matters most is the signing bonus/guaranteed money. Guaranteed money is probably going to be the biggest obstacle in contract negotiations.

hawaiiansteel
06-01-2012, 08:51 PM
Guaranteed money is probably going to be the biggest obstacle in contract negotiations.

here is Larry Fitzgerald's contract:


8 years / $120,000,000 - Guaranteed Money $50,000,000

since Wallace wants Larry Fitzgerald $, this is the neighborhood that Wallace is asking for. I fully realize the Steelers are not going to give him this kind of $, but for those who think that we can lowball Wallace and he will accept I think you are mistaken.

Crash
06-01-2012, 08:54 PM
Not going to be cheap.

Sugar
06-01-2012, 10:39 PM
here is Larry Fitzgerald's contract:


8 years / $120,000,000 - Guaranteed Money $50,000,000

since Wallace wants Larry Fitzgerald $, this is the neighborhood that Wallace is asking for. I fully realize the Steelers are not going to give him this kind of $, but for those who think that we can lowball Wallace and he will accept I think you are mistaken.

I certainly hope that the Steelers don't lowball this young man. He's earned his paper. That said, people keep bringing up what Fitz makes as if that rumor were true when Wallace was quick to tweet "don't believe everything you hear" as soon as that rumor came out.

NorthCoast
06-03-2012, 12:02 PM
I certainly hope that the Steelers don't lowball this young man. He's earned his paper. That said, people keep bringing up what Fitz makes as if that rumor were true when Wallace was quick to tweet "don't believe everything you hear" as soon as that rumor came out.

The Steelers will make an offer based on what they believe he is worth to the team, not on what Wallace or his agent believe he is worth to another team.

Oviedo
06-03-2012, 12:23 PM
I certainly hope that the Steelers don't lowball this young man. He's earned his paper. That said, people keep bringing up what Fitz makes as if that rumor were true when Wallace was quick to tweet "don't believe everything you hear" as soon as that rumor came out.


He only earned what fits into the cap structure that allows the team to be a perennial championship team not a mediocre team with a very good WR. If he wants to have a salary that causes us to lose other critical pieces of the team let him do it for someone else. It's about the team not some subjective assessment of "fair"

Captain Lemming
06-03-2012, 12:25 PM
I certainly hope that the Steelers don't lowball this young man. He's earned his paper. That said, people keep bringing up what Fitz makes as if that rumor were true when Wallace was quick to tweet "don't believe everything you hear" as soon as that rumor came out.

Wallace thinks he is a 2000 yard receiver. That means he believes he is without peer in this league period.

The problem is that he will perceive reasonable offers as lowballs.

If Wallace was near as GREAT as his deluded mind thinks he would be gone. If Fitz was a restricted free agent and it took a 1st to get him, the dude would have had his pick.

You can look in the mirror and talk all you want and sing "I'm sexy and I know it", but if the finest girls in the club aint interested, your "game" aint all that you think it is.

Wallace YOUR GAME AINT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS.

Oviedo
06-03-2012, 12:27 PM
Wallace thinks he is a 2000 yard receiver. That means he believes he is without peer in this league period.

The problem is that he will perceive reasonable offers as lowballs.

If Wallace was near as GREAT as his deluded mind thinks he would be gone. If Fitz was a restricted free agent and it took a 1st to get him, the dude would have had his pick.

You can look in the mirror and talk all you want and sing "I'm sexy and I know it", but if the finest girls in the club aint interested, your "game" aint all that you think it is.

Wallace YOUR GAME AINT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS.

The only thing that Wallace has more than speed is ego. His other WR skills are not elite.

SteelBucks
06-03-2012, 01:08 PM
I certainly hope that the Steelers don't lowball this young man. He's earned his paper. That said, people keep bringing up what Fitz makes as if that rumor were true when Wallace was quick to tweet "don't believe everything you hear" as soon as that rumor came out.

Did he earn a new contract?.....yes. Did his production earn him the right to be one of the highest paid Steelers?.....I don't think so. I just can't get past his numbers in the last nine games of the season last year. 36 catches, 463 yards, 3 TD's. We can talk he was double teamed and the weather, but the elite produce, and these are very pedestrian stats.

IMO, the Steelers won't lowball him but they will offer what he's worth. Unfortunately I don't believe Wallace or his agent will agree.

squidkid
06-03-2012, 02:06 PM
I certainly hope that the Steelers don't lowball this young man. He's earned his paper. That said, people keep bringing up what Fitz makes as if that rumor were true when Wallace was quick to tweet "don't believe everything you hear" as soon as that rumor came out.

that tweet doesnt mean he didnt ask for fitz money.

Snatch98
06-03-2012, 02:08 PM
that tweet doesnt mean he didnt ask for fitz money.

I don't believe the Steelers would continue to deal with him on a contract basis if he did in fact ask for Fitzgerald money. Therefore I don't believe he IS asking for Fitz money and the media has blown it heinously out of proportion.

squidkid
06-03-2012, 02:34 PM
I don't believe the Steelers would continue to deal with him on a contract basis if he did in fact ask for Fitzgerald money. Therefore I don't believe he IS asking for Fitz money and the media has blown it heinously out of proportion.

i would agree with that at this point. i do believe that he started with that type of demand and then has toned it down abit after he realized nobody was going to give up a first rounder for him. reality has probably set in the past month and a half and knows he must lower his demands if he wants the security of a long term contract or risk injury etc. playing for the one year tender.

Eddie Spaghetti
06-03-2012, 03:46 PM
The only thing that Wallace has more than speed is ego. His other WR skills are not elite.

can you provide some concrete examples of an out of control ego?

there has been one report that wallace wants fitz money, that has never been attributed directly to wallace.

wallace has said he thinks he can get 2000 yards in a season. Most athletes have supreme confidence in their abilities and this trait is generally applauded, except when it doesn't fit ones agenda.

if brown had said this, I doubt you or any of the other wallace detractors would try and use against him in a negative light.

the steelers will make an offer they feel is fair and it is up to mike wallace to accept or decline it. The attacks on wallace thus far are unwarranted and not based in any facts I have read or seen.

Sugar
06-03-2012, 05:23 PM
i would agree with that at this point. i do believe that he started with that type of demand and then has toned it down abit after he realized nobody was going to give up a first rounder for him. reality has probably set in the past month and a half and knows he must lower his demands if he wants the security of a long term contract or risk injury etc. playing for the one year tender.

Thats an interesting assertion. Why would you think that?

Oviedo
06-03-2012, 05:38 PM
can you provide some concrete examples of an out of control ego?

there has been one report that wallace wants fitz money, that has never been attributed directly to wallace.

wallace has said he thinks he can get 2000 yards in a season. Most athletes have supreme confidence in their abilities and this trait is generally applauded, except when it doesn't fit ones agenda.

if brown had said this, I doubt you or any of the other wallace detractors would try and use against him in a negative light.

the steelers will make an offer they feel is fair and it is up to mike wallace to accept or decline it. The attacks on wallace thus far are unwarranted and not based in any facts I have read or seen.

Well, as you frequently are you are wrong assuming you know what other poster think and will do. I promise you that if next year it is attributed to Brown and not denied that he is seeking "Fitz money" my position will be exactly the same. Why? Well instead of letting you incorrectly guess allow me to tell you. It is for the exact same reason I would never pay Wallace that money. No WR can consume that much of the cap and still allow the team to retain ALL the weapons they need on offense.

Eddie Spaghetti
06-03-2012, 08:55 PM
so, no concrete examples of an enlarged ego as you suggested. Got it.

and again, no where has it been concluded that mike wallace uttered those words about fitz money. But keep using it to push your agenda. No serious fan believes the steelers will offer that kind of contract.

and lastly when I was speaking about brown it was the context of him wanting to get 2000 yards in a season, not wanting fitz money. Its pretty clear if you read my post, but you will have a hard time slanting it to fit your view.

squidkid
06-04-2012, 03:02 PM
Thats an interesting assertion. Why would you think that?


well, seeing that every swinging d!ck on this and any other steeler message board and every nfl channel that was covering FA, was stating how many teams would be lining up to sign wallace to a huge contract and give up their first rounder for his services. alot of experts and non experts were discussing where he would fit and who had all the cap room to sign him. we all believed there was a good chance he would get an offer. no reason to think wallace and his agent didnt believe all the hype also. basically, common sense lead me to that assertion.

RuthlessBurgher
06-04-2012, 03:43 PM
every swinging d!ck

Try to avoid these types of expressions, please. I realize that you used it as a generalized term and did not aim it at anyone in particular, but unless you are talking about our D.C. LeBeau or Todd Haley's dad or something, you shouldn't need to use the exclamation point to bypass the board filter, which is there for a reason. Thanks.

squidkid
06-04-2012, 04:14 PM
Try to avoid these types of expressions, please. I realize that you used it as a generalized term and did not aim it at anyone in particular, but unless you are talking about our D.C. LeBeau or Todd Haley's dad or something, you shouldn't need to use the exclamation point to bypass the board filter, which is there for a reason. Thanks.


sorry, my bad

RuthlessBurgher
06-04-2012, 07:03 PM
sorry, my bad


https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXtK2JmwBKZ-JMnz0z8Gv-aGwYehdrEfGX3POk0EYvyXu0rMUb

hawaiiansteel
06-05-2012, 01:59 AM
Maybe Wallace really does Want “Fitzgerald Money”

Posted In Steelers Player News,Steelers Rumor Mill
June 2, 2012

http://steelblitz.com/wp-content/themes/londoncreative/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://steelblitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/439x.jpg&w=560&zc=1&h=300

There has been a lot made about the rumor that Steelers wide receiver Mike Wallace is asking for “Larry Fitzgerald Money” in negotiations with the team. The immediate reaction was that Wallace was referencing Fitzgerald’s 8 year $128 million contract. However, perhaps, and this is assuming that this rumor holds any truth whatsoever, Wallace was referencing Fitzgerald’s first contract extension.

At the end of Fitzgerald’s rookie contract the Cardinals signed him to a four year extension at $10 million per year. This contact included $30 million guaranteed and a $15 million signing bonus. With Desean Jackson, wide receiver of the Philadelphia Eagles, signing a 5 year $50 million deal earlier this offseason it would seem fair that Wallace would land a similar deal. Most Steelers fans would also, in all likelihood, agree that fair market value for Wallace would be in the range of $10 million per year.

If you compare Wallace’s first three season to Fitzgerald’s first three there are many similarities:

Fitzgerald (2004-06) – 230 receptions, 3,135 yards, 24 TDs, 13.6 ypc

Wallace (2009-11) – 171 receptions, 3,206 yards, 24 TDs, 18.7 ypc

However, Fitzgerald had an average yearly salary of $10 million for his first seven years in the league. It wasn’t until last offseason, when Fitzgerald inked his big money deal at an average salary of over $16 million per year, that he surpassed that number. Also, it is much harder for an NFL receiver to show the level of production that Wallace has shown in his first three seasons for seven seasons.

In a pass happy league some teams have shown a willingness to offer, even average wide receivers, big time contracts to put more weapons around their quarterbacks. Pittsburgh, however, is not likely to be shelling out the big bucks to keep Wallace around. Any deal over $10 million is out of the question and even that may be well over what the Steelers have in mind. Also, with wide receivers Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders slated to become free agents after the 2012 season the Steelers will have to be smart with how they spend their money.

One thing is certain, though, Wallace will be a Steeler in 2012. It is the seasons beyond 2012 that are in question.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/maybe_wallace_really_does_want_fitzgerald_money/10926587[/QUOTE]

hawaiiansteel
06-07-2012, 11:23 PM
Steelers reportedly likely won’t decrease Mike Wallace’s tender

JUN07

http://profootballzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mike-wallace.jpg

On Thursday NFL Live (via Rotoworld.com), ESPN’s Chris Mortensen said it’s ”very unlikely” that the Pittsburgh Steelers will decrease wide receiver Mike Wallace’s one-year, $2.742 million restricted tender.

“I don’t think the Steelers are going to do that with Mike Wallace,” Mortensen said

The Steelers possess the right to decrease Wallace’s tender to $577,000 by next Friday. But that clearly wouldn’t help the current stand-off between both sides.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/steelers_reportedly_likely_wont_decrease_mike_wall aces_tender/10964933

Oviedo
06-08-2012, 08:00 AM
Steelers reportedly likely won’t decrease Mike Wallace’s tender

JUN07

http://profootballzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mike-wallace.jpg

On Thursday NFL Live (via Rotoworld.com), ESPN’s Chris Mortensen said it’s ”very unlikely” that the Pittsburgh Steelers will decrease wide receiver Mike Wallace’s one-year, $2.742 million restricted tender.

“I don’t think the Steelers are going to do that with Mike Wallace,” Mortensen said

The Steelers possess the right to decrease Wallace’s tender to $577,000 by next Friday. But that clearly wouldn’t help the current stand-off between both sides.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/steelers_reportedly_likely_wont_decrease_mike_wall aces_tender/10964933

Likewise, they WILL NOT increase the offer. So Wallace's absence is equivalent to a three year old having a temper tantrum because he doesn't get what he wants.

hawaiiansteel
06-08-2012, 02:24 PM
Likewise, they WILL NOT increase the offer. So Wallace's absence is equivalent to a three year old having a temper tantrum because he doesn't get what he wants.

in Wallace's defense, the Steelers and his agent are attempting to work out a long-term deal and it wouldn't be wise for him to show up and risk an injury like what happened to Hakeem Nicks until a deal gets done.

Wallace has yet to miss one mandatory practice, the Ravens had 20 players missing from OTAs I can live with just one missing because he is trying to work out a long-term deal that will keep him in the Black & Gold for many years.

Crash
06-08-2012, 02:42 PM
Likewise, they WILL NOT increase the offer. So Wallace's absence is equivalent to a three year old having a temper tantrum because he doesn't get what he wants.

Whaaaaaat?

They are trying to work out a long term deal. You think if he signs one he's only going to get $2.7 in year one of it?

Good grief use you're head.

Eddie Spaghetti
06-08-2012, 04:34 PM
once ovi decides you are not worthy, rational thought goes out the window.

i'm still waiting on him to provide concrete examples of wallaces out of control ego.

((((crickets)))))

hawaiiansteel
06-09-2012, 02:22 PM
Steelers unlikely to decrease Mike Wallace’s tender

Jun 092012

The Steelers aren’t close to a new deal with restricted free agent Mike Wallace and he is not expected to attend mandatory minicamp later this month. However, the Steelers are committed to doing a long term deal with him and are reportedly highly unlikely to decrease Mike Wallace’s tender, something they can do on June 15th. They have the right to decrease his tender from 2.742 million to 577 thousand, but they won’t do that, according to ESPN’s Chris Mortensen, because they feel that would be damaging to long term talks and don’t want to slap their #1 receiver in the face like that.

Mike Wallace said earlier this offseason that he was looking for Larry Fitzgerald money. Fitzgerald got 120 million over 8 years last offseason and in the time since Wallace asked for that type of money, Calvin Johnson got 132 million over 7 years. However, the Steelers probably don’t have the cap to do that type of deal even if they wanted to.

If he wants a long term deal, he’ll probably have to settle for Vincent Jackson type money (5 years, 55.5 million) or wait until next offseason when he can hit the open market, unless the Steelers franchise him at what would probably be around 9.5-10 million. Wallace doesn’t have a lot of leverage, but it’s good news for him that the Steelers are very interested in doing a long term deal with him and that they will not slash his salary.

http://network.yardbarker.com/all_sp...ender/10974542 (http://network.yardbarker.com/all_sports/article_external/steelers_unlikely_to_decrease_mike_wallaces_tender/10974542)

squidkid
06-09-2012, 03:14 PM
Steelers unlikely to decrease Mike Wallace’s tender

Jun 092012

The Steelers aren’t close to a new deal with restricted free agent Mike Wallace and he is not expected to attend mandatory minicamp later this month. However, the Steelers are committed to doing a long term deal with him and are reportedly highly unlikely to decrease Mike Wallace’s tender, something they can do on June 15th. They have the right to decrease his tender from 2.742 million to 577 thousand, but they won’t do that, according to ESPN’s Chris Mortensen, because they feel that would be damaging to long term talks and don’t want to slap their #1 receiver in the face like that.

Mike Wallace said earlier this offseason that he was looking for Larry Fitzgerald money. Fitzgerald got 120 million over 8 years last offseason and in the time since Wallace asked for that type of money, Calvin Johnson got 132 million over 7 years. However, the Steelers probably don’t have the cap to do that type of deal even if they wanted to.

If he wants a long term deal, he’ll probably have to settle for Vincent Jackson type money (5 years, 55.5 million) or wait until next offseason when he can hit the open market, unless the Steelers franchise him at what would probably be around 9.5-10 million. Wallace doesn’t have a lot of leverage, but it’s good news for him that the Steelers are very interested in doing a long term deal with him and that they will not slash his salary.

http://network.yardbarker.com/all_sp...ender/10974542 (http://network.yardbarker.com/all_sports/article_external/steelers_unlikely_to_decrease_mike_wallaces_tender/10974542)

i really wish they would reduce their tender offer as soon as possible.
why give him that extra money when they dont have to? couldnt that be used for negotiating another player that is willing to sign a long term deal?
put some pressure on him to accept the offer that is on the table now by telling him if he doesnt sign by the 15th they are reducing it.
if wallace decides to sign a long term deal later, that reduced tender wont matter anyways.
why pay a guy that wants to leave next year for big money more than we have to?

hawaiiansteel
06-09-2012, 04:08 PM
Mike Wallace Out of Options

June 9, 2012
by steelblitz

http://steelblitz.com/wp-content/themes/londoncreative/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://steelblitz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Mike_Wallace_St_Louis_Rams_v_Pittsburgh_Steelers_C 8xNMnttfRHl_large.jpg&w=560&zc=1&h=300

Mike Wallace is being smart no matter what any Steelers’ fan may want you to think.

Steelers’ fans continue to turn on Wallace saying he should take what he is given; a thought shared by many fans when speaking about athletes. Fans struggle to understand why athletes fight for more money when they are being paid millions to play a game. The fact of the matter, however, is that any of us would want fair market value for out services.

You must also understand that the average NFL career lasts for less than three years. These players must make enough money to sustain themselves for the rest of their lives. Not showing up to OTAs is the smartest thing for Wallace currently. Say he had shown up and say he tore his ACL running a route. He would miss the entire 2012 season and who would be willing to give him a large contract coming off an injury and being out of football for a year? No one that’s who.

Wallace will return to Steelers’ activities as soon as he has a new contract. Whether that means he has signed his tender or signed a long-term contract. ESPN’s Chris Mortensen stated on NFL Live Thursday that the Steelers are “very unlikely” to decrease the value of Mike Wallace’s one-year, $2.742 million restricted tender.

“I don’t think the Steelers are going to do that with Mike Wallace,” Mort said. It is within the Steelers’ rights to drop Wallace’s tender value to $577,000 by next Friday, though such a maneuver would certainly inject tension into contract talks. GM Kevin Colbert wants to sign Wallace to a long-term extension.” Steelers GM Kevin Colbert continues to express his confidence that a long-term deal will be reached. As he is the only person other than Wallace and Wallace’s agent that has all the details about their negotiations I will continue to believe him over the rumors.

Although Wallace is being smart not to risk injury before he gets his money, he is also running out of options and time. Wallace must make one of two decisions: either sign his tender and play the 2012 season with the Steelers and look for a new contract on the open free agent marker in 2013, or sign a long-term deal with the Steelers. Playing on a one year deal is always a risk for NFL players. If Wallace suffers a serious injury in 2012 playing on the one year tender he will risk losing millions of dollars.

It is a hard choice to make, but Wallace will need to make it soon at least for the Steelers’ sake. We have all seen what holding-out can do to star players. Chris Johnson held out last year waiting for a larger contract; he went from being CJ2K (renowned for his 2009 season when he ran for over 2,000 yards) to running for only 47 yards over 1,000 yards in 2012. His rushing stats diminished greatly in 2011; he had five games of under 25 yards rushing, and twelve games under 64 yards. If not for big performances in weeks 12 and 13 where Johnson ran for 190 yards and then 153 yards he would have ran for less than 1,000 yards last season. Holding-out dropped Johnson from arguably the best back in the NFL to an average back at best.

The Steelers need Wallace to return as soon as possible so that he doesn’t suffer a similar drop in production. There is no question that the Steelers would like to sign Wallace to a long-term deal and keep him as Ben Roethlisberger’s top weapon for many years to come, but Wallace will need to feel the same way. He may not get as much money in Pittsburgh as he would on the open market, but with the Steelers Wallace will have a good chance at winning a Super Bowl. It will be his decision to make: more money or a chance for a ring; usually those two don’t mix, just ask all the big name players that have gone to the Washington Redskins looking for big money in recent years.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/mike_wallace_out_of_options/10972400

pittpete
06-09-2012, 05:44 PM
These players must make enough money to sustain themselves for the rest of their lives.

No they don't
Dont they get college degrees?
Should be easy for a college graduate to get a job:p

squidkid
06-10-2012, 09:57 AM
No they don't
Dont they get college degrees?
Should be easy for a college graduate to get a job:p

this is the stuff that really bothers me. these players, most fans and some writers, think these guys should never have to work a day in their lives after football and that the nfl should provide them with endless pensions and medical AND they still plan to sue the nfl for injuries suffered when THEY VOLUNTARILY played this game knowing the risks.

this wiriter is a moron if he thinks an nlf player needs to live off his 3 year earnings for the rest of their lives. what about the UFA that makes the team and signs a 3 year deal worth a couple hundred thousand. is thast enough to live off of for the next 50+ years?:rolleyes:

steelnavy
06-10-2012, 01:00 PM
No they don't
Dont they get college degrees?
Should be easy for a college graduate to get a job:p

+1. Why should these guys get to retire forever just because they played a few years in the NFL? They are too good to get a real job like the rest of us?!?

DukieBoy
06-10-2012, 02:08 PM
Back in the day when players would have to get off-season jobs selling cars or insurance, or working construction, just to make ends meet each month ...

Today, some players salaries prorated to a per-game basis make more in one or two games than some college grads make in a lifetime.

I empathize with those players who have been disabled through football, though, and wish the league would do more to help them.

Wallace will get plenty of money in Pittsburgh. If plenty isn't enough, then he can find it elsewhere.

hawaiiansteel
06-12-2012, 04:44 PM
surprise, no Mike Wallace at mini-camp...

Mark Kaboly ‏@MarkKaboly_Trib via twitter:

Mike Wallace would be fined $63K for missing minicamp if he actually signed his tender (which he doesn't have to until Fri) Camp ends Thurs

https://twitter.com/#!/search/from:S...alphPaulk_Trib (https://twitter.com/#!/search/from:ScottBrown_Trib OR from:MarkKaboly_Trib OR from:RalphPaulk_Trib?q=from%3AScottBrown_Trib+OR+f rom%3AMarkKaboly_Trib+OR+from%3ARalphPaulk_Trib)

hawaiiansteel
06-19-2012, 03:02 PM
Steelers’ Mike Wallace could have a lengthy holdout

Jun18, 2012

Mike Wallace has yet to sign his 2.757 million dollar restricted free agent tender in search of a long term deal and while the Steelers have agreed not to slash his tender down to 577 thousand, which they now have to right to do because Wallace skipped minicamp, it’s still unknown when the two sides will come to terms on a long term deal. Wallace wants Larry Fitzgerald money and the Steelers don’t have the cap nor the desire to pay him that more.

Holding most of the leverage with Wallace essentially under contract inexpensively in 2012 and with the franchise tender reserved for him next offseason, the Steelers want Wallace to sign a deal more in the range of Vincent Jackson’s 55.5 million dollar deal over 5 years rather than the 8 year, 120 million dollar deal Larry Fitzgerald got.

According to the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, Wallace’s holdout will end later rather than sooner as they feel he could be prepared to sit out into Training Camp. If he does that, he could be fined a good amount of money and he would risk getting out of shape and having a down year like Chris Johnson and Darrelle Revis did in the last 2 seasons, but in search of a long term deal, it might be worth it for him. Unlike franchise tagged players, Wallace can still be signed to a long term deal after Training Camp starts.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/steelers_mike_wallace_could_have_a_lengthy_holdout/11042321

ikestops85
06-19-2012, 04:45 PM
I've always said Wallace deserves Jackson money ... whether it be Vincent of DeSean. He is as good as those guys so that should be his bracket. No way is he in the Fitz or Johnson boys bracket when it comes to talent. They are on a whole other level.

hawaiiansteel
06-25-2012, 11:15 PM
Ike Taylor believes Mike Wallace will show up for camp

JUN 24, 2012 WRITTEN BY PAUL JACKIEWICZ

http://profootballzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mike-wallace4.jpg

Pittsburgh Steelers cornerback Ike Taylor told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that he believes that his teammate, wide receiver Mike Wallace will show up for training camp.

“He’s going to be there (training camp),” Taylor told Albert Buford of The Times-Picayune on Saturday. “They’ll get it done. When you talk about that kind of money, it’s not an overnight type of deal. By the end of the day, I think for sure he’s going to get that thing done. Both sides are working together, so that’s a good thing.”

I don’t see Wallace staging any type of long hold out. At the end of the day if a deal doesn’t get done, he’ll sign his restricted free agent tender and show up before the regular season.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/ike_taylor_believes_mike_wallace_will_show_up_for_ camp/11080949

hawaiiansteel
06-26-2012, 02:35 AM
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/2012/6/23/3112408/the-business-end-of-an-nfl-contract#storyjump

feltdizz
06-26-2012, 08:51 AM
intentionally phasing him out to keep his numbers down? Are you serious?

pittpete
06-26-2012, 09:58 AM
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.

Waste of 60 seconds of my life I cant get back

Oviedo
06-26-2012, 10:41 AM
intentionally phasing him out to keep his numbers down? Are you serious?

You typically don't target a player when he can't beat double coverage. It's called smart football. Especially when you have another WR who is being very successful getting open and getting yards after the catch.

ikestops85
06-26-2012, 11:50 AM
You typically don't target a player when he can't beat double coverage. It's called smart football. Especially when you have another WR who is being very successful getting open and getting yards after the catch.

I would disagree when you say he can't beat double coverage. He routinely beat double coverage in the first half of the year. But it is smart football to not throw into double coverage if you have a better option. Brown became a better option. We are lucky that we have such a young and talented receiving corp.

Oviedo
06-26-2012, 11:57 AM
I would disagree when you say he can't beat double coverage. He routinely beat double coverage in the first half of the year. But it is smart football to not throw into double coverage if you have a better option. Brown became a better option. We are lucky that we have such a young and talented receiving corp.

I don't disagree which why I have consistently said we shouldn't pay more than about $7-8M per year to Wallace to be a decoy when we have another option.

feltdizz
06-26-2012, 12:25 PM
I think once teams figured out Wallace will do anything to avoid contact his numbers began to fall. He needs to do a much better job selling pass interference too...

BURGH86STEEL
06-26-2012, 01:09 PM
You typically don't target a player when he can't beat double coverage. It's called smart football. Especially when you have another WR who is being very successful getting open and getting yards after the catch.

Wallace ran past(beat) double coverage several times last season. Wallace has very little say where the football gets thrown.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
06-26-2012, 01:21 PM
I don't disagree which why I have consistently said we shouldn't pay more than about $7-8M per year to Wallace to be a decoy when we have another option.

But without Wallace around to take away two defenders, is Brown still as viable an option?

Slapstick
06-26-2012, 01:27 PM
But without Wallace around to take away two defenders, is Brown still as viable an option?

People said the same thing about Hines, but in the two years after Plaxico left, he had 1950 yards and 17 TDs...

A viable option is a viable option...

feltdizz
06-26-2012, 01:27 PM
Wallace ran past(beat) double coverage several times last season. Wallace has very little say where the football gets thrown.

I hope he is working on his hands... Wallace still double catches a lot of passes.

RuthlessBurgher
06-26-2012, 01:28 PM
One point about comparing Wallace's first 3 seasons to Fitz and Calvin's first 3 seasons...neither Fitz or Calvin were making the insane dollars that they are making now after only 3 seasons. Calvin got his 8 year, 9-figure deal after 5 seasons, and Fitz got his 8 year, 9-figure deal after 7 seasons. If Wallace does not sign a long-term deal now and plays under the $2.7M RFA tender for 2012 instead, we could franchise him for 2013 as well. If he has a couple of more impressive seasons in 2012 and 2013, then he will be in the age range when Calvin and Fitz got their huge money deals (and, interestingly enough, that also happens to be the year in which the salary cap is expected to rise substantially with the new TV contracts kicking in). In the long run, he might be better off playing under an RFA tender and a franchise tag and waiting until 2014 to negotiate a long-term deal (of course, that comes with a significant injury risk in the mean time).

RuthlessBurgher
06-26-2012, 01:37 PM
I hope he is working on his hands... Wallace still double catches a lot of passes.

A double catch is still better than a non-catch.

http://www.xflmvp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/drop.jpg

Antonio Brown seems to be making a habit of double catching the ball with his helmet. The first one to clinch the playoff game against Baltimore seemed kinda flukish, but he's done it a couple of other times since then. There was even talk of yet another helmet catch for Brown this offseason during OTA practices.

http://enzoberetta.com/pro-site/antonio-brown-catch-i5.jpg
http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/eof-wk17-pit.jpg

Slapstick
06-26-2012, 02:12 PM
But without Wallace around to take away two defenders, is Brown still as viable an option?

Incidentally, this was from a link in a thread about Lawrence Timmons. It's an excerpt from Pittsburgh magazine and the interview took place before Antonio Brown really started to come on as a WR:


Who’s the most underrated player on the Steelers?

Antonio Brown. He’s giving us problems on the practice field. That guy is the total package. He can block, run routes across the middle and blow the top off the defense.

BURGH86STEEL
06-26-2012, 02:59 PM
I hope he is working on his hands... Wallace still double catches a lot of passes.
I hope you are not basing your opinion of Wallace's hands based on one drop or a handful of drops. A catch is a catch. I believe Wallace had 10 or 11 drops last season. I don't believe there's an issue with Wallace's hands. Wallace could of had a few more TD's, receiving yards, and catches if Ben would had hit him in stride a few more times. Teams probably got a little more wise to Wallace blowing past safety help in the 2nd half of the season. It's probably one reason why his production dropped off and why some other players had more opportunities to produce.

Wallace is not as fluid a route runner as Brown. Wallace improved his route running. I noticed a play vs Denver that Wallace made a nice move to get open.

Wallace may not be in Fitz's and Mega Tron's category in terms of physical stature. He makes up for lack of physical stature with his speed. Wallace's production is comparable to those two players. At this point, Wallace is the team's best and most explosive weapon. Time will tell what that's worth to the Steelers.

BURGH86STEEL
06-26-2012, 03:25 PM
One point about comparing Wallace's first 3 seasons to Fitz and Calvin's first 3 seasons...neither Fitz or Calvin were making the insane dollars that they are making now after only 3 seasons. Calvin got his 8 year, 9-figure deal after 5 seasons, and Fitz got his 8 year, 9-figure deal after 7 seasons. If Wallace does not sign a long-term deal now and plays under the $2.7M RFA tender for 2012 instead, we could franchise him for 2013 as well. If he has a couple of more impressive seasons in 2012 and 2013, then he will be in the age range when Calvin and Fitz got their huge money deals (and, interestingly enough, that also happens to be the year in which the salary cap is expected to rise substantially with the new TV contracts kicking in). In the long run, he might be better off playing under an RFA tender and a franchise tag and waiting until 2014 to negotiate a long-term deal (of course, that comes with a significant injury risk in the mean time).

I don't think it will be smart for Wallace to play without a long term deal. Considering his speed is his best asset, one serious injury and his value will drop. Kind of like other player's value dropped because they suffered serious injuries. Wallace could go from a muliti-million dollar talent to just another guy in the league.

I don't think the tactic you suggests sets a good precedent for an organization.

Slapstick
06-26-2012, 03:42 PM
I don't think it will be smart for Wallace to play without a long term deal. Considering his speed is his best asset, one serious injury and his value will drop. Kind of like other player's value dropped because they suffered serious injuries. Wallace could go from a muliti-million dollar talent to just another guy in the league.

I don't think the tactic you suggests sets a good precedent for an organization.

Why not?

The Steelers are well within the boundaries of the CBA to keep Wallace at his RFA tender and then Franchise Tag him in the following years...

It would not be a good tactic for Wallace to do this, because he could sign a deal that would net him millions more than that option...albeit, not at a contract level that he is reportedly seeking...

What would be in Wallace's best interest, IMO, is to sign a three-year deal that would net him more than the value of the RFA tender and two Franchise Tags...

He would make more money than he would under the current circumstances and would be entering the prime of his career (age 28) when the three-year deal expires...it would also give the Steelers options under the salary cap...

And, if the Steelers cut him before the final year, then he is an unrestricted free agent at age 27 instead of age 28...

Oviedo
06-26-2012, 04:09 PM
Why not?

The Steelers are well within the boundaries of the CBA to keep Wallace at his RFA tender and then Franchise Tag him in the following years...

It would not be a good tactic for Wallace to do this, because he could sign a deal that would net him millions more than that option...albeit, not at a contract level that he is reportedly seeking...

What would be in Wallace's best interest, IMO, is to sign a three-year deal that would net him more than the value of the RFA tender and two Franchise Tags...

He would make more money than he would under the current circumstances and would be entering the prime of his career (age 28) when the three-year deal expires...it would also give the Steelers options under the salary cap...

And, if the Steelers cut him before the final year, then he is an unrestricted free agent at age 27 instead of age 28...

I totally agree with Slappy. The only person using bad tactics is Wallace. He needs to sign as soon as possible. He will be offered enough to make him wealthy for the rest of his life because the Steelers don't treat their players bad.

However, if Wallace is really trying to get a Top 5 salary even though that would screw up the cap for the team then the Steelers should play hardball as hard as they can. That is exactly the precedent they should want to set--"When we make you a good offer you better accept it instead of trying to be on a list of top salaries." Ask Jeff Reed and many other how it worked for them balking at reasonable offers.

BURGH86STEEL
06-26-2012, 10:08 PM
Why not?

The Steelers are well within the boundaries of the CBA to keep Wallace at his RFA tender and then Franchise Tag him in the following years...

It would not be a good tactic for Wallace to do this, because he could sign a deal that would net him millions more than that option...albeit, not at a contract level that he is reportedly seeking...

What would be in Wallace's best interest, IMO, is to sign a three-year deal that would net him more than the value of the RFA tender and two Franchise Tags...

He would make more money than he would under the current circumstances and would be entering the prime of his career (age 28) when the three-year deal expires...it would also give the Steelers options under the salary cap...

And, if the Steelers cut him before the final year, then he is an unrestricted free agent at age 27 instead of age 28...
Steelers were within their boundaries. Being within boundaries doesn't mean it's fair or that someone needs to agree with the circumstances. Especially when a person's livelihood is at stake. I suspect that most players don't like tenders and franchise tags. Why would any player like tenders and tags when they reduce the amount of money a player can earn? RFA tenders and tags may eventually disappear some day.

I believe players take notice how organizations treat players. Fans certainly take notice how other organizations treat players. One big difference is the players have to live it. If the Steelers do what was suggested, I believe it would set a bad precedent for the organization.

How can we know he could sign a deal that would net him the value of his RFA tender and two franchise tags? We don't know what the Steelers offered. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Wallace could get a contract in which he is seeking as a free agent. The sticking point in contract negotiations will probably the length of the contact and signing bonus/guaranteed money.

I am looking at this situation as if I were Wallace. Playing for the tender or franchise tags wouldn't be in my best interest. Signing a long term deal with a lot of guaranteed money would be in my best interest. I would hold out until I received credit for the entire season to become a FA, ala Vincent Jackson. People wouldn't agree but I would be my boundaries to do so.

Slapstick
06-26-2012, 10:45 PM
Steelers were within their boundaries. Being within boundaries doesn't mean it's fair or that someone needs to agree with the circumstances. Especially when a person's livelihood is at stake. I suspect that most players don't like tenders and franchise tags. Why would any player like tenders and tags when they reduce the amount of money a player can earn? RFA tenders and tags may eventually disappear some day.

I believe players take notice how organizations treat players. Fans certainly take notice how other organizations treat players. One big difference is the players have to live it. If the Steelers do what was suggested, I believe it would set a bad precedent for the organization.

How can we know he could sign a deal that would net him the value of his RFA tender and two franchise tags? We don't know what the Steelers offered. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Wallace could get a contract in which he is seeking as a free agent. The sticking point in contract negotiations will probably the length of the contact and signing bonus/guaranteed money.

I am looking at this situation as if I were Wallace. Playing for the tender or franchise tags wouldn't be in my best interest. Signing a long term deal with a lot of guaranteed money would be in my best interest. I would hold out until I received credit for the entire season to become a FA, ala Vincent Jackson. People wouldn't agree but I would be my boundaries to do so.

I'm not saying that Wallace isn't within his rights...

I was merely spelling out what I believe to be his best possible scenario in regards to his prospects over the next three years....

Perhaps the tenders and tags will go away some day, but not for the next ten seasons as the players themselves agreed to them in the latest CBA...

I just don't believe that the Steelers will back down...

Oviedo
06-27-2012, 07:23 AM
Steelers were within their boundaries. Being within boundaries doesn't mean it's fair or that someone needs to agree with the circumstances. Especially when a person's livelihood is at stake. I suspect that most players don't like tenders and franchise tags. Why would any player like tenders and tags when they reduce the amount of money a player can earn? RFA tenders and tags may eventually disappear some day.

I believe players take notice how organizations treat players. Fans certainly take notice how other organizations treat players. One big difference is the players have to live it. If the Steelers do what was suggested, I believe it would set a bad precedent for the organization.

How can we know he could sign a deal that would net him the value of his RFA tender and two franchise tags? We don't know what the Steelers offered. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Wallace could get a contract in which he is seeking as a free agent. The sticking point in contract negotiations will probably the length of the contact and signing bonus/guaranteed money.

I am looking at this situation as if I were Wallace. Playing for the tender or franchise tags wouldn't be in my best interest. Signing a long term deal with a lot of guaranteed money would be in my best interest. I would hold out until I received credit for the entire season to become a FA, ala Vincent Jackson. People wouldn't agree but I would be my boundaries to do so.

You would be within your rights to holdout like Vincent Jackson and I as management of the Steelers would be within my rights to use every tool given me to do what is best for the team not just one player.

I wouldn't care less about public relations with what players across the league may think because all they have to do is to look at how well the organization has taken care of their players through the years.

Wallace is a problem with regards to a long term contract because he has one elite skill as a WR and that is speed. One injury or even the normal effects of age and wear and tear in the NFL could take that away and the organization would be stuck with a bad contract. If Wallace had shown other elite WR skills like being able to fight through coverage to get balls or being able to go high then it is easier to give him a big contract but he doesn't have that.

So for the good of the total team and maintain a reasonable cap which we have issues with already I have no issue tagging Wallace this year and next. Like I said before Wallace can make himself enough money to be comfortable for the rest of his life. he just needs to accept a reasonable offer and not compare his checkbook to another WRs.

By the way, let's agree not to use the word "fair" when talking about paying guys to play a game. The whole notion of their salaries being "fair" in the larger context of society is laughable.

feltdizz
06-27-2012, 08:19 AM
By the way, let's agree not to use the word "fair" when talking about paying guys to play a game. The whole notion of their salaries being "fair" in the larger context of society is laughable.

when billions are being generated it's much more than a game.

NorthCoast
06-27-2012, 10:23 PM
which reminds me, who is that last player you think the Steelers overpaid for (based on productivity after signing)?

hawaiiansteel
06-28-2012, 12:43 AM
which reminds me, who is that last player you think the Steelers overpaid for (based on productivity after signing)?


Chris Kemoeatu immediately comes to mind...

ikestops85
06-28-2012, 11:54 AM
Chris Kemoeatu immediately comes to mind...

Willie Colon directly follows

grotonsteel
06-28-2012, 12:01 PM
which reminds me, who is that last player you think the Steelers overpaid for (based on productivity after signing)?

How about Lamar Woodley? I know he was injured but he is richest Steeler player and whenever he played he struggled.

Jooser
06-28-2012, 12:12 PM
How about Lamar Woodley? I know he was injured but he is richest Steeler player and whenever he played he struggled.

NOPE. sorry.

Oviedo
06-28-2012, 12:16 PM
How about Lamar Woodley? I know he was injured but he is richest Steeler player and whenever he played he struggled.

I'm sure that is really Timmons' fault because he is a "bust" and "soft agaunst the run."

grotonsteel
06-28-2012, 12:35 PM
I'm sure that is really Timmons' fault because he is a "bust" and "soft agaunst the run."

:D

I think Timmons is judged by different standards because he was taken at 1.15. I think Timmons should have been in Pro-Bowl in 2010 and in 2011 he was moved all over the place because of injuries to other LB corp. Timmons played well last season. He was not a pro-bowl player last season but can't blame him. He was the best LB Steelers had. I think spence and Timmons could become explosive dynamic LB pair on 3rd down this year.

Oviedo
06-28-2012, 12:45 PM
:D

I think Timmons is judged by different standards because he was taken at 1.15. I think Timmons should have been in Pro-Bowl in 2010 and in 2011 he was moved all over the place because of injuries to other LB corp. Timmons played well last season. He was not a pro-bowl player last season but can't blame him. He was the best LB Steelers had. I think spence and Timmons could become explosive dynamic LB pair on 3rd down this year.

I agree. Timmons will never get the credit he deserves.

Oviedo
06-29-2012, 10:56 AM
I wonder if Walace has noticed what Sidney Crosby just did. Essentially took no pay raise in order to help the team and keep them healthy under the salary cap so that the flexibility to make the team better is there. A very different attitude than looking at the top salary and wanting to be at that number just because.

If Wallace drags this out he will have a serious public relations issues with the fans in Pittsburgh especially when we all know what a class act gesture Crosby just did.

feltdizz
06-29-2012, 11:53 AM
I wonder if Walace has noticed what Sidney Crosby just did. Essentially took no pay raise in order to help the team and keep them healthy under the salary cap so that the flexibility to make the team better is there. A very different attitude than looking at the top salary and wanting to be at that number just because.

If Wallace drags this out he will have a serious public relations issues with the fans in Pittsburgh especially when we all know what a class act gesture Crosby just did.

You can't compare a guy like Crosby who is the face of the franchise and who already made a ton of money to Wallace's situation.

when you consider how much time he missed and the possibility of another concussion forcing him out for an extended period of time one has to wonder if the Pens made the right decision.

Wallace wants the team to show him the money in case he gets injured like Crosby...

apples to oranges on this one IMO.

Oviedo
06-29-2012, 01:22 PM
You can't compare a guy like Crosby who is the face of the franchise and who already made a ton of money to Wallace's situation.

when you consider how much time he missed and the possibility of another concussion forcing him out for an extended period of time one has to wonder if the Pens made the right decision.

Wallace wants the team to show him the money in case he gets injured like Crosby...

apples to oranges on this one IMO.

We can disagree but I think it speaks to a players perspective. Crosby made the money he made because he really was the best in the world. Wallace only wants to thinks he is the best in world. Crosby was clearly already making less than Ovechkin and was willing not to force the Penguins to take him to that level or above. Wallace looks at Fitzgerald and says I need to be there because its the biggest number.

If Wallace wants to be the face of the Steelers make the sacrifices that earns you that status.

steelz09
06-29-2012, 02:05 PM
After all these discussions, I just hope Wallace didn't ask for Fitzgerald money and it turns out to be a rumor.


I can understand Wallace wanting a long term deal. I can understand him wanting to start negotiations around the 50 mil range. But how can he think he's worth 125 mil? Personally, I don't think any WR is worth that money but I KNOW Wallace isn't worth that money. Doesn't Wallace find it embarrasing that he's asking for money that just about the entire population knows he isn't worth? It's laughable and he's making a fool of himself (if it's not a rumor).
Like I said, it's one thing to start negotiations on the high end. But 125 million? Come on Wallace, get real.

Crash
06-29-2012, 02:47 PM
Crosby had one concussion as a Penguin. The second issue was the un-diagnosed nerve issue in his neck. Which sometimes can mirror concussion symptoms.

Much of his contract is covered by insurance. Not fully, but enough that if he has to quit early it won't affect this teams budget all that much.

feltdizz
06-29-2012, 03:06 PM
Crosby had one concussion as a Penguin. The second issue was the un-diagnosed nerve issue in his neck. Which sometimes can mirror concussion symptoms.

Much of his contract is covered by insurance. Not fully, but enough that if he has to quit early it won't affect this teams budget all that much.

I'm definitely not questioning his toughness or extent of his injury..

What's up with the doctors who missed that neck injury?

Crash
06-29-2012, 03:08 PM
I'm definitely not questioning his toughness or extent of his injury..

What's up with the doctors who missed that neck injury?

Beats me. Especially since he even went to the Steelers concussion doctors who are considered trail blazers in the dealing of them, and even they missed it.

Call it a fluke I guess.

feltdizz
06-29-2012, 03:11 PM
We can disagree but I think it speaks to a players perspective. Crosby made the money he made because he really was the best in the world. Wallace only wants to thinks he is the best in world. Crosby was clearly already making less than Ovechkin and was willing not to force the Penguins to take him to that level or above. Wallace looks at Fitzgerald and says I need to be there because its the biggest number.

If Wallace wants to be the face of the Steelers make the sacrifices that earns you that status.

Nothing wrong with thinking you are the best at your position... and while Wallace may say he wants Fitz type money I seriously doubt he believes he is worth $125 mill... but there is nothing wrong with pointing out his production to our FO and comparing it to the top WR's. It's business and Wallace isn't doing anything wrong.

I wouldn't play for 2.47 mill or whatever the tender is... it's not worth the risk.

steelz09
06-29-2012, 04:34 PM
Nothing wrong with thinking you are the best at your position... and while Wallace may say he wants Fitz type money I seriously doubt he believes he is worth $125 mill... but there is nothing wrong with pointing out his production to our FO and comparing it to the top WR's. It's business and Wallace isn't doing anything wrong.

I wouldn't play for 2.47 mill or whatever the tender is... it's not worth the risk.

If Wallace did a true realistic comparison, he'd realize his negotiations should start at 50 mil.

What if a pizza hut delivery driver walked into his managers office and said: "I want to make 225K / year" or I'm not working. The manager says, "I'll give you $10/hr". The driver agrees on the $10.

Is there anything wrong w/ the pizza hut delivery driver asking for 225/year? I guess not but obviously he/she isn't worth that money. Same with Wallace. In both cases, they just look like a damn fool when the settlement is much less than the asking salary.

feltdizz
06-29-2012, 10:42 PM
I'm pretty sure Wallace wants to be in the 50 Mill range so starting at 50 makes no sense...

The pizza delivery analogy doesn't make any sense either... if the best delivery guy makes 225 why start at 40 or 25 if you have great delivery times the last 2 or 3 years?

BURGH86STEEL
06-30-2012, 12:45 AM
If Wallace did a true realistic comparison, he'd realize his negotiations should start at 50 mil.

What if a pizza hut delivery driver walked into his managers office and said: "I want to make 225K / year" or I'm not working. The manager says, "I'll give you $10/hr". The driver agrees on the $10.

Is there anything wrong w/ the pizza hut delivery driver asking for 225/year? I guess not but obviously he/she isn't worth that money. Same with Wallace. In both cases, they just look like a damn fool when the settlement is much less than the asking salary.

Based on what criteria should Wallace ask for 50 million? Why should Wallace start at 50 million when his stats rank among the best WR's in the league? Only 2 WR's had better stats after their first 3 seasons in the league. Wallace can get better as a WR.

The overall value is probably not going to be the biggest issue in negotiations. The guaranteed money is really what's important. I am sure Wallace will sign in a heart beat if the Steelers guarantee 50 million dollars. I don't think the Steelers will guarantee Wallace 50 million.

steelz09
06-30-2012, 11:06 AM
I'm pretty sure Wallace wants to be in the 50 Mill range so starting at 50 makes no sense...

The pizza delivery analogy doesn't make any sense either... if the best delivery guy makes 225 why start at 40 or 25 if you have great delivery times the last 2 or 3 years?

missed my point completely.

steelz09
06-30-2012, 11:09 AM
Based on what criteria should Wallace ask for 50 million? Why should Wallace start at 50 million when his stats rank among the best WR's in the league? Only 2 WR's had better stats after their first 3 seasons in the league. Wallace can get better as a WR.

The overall value is probably not going to be the biggest issue in negotiations. The guaranteed money is really what's important. I am sure Wallace will sign in a heart beat if the Steelers guarantee 50 million dollars. I don't think the Steelers will guarantee Wallace 50 million.

Because anyone that watches the NFL can see Wallace is one dimensional. He's not even close to a top 5 WR. He doesn't showcase the skill set and never will. Go ahead, dig up stats... I could care less. Let's not forget some of these other WRs don't have great QB throwing to them.

RuthlessBurgher
06-30-2012, 02:13 PM
I wonder if Walace has noticed what Sidney Crosby just did. Essentially took no pay raise in order to help the team and keep them healthy under the salary cap so that the flexibility to make the team better is there. A very different attitude than looking at the top salary and wanting to be at that number just because.

If Wallace drags this out he will have a serious public relations issues with the fans in Pittsburgh especially when we all know what a class act gesture Crosby just did.

Crosby's last contract was for 5 years, $43.5 million. He already won the Powerball with his last contract, and with this new 12 year, $104.4 million deal, he's now won the Mega-Millions as well. When you have a significant nest egg already in the bank, it is understandable that he could accept a deal below Alexander Ovechkin's (even though he is significantly better than Ovie) in order to allow Shero to be able to do other things that could potentially benefit him on the ice.

Wallace's last contract was for 3 years, $1.74 million. When you consider Uncle Sam's cut, his agent's cut, etc., Mike Wallace isn't even a millionaire right now. Since he's been underpaid on a 3rd round pick rookie deal (but put up big money performance on the field for the last three seasons), can you really blame the kid for finally wanting to get paid? Do you realize that Mike Wallace's only NFL contract is less than the deal that fellow Steeler WR Derrick Williams got (since Detroit drafted Williams 2 spots ahead of Wallace in the 2009 draft)?


Crosby had one concussion as a Penguin. The second issue was the un-diagnosed nerve issue in his neck. Which sometimes can mirror concussion symptoms.

Much of his contract is covered by insurance. Not fully, but enough that if he has to quit early it won't affect this teams budget all that much.

That may not be the case now.


For Pens, no assurances with Crosby deal

The Penguins can't insure themselves against an early Sidney Crosby retirement due to concussion, NHL sources told the Tribune-Review.

By Rob Rossi

Published: Friday, June 29, 2012, 10:44 p.m.
Updated 1 hour ago

The Penguins cannot insure themselves against a concussion-related early retirement by franchise center Sidney Crosby, NHL sources told the Tribune-Review on Friday.

Crosby, 24, has missed all but 63 games the past two seasons because of concussion symptoms. He and the Penguins agreed to a 12-year contract worth $104.4 million — all of it guaranteed. The team will present the contract to the league Sunday for approval.

Insurance companies offer teams protection against career-ending injuries, but Crosby’s concussion history is considered a pre-existing condition. If Crosby cannot finish his contract because of a concussion-related injury, he will still be paid in full, but the Penguins would not receive assistance from an insurance policy on the deal, sources said.

However, this will not cripple the franchise like the ailing health of current majority co-owner Mario Lemieux did in the 1990s, a sports business expert said.

“It’s so different now for the Penguins. They’ve got a sold-out new arena, a better TV deal, big sponsorship and deeper-pocketed ownership,” said Lynn Lashbrook, president of Portland, Ore.-based Sports Management World Wide. “The Penguins can withstand this even if Crosby can’t play out the majority of this contract.”

Lashbrook said the Crosby contract could contain wording for him to serve as a club ambassador, similar to what George Brett does for the Kansas City Royals. Crosby, who annually commands millions of dollars in endorsements, will generate interest among fans and sponsors long after his playing days, Lashbrook said.

The Penguins, playing in a traditionally smaller market, never have been in a position to take on a contract like the Crosby deal. But nowadays their season-ticket waiting list sits at 8,000, and their local TV ratings were tops among NHL and NBA teams last season. Their ownership group includes Ron Burkle, a California billionaire, and Lemieux as majority stakeholders.

The Lemieux-Burkle group purchased the team out of bankruptcy in 1999 when Lemieux was still owed most of a six-year, $42 million contract.

The Penguins benefit better financially from all non-hockey events at Consol Energy Center than they did at Civic Arena, where until the final two seasons they did not operate the facility. The majority of revenue for events at Consol Energy Center goes to the Penguins, who also are developing the old Civic Arena site.

Crosby’s deal will be front-loaded to pay him more money in the early years, sources said.

Crosby’s average annual salary will remain $8.7 million. He could have signed for the individual player maximum, which is 20 percent of the NHL salary cap, set tentatively for next season at $70.2 million. The maximum salary available to a free agent this summer is $14.04 million.

The Penguins have spent to the salary cap each of the past five seasons.

NHL rules require that clubs insure the top six contracts in terms of average annual value. A contract cannot be insured for more than seven years. However, a contract can always be insured for seven years, so the remainder of a long-term contract such as the one Crosby signed will always be insured.

The following Penguins contracts currently are mandated to be insured: Crosby and center Evgeni Malkin ($8.7 million each); goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury, defenseman Paul Martin and right wing James Neal ($5 million apiece); and defenseman Brooks Orpik ($3.75 million).

The salary-cap impact of a potential Crosby early retirement due to concussion cannot be determined because terms of the next collective bargaining agreement between the NHL and its Players Association have not been set. Currently, a team can place a player on the long-term injury list to get long-term cap relief. The current CBA expires in September.

Crosby was not available for comment. He has not addressed the contract since the team confirmed it Thursday. He is currently in northern California to attend Orpik’s wedding.

Penguins general manager Ray Shero has said he would not discuss the insurance of Crosby’s contract, calling it “a team issue.”

Shero also said he was not concerned about Crosby’s concussion history.

Crosby has spent the past several weeks training in Los Angeles, agent Pat Brisson said.

“This is an important summer for (Crosby),” Shero said. “We feel confident with where he is. We believe his best days are going to be ahead.”

http://triblive.com/sports/2126349-85/crosby-contract-penguins-concussion-million-cannot-center-deal-early-insured

hawaiiansteel
06-30-2012, 08:00 PM
Worth Of Mike Wallace: A Comparison To The Elite NFL Receivers

Friday, June 29th, 2012 by Jeremy Hritz

It’s the end of June and Mike Wallace still has yet to sign a contract with the Steelers. Although teammate Ike Taylor has now said on two occasions that Wallace will be in camp, there have not been any formal updates on the progress of a new contract.

Back on March 21st, 49ers beat writer Matt Barrows reported that a 49er’s team source said they inquired about Wallace but were turned off because "he reportedly wanted" a contract that exceeded the one of Larry Fitzgerald, which is worth $128.5 million over eight years. Whether or not that is true we just don't know. The Steelers do not have a reputation for paying big money for wide receivers, and in fact, they have a history of letting them walk (see Yancey Thigpen, Antwaan Randle El, Nate Washington and Plaxico Burress). If Barrows’ report is accurate, it could be the primary reason for the delay.

The question has since been debated of whether or not Wallace is worth such a contract, but an interesting question is does Antonio Brown make Wallace less valuable to the Steelers?

To draw a valid conclusion here, we need to look at other top receivers in contract years and the second and third receivers on those teams. For the purpose of this article, we will take a brief look at Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, and Calvin Johnson.

Firstly, Wallace’s production is very comparable to Fitzgerald’s in his contract year (Fitzgerald: 93/1137/6-Wallace: 72/1193/7. However, when looking at the number two and three receivers for Arizona from Fitzgerald’s contract year, it is apparent those players, Breaston and Doucet, were not as effective as Brown and Ward. So even with Fitzgerald drawing primary coverage, Breaston and Doucet combined could not equal Brown’s performance (it has to be noted that they had Derek Anderson and John Skelton throwing the ball). This makes a case for Brown’s effectiveness.

When looking at Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson in their contract years, their stat lines eclipse that of Wallace. Andre Johnson outgained Wallace by 376 yards and three touchdowns, while Calvin Johnson outgained him by 488 yards and ten touchdowns. The second and third receivers for Houston did not achieve what Brown and Ward did, yet Burleson and Young had more receptions and seven more touchdowns for the Lions.

Is Wallace asking for too much money? When considering the performance of Brown, the answer to that question may be yes. While the counter argument will be made that Wallace absorbed coverage that freed up Brown, what to make of his production after he established himself as a legitimate receiver?

Another point to made is that you Wallace’s drop in production cannot completely be attributed to coverage schemes. If bolstered coverage always accounts for a decrease in production, then what to make of Andre Johnson, whom with less-than-stellar number two and three receivers, was still able to rack up nearly 1600 yards and nine touchdowns (I’ll acknowledge Owen Daniels here who had 40 receptions for 509 yards and five touchdowns, but tight ends are not our focus).

So what does it all mean in the end? The Steelers probably feel confident about the abilities of Brown to be the primary receiver in the event that Wallace doesn’t sign long-term, considering the depth that they have at the position. Consequently, they are not willing to part with exorbitant money to pay him in the range of any of the receivers mentioned above. While Wallace has proven his value by stretching the field, he has not proven himself to be a complete receiver like Fitzgerald or either of the Johnsons.

The amount of money that Wallace allegedly wants would make him the highest paid Steeler, but in reality, only the most important and critical players should be paid as such. While Wallace is a tremendous talent that has made several huge plays in his first three years, he is not as vital to the team as is Ben Roethlisberger, Troy Polamalu, or LaMarr Woodley. When either of these players misses a game, it impacts the win/loss column, and Wallace just isn’t in that category yet.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/jason_worilds_should_be_ready_by_training_camp_exp ects_to_stay_put_outside/11125595

Oviedo
07-01-2012, 08:50 AM
Crosby's last contract was for 5 years, $43.5 million. He already won the Powerball with his last contract, and with this new 12 year, $104.4 million deal, he's now won the Mega-Millions as well. When you have a significant nest egg already in the bank, it is understandable that he could accept a deal below Alexander Ovechkin's (even though he is significantly better than Ovie) in order to allow Shero to be able to do other things that could potentially benefit him on the ice.

Wallace's last contract was for 3 years, $1.74 million. When you consider Uncle Sam's cut, his agent's cut, etc., Mike Wallace isn't even a millionaire right now. Since he's been underpaid on a 3rd round pick rookie deal (but put up big money performance on the field for the last three seasons), can you really blame the kid for finally wanting to get paid? Do you realize that Mike Wallace's only NFL contract is less than the deal that fellow Steeler WR Derrick Williams got (since Detroit drafted Williams 2 spots ahead of Wallace in the 2009 draft)?



That may not be the case now.



http://triblive.com/sports/2126349-85/crosby-contract-penguins-concussion-million-cannot-center-deal-early-insured

Crosby "won the Powerball" as you describe because he was the best player in the world. Wallace isn't. Isn't close. The entire NFL saw that Wallace was not the whole package which is why he lasted to the end of Round 3. His contract was reflective of that.

No one has ever said that Wallace shouldn't earn more than he had but the question is should he be paid what the Top 3-5 salaries are just because other people are? If you look at who gets that top money and especially the teams that have paid them its not like those teams have a history of making smart decisions or success, i.e. Arizona, Tampa, KC.

You also have to factor in that those WRs at the top of salary scale are probably the top players on those teams, Wallace isn't for the Steelers. Like I have always said I have no issue with Wallace getting a contract in the $7-8m range but beyond that is more than he is worth and would consume as part of the cap. Just my opinion but I bet the Steelers see it in that range too.

steelz09
07-02-2012, 09:27 AM
Worth Of Mike Wallace: A Comparison To The Elite NFL Receivers

Friday, June 29th, 2012 by Jeremy Hritz

It’s the end of June and Mike Wallace still has yet to sign a contract with the Steelers. Although teammate Ike Taylor has now said on two occasions that Wallace will be in camp, there have not been any formal updates on the progress of a new contract.

Back on March 21st, 49ers beat writer Matt Barrows reported that a 49er’s team source said they inquired about Wallace but were turned off because "he reportedly wanted" a contract that exceeded the one of Larry Fitzgerald, which is worth $128.5 million over eight years. Whether or not that is true we just don't know. The Steelers do not have a reputation for paying big money for wide receivers, and in fact, they have a history of letting them walk (see Yancey Thigpen, Antwaan Randle El, Nate Washington and Plaxico Burress). If Barrows’ report is accurate, it could be the primary reason for the delay.

The question has since been debated of whether or not Wallace is worth such a contract, but an interesting question is does Antonio Brown make Wallace less valuable to the Steelers?

To draw a valid conclusion here, we need to look at other top receivers in contract years and the second and third receivers on those teams. For the purpose of this article, we will take a brief look at Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, and Calvin Johnson.

Firstly, Wallace’s production is very comparable to Fitzgerald’s in his contract year (Fitzgerald: 93/1137/6-Wallace: 72/1193/7. However, when looking at the number two and three receivers for Arizona from Fitzgerald’s contract year, it is apparent those players, Breaston and Doucet, were not as effective as Brown and Ward. So even with Fitzgerald drawing primary coverage, Breaston and Doucet combined could not equal Brown’s performance (it has to be noted that they had Derek Anderson and John Skelton throwing the ball). This makes a case for Brown’s effectiveness.

When looking at Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson in their contract years, their stat lines eclipse that of Wallace. Andre Johnson outgained Wallace by 376 yards and three touchdowns, while Calvin Johnson outgained him by 488 yards and ten touchdowns. The second and third receivers for Houston did not achieve what Brown and Ward did, yet Burleson and Young had more receptions and seven more touchdowns for the Lions.

Is Wallace asking for too much money? When considering the performance of Brown, the answer to that question may be yes. While the counter argument will be made that Wallace absorbed coverage that freed up Brown, what to make of his production after he established himself as a legitimate receiver?

Another point to made is that you Wallace’s drop in production cannot completely be attributed to coverage schemes. If bolstered coverage always accounts for a decrease in production, then what to make of Andre Johnson, whom with less-than-stellar number two and three receivers, was still able to rack up nearly 1600 yards and nine touchdowns (I’ll acknowledge Owen Daniels here who had 40 receptions for 509 yards and five touchdowns, but tight ends are not our focus).

So what does it all mean in the end? The Steelers probably feel confident about the abilities of Brown to be the primary receiver in the event that Wallace doesn’t sign long-term, considering the depth that they have at the position. Consequently, they are not willing to part with exorbitant money to pay him in the range of any of the receivers mentioned above. While Wallace has proven his value by stretching the field, he has not proven himself to be a complete receiver like Fitzgerald or either of the Johnsons.

The amount of money that Wallace allegedly wants would make him the highest paid Steeler, but in reality, only the most important and critical players should be paid as such. While Wallace is a tremendous talent that has made several huge plays in his first three years, he is not as vital to the team as is Ben Roethlisberger, Troy Polamalu, or LaMarr Woodley. When either of these players misses a game, it impacts the win/loss column, and Wallace just isn’t in that category yet.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/jason_worilds_should_be_ready_by_training_camp_exp ects_to_stay_put_outside/11125595

Wallace shouldn't even be listed in the same sentence (except this one) as Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson or Andre Johnson. They are better overall receivers and it's not even close. They are also much more difficult to defend. Another thing people fail to mention in all the "stats talk" is the QB. Look at Fitzgerald's current QB situation. Andre Johnson has been playing hurt and Shaub is no "Big Ben". Neither is Stafford. Stafford has almost missed a considerable amount of games.

RuthlessBurgher
07-02-2012, 10:20 AM
Wallace shouldn't even be listed in the same sentence (except this one) as Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson or Andre Johnson. They are better overall receivers and it's not even close. They are also much more difficult to defend. Another thing people fail to mention in all the "stats talk" is the QB. Look at Fitzgerald's current QB situation. Andre Johnson has been playing hurt and Shaub is no "Big Ben". Neither is Stafford. Stafford has almost missed a considerable amount of games.

Schaub's started all 16 games twice. In those seasons, he threw for 4770 yards with 29 TD's and 15 INT's in 2009 and 4370 yards with 24 TD's and 12 INT's in 2010.

Stafford's started all 16 games once. In that season, he threw for 5038 yards with 41 TD's and 16 INT's in 2011.

Ben's best seasons were (yardage-wise) 4328 yards with 26 TD's and 12 INT's in 2009 and (efficiency-wise) 3154 yards with 32 TD's and 11 INT's in 2007.

I'm not saying that Schaub and Stafford are better than Ben, but those stats show that neither of them are scrubs by any means.

steelz09
07-02-2012, 12:21 PM
Schaub's started all 16 games twice. In those seasons, he threw for 4770 yards with 29 TD's and 15 INT's in 2009 and 4370 yards with 24 TD's and 12 INT's in 2010.

Stafford's started all 16 games once. In that season, he threw for 5038 yards with 41 TD's and 16 INT's in 2011.

Ben's best seasons were (yardage-wise) 4328 yards with 26 TD's and 12 INT's in 2009 and (efficiency-wise) 3154 yards with 32 TD's and 11 INT's in 2007.

I'm not saying that Schaub and Stafford are better than Ben, but those stats show that neither of them are scrubs by any means.

I guess they both belong ahead of Ben on the top 10 QBs in the league list so we can hear more whining. Seriously though, do you think a team would have given up a 1st rounder in this years draft if Fitzgerald, C. Johnson or Andrae Johnson could be had? I think so. Wallace? Not so much.

steelz09
07-02-2012, 12:23 PM
Schaub's started all 16 games twice. In those seasons, he threw for 4770 yards with 29 TD's and 15 INT's in 2009 and 4370 yards with 24 TD's and 12 INT's in 2010.

Stafford's started all 16 games once. In that season, he threw for 5038 yards with 41 TD's and 16 INT's in 2011.

Ben's best seasons were (yardage-wise) 4328 yards with 26 TD's and 12 INT's in 2009 and (efficiency-wise) 3154 yards with 32 TD's and 11 INT's in 2007.

I'm not saying that Schaub and Stafford are better than Ben, but those stats show that neither of them are scrubs by any means.


Wait, I thought running attacks couldn't be 'had' in this "passing league". See Houston.... See New Orleans. Last time I checked, they had pretty good running attacks.

hawaiiansteel
07-04-2012, 03:36 AM
Can Mike Wallace Be Happy Playing In Pittsburgh?

July 2, 2012
By LG

http://www.usasports360.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Mike-Wallace-e1341223898653.jpg

Lets face it Mike Wallace wanted the Pittsburgh Steelers to show him the money this off-season. The Steelers haven’t done that. The question is Can Wallace be happy playing for a team that doesn’t think he is worth the kind of money he wanted?

Wallace is a talented receiver, the Steelers have always took a hard stand when it comes to contract negotiations. Pittsburgh has had a rich history in picking guys who turn into NFL star receivers, Wallace is one of those guys.

Training camps start this month and Wallace is still a Steeler. Will He come into camp and play his heart out for a team that doesn’t want to pay him?

There is no question about the fact Wallace can help the Pittsburgh Steelers win. Why the Steelers won’t pay him the money he thinks he is worth is anyone’s guess.

The Steelers made a lot of changes in the off-season to their offense. The Steelers will come into this training camp with lots of new things in place. If Mike Wallace is truly UN-happy in Pittsburgh, you have to wonder what his resolve will be.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/can_mike_wallace_be_happy_playing_in_pittsburgh/11133506

hawns
07-05-2012, 11:29 PM
It's a shame, Todd Haley's offense could help him blossom in some of the intermediate routes that he has not been as productive running, but if he holds out he will probably be utilized to still be a one-dimensional threat and not be able to command the Fitzgerald money that comes with being an all-around threat. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, even if that means only (only?) playing for $2.7 million

Oviedo
07-06-2012, 08:17 AM
It's a shame, Todd Haley's offense could help him blossom in some of the intermediate routes that he has not been as productive running, but if he holds out he will probably be utilized to still be a one-dimensional threat and not be able to command the Fitzgerald money that comes with being an all-around threat. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, even if that means only (only?) playing for $2.7 million

That's the point I made when this all started. Wallace is missing out on what he needs to do to really be worth more money. Working out on his own is OK for cardio but it won't help him with the technique improvements he needs to have to really be great. Add to that he is now behind everyone else in learning offense, not insurmountable but needless for the needless and unproductive holdout he went through. The Steelers aren't going to cave so he is wasting his time not being here.

IMO all Wallace did is open the door for Brown and Sanders to prove to the Steelers they don't need to spend a huge amount of money on Wallace.

hawaiiansteel
07-06-2012, 07:50 PM
Report: Steelers, Mike Wallace still not making any progress

JUL06 2012 WRITTEN BY PAUL JACKIEWICZ

http://img3.yardbarker.com/media/c/6/c6c8aff4c978b2f5b9ce8faad4edf31ba613a081/related/new-england-patriots.jpg?stamp=1341603499

According to Len Pasquarelli of The Sports Xchange, there’s been very little negotiating and no progress made between the Pittsburgh Steelers and wide receiver Mike Wallace.

I get the feeling that Wallace may decide to hold out for most, if not all of training camp. But sooner or later he’ll show up and play this season. I don’t see him holding out for the entire year. At the end of the day, he needs to make money just like everyone else.

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/report_steelers_mike_wallace_still_not_making_any_ progress/11168699

Oviedo
07-06-2012, 08:46 PM
Report: Steelers, Mike Wallace still not making any progress

JUL06 2012 WRITTEN BY PAUL JACKIEWICZ

http://img3.yardbarker.com/media/c/6/c6c8aff4c978b2f5b9ce8faad4edf31ba613a081/related/new-england-patriots.jpg?stamp=1341603499

According to Len Pasquarelli of The Sports Xchange, there’s been very little negotiating and no progress made between the Pittsburgh Steelers and wide receiver Mike Wallace.

I get the feeling that Wallace may decide to hold out for most, if not all of training camp. But sooner or later he’ll show up and play this season. I don’t see him holding out for the entire year. At the end of the day, he needs to make money just like everyone else.

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/report_steelers_mike_wallace_still_not_making_any_ progress/11168699

Another piece of proof on how Wallace is wasting his time. Accomplishing nothing. The Steelers control him and until he bends to their will why should they negotiate with him.

RuthlessBurgher
07-07-2012, 11:07 AM
No progress between Steelers, Wallace
Posted by Mike Florio on July 7, 2012, 9:31 AM EDT

To no surprise, the Steelers and receiver Mike Wallace remain at impasse.

Len Pasquarelli of the Sports Xchange reports that “there has been no progress, and, in fact, very little negotiation” between the team and the player, who is a restricted free agent.

There’s no reason for any progress to be made, because there’s no specific date before the launch of camp on which the two sides would move toward their bottom-line positions. Unlike franchise players, who have a July 16 deadline for signing multi-year deals with their current teams, the Steelers and Wallace can work out a long-term contract at any time before the Tuesday after Week 10 of the regular season. And if Wallace signs his one-year RFA tender before that in-season deadline, a multi-year deal can be done at any time thereafter.

Of course, not signing the one-year offer represents Wallace’s primary hammer for a long-term deal. But the Steelers have yet to show an inclination to give Wallace the kind of money he wants.

Wallace reportedly will sign the tender when he “has to.” The question remains when he believes he has to. Technically, he can hold out of training camp and the preseason and still get the full $2.77 million for 2012. But if he does that, he’ll be woefully unprepared to function in a new offense led by former Chiefs coach Todd Haley.

But once Wallace signs the one-year tender, his leverage for a multi-year contract disappears.

And while the Steelers didn’t use their own hammer on June 15, the day on which they could have cut his offer by more than $2 million, don’t look for the Steelers to blink. They know Wallace will want to have a big year as he approaches unrestricted free agency or the franchise tender. If they sit tight, he’ll likely eventually take the money early enough before the September 9 trip to Denver to ensure that he won’t be lost in Antonio Brown’s dust.

Then again, some would say that’s already happened.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/07/no-progress-between-steelers-wallace/

flippy
07-07-2012, 01:07 PM
We won a SuperBowl with Ward, ARE, and Cedrick as our top 3 WRs.

Brown, Cotchery, and Sanders are better than that group. I think it would actually be good if Wallace didn't show up for 10 games to get Sanders some more playing time. Then he can come back fresh when everyone else is worn down and help us win a SuperBowl.

RuthlessBurgher
07-07-2012, 02:50 PM
We won a SuperBowl with Ward, ARE, and Cedrick as our top 3 WRs.

Brown, Cotchery, and Sanders are better than that group.

I don't think we can really say that yet.

Comparing Ward and Brown is no contest at this point. Brown has had one quality season with 69 catches for 1108 yards a 2 TD's. Hines had 9 seasons in a row with 69 or more catches from 2001 to 2009. Hines surpassed 1000 receiving yards 6 times (and had a couple of other 975 yard seasons as well). And Hines equalled or surpassed Brown's career TD catch total in every season except for his rookie year, when he was more of a special teamer than a receiver.

Cotchery vs. Randle El is interesting, because their career numbers are so close. Jerricho has 374 catches for 4751 yards and 20 TD's in 8 NFL seasons, while Antwaan has 370 catches for 4467 yards and 15 TD's in 9 NFL seasons (plus rushing and passing production as well).

Sanders is thought to be oozing with potential, while Wilson is almost universally looked down upon by Steeler fans, but the fact is that their average NFL season is almost exact (25 catches for 332 yards for Manny, 25 catches for 338 yards for Ced...the only difference is that Manny averages 2 TD's per season in his short career, while Ced averaged just over 1 TD per season).

hawaiiansteel
07-07-2012, 03:35 PM
No progress between Steelers, Wallace

Posted by Mike Florio on July 7, 2012

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/x61012-e1341667860903.jpg?w=243

To no surprise, the Steelers and receiver Mike Wallace remain at impasse.

Len Pasquarelli of the Sports Xchange reports that “there has been no progress, and, in fact, very little negotiation” between the team and the player, who is a restricted free agent.

There’s no reason for any progress to be made, because there’s no specific date before the launch of camp on which the two sides would move toward their bottom-line positions. Unlike franchise players, who have a July 16 deadline for signing multi-year deals with their current teams, the Steelers and Wallace can work out a long-term contract at any time before the Tuesday after Week 10 of the regular season. And if Wallace signs his one-year RFA tender before that in-season deadline, a multi-year deal can be done at any time thereafter.

Of course, not signing the one-year offer represents Wallace’s primary hammer for a long-term deal. But the Steelers have yet to show an inclination to give Wallace the kind of money he wants.

Wallace reportedly will sign the tender when he “has to.” The question remains when he believes he has to. Technically, he can hold out of training camp and the preseason and still get the full $2.77 million for 2012. But if he does that, he’ll be woefully unprepared to function in a new offense led by former Chiefs coach Todd Haley.

But once Wallace signs the one-year tender, his leverage for a multi-year contract disappears.

And while the Steelers didn’t use their own hammer on June 15, the day on which they could have cut his offer by more than $2 million, don’t look for the Steelers to blink. They know Wallace will want to have a big year as he approaches unrestricted free agency or the franchise tender. If they sit tight, he’ll likely eventually take the money early enough before the September 9 trip to Denver to ensure that he won’t be lost in Antonio Brown’s dust.

Then again, some would say that’s already happened.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/07/no-progress-between-steelers-wallace/

flippy
07-07-2012, 06:15 PM
I don't think we can really say that yet.

Comparing Ward and Brown is no contest at this point. Brown has had one quality season with 69 catches for 1108 yards a 2 TD's. Hines had 9 seasons in a row with 69 or more catches from 2001 to 2009. Hines surpassed 1000 receiving yards 6 times (and had a couple of other 975 yard seasons as well). And Hines equalled or surpassed Brown's career TD catch total in every season except for his rookie year, when he was more of a special teamer than a receiver.

Cotchery vs. Randle El is interesting, because their career numbers are so close. Jerricho has 374 catches for 4751 yards and 20 TD's in 8 NFL seasons, while Antwaan has 370 catches for 4467 yards and 15 TD's in 9 NFL seasons (plus rushing and passing production as well).

Sanders is thought to be oozing with potential, while Wilson is almost universally looked down upon by Steeler fans, but the fact is that their average NFL season is almost exact (25 catches for 332 yards for Manny, 25 catches for 338 yards for Ced...the only difference is that Manny averages 2 TD's per season in his short career, while Ced averaged just over 1 TD per season).

Fair enough and interesting stats. I was thinking collectively moreso than player vs player. In the collective sense, given that the young Steelers are still on the upswing, I'd give the current batch the edge.

Re: Ward vs Brown - Of course Brown is only 2 years and Hines is HOF bound (even though AB's jersey's already in Canton). Hines clearly has an edge in his route running, blocking, red zone production, and playoff performance. Brown's more dynamic with speed, elusiveness, YAC, YPC, and hands. And he's clearly really early in his career with a lot of upside. Not ready to anoint him as better than Hines, but it's possible he could be on that path if he stays healthy, productive, and keeps getting better.

Re: ARE vs Cotch - As much as I love ARE for his TD pass in XL, Cotchery is the better WR. Size wise and skill wise, Cotchery is built more like Ward and can move the chains like Ward on 3rd downs. He's a polished and reliable route runner. And Ward in his prime is 2x better, so I'd really think it would be fairer to compare Cotchery vs Ward's skillsets. And ARE and Brown are about the same size and I'd say Brown is already 3x better than ARE.

Re: Wilson vs Sanders - I don't think it'll be close. Sanders in his first 2 injury plagued years was as good as Ced was at the peak of his career. The only edge I'd ever give to Ced is his ability to complain about pass interference every time he didn't catch the ball. :smile: But of course, it's all oozing with potential for now.

As a unit, I remember back in the XL season, Ben had to hold the ball forever. Ward, ARE, and Ced couldn't get any separation whatsoever. Now we've hopefully got an improving line and WRs that are much more explosive and quick collectively. We're not going to have Ben waiting a minute for Ced to juke himself out of his own jock strap with his electrifying "start/stop" move.

It'll all be a moot point when Wallace comes back. Wallace, Brown, Cotchery/Sanders are way better than Hines, Ced, ARE.

Oviedo
07-07-2012, 06:18 PM
No progress between Steelers, Wallace

Posted by Mike Florio on July 7, 2012

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/x61012-e1341667860903.jpg?w=243

To no surprise, the Steelers and receiver Mike Wallace remain at impasse.

Len Pasquarelli of the Sports Xchange reports that “there has been no progress, and, in fact, very little negotiation” between the team and the player, who is a restricted free agent.

There’s no reason for any progress to be made, because there’s no specific date before the launch of camp on which the two sides would move toward their bottom-line positions. Unlike franchise players, who have a July 16 deadline for signing multi-year deals with their current teams, the Steelers and Wallace can work out a long-term contract at any time before the Tuesday after Week 10 of the regular season. And if Wallace signs his one-year RFA tender before that in-season deadline, a multi-year deal can be done at any time thereafter.

Of course, not signing the one-year offer represents Wallace’s primary hammer for a long-term deal. But the Steelers have yet to show an inclination to give Wallace the kind of money he wants.

Wallace reportedly will sign the tender when he “has to.” The question remains when he believes he has to. Technically, he can hold out of training camp and the preseason and still get the full $2.77 million for 2012. But if he does that, he’ll be woefully unprepared to function in a new offense led by former Chiefs coach Todd Haley.

But once Wallace signs the one-year tender, his leverage for a multi-year contract disappears.

And while the Steelers didn’t use their own hammer on June 15, the day on which they could have cut his offer by more than $2 million, don’t look for the Steelers to blink. They know Wallace will want to have a big year as he approaches unrestricted free agency or the franchise tender. If they sit tight, he’ll likely eventually take the money early enough before the September 9 trip to Denver to ensure that he won’t be lost in Antonio Brown’s dust.

Then again, some would say that’s already happened.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/07/no-progress-between-steelers-wallace/

Why do these morons keep thinking Wallace has "leverage?" Wallace has nothing. The Steelers control him for the next two years. He had better be worried about being lost in Brown's dust, because Brown is hungry and can easily prove he is a better all around receiver than Wallace.

If Wallace keeps acting the a$$ trade him just like the Pats did to Deon Branch who thought he was the sh!t too.

squidkid
07-08-2012, 03:00 PM
No progress between Steelers, Wallace

Posted by Mike Florio on July 7, 2012

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/x61012-e1341667860903.jpg?w=243

To no surprise, the Steelers and receiver Mike Wallace remain at impasse.

Len Pasquarelli of the Sports Xchange reports that “there has been no progress, and, in fact, very little negotiation” between the team and the player, who is a restricted free agent.

There’s no reason for any progress to be made, because there’s no specific date before the launch of camp on which the two sides would move toward their bottom-line positions. Unlike franchise players, who have a July 16 deadline for signing multi-year deals with their current teams, the Steelers and Wallace can work out a long-term contract at any time before the Tuesday after Week 10 of the regular season. And if Wallace signs his one-year RFA tender before that in-season deadline, a multi-year deal can be done at any time thereafter.

Of course, not signing the one-year offer represents Wallace’s primary hammer for a long-term deal. But the Steelers have yet to show an inclination to give Wallace the kind of money he wants.

Wallace reportedly will sign the tender when he “has to.” The question remains when he believes he has to. Technically, he can hold out of training camp and the preseason and still get the full $2.77 million for 2012. But if he does that, he’ll be woefully unprepared to function in a new offense led by former Chiefs coach Todd Haley.

But once Wallace signs the one-year tender, his leverage for a multi-year contract disappears.

And while the Steelers didn’t use their own hammer on June 15, the day on which they could have cut his offer by more than $2 million, don’t look for the Steelers to blink. They know Wallace will want to have a big year as he approaches unrestricted free agency or the franchise tender. If they sit tight, he’ll likely eventually take the money early enough before the September 9 trip to Denver to ensure that he won’t be lost in Antonio Brown’s dust.

Then again, some would say that’s already happened.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/07/no-progress-between-steelers-wallace/


they should have cut that tender money down when they had the chance.

Slapstick
07-08-2012, 03:36 PM
they should have cut that tender money down when they had the chance.

There has to be at least some financial incentive for him to report and have a good year...

If they had cut the salary, it may have made it worthwhile to sit out 10 games...

squidkid
07-08-2012, 07:36 PM
There has to be at least some financial incentive for him to report and have a good year...

If they had cut the salary, it may have made it worthwhile to sit out 10 games...

sure, but the incentive should have been the same now as it was the day of the deadline to reduce it. wallace can still sit out and screw the team and fans but make more money doing it now.

Crash
07-08-2012, 08:08 PM
Um, he doesn't get paid holding out.

He doesn't have to sign, that's his choice.

IMO he'll sign when camp ends. Before pre-season game #3.

squidkid
07-08-2012, 09:00 PM
Um, he doesn't get paid holding out.

He doesn't have to sign, that's his choice.

IMO he'll sign when camp ends. Before pre-season game #3.


he gets paid when he does show up. his pay (with appropriate fines for missing time) will be higher with the original tender value than if they reduced it on the 16th or whatever day they should have.

Crash
07-08-2012, 09:01 PM
They'll wipe the fines out. They always do.

Why should they pull his tender? He's done nothing wrong.

He's not signed.

RuthlessBurgher
07-09-2012, 10:09 AM
I agree with Crash.

(man, that sure is weird to type ;))

Oviedo
07-09-2012, 11:01 AM
I agree with Crash.

(man, that sure is weird to type ;))

Frightening that Crash can say something on point when he isn't consumed by pushing his personal agenda.
Perfect example of how less can be more!!!

squidkid
07-09-2012, 03:07 PM
They'll wipe the fines out. They always do.

Why should they pull his tender? He's done nothing wrong.

He's not signed.

sure they will wipe them out if he signs a long term contract, what if he doesnt?
you would be happy if wallace doesnt show up until week 10 and then start collecting his portion of the 2.7 million tender compared to the 500k that he could have?
where did i say he did anything wrong? the steelers had the opportunity to cut his tender if he didnt sign by a certain date. wallace chose not to sign. he chose to potentially make alot less money if he signed it later. make the correct business decision and save that money for players that want to be on this team.

Sugar
07-09-2012, 04:30 PM
make the correct business decision and save that money for players that want to be on this team.

Do you think that Mike Wallace doesn't want to be on this team?

Oviedo
07-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Do you think that Mike Wallace doesn't want to be on this team?

I think Mike Wallace is primarily interested in his bank account and could care less who puts the money there.

Sugar
07-09-2012, 05:33 PM
I think Mike Wallace is primarily interested in his bank account and could care less who puts the money there.

So do you think he doesn't care at all about his colleagues or that the money is simply more weighty on the scale?

squidkid
07-09-2012, 07:41 PM
So do you think he doesn't care at all about his colleagues or that the money is simply more weighty on the scale?


i dont see where anyone stated he doesnt care at all about his colleagues. i would have to assume that he does, that's common nature.
i think wallace wants to be on this team but at a price that the steelers find unreasonable either by cap situation or by wallaces demands. if that wasnt the case, he would be signed already.
i think the money by far outweighs his loyalty to fans, the organization and his teammantes.

Sugar
07-09-2012, 08:43 PM
i dont see where anyone stated he doesnt care at all about his colleagues. i would have to assume that he does, that's common nature.
i think wallace wants to be on this team but at a price that the steelers find unreasonable either by cap situation or by wallaces demands. if that wasnt the case, he would be signed already.
i think the money by far outweighs his loyalty to fans, the organization and his teammantes.

I don't see where anyone stated that either. That's why I was asking. Do you think that the money should not outweigh loyalty to these other entities?

Oviedo
07-09-2012, 09:05 PM
i dont see where anyone stated he doesnt care at all about his colleagues. i would have to assume that he does, that's common nature.
i think wallace wants to be on this team but at a price that the steelers find unreasonable either by cap situation or by wallaces demands. if that wasnt the case, he would be signed already.
i think the money by far outweighs his loyalty to fans, the organization and his teammantes.

I would agree exactly with what you state. If he really cared about winning the Super Bowl he would have been with the team learning the new offense and working on becoming a better WR who really deserves the type of money he wants.

steelz09
07-09-2012, 09:10 PM
I don't see where anyone stated that either. That's why I was asking. Do you think that the money should not outweigh loyalty to these other entities?

That's a good question. I don't think anyone knows the real answer to that except for Mike Wallace, his family and close friends. I'm sure some players in this league would take 105 million instead of 100 million even if it meant not competing for a SB and/or leaving their favorite team.

squidkid
07-10-2012, 09:17 AM
I don't see where anyone stated that either. That's why I was asking. Do you think that the money should not outweigh loyalty to these other entities?

if wallaces priority is money, than its should outweigh loyalty.
if wallaces priority is the team and winning, than no.
seeing that wallace has not signed his tender and hasnt shown up for otas, i can only assume he is about the money.
i personally would be satisfied with top 10 wr money and be on a contender.

feltdizz
07-10-2012, 10:59 AM
why wouldn't Wallace be all about the money? C'mon guys.. it's a business...

Oviedo
07-10-2012, 12:26 PM
why wouldn't Wallace be all about the money? C'mon guys.. it's a business...

You're right. It's his choice but then just say it. Say it and don't pretend you care about winning

RuthlessBurgher
07-10-2012, 01:48 PM
I would agree exactly with what you state. If he really cared about winning the Super Bowl he would have been with the team learning the new offense and working on becoming a better WR who really deserves the type of money he wants.

Does Drew Brees not care about winning a Super Bowl? Ed Reed? Ray Rice? Wes Welker? Matt Forte?

Oviedo
07-10-2012, 01:51 PM
Does Drew Brees not care about winning a Super Bowl? Ed Reed? Ray Rice? Wes Welker? Matt Forte?

One would wonder. The difference with several of those players is that they are far more experienced and established and their teams don't have a new offense and a new OC. Except for Forte you could also make a strong case that they are also Top 3-5 at their positions in the NFL. Wallace isn't.

RuthlessBurgher
07-10-2012, 02:10 PM
One would wonder. The difference with several of those players is that they are far more experienced and established and their teams don't have a new offense and a new OC. Except for Forte you could also make a strong case that they are also Top 3-5 at their positions in the NFL. Wallace isn't.

Wallace is the only guy on that list dealing with a coaching change? What?!?!

Ed Reed has a new defensive coordinator (his 2011 D.C. Chuck Pagano is now the head coach in Indianapolis).

Wes Welker has a new offensive coordinator (his 2011 O.C. Bill O'Brien is now the head coach at Penn State).

Matt Forte has a new offensive coordinator (his 2011 O.C. Mike Martz is now retired).

Drew Brees has a new head coach (his 2011 H.C. Sean Payton is suspended for the year).

hawaiiansteel
07-12-2012, 02:12 AM
NFL Rumors: Mike Wallace Might Hold Out Well Into Training Camp

Published: 7/11/12 by Clyde A. Speller

http://rantsports.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/pittsburgh-steelers/files/2012/07/Pittsburgh-Steelers-Mike-Wallace-TD-vs-Lions.jpg

After months of constant waiting, Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Mike Wallace still hasn’t received a long-term offer from the Steelers’ front office.

The deadline has come and gone for Wallace to sign the first-round tender offer, and Pittsburgh has decided not to decrease the $2.77 million that was put on the table.

The Pro Bowl receiver should be grateful that the tender offer wasn’t cut significantly, and should jump at the chance to take what is given to him. Wallace needs to realize that after this season, the probability of more veterans, such as Ryan Clark and Casey Hampton, being released to make room for younger talent are high. This will add more money to the salary cap, and in turn give general manager Kevin Colbert and the rest of the front office more money to give to Wallace in the long-term deal that he is wanting.

If you ask me, the way things are looking right now, Wallace won’t get his long-term deal until next season, assuming that he has the common sense to sign the tender and prove that he is worth more money this season.

Wallace not looking at the big picture will definitely hurt the team as a whole. His potential absence from training camp will make it more difficult to absorb a new playbook, and mess up the chemistry between him and Ben Roethlisberger. In addition, it will cripple one-half of one of the best receiving tandems from last season with fellow receiver Antonio Brown.

Already hurting at the running back position, the Steelers will need as much help as possible on offense, and Wallace gracing the team with his presence would be very helpful.

http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/nfl_rumors_mike_wallace_might_hold_out_well_into_t raining_camp/11201089

flippy
07-12-2012, 08:53 AM
The longer Wallace stays away, the more chemistry Ben will build with Sanders and Cotchery.

With Ward gone, Ben's go to guy is going to become the guy that runs the best routes. And I have a feeling in time Sanders will be that guy. They guy that Ben could throw to and know exactly where he is even with his eyes closed.

Everyone's flustered with Wallace's hold out, but maybe it's a blessing in disguise that's going to make us a better team.

Oviedo
07-12-2012, 09:38 AM
The longer Wallace stays away, the more chemistry Ben will build with Sanders and Cotchery.

With Ward gone, Ben's go to guy is going to become the guy that runs the best routes. And I have a feeling in time Sanders will be that guy. They guy that Ben could throw to and know exactly where he is even with his eyes closed.

Everyone's flustered with Wallace's hold out, but maybe it's a blessing in disguise that's going to make us a better team.

I've said since htis started that Wallace staying away may cause him to have a worse statistical season than last year because Brown, Sanders and others will be more familiar with the new system and Ben will have a rhythm with them. This could end up being a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If Wallace doesn't like the way contract negotiations are going now just wait and see what they are like when his 2012 season is worse than his 2011 season.

NorthCoast
07-12-2012, 10:18 AM
I dont think there is a person in the Steelers organization (or even on this board) that does not believe we can win without Wallace. Wallace sitting out does not decide the Steeler's season like other WR-starved teams. I have to wonder if, when he does come back, the team de-emphasizes his role. (actually whether it was intentional or not, the last 4 games of last season, Wallace's number was not called often.)

Oviedo
07-12-2012, 10:52 AM
I dont think there is a person in the Steelers organization (or even on this board) that does not believe we can win without Wallace. Wallace sitting out does not decide the Steeler's season like other WR-starved teams. I have to wonder if, when he does come back, the team de-emphasizes his role. (actually whether it was intentional or not, the last 4 games of last season, Wallace's number was not called often.)

We have enough talent to win without Wallace and if he insists on a premium price then let another team make a bad decision and tie up 7-9% of their cap in a "one trick pony." I just don't think our cap situation allows us to.

I don't even think we could go above the current tag amount without cutting someone or restructuring contracts let alone go up into the $8M+ range. I don't think we get cap flexibility until the new TV money in 2014.

Ruthless always has the best info on the cap so maybe he can shed some light.

RuthlessBurgher
07-12-2012, 12:10 PM
I still think Wallace ends up with more touchdowns than Brown, although Brown should have more overall catches. I'd say that their total receiving yardage should end up being pretty close to one another.

RuthlessBurgher
07-12-2012, 12:15 PM
Ruthless always has the best info on the cap so maybe he can shed some light.

The last update I saw was that we were about $3.5 million under the cap...I think that was posted about 3 weeks or so ago (and since we haven't had any notable transactions during that time, that number should still hold true).

flippy
07-12-2012, 12:38 PM
Wonder if the Steelers considered trying to extend Brown and Sanders now and using the Franchise Tag on Wallace next year if they need to?

Oviedo
07-12-2012, 12:55 PM
Wonder if the Steelers considered trying to extend Brown and Sanders now and using the Franchise Tag on Wallace next year if they need to?

IMO opinion, they would be wise to focus on extending Brown. I think it would give them additional leverage with Wallace. I would wait on Sanders and see if he can make it through a full season healthy and can perform to expectations.

Also IMO I think they are very comfortable with their WR situation and are willing to let Wallace walk or to trade him if he doesn't come to their number. I think this is a very similar situation to what the Pats had with Deon Branch before they traded him. Good move for them and might be a good move for us in the grand scheme of things.

Slapstick
07-12-2012, 02:12 PM
If Wallace sits out of camp, it allows you to see what you have in guys like Toney Clemons, Marquis Maze or Derrick Williams and the other guys like Gilreath and Stewart...

Oviedo
07-12-2012, 03:08 PM
If Wallace sits out of camp, it allows you to see what you have in guys like Toney Clemons, Marquis Maze or Derrick Williams and the other guys like Gilreath and Stewart...

Great points. What exactly is Wallace accomplishing by not being around? It gets harder and harder for me to figure it out.

Slapstick
07-12-2012, 04:59 PM
Great points. What exactly is Wallace accomplishing by not being around? It gets harder and harder for me to figure it out.

He is avoiding the possibility of injury...

While I think he should report, he was on the team when Limas Sweed tore his Achilles tendon in offseason workouts...

He is sacrificing acclimating to the offense for personal security...$2.7 is not a large enough number for him to take the injury risk, I suppose...considering the big contract numbers floated to WRs who may not be able to produce like him....

BURGH86STEEL
07-12-2012, 05:00 PM
Great points. What exactly is Wallace accomplishing by not being around? It gets harder and harder for me to figure it out.

Staying healthy until he signs a long term deal.

squidkid
07-12-2012, 05:16 PM
alot of people on this board want to throw the term 'elite' around when it comes to ben. people are bent because he should have been ranked higher than X and Y. well, if ben is as elite as some say, why would we need to spend 8+ million per year on a receiver when the other 'elite' qbs like brees, rodgers and brady do it with less talented wrs?

SteelCrazy
07-12-2012, 06:47 PM
squidkid, Ben isnt elite. Charlie Batch will make more money this year in base salary then Big Ben. 925,000 vs 900,000.

RuthlessBurgher
07-12-2012, 06:59 PM
alot of people on this board want to throw the term 'elite' around when it comes to ben. people are bent because he should have been ranked higher than X and Y. well, if ben is as elite as some say, why would we need to spend 8+ million per year on a receiver when the other 'elite' qbs like brees, rodgers and brady do it with less talented wrs?

Brees has Marques Colston, who signed a five-year, $36.3 million contract a few months ago. The deal contains $17.7 million guaranteed, including a $10 million signing bonus, Colston's first two base salaries, and $2 million of his 2014 salary.

Rodgers has Greg Jennings, who signed a four-year, $26.885 million contract in 2009 (it contains $16.25 million guaranteed, including an $11.25 million signing bonus and Jennings' first-year base salary).

Brady has Wes Welker, who signed one-year, $9.515 million contract a few weeks ago. The franchise tag deal is fully guaranteed.

The other 'elite' qbs like brees, rodgers and brady do it with less talented wrs who all make WAY more money than Wallace's $2.7 million RFA tender amount.

Slapstick
07-12-2012, 08:16 PM
Brees has Marques Colston, who signed a five-year, $36.3 million contract a few months ago. The deal contains $17.7 million guaranteed, including a $10 million signing bonus, Colston's first two base salaries, and $2 million of his 2014 salary.

Rodgers has Greg Jennings, who signed a four-year, $26.885 million contract in 2009 (it contains $16.25 million guaranteed, including an $11.25 million signing bonus and Jennings' first-year base salary).

Brady has Wes Welker, who signed one-year, $9.515 million contract a few weeks ago. The franchise tag deal is fully guaranteed.

The other 'elite' qbs like brees, rodgers and brady do it with less talented wrs who all make WAY more money than Wallace's $2.7 million RFA tender amount.

The last three years (regular season only):

Marques Colston - 234 catches - 3240 yards - 24 TDs

Greg Jennings - 211 catches - 3327 yards - 25 TDs

Wes Welker - 331 catches - 3765 yards - 20 TDs

Mike Wallace - 171 catches - 3206 yards - 24 TDs

And, all three of those guys outperformed Wallace in the postseason...

Slower does not necessarily mean less talented...

I would definitely give Wallace a Colston-like contract without a problem...I'd even up it a bit...

steelz09
07-12-2012, 08:31 PM
The last three years (regular season only):

Marques Colston - 234 catches - 3240 yards - 24 TDs

Greg Jennings - 211 catches - 3327 yards - 25 TDs

Wes Welker - 331 catches - 3765 yards - 20 TDs

Mike Wallace - 171 catches - 3206 yards - 24 TDs

And, all three of those guys outperformed Wallace in the postseason...

Slower does not necessarily mean less talented...

I would definitely give Wallace a Colston-like contract without a problem...I'd even up it a bit...

Taking out the "age factor", I would take Colston and Jennings over Wallace. I won't include Welker in that list because I think Brown is a more favorable comparison to Welker.

RuthlessBurgher
07-13-2012, 10:07 AM
The last three years (regular season only):

Marques Colston - 234 catches - 3240 yards - 24 TDs

Greg Jennings - 211 catches - 3327 yards - 25 TDs

Wes Welker - 331 catches - 3765 yards - 20 TDs

Mike Wallace - 171 catches - 3206 yards - 24 TDs

And, all three of those guys outperformed Wallace in the postseason...

Slower does not necessarily mean less talented...

I would definitely give Wallace a Colston-like contract without a problem...I'd even up it a bit...

I wasn't commenting on which of those receivers is more or less talented myself...I just copied the line from squidkid in which he stated "well, if ben is as elite as some say, why would we need to spend 8+ million per year on a receiver when the other 'elite' qbs like brees, rodgers and brady do it with less talented wrs?"

I was just noting how each of those "elite" QB's all have a WR who is making big dollars (when he seemed to be suggesting that none of those guys needed big money WR's to be "elite").

squidkid
07-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Brees has Marques Colston, who signed a five-year, $36.3 million contract a few months ago. The deal contains $17.7 million guaranteed, including a $10 million signing bonus, Colston's first two base salaries, and $2 million of his 2014 salary.

Rodgers has Greg Jennings, who signed a four-year, $26.885 million contract in 2009 (it contains $16.25 million guaranteed, including an $11.25 million signing bonus and Jennings' first-year base salary).

Brady has Wes Welker, who signed one-year, $9.515 million contract a few weeks ago. The franchise tag deal is fully guaranteed.

The other 'elite' qbs like brees, rodgers and brady do it with less talented wrs who all make WAY more money than Wallace's $2.7 million RFA tender amount.


so you do you think those wrs made those qbs elite or do you think those qbs where responsible for making those wrs that type of money?

RuthlessBurgher
07-13-2012, 11:53 PM
so you do you think those wrs made those qbs elite or do you think those qbs where responsible for making those wrs that type of money?

Did Joe Montana make Jerry Rice, or did Jerry Rice make Joe Montana? It's a symbiotic relationship...a QB needs good WR's and a WR needs a good QB. The point is that Brees, Rodgers, and Brady aren't just getting by with cheap scrubs...they each have a #1 receiver who is being paid at a level where many on this board feel is "too much" for a wideout like Wallace.

squidkid
07-14-2012, 11:26 AM
Did Joe Montana make Jerry Rice, or did Jerry Rice make Joe Montana? It's a symbiotic relationship...a QB needs good WR's and a WR needs a good QB. The point is that Brees, Rodgers, and Brady aren't just getting by with cheap scrubs...they each have a #1 receiver who is being paid at a level where many on this board feel is "too much" for a wideout like Wallace.


just because those wrs are getting paid that much doesnt make them worth that much. i bet that there are 50 wrs in the nfl that would put up numbers similiar to welker, colston and jennings if they had brady, brees and rodgers throwing to them. we see this all the time in the nfl. a player has good stats for a couple seasons, leaves for big money and basically is never heard of again.
the thought of wanting to give one wr(wallace) 8-12 million per year because he has put up top 10 wrs numbers doesnt make sense to me.
if wallace wants the big money, i hope he gets it from another team where he can then kill their cap for a few years.

feltdizz
07-14-2012, 12:40 PM
I don't understand the "would he be as good with another QB" line...

Would Brady be successful if he was on the Browns? Would Ben or Eli be elite if they were drafted by the Bucs and Miami.

A WR who is fortunate to have an elite QB has a chance to make money if he produces...why should Wallace negotiate based on the other 50 WR's who aren't in his position?

hawaiiansteel
07-14-2012, 10:48 PM
Steelers Optimistic About Wallace Deal

Publish Date: July 14, 2012

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=8166034&categoryid=2378529

John Clayton talks about the Pittsburgh Steelers efforts to reach a long-term deal with Mike Wallace.

hawaiiansteel
07-16-2012, 02:40 AM
Welker or Williams – Who Could Be Viable Option Over Steelers’ Wallace?

Jul 15th, 2012 by CraigSteelers

The Steelers may not be able to come to terms with their young speedster receiver, Mike Wallace. And if by chance that happens, the Steelers may (or very well may not) be on the market to pick up a viable #2 or #3 receiver to compete against the rest of The Core while in camp or even someone who could come along post-Wallace era.

While constantly thinking about the Steelers, I get to play a lot of ‘what if’s’ in my head. Some are pleasant, some would make a person shudder. The ‘what if’ currently swirling around the ol’ noggin’ is the Steelers deciding to let Wallace hold out AND take it a step further by looking for another receiver to compete in camp. There’s one in particular who’s available because his former team showed him the door this past Friday. The other potential receiver is not likely to sign a long term deal with his current team and will be forced to play with a franchise tag this year. Without that new deal, he will probably be a free agent next season and may get a good glance by the Steelers were it to come to that. But which one of these receivers – Mike Williams or Wes Welker – would be a viable option over Mike Wallace?

Mike Williams would be entering his 6th season in the NFL were he to play for another team. Williams had a shaky start to his career for the first few years and all but completely disappeared by 2007 when on the Tennessee Titans’ roster. But former college coach and now head coach of the Seahawks, Pete Carroll, signed Williams and got him back in action after Williams missed the 2008 and 2009 seasons. Williams quickly reached a potential everyone could get behind after catching 65 passes for 751 yards in his first season back. After Seattle snagged Sydney Rice from the Vikings, most folks thought that Rice and Williams would be a duo to fear. Williams is 6’5″ and runs a 4.5 40. Not lighting fast, but on par with most receivers. That tall frame and decent hands could snag bomb after bomb if given the chance. However, as most things that come Tavaris Jackson’s way, Williams had a hard time connecting with his QB. Williams’ production fell in 2011 by 500 yards and was shown the door this past Friday.

Williams could be an effective and make an immediate impact for the Steelers were they to sign him to a one year deal by camp. It certainly would show Mike Wallace that the Steelers are playing hard ball and playing for keeps. Everyone is replaceable. Sure, it could sour relations immensely between Wallace and the Steelers, but I can only assume that things aren’t really that great right now with Mike and the FO over this contract stalemate. Williams has a big frame and could be a nice compliment to Antonio Brown on the other side of the field. He’s not as fast as AB, but his size would play a huge advantage. Were the Steelers offense to have a formation that included Williams, AB, Leonard Pope and Heath Miller – that’s 3 out of 4 guys over 6 feet for corners and linebackers to cover. A recipe for big gains over the middle with quick screens and in-curls. Who needs to go big down the field when you can keep peppering a team with 15-20 yard gains every passing down? I think that Williams is far from being washed up. He had the potential in 2010 when he was with Matt Hasselbeck. You have to look at the context of his next season when playing with Tavaris Jackson – who is simply awful. Little Doug Baldwin was their best receiver with over 700 yards. The next top receiver had barely over 400 yards. Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst just killed the offense for these Seahawks. Williams can still cut it in the league and very well could be a good addition to the Steelers if they decide to ‘move on’ from Mike Wallace. Williams was supposed to get $3 million in 2012 and would be a steal.

Should Mike Wallace not sign a long term deal and only play one season with his tender (or no season at all), I could certainly see the Steelers deciding to call it quits with Wallace and not go after him as an unrestricted free agent. At that point, they will have no leverage. If Wallace doesn’t play at all, then we know he is dead set on big money and the Steelers will never offer it up to a guy who hasn’t deserved it yet. So who could be out there as a replacement. Well, regardless of Mike Williams being in the picture or not, there’s a current (and soon to be former) New England Patriot who could take Wallace’s roster spot.

Wes Welker got slapped with the franchise tag this offseason by the Patriots. Welker has been trying to work on an extension with the team this whole time and has until 4pm on Monday to get a deal done. If that doesn’t happen, then he will be forced to play 2012 with his tendered tag of $9.5 million guaranteed. My feeling is that if a long term doesn’t get done by then, then Welker probably won’t get signed at the end of the season by the Pats. There might be a bit of bad blood from all those drops against the Giants in the Super Bowl.

Should Welker be available and the Steelers boot Mike Wallace into the big ocean of free agency, then I think the Steelers could sign Welker to a one year deal. Worth something close to $6 million. It’s a bit pricey and Welker is getting up there in years – will be 32 by next offseason – but, he has yet to show any signs of slowing down. Welker runs a 4.6 40 yard, but his size plays a huge advantage in slants and crossing routes. He is a very good technique football player and, aside from those drops in SB XLVI, has very good dependable hands. He is another version of Hines Ward minus the blocking. And, I would say he’s a cut above Jerricho Cotchery who plays a very similar game. At least right now he is.

I’m sure it’s a bit of a hard pill to swallow to think that the Steelers would sign a guy just like Hines Ward and almost just as old when the Steelers decided to release Ward. Depending on how Cotchery continues to pan out, and depending on how this offense evolves this season without Wallace (for the sake of this post), then Welker could be a good addition and short term solution. There’s no way the Steelers would sign him to anything more than a one year deal, but he could be worth the single season investment. It might be just the thing they need to be Super Bowl bound again. They just may want to bench Welker in February…. I kid I kid.

I honestly think that Williams is the better investment. Bigger frame, younger, and faster are three of his advantages over Welker. Which one would the Steelers go with? Hard to say since we are looking at two different periods in time. But, having to guess which one fits the Steelers offense better and could act as a better replacement over Mike Wallace – I’d have to go with the other Mike. I’m kind of sick of the Wallace ‘thing’ and wouldn’t mind the Steelers going with someone like Williams as a different option. Some sources think Williams could go to the Vikes – God love the irony, right Sydney? As always, we’ll see what happens in the coming weeks.

http://nicepickcowher.com/2012/07/15/welker-or-williams-who-could-be-viable-option-over-steelers-wallace/

Oviedo
07-16-2012, 07:50 AM
Welker or Williams – Who Could Be Viable Option Over Steelers’ Wallace?

Jul 15th, 2012 by CraigSteelers

The Steelers may not be able to come to terms with their young speedster receiver, Mike Wallace. And if by chance that happens, the Steelers may (or very well may not) be on the market to pick up a viable #2 or #3 receiver to compete against the rest of The Core while in camp or even someone who could come along post-Wallace era.

While constantly thinking about the Steelers, I get to play a lot of ‘what if’s’ in my head. Some are pleasant, some would make a person shudder. The ‘what if’ currently swirling around the ol’ noggin’ is the Steelers deciding to let Wallace hold out AND take it a step further by looking for another receiver to compete in camp. There’s one in particular who’s available because his former team showed him the door this past Friday. The other potential receiver is not likely to sign a long term deal with his current team and will be forced to play with a franchise tag this year. Without that new deal, he will probably be a free agent next season and may get a good glance by the Steelers were it to come to that. But which one of these receivers – Mike Williams or Wes Welker – would be a viable option over Mike Wallace?

Mike Williams would be entering his 6th season in the NFL were he to play for another team. Williams had a shaky start to his career for the first few years and all but completely disappeared by 2007 when on the Tennessee Titans’ roster. But former college coach and now head coach of the Seahawks, Pete Carroll, signed Williams and got him back in action after Williams missed the 2008 and 2009 seasons. Williams quickly reached a potential everyone could get behind after catching 65 passes for 751 yards in his first season back. After Seattle snagged Sydney Rice from the Vikings, most folks thought that Rice and Williams would be a duo to fear. Williams is 6’5″ and runs a 4.5 40. Not lighting fast, but on par with most receivers. That tall frame and decent hands could snag bomb after bomb if given the chance. However, as most things that come Tavaris Jackson’s way, Williams had a hard time connecting with his QB. Williams’ production fell in 2011 by 500 yards and was shown the door this past Friday.

Williams could be an effective and make an immediate impact for the Steelers were they to sign him to a one year deal by camp. It certainly would show Mike Wallace that the Steelers are playing hard ball and playing for keeps. Everyone is replaceable. Sure, it could sour relations immensely between Wallace and the Steelers, but I can only assume that things aren’t really that great right now with Mike and the FO over this contract stalemate. Williams has a big frame and could be a nice compliment to Antonio Brown on the other side of the field. He’s not as fast as AB, but his size would play a huge advantage. Were the Steelers offense to have a formation that included Williams, AB, Leonard Pope and Heath Miller – that’s 3 out of 4 guys over 6 feet for corners and linebackers to cover. A recipe for big gains over the middle with quick screens and in-curls. Who needs to go big down the field when you can keep peppering a team with 15-20 yard gains every passing down? I think that Williams is far from being washed up. He had the potential in 2010 when he was with Matt Hasselbeck. You have to look at the context of his next season when playing with Tavaris Jackson – who is simply awful. Little Doug Baldwin was their best receiver with over 700 yards. The next top receiver had barely over 400 yards. Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst just killed the offense for these Seahawks. Williams can still cut it in the league and very well could be a good addition to the Steelers if they decide to ‘move on’ from Mike Wallace. Williams was supposed to get $3 million in 2012 and would be a steal.

Should Mike Wallace not sign a long term deal and only play one season with his tender (or no season at all), I could certainly see the Steelers deciding to call it quits with Wallace and not go after him as an unrestricted free agent. At that point, they will have no leverage. If Wallace doesn’t play at all, then we know he is dead set on big money and the Steelers will never offer it up to a guy who hasn’t deserved it yet. So who could be out there as a replacement. Well, regardless of Mike Williams being in the picture or not, there’s a current (and soon to be former) New England Patriot who could take Wallace’s roster spot.

Wes Welker got slapped with the franchise tag this offseason by the Patriots. Welker has been trying to work on an extension with the team this whole time and has until 4pm on Monday to get a deal done. If that doesn’t happen, then he will be forced to play 2012 with his tendered tag of $9.5 million guaranteed. My feeling is that if a long term doesn’t get done by then, then Welker probably won’t get signed at the end of the season by the Pats. There might be a bit of bad blood from all those drops against the Giants in the Super Bowl.

Should Welker be available and the Steelers boot Mike Wallace into the big ocean of free agency, then I think the Steelers could sign Welker to a one year deal. Worth something close to $6 million. It’s a bit pricey and Welker is getting up there in years – will be 32 by next offseason – but, he has yet to show any signs of slowing down. Welker runs a 4.6 40 yard, but his size plays a huge advantage in slants and crossing routes. He is a very good technique football player and, aside from those drops in SB XLVI, has very good dependable hands. He is another version of Hines Ward minus the blocking. And, I would say he’s a cut above Jerricho Cotchery who plays a very similar game. At least right now he is.

I’m sure it’s a bit of a hard pill to swallow to think that the Steelers would sign a guy just like Hines Ward and almost just as old when the Steelers decided to release Ward. Depending on how Cotchery continues to pan out, and depending on how this offense evolves this season without Wallace (for the sake of this post), then Welker could be a good addition and short term solution. There’s no way the Steelers would sign him to anything more than a one year deal, but he could be worth the single season investment. It might be just the thing they need to be Super Bowl bound again. They just may want to bench Welker in February…. I kid I kid.

I honestly think that Williams is the better investment. Bigger frame, younger, and faster are three of his advantages over Welker. Which one would the Steelers go with? Hard to say since we are looking at two different periods in time. But, having to guess which one fits the Steelers offense better and could act as a better replacement over Mike Wallace – I’d have to go with the other Mike. I’m kind of sick of the Wallace ‘thing’ and wouldn’t mind the Steelers going with someone like Williams as a different option. Some sources think Williams could go to the Vikes – God love the irony, right Sydney? As always, we’ll see what happens in the coming weeks.

http://nicepickcowher.com/2012/07/15/welker-or-williams-who-could-be-viable-option-over-steelers-wallace/

Not sure Welker fits what they need. Williams would be interesting. The bottomline is that Wallace is not irreplaceable. If he doesn't show up for camp on July 25th then it is time to trade him. Let him be someone elses headache and move on.

D Rock
07-16-2012, 07:55 AM
Not sure Welker fits what they need. Williams would be interesting. The bottomline is that Wallace is not irreplaceable. If he doesn't show up for camp on July 25th then it is time to trade him. Let him be someone elses headache and move on.


Can't trade a player who is not under contract.

Oviedo
07-16-2012, 08:02 AM
Can't trade a player who is not under contract.


I thought his tag becomes his de facto contract for 2012 as of today unless they renegotiate a new one.

Slapstick
07-16-2012, 08:22 AM
Can't trade a player who is not under contract.

Sure you can!

On draft day, 2004, the Giants traded Philip Rivers and other draft picks for Eli Manning...neither Eli nor Philip were under contract...

IIRC, as long as a team holds the rights to a player, that player can be traded...

D Rock
07-16-2012, 10:22 AM
Sure you can!

On draft day, 2004, the Giants traded Philip Rivers and other draft picks for Eli Manning...neither Eli nor Philip were under contract...

IIRC, as long as a team holds the rights to a player, that player can be traded...

As far as I know, they traded the exclusive rights to sign Manning/Rivers. Those were negotiating rights only. Drafted players can choose not to sign and sit out to re-enter the draft the following year.


And Ovi...I don't think a tag can automatically become a contract unless it is signed, but I could be wrong on that. You may be referring to the franchise tag, which today becomes the contract and the team can no longer extend a player long term - which is what is going on with Wes Welker - but I'm not sure that applies to the restricted free agent tag. Wes Welker had already signed the franchise tender, he was under contract for this year but wanted an extension. Wallace is not under contract.

RuthlessBurgher
07-16-2012, 12:26 PM
That article made my head hurt. Wes Welker ain't leaving New England and Mike Williams sucks.

grotonsteel
07-16-2012, 12:29 PM
Mike Williams to replace M-Wallace??? Seriously?????

Mike Williams is a bust well he had a one good season with SeaHawks.

Oviedo
07-16-2012, 12:32 PM
Mike Williams to replace M-Wallace??? Seriously?????

Mike Williams is a bust well he had a one good season with SeaHawks.


Williams can't replace wallace as an individual but adding a piece to a Wallace-less WR group he would be a good add and add another dimension. Antonio B. would be the Wallace replacement.

RuthlessBurgher
07-16-2012, 12:38 PM
Mike Wallace, Steelers WR, is most underpaid in NFL
By Brian McIntyre
Around the League writer
Published: July 10, 2012 at 07:48 p.m.
Updated: July 10, 2012 at 08:46 p.m.

"Around the League" is taking a look at each team's salary-cap situation heading into training camp. Next up: The Pittsburgh Steelers.

Adjusted cap number: $121.195 million

Cap room remaining: $3.734 million

Best bargain: If Mike Wallace plays the 2012 season under the "first-round" restricted free agent tender, he could be looking at $2.742 million in non-guaranteed base salary. Wallace ranked in the top 25 in terms of receptions last season and was tied for 11th in both receiving yards (1,193) and touchdowns (eight). With Todd Haley replacing Bruce Arians as offensive coordinator, there is no reason to think that the Steelers are going to throw the ball less. Yet Wallace's RFA tender currently ranks 46th among NFL wideouts in terms of cash compensation in 2012.

Potential camp casualty: The great roster purge of 2012 has already happened in Pittsburgh. The Steelers parted ways with Bryant McFadden, Arnaz Battle, James Farrior, Chris Kemoeatu, Aaron Smith and Hines Ward. If the young nose tackles or inside linebackers show progress in camp, veterans in the final years of their contracts, such as Casey Hampton ($2.8 million base salary) and Larry Foote ($3 million in base salary), could be released to free up some cap space for this season or next.

Contract issue looming in 2013: It's all about Wallace, the only restricted free agent this offseason who has not yet signed his one-year tender. He could be headed for the franchise tag (projected value of $9.692 million if the cap remains flat, as is expected) in 2013. Fellow receiver Antonio Brown, who caught 69 passes for 1,108 yards and went to the Pro Bowl as a return specialist, will be a restricted free agent next offseason, as well.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a75f6a/article/mike-wallace-steelers-wr-is-most-underpaid-in-nfl

RuthlessBurgher
07-16-2012, 12:45 PM
Mike Williams to replace M-Wallace??? Seriously?????

Mike Williams is a bust well he had a one good season with SeaHawks.

And his "one good season" consisted of 65 catches for 751 yards and 2 TD. Wallace had 756 yards and 6 TD's as a rookie while only starting 4 games (not to mention the 2450 yards and 18 TD's that he has scored in the 2 seasons since then).

Last season, in 10 starts, Mike Williams had 18 catches for 236 yards and 1 TD. He was outdueled by both Emmanuel Sanders (22 catches for 288 yards and 2 TD's) and Jerricho Cotchery (16 catches for 237 yards and 2 TD's) in spite of the fact that both Sanders and Cotchery dealt with lingering injuries for most of the season and had ZERO starts between them.

Oviedo
07-16-2012, 02:22 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a75f6a/article/mike-wallace-steelers-wr-is-most-underpaid-in-nfl

Some may feel he is underpaid but if you don't have the cap space to pay him as the article points out, it is moot. We won't have the cap space next year to "franchise tag" him unless we cut some significant salary or restructure a large number of contracts which we have done a lot the past couple of years. Also next year we will be putting a "Transition tag" on Antonio Brown to the tune of about $3M. Sometimes the math just doesn't work for a guy who may want $10M per year.

Sugar
07-16-2012, 02:47 PM
Some may feel he is underpaid but if you don't have the cap space to pay him as the article points out, it is moot. We won't have the cap space next year to "franchise tag" him unless we cut some significant salary or restructure a large number of contracts which we have done a lot the past couple of years. Also next year we will be putting a "Transition tag" on Antonio Brown to the tune of about $3M. Sometimes the math just doesn't work for a guy who may want $10M per year.

Maybe he's hoping someone gets hurt in camp and clears some space for him? :stirpot

Oviedo
07-16-2012, 03:29 PM
Maybe he's hoping someone gets hurt in camp and clears some space for him? :stirpot

As long as it isn't him. I heard he is making lots of trips to Lowe's and Home Depot for bubblewrap.

hawaiiansteel
07-17-2012, 03:10 AM
ESPN’s Clayton Says Steelers Are ‘Confident’ About Wallace Deal

Jul 14th, 2012 by CraigSteelers

Above is a link to a short segment with ESPN’s John Clayton talking about the last restricted free agent in the NFL without a deal – Mike Wallace.In the clip, Clayton says ‘no deal’ as of yet (duh) but that the Steelers organization is optimistic about signing a deal with Wallace before camp starts. He notes the Steelers are good at ‘taking care of’ their top players such as Ben Roethlisberger and Troy Polamalu. The Steelers are confident that there won’t be a holdout either.

Taking care of their top players. Very true Mr. Clayton. But, I am hard pressed to put Mike Wallace in the same breath as Big Ben and the Tazmanian Devil. Wallace is a very good young player. But, he has yet to fully prove himself as a high impact and ‘can’t do without’ player such as Ben and Troy. That’s why a deal hasn’t been signed yet in the first place. Wallace wants money equivalent to the top paid receivers in the league. That would be like taking Andy Dalton and signing him to the same kind of money Big Ben has. Dalton of the Cincinnati Bengals is a very good young quarterback. But is he elite? Can the Bengals not win without him?

And, while most of us chuckle and think, ‘It’s tough for the Bengals to win with anyone’ I think the Bengals can win without a guy like Dalton. So if he were to have the same kind of numbers this season and next as he had last season, then stand on his box and ask for a $100 million contract, he would be laughed at. Much like how Wallace can’t be taken seriously right now demanding for a paycheck as big as Larry Fitzgerald’s. No way. No how. Not when you essentially disappear halfway into the season.

The only way the two sides come to an agreement is if Wallace sucks it up and signs what the Steelers are willing to pay him – my guess is six years with $8 million/year on a sliding scale getting him up to $11 million in his last season of his contract that is chalk full of incentives to keep him producing. Will he sign something like that? Right now, the way this situation has been silent, I would say no. But, the Steelers Omar Khan has a way of getting contracts done.

We don’t have much time before camp starts. Will a contract get done in time. Right now the scale is tipping in favor of a ‘no.’

http://nicepickcowher.com/2012/07/14/espns-clayton-says-steelers-are-confident-about-wallace-deal/

Oviedo
07-17-2012, 07:49 AM
The only way the two sides come to an agreement is if Wallace sucks it up and signs what the Steelers are willing to pay him

As it should be!!!!!!! Its about the whole team not an individual.

feltdizz
07-17-2012, 09:02 AM
As it should be!!!!!!! Its about the whole team not an individual.

for the Steelers and fans it's about the whole team...

for Wallace, it's about the individual.... as it should be.

Oviedo
07-17-2012, 09:07 AM
for the Steelers and fans it's about the whole team...

for Wallace, it's about the individual.... as it should be.


Not if he wants to stay a member of the Steelers, because the system is designed for the team to win and the individual to lose.

Shawn
07-17-2012, 09:13 AM
I still don't understand why anyone would fault Wallace for wanting to get prime value for his play. As big of a Steeler fan as I am I wouldn't take 3 million per year less to play for them. I just wouldn't. And I suspect that is what the Steelers are trying to pull with Wallace. There are certainly teams willing to pay Wallace 10 million per season. The Steelers will be in the 7 million per season range.

Oviedo
07-17-2012, 09:33 AM
I still don't understand why anyone would fault Wallace for wanting to get prime value for his play. As big of a Steeler fan as I am I wouldn't take 3 million per year less to play for them. I just wouldn't. And I suspect that is what the Steelers are trying to pull with Wallace. There are certainly teams willing to pay Wallace 10 million per season. The Steelers will be in the 7 million per season range.

I don't fault Wallace for wanting what he wants, but I am just not one who supports the team giving it to him. Primarily because I do not think he is our best WR and unless a WR is Larry Fitzgerald-good they don't deserve anywhere near $10M and even then I would question how wise an investment that is.

I agree with the $7M range but if Wallace will balk at that just move on and focus on those players who you can make happy.

Shawn
07-17-2012, 09:41 AM
Now that I will agree with O. He should want it...the Steelers shouldn't want to give it. I wouldn't give him more than 7 million per. If he didn't want to sign for that then play for 2.4 this season and go elsewhere. That would be my stance.

flippy
07-17-2012, 09:44 AM
I don't fault Wallace for wanting what he wants, but I am just not one who supports the team giving it to him. Primarily because I do not think he is our best WR and unless a WR is Larry Fitzgerald-good they don't deserve anywhere near $10M and even then I would question how wise an investment that is.

I agree with the $7M range but if Wallace will balk at that just move on and focus on those players who you can make happy.

I say pay your QB, your pass rushers, your CBs, and your tackles. Then allocate money to special players. Use less money on everyone else.

WRs are a dime a dozen.

Larry Fitgerald and Megatron aren't bringing their teams championships.

Shawn
07-17-2012, 09:46 AM
I would agree with that Flippy. I watched Brady dissect D's for several years with questionable talent at WR.

flippy
07-17-2012, 09:56 AM
I would agree with that Flippy. I watched Brady dissect D's for several years with questionable talent at WR.

I've seen Ben do it. I've seen Elway do it. I've seen Marino do it.

Great QBs can make do with just about any WR.

At the end of the day, a WR is not going to be the difference between winning and losing a SuperBowl. Granted, you may need a WR to make a play, but they just don't make an impact on the outcome of games like other key positions.

Oviedo
07-17-2012, 10:21 AM
Now that I will agree with O. He should want it...the Steelers shouldn't want to give it. I wouldn't give him more than 7 million per. If he didn't want to sign for that then play for 2.4 this season and go elsewhere. That would be my stance.

Your stance, my stance and most importantly close to the stance of the Steelers FO.

Flippy hit the nail on the head. There are positions you pay premium dollars to and WR IS NOT one of them. For WRs it is about the group not the individuals. A good group of WRs can trump an outstanding WR in terms of performance and value to the team.

My position is simple with Wallace---$7M on average per year and sweeten it with a little above the average in guaranteed money. However, if he is a no show on July 25th, move on without him and break off all contract negotiations. Trade him at the first opportunity.

D Rock
07-17-2012, 10:50 AM
I say pay your QB, your pass rushers, your CBs, and your tackles. Then allocate money to special players. Use less money on everyone else.

WRs are a dime a dozen.

Larry Fitgerald and Megatron aren't bringing their teams championships.

They may not have won championships, but Larry Fitzgerald did carry the Cardinals to the Super Bowl with the greatest post-season a WR has ever had and Megatron has been a key piece in making the Lions relevant again.

aggiebones
07-17-2012, 08:26 PM
Didn't Ward hold out for a few days while getting a deal done. I'm not gonna worry about it too much. Frankly, if you are gonna pay him alot of money, shield him from early traffic in camp. But his arse better be in shape.

RuthlessBurgher
07-18-2012, 12:46 PM
Report: Steelers still optimistic about signing Wallace long-term
Posted by Josh Alper on July 17, 2012, 6:29 PM EDT

Monday’s deadline for signing players with a franchise tag to a long-term contract doesn’t apply to players with restricted free agent tenders, so there’s nothing stopping the Steelers from signing wide receiver Mike Wallace.

Nothing except their inability to agree to terms with Wallace, that is. We heard earlier this month that there’s been little progress or negotiation toward a new deal, but the Steelers don’t seem to have given up hope. John Clayton of ESPN reports that people inside the organization have told him that they remain optimistic about getting a deal done in the next couple of weeks.

“So even though nothing is close at the moment, there is still time before the start of camp and people in the Steelers organization are confident they can get something done, that there will be no holdout, and Wallace will be signed to a long-term deal,” Clayton said.

If a deal does get done now, it will be on the Steelers’ terms. Wallace can hold out or he can sign the tender, but there’s no risk of losing him and, therefore, no reason for the Steelers to budge much from their preferred deal.

Avoiding a holdout would be good in terms of Wallace learning the offense being installed by new coordinator Todd Haley, but there’s not actually any deadline looming. The two sides can work out a deal through Week 10 without Wallace signing his $2.77 million tender or at any point in the year if he does sign the tender.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/17/report-steelers-still-optimistic-about-signing-wallace-long-term/

squidkid
07-18-2012, 04:42 PM
I don't understand the "would he be as good with another QB" line...

Would Brady be successful if he was on the Browns? Would Ben or Eli be elite if they were drafted by the Bucs and Miami.

A WR who is fortunate to have an elite QB has a chance to make money if he produces...why should Wallace negotiate based on the other 50 WR's who aren't in his position?


he should try but the steelers should realize he can easily be replaced by those other 50 guys for far less.

D Rock
07-18-2012, 05:07 PM
he should try but the steelers should realize he can easily be replaced by those other 50 guys for far less.

I don't know about that...There are maybe 10 guys who could replace him.

We're so spoiled as fans that we complain for years about the weak passing game and then we get a consistent 1200 yard, 8 TD WR and no one cares if he stays around hahaha

squidkid
07-18-2012, 05:21 PM
I don't know about that...There are maybe 10 guys who could replace him.

We're so spoiled as fans that we complain for years about the weak passing game and then we get a consistent 1200 yard, 8 TD WR and no one cares if he stays around hahaha

nah, i think we dont care if he stays or goes because we dont want to ruin our cap for years on one player and we are led to believe that the one player doesnt really want anything but the big payday.

Oviedo
07-18-2012, 05:22 PM
I don't know about that...There are maybe 10 guys who could replace him.

We're so spoiled as fans that we complain for years about the weak passing game and then we get a consistent 1200 yard, 8 TD WR and no one cares if he stays around hahaha

Not sure it is accurate that no one cares if he stays around. I think we universally want him to stay around but not if he means that two other very good players leave because he is consuming so much of the salary cap for really what is now a one-dimensional skillset at the WR position.

RuthlessBurgher
07-18-2012, 07:27 PM
nah, i think we dont care if he stays or goes because we dont want to ruin our cap for years on one player and we are led to believe that the one player doesnt really want anything but the big payday.

Exactly...we are led to believe...everyone is assuming that Wallace is some unreasonable greedy diva...but this impression is coming from media or fellow fans on message board...the only thing that I can remember that has come directly from Wallace himself was a simple "don't believe everything you read" tweet in response to reports of Fitzgerald-like demands.

hawaiiansteel
07-19-2012, 04:53 PM
La Canfora: Steelers, Mike Wallace continue to make progress on new deal

By Will Brinson | Senior NFL Blogger
July 19, 2012

http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/Mike_Wallace_Steelers_Contract_Rumors_Optimism_Jas on_La_Canfora.jpg

Pittsburgh and Wallace are working towards a new deal. (US Presswire)

The time to sign players tendered a franchise tag has come and gone, but the pink elephant that is Mike Wallace still remains in the Steelers living room, with Wallace potentially holding out of camp, unhappy with his $2.72 million tender.

CBSSports.com's NFL Insider Jason La Canfora reports Thursday that the parties are in "close contact" and that the two sides continue to make progress on a new deal.

"The sides have remained in close contact and continued their dialogue and are expected to maintain a steady pace with the start of training camp looming," La Canfora reports. "There has been some movement and though no deal is imminent and work remains to be done, the situation has certainly improved since early this offseason. Both sides are motivated to complete a long-term contract."

La Canfora also pointed out that the Steelers aren't shy about locking up their young talent. CBSSports.com's Ryan Wilson broke this down as well earlier, pointing out that LaMarr Woodley, Lawrence Timmons and Troy Polamalu all got long-term deals after training camp began.

So there's certainly reason for optimism if you're a Steelers fan that the team will be able to get Wallace locked down before the season begins.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/19615831/lacanfora-steelers-mike-wallace-continue-to-make-progress-on-new-deal

Sugar
07-19-2012, 05:01 PM
^^^ This looks promising ^^^

hawaiiansteel
07-19-2012, 07:17 PM
Steelers' talks with Wallace going well as team saves money by cutting T Scott

JULY 19, 2012 BY: MATTHEW MARCZI

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/18/e2/1342735457_8107_6.jpg

As the beginning of training camps approach around the league, there is one issue left to be resolved within the Steelers organization grabbing the attention of the rest of the league. That is the unresolved contract issues with Pro Bowl fourth year wide receiver Mike Wallace.

ESPN’s John Clayton earlier this week reported that the Steelers remained optimistic that a deal could be reached before training camp, which, for the Steelers, will begin on July 25th. Today, Jason La Canfora for the CBS Sports website reports that Wallace and the organization are in “close contact” and that the two parties “continue to make progress on a new deal”.

La Canfora also notes that “both sides are motivated to complete a long-term contract”, which is certainly in keeping with the chorus that Steelers General Manager Kevin Colbert has been repeating throughout the offseason as the team’s top priority. The parties “are expected to maintain a steady pace with the start of training camp looming”.

Although this is the first case in recent years with a key player not under contract still negotiating a deal this late, there are many instances in very recent history of the Steelers negotiating well into the training camp and preseason on new deals. All-Pro safety Troy Polamalu signed a new contract extension last season, in fact, on September 10th, avoiding the uncertainty of entering the season on the last year of his contract.

As was written here previously, the signing of veteran tackle Max Starks yesterday gave the Steelers an opportunity to save money, which could then be used to sign Wallace.

The money saved would be achieved by releasing reserve tackle Jonathan Scott, who entered last season as the starting left tackle, but performed so poorly during the first month that the team brought back Starks to shore up the line despite cutting him during the offseason as a salary cap casualty. Starks was also out of shape after having been unable to work out while recovering from a neck injury that landed him on injured reserve in 2010.

Today, a day after signing Starks, the team has already announced the release of Scott, which will save the team more than $2 million. The swift action on this decision may be another signal that a deal with Wallace is imminent. Otherwise, it would be more beneficial to keep Scott in training camp as long as possible in case there is an injury.

On the other hand, the organization also has a history of cutting players early in the hopes that they can catch on with another team before the start of the season. They did just this earlier in the offseason when they cut several key veterans. It is likely, however, that in the event of injury, Scott can be brought back on a much more cap friendly veteran minimum contract regardless of whether or not Scott’s release is a direct indication of an impending deal with Wallace.

http://www.examiner.com/article/steelers-talks-with-wallace-going-well-as-team-saves-money-by-cutting-t-scott

feltdizz
07-19-2012, 07:42 PM
Sounds like we are going to sign Wallace to a deal pretty soon.

Eddie Spaghetti
07-19-2012, 09:29 PM
hope this deal gets done.

wallace has conducted himself like a true professional, despite the hysterics of some of the posters here.

he has been called lazy, greedy, selfish, and being in possession of an out of control ego, which is the exact opposite of what I have seen in the 3 years wallace has played WR here. the pile on has been pretty disheartening to watch.

the steelers have had a bargain in wallace. he has earned a fair deal.

pay that man his money. (for ruthless)

squidkid
07-20-2012, 08:44 AM
i hope he signs but not for more than 6-7 million per. he aint worth it

RuthlessBurgher
07-20-2012, 10:04 AM
hope this deal gets done.

wallace has conducted himself like a true professional, despite the hysterics of some of the posters here.

he has been called lazy, greedy, selfish, and being in possession of an out of control ego, which is the exact opposite of what I have seen in the 3 years wallace has played WR here. the pile on has been pretty disheartening to watch.

the steelers have had a bargain in wallace. he has earned a fair deal.

pay that man his money. (for ruthless)

Nice...you know I couldn't possibly let a good Teddy KGB quote just hang out there...http://dspl.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/teddy_kgb.gif

Keyplay1
07-21-2012, 11:32 AM
Well, at least according to nfl.com it is getting close.

Mike Wallace, Steelers reportedly progress on contract 34 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82aacda6/comments/mike-wallace-steelers-reportedly-progress-on-contract)



By Gregg Rosenthal
Around The League editor
Published: July 19, 2012 at 05:05 p.m.
Updated: July 19, 2012 at 05:32 p.m.





http://i.nflcdn.com/static/site/4.2/img/share-bar/fb-like.png
http://i.nflcdn.com/static/site/4.2/img/share-bar/share-button.png






Print (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82aacda6/printable/mike-wallace-steelers-reportedly-progress-on-contract)






Mike Wallace and the Pittsburgh Steelers (http://www.nfl.com/teams/pittsburghsteelers/profile?team=PIT) might get a contract done this offseason after all.
With training camp approaching, Jason La Canfora of CBSSports.com reports the two sides are in "close contact" and have made recent progress toward a deal (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/19615831/la-canfora-steelers-mike-wallace-continue-to-make-progress-on-new-deal). This is a change of tone since, well, this entire offseason (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a5ec65/article/mike-wallace-steelers-reportedly-in-contract-standstill). Wallace was believed to be asking for an exorbitant salary (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d827eecd5/article/why-does-nobody-want-to-sign-mike-wallace), and there was very little optimism a deal could be done.
Brooks: Haley's impact on Pittsburgh
Some questioned Pittsburgh's hiring of Todd
Haley to run the offense, but Bucky Brooks thinks it's a perfect match. More ... (http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d829723ee)



The sides are expected to keep a "steady pace" in talks until training camp starts. Wallace remains unsigned after receiving a restricted free-agent tag this offseason for $2.72 million. We'd be surprised if he showed up to training camp on time without a new contract.
The theory this offseason is that the Steelers eventually would have to make a choice between Wallace and Antonio Brown, like they once did with Hines Ward (http://www.nfl.com/players/hinesward/profile?id=WAR179227) and Plaxico Burress (http://www.nfl.com/players/plaxicoburress/profile?id=BUR595691). (Nice decision there.)
If the Steelers could lock up Wallace long-term this offseason, that would give them a lot of time to get Brown under contract before he's an unrestricted free agent in 2014.
The Steelers cut offensive tackle Johnathan Scott (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82aacd1d/article/pittsburgh-steelers-release-offensive-tackle-jonathan-scott) on Thursday, which frees up some salary-cap space to spend on Wallace.

-----What made me laugh about this article was the 1st 3 or 4 comments made by fans on the article were all expressing joy at the last sentence about Scott being let go. Also they stuck in the video 32 on 32 again which was the subject of another article. Incidentally, this video was I thought a very fair view of the new OC concerns. Both Willie McGinest and Charles Davis had some sensible comments on the subject. Hope they are accurate.

hawaiiansteel
07-22-2012, 11:16 PM
New Deal With Mike Wallace Can Be Both Cap Friendly And Lucrative

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012 by Dave Bryan

http://img2.yardbarker.com/media/0/c/0ce3d9d502937ebe33c0d393fc3a1c982d8cc5a2/related/Buffalo_Bills_v_1999.jpg?stamp=1343000494

After the release of Jonathan Scott on Thursday, the Pittsburgh Steelers are approximately $6 million under the salary cap. Keep in mind that figure also includes the $2.74 restricted tender that wide receiver Mike Wallace is currently wearing as well. If you pull that tender amount out, the team has approximately $8.74 million in cap space to work with to accommodate a new deal. Now of course David DeCastro figures to eat up another $1 plus million of that cap space when his deal is completed and the Steelers will certainly want to have about $2 million at their discretion in case injuries strike, so that puts them back around $5.74 million available in cap space for a year one hit of a Wallace deal.

I have also mentioned previously that it is in my belief that the three $500,000 veteran credits the Steelers have at their disposal have not yet been applied. In 2011 they had three $1 million veteran credits at their disposal, and they used them on James Farrior, Hines Ward and Casey Hampton. There is no reason to think that they will not use those credits, which are borrowed from future years, in 2012. Should that indeed be the case, that puts the Steelers back at roughly $7.25 million in available space to work with for Wallace.

Structure is everything when it comes to contracts. So many people want to look at the total value as well as the perceived average per year and base their opinions solely on that. I am here to tell you that that is the wrong way to look at contracts. The structure, signing bonus and break down by individual years are the most important elements of any deal. Often times roster bonuses, option bonuses and escalators are often listed in the initial reports as guaranteed money along with the total value of a deal. Why do agents release the numbers initially to the media this way? Because it looks good, that's why.

I pointed to the deal the other day that the Baltimore Ravens gave to running back Ray Rice as a great example of structure in relation to a way the Steelers could do a new deal with Wallace. I think many thought in that example I was trying to say that would be the exact money Wallace would get. I wasn't, as I was merely pointing to the structure of the contract, not the actually amounts, just so we are clear.

Rice received a $15 million signing bonus in that five year deal upon signing. That $15 million is amortized out equally over the 5 years of the deal as salary cap charges. That means that in all 5 years of the deal that $3 million is charged to the Ravens salary cap. So in 2012, Rice has an amortized signing bonus charge of $3 million. His base salary in 2012 is $2 million, so right there you see that Rice will count only $5 million against the Ravens cap in 2012.

So where is the other "guaranteed" money at? In 2013 Rice has a $7 million option bonus due him that the Ravens will surely pay and it should be guaranteed fully in case of injury. Semantics. That $7 million option, once paid, is amortized like a signing bonus and is spread out for cap purposes over the remaining four years left on the deal. That means that Rice will have an additional $1.75 million bonus charge added to years two though five. That $1.75 million is stacked on top of the $3 million signing bonus cap charge that I talked about above. So that means in years two through five that Rice will have a $4.75 million total amortized bonus charge against the cap on top of his base salaries due him, as well as any incentives he earns in his performance escalators. More on those in a bit.

In 2013 Rice is scheduled to earn a base salary of $1 million, so that would make his 2013 cap hit only $5.75 million. So as you can see, this is a perfect example of a structure that pays Rice $24 million by March of next year, because that is when the option bonus needs to be exercised, yet the Ravens only incur cap hits of $5 million in 2012 and $5.75 in 2013. Essentially his cap hit stays flat and helps the Ravens in 2013 when the salary cap is expected to remain flat as well.

The base salaries for Rice in 2014-2016 are $4 million, $3 million and $3 million respectively and these are not guaranteed. His cap hits, assuming he does not trigger his escalator by then, are scheduled to be $8.75 million, $7.75 million and $7.75 million in years three through five. His highest cap hit peaks in year three of the deal. If Rice is still producing after year three, they will obviously retain him, and in fact, they are betting he essentially has four more years in him with a 5th year being a bonus.

Ok, so now we have $34 million of the reported $40 million accounted for, so where is the other $6 million? Rice has another $5 million that he can earn through a triggered performance incentive. All he has to do is to hit it once in the first three years. If he hits it in 2012, he gets and extra million in 2012, as well as the remaining 4 years of the deal. If he hits it in 2014, he gets an extra million in that year and another $2 million in both 2015 and 2016. That escalator is triggered by Rice reaching specific rushing/receiving targets in any of the first three years of the deal, and if the team finishes in the top 10 in total offense.

That puts us at $39 million, so where is the other $1 million? I believe that $1 million to be in the form of workout bonuses in years two through five of the deal. $250,000 in each of those years. That amount is of course added to his salary cap hit once earned, so that should mean that in 2013, his cap hit is likely to be $6 million, and could be as high as $7 million, should he trip his escalator. That $250,000 workout bonus each year is not guaranteed though.

So what does this have to do with Wallace? Well, you can expect his new deal, if one is reached, will likely will be structured quite similarly to the one of Rice. Maybe not the exact amounts, but the structure. The key thing is the signing bonus and the second year money that is likely to be either in the form of a roster bonus or an option bonus. If it is a roster bonus, it can easily be restructured in 2013 and paid out as a signing bonus, thus lowering the cap hit. The most I see Wallace getting as far as a signing bonus goes, on say a five-year deal, would be $18 million, which would create a salary cap liability in each year of the deal of $3.6 million. Add that on to a max $2 million base salary in 2012, and Wallace has at most a cap charge in 2012 of $5.6 million. Year two of the deal could be an option bonus of say $6 to $8 million, which would create an additional salary cap charge in years two through five of anywhere between $1.5 and $2 million. Say his 2013 base salary is $1 million, then Wallace essentially makes anywhere between $24 to $26 million by March of 2013.

Those are high end amounts in my opinion and only a crude example of how a deal, that could be structured in so many different ways, could be done on a high end, yet be cap friendly at the same time in the first two years of the deal.

The ultimate goal of Omar Khan is to keep year one and year two of the deal as flat as possible cap hit wise and around $5 million in each of those first two years. At the same time, he will need to give Wallace enough guaranteed money in the first two years two appease him. Realistically I see a $15 million signing bonus as tops, followed up with an option bonus of around $7 million in 2013. Add in a $2 million base salary in 2012 and a $1 million base salary in 2013 and Wallace basically gets $25 million "guaranteed". That scenario would result in cap hits in 2012 of $5 million and $5.75 million in 2013. Fill in the blanks in years three through five of non-guaranteed base salaries and perhaps roster or workout bonuses, and you get a deal that might just total out at as high as $40 million, just like Rice.

In 2014 and on, which includes the final three years of the Wallace deal, should be absorbed easily with the new TV deal money expected to kick in and the subsequent increase of the cap. What that cap increase will be at that time, we still don't exactly know. The roster also figures to be average in age by that time in addition, and Wallace would likely be in the top ten or so of cap hits. It is sacrilegious to say, but players like James Harrison, Troy Polamalu, Heath Miller and Ike Taylor could very well not be around in 2014, the final year of their current deals. So whatever the cap hit of Wallace would wind up being in 2014, should be easily affordable, as too should be the cap hits of both Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders, both of whom I think the Steelers can easily retain if they so desire.

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/new_deal_with_mike_wallace_can_be_both_cap_friendl y_and_lucrative/11272831

hawaiiansteel
07-25-2012, 03:15 PM
With DeCastro in tow, Steelers turn to Wallace

Tue Jul 24, 2012
By Mike Bires

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/timesonline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/b8/1b8857c2-fb1f-5ace-82f6-d87be0fa29e1/500f6496c4232.preview-300.jpg

Steelers wide receiver Mike Wallace, center, isn't quite on Jerry Rice's pace but he's still the best deep threat in the NFL.

Now that all their drafts picks are signed, the Steelers can concentrate their efforts on Mike Wallace.

The team leader last year in receptions, touchdown catches and receiving yards, Wallace is the only unsigned Steeler. He can’t practice at training camp until he signs.

All Steelers under contract must report to camp at St. Vincent College in Latrobe on Wednesday.

Wallace does have a $2.7 million tender he received months ago as a restricted free agent. But he’s yet to sign that tender because he wants a long-term, multi-million deal what would put him among the NFL’s highest-paid wide receivers.

As Steelers’ negotiators and Wallace’s agent continue to hammer out a new deal, there’s a good chance Wallace will hold out of training camp. This past spring, he skipped all 10 of the voluntary organized team activities and boycotted the three-day minicamp because he’s not satisfied with the tender offer.

Wallace became the final unsigned Steelers after the team signed first-round draft pick David DeCastro on Monday.

The All-American guard out of Stanford, agreed to a four-year contract with an option year. DeCastro, 22, who will be paid $7.8 million over four years, will start immediately for the Steelers.

DeCastro agreed to terms shortly after Detroit tackle Riley Reiff signed a four-year, $8 million deal. Reiff was the 23rd pick, one before DeCastro. Also signing Monday was Dallas cornerback Morris Claiborne, who was the sixth pick.

As of 6 p.m. Monday, there were only seven first-round picks still unsigned: running back Trent Richardson, Browns (3); tackle Matt Kalil, Vikings (4); wide receiver Justin Blackmon, Jaguars (5); quarterback Ryan Tannehill, Dolphins 8 nose tackle Dontari Poe, Chiefs (11); wide receiver Kendall Wright, Titans (20); and quarterback Brandon Weeden, Browns (22).

http://www.timesonline.com/sports/steelers/with-decastro-in-tow-steelers-turn-to-wallace/article_afd24ad3-dbea-5673-8f3a-56c9dd1ecb1a.html