PDA

View Full Version : Here is the article about Wallace vs Brown. Did the Steelers overreact?



Steelhere10
01-16-2013, 09:57 PM
Gerry Dulac (http://sulia.com/gerrydulac/)
about 4 hours ago (http://sulia.com/channel/football/f/0d92a726-4c48-410e-b5de-4fc7be33238c/)
(http://sulia.com/channel/football/f/0d92a726-4c48-410e-b5de-4fc7be33238c/) 5 Comments (http://sulia.com/channel/football/f/0d92a726-4c48-410e-b5de-4fc7be33238c/)
Did Steelers' decision to sign Antonio Brown cost them Mike Wallace?
When Mike Wallace did not report with the rest of his teammates on the first day of training camp, the Steelers wasted little time reacting to his holdout: They called Antonio Brown’s agent, Drew Rosenhaus, and summoned him to Latrobe as fast as they could.
Within two days, the Steelers and Rosenhaus had crafted a new contract for Brown – a six-year extension worth $42.5 million, a big number for a player who was considered the No. 2 receiver and was entering just his third season in the league.
But, with that signing, the Steelers were telling Wallace and just about anyone else that they considered Brown, not Wallace, their No. 1 receiver.
That signing, that decision, is the reason the Steelers will not be able to re-sign Wallace, who is an unrestricted free agent. If they consider Brown to be their No. 1 receiver – and his signing would certainly suggest that – then the Steelers are not going to sign Wallace to a contract bigger than the one they gave Brown. Their pay structure doesn’t operate that way.
So did the Steelers react emotionally and make a rash decision to hurriedly sign Brown?
An argument could be made to suggest they did.
Here’s why:
The Steelers signed Brown to a big contract extension because he was coming off a season in which he became the first player in NFL history to have 1,000 receiving yards and 1,000 return yards in the same season. Brown also made the Pro Bowl as a return specialist.
Also, Brown looked to be the better and more productive receiver than Wallace in the second half of the 2011 season. He had 51 of his 69 catches and 846 of his 1,108 receiving yards in the final 10 games of the season. Wallace, meantime, had only 19 catches for 271 yards in the final six games.
But there was a reason for that.
When it became apparent to the coaches that Hines Ward could no longer be an effective receiver, the Steelers moved Brown to the split end, or X, position in their offense because he did not know the plays or assignments at Ward’s position – flanker. Split end is more of a big-play position with deeper routes and opportunities for more catches. The Steelers moved Wallace to flanker (or Z receiver), where he had more inside routes and blocking assignments.

Chadman
01-16-2013, 10:30 PM
So....what Chadman has been saying all along then?

Sure, Not
01-16-2013, 10:47 PM
I think attitude had more to do with it than anything. Sure wally had talent, but he turned into a whiny douche with his holdout and they decided to go with the guy who busts ass every day no matter the contract. Did AB have a bad 2012? Yes. IHMO we signed the right guy. AB has a business like attitude whereas MW has a me me me now now now attitude. Bye bye mikey. Good luck in Arizona.

feltdizz
01-16-2013, 10:54 PM
So... a reporter gives his opinion and it becomes fact?

Chadman
01-16-2013, 11:44 PM
So... a reporter gives his opinion and it becomes fact?

No.....but it becomes a valid point to make. Also, just so we fully understand the impact on the Steelers 2013 Salary Cap... Brown will cost the Steelers $6.2m in 2013. He was scheduled to be an RFA in 2013- not UFA. His tender value, if given the highest tender, would have been $2.89m.

That $3.8m difference could be the difference between Keenan Lewis starting, and Cortez Allen starting.

Or Max Starks starting over Marcus Gilbert/ Mike Adams.

The signing/non-signing of Wallace should not have impacted the signing of Brown. It was a bad business decision.

Slapstick
01-17-2013, 08:59 AM
No.....but it becomes a valid point to make. Also, just so we fully understand the impact on the Steelers 2013 Salary Cap... Brown will cost the Steelers $6.2m in 2013. He was scheduled to be an RFA in 2013- not UFA. His tender value, if given the highest tender, would have been $2.89m.

That $3.8m difference could be the difference between Keenan Lewis starting, and Cortez Allen starting.

Or Max Starks starting over Marcus Gilbert/ Mike Adams.

The signing/non-signing of Wallace should not have impacted the signing of Brown. It was a bad business decision.

On the other hand...

Signing Wallace to a contract would have created the same cap issue this year...probably more if there had been a greater amount of guaranteed money...in addition to the RFA tender issued to Brown...

Oviedo
01-17-2013, 09:21 AM
Wallace is the only one who decideed not to sign the offer he got. Wallace is one who held out when he waqs told the Steelers would not negotiate with a holdout. Wallace made his decisions and he is not a victim like some want to portray him for making his choices.

If Wallace leaves it is because of Wallace. His choice, his decision.

The bottomline is the Steelers invested their money in a player who works harder than any player on the team including the player who rejected the money and who seemed more committed to the Steelers than the player who rejected the money. IMO that is a good investment.

Shawn
01-17-2013, 10:12 AM
Yeah, not buying it. Brown passes the eye test. He runs sharper routes, has better hands, and is more nifty in space. He is the all around better WR. I'm not saying Wallace is a slug, but his game is built on pure speed. Take away that and he is a below average WR.

BURGH86STEEL
01-17-2013, 10:56 AM
It seemed like that Steelers did something that was uncharacteristic and hastily resigned Brown to a contract because Wallace didn't accept their offer. The move reeked of arrogance by the Steelers organization.

steelfin
01-17-2013, 11:01 AM
It seemed like that Steelers did something that was uncharacteristic and hastily resigned Brown to a contract because Wallace didn't accept their offer. The move reeked of arrogance by the Steelers organization.

+1...Someone let their ego get in the way of business....

Slapstick
01-17-2013, 11:27 AM
So, after Wallace said "No, thank you," to the Steelers, it would have been better to have 1 UFA (Wallace) and 2 RFAs (Brown and Sanders)? And if Brown and Sanders had pulled a Mike, refusing to sign their offers and not showing up for camp, where would the Steelers be?

steelz09
01-17-2013, 12:03 PM
Yeah, not buying it. Brown passes the eye test. He runs sharper routes, has better hands, and is more nifty in space. He is the all around better WR. I'm not saying Wallace is a slug, but his game is built on pure speed. Take away that and he is a below average WR.

:Agree

I would take Brown anyday over a higher-priced Wallace. Brown might not have the same speed as Wallace but he's much more dynamic.

Chadman
01-17-2013, 05:51 PM
Seems a lot of posters are arguing the Brown vs Wallace argument- but that isn't the point of the article.

The bad business decision wasn't that the Steelers signed Brown to a multi-year deal & not Wallace.

The bad business decision was that once Wallace rejected the offer he was given, the Steelers then signed Brown to a $42 million deal. Brown was scheduled to be a RFA this offseason. The HIGHEST tender is under $2m. Another team would have to have paid $2m+ to sign him, plus give up draft picks to the Steelers in compensation. Wouldn't have happened. They could have had Brown next season for a third of what he'll cost the Steelers.

Now the Steelers are $16m over the cap, have no hope of signing Wallace at all & overspent on Brown who proceeded to struggle last season after signing his contract deal.

That's a BAD business decision. Brown might not only cost the Steelers Wallace, but someone like Max Starks who could have been re-signed for the difference between Brown's $6.2m 2013 cap hit & the highest RFA tender price.

Argue all you like about who is the better WR between Wallace & Brown- that doesn't make the Steelers over reaction to Wallace not signing his contract any more valid.

Slapstick
01-18-2013, 09:24 AM
Seems a lot of posters are arguing the Brown vs Wallace argument- but that isn't the point of the article.

The bad business decision wasn't that the Steelers signed Brown to a multi-year deal & not Wallace.

The bad business decision was that once Wallace rejected the offer he was given, the Steelers then signed Brown to a $42 million deal. Brown was scheduled to be a RFA this offseason. The HIGHEST tender is under $2m. Another team would have to have paid $2m+ to sign him, plus give up draft picks to the Steelers in compensation. Wouldn't have happened. They could have had Brown next season for a third of what he'll cost the Steelers.

Now the Steelers are $16m over the cap, have no hope of signing Wallace at all & overspent on Brown who proceeded to struggle last season after signing his contract deal.

That's a BAD business decision. Brown might not only cost the Steelers Wallace, but someone like Max Starks who could have been re-signed for the difference between Brown's $6.2m 2013 cap hit & the highest RFA tender price.

Argue all you like about who is the better WR between Wallace & Brown- that doesn't make the Steelers over reaction to Wallace not signing his contract any more valid.

Already answered...


So, after Wallace said "No, thank you," to the Steelers, it would have been better to have 1 UFA (Wallace) and 2 RFAs (Brown and Sanders)? And if Brown and Sanders had pulled a Mike, refusing to sign their offers and not showing up for camp, where would the Steelers be?

feltdizz
01-18-2013, 11:02 AM
Steelers simply reacted... but they didn't overreact...

Eddie Spaghetti
01-18-2013, 11:37 AM
Steelers simply reacted... but they didn't overreact...

you can certainly make the case that they did, as chadman does nicely here.

if they don't get more from brown going forward, then they substantially overpaid.

phillyesq
01-18-2013, 12:12 PM
Steelers simply reacted... but they didn't overreact...

Yup. A lot of the Steelers philosophy involves making sure that they don't have gaping holes on the team. When one WR wouldn't agree to a long term deal they locked up the other one.

Did they overpay for Brown? Perhaps a bit, but I think he'll end up alright.

Sugar
01-18-2013, 12:14 PM
you can certainly make the case that they did, as chadman does nicely here.

if they don't get more from brown going forward, then they substantially overpaid.

Agreed. Many will make the case that Brown is somehow a better WR. That doesn't matter if his production isn't as good.

Slapstick
01-18-2013, 12:15 PM
Agreed. Many will make the case that Brown is somehow a better WR. That doesn't matter if his production isn't as good.

It was this past season...

Sugar
01-18-2013, 01:35 PM
It was this past season...

Are you saying that Brown's production was better than Wallace's or the other way around? The numbers bear that Wallace outproduced Brown this year, so that would make sense if that's what you're saying.

Slapstick
01-18-2013, 03:34 PM
Are you saying that Brown's production was better than Wallace's or the other way around? The numbers bear that Wallace outproduced Brown this year, so that would make sense if that's what you're saying.

I'm saying that, on a game-by-game basis, the numbers were comparable...

Brown - 5 receptions per game - 60.5 yards per game - .4 TD per game

Wallace - 4.2 receptions per game - 55.7 yards per game - .5 TD per game

Oviedo
01-18-2013, 04:26 PM
I'm saying that, on a game-by-game basis, the numbers were comparable...

Brown - 5 receptions per game - 60.5 yards per game - .4 TD per game

Wallace - 4.2 receptions per game - 55.7 yards per game - .5 TD per game

Add in Brown's 182 return yards (not counting at least another 100+ called back because of penalties) and the Steelers clearly are keeping the more complete player. For all his blazing speed it amazes me that Wallace can't return kicks. Just another hole in his skillset.

feltdizz
01-18-2013, 05:03 PM
Add in Brown's 182 return yards (not counting at least another 100+ called back because of penalties) and the Steelers clearly are keeping the more complete player. For all his blazing speed it amazes me that Wallace can't return kicks. Just another hole in his skillset.

He can barely catch a football (I kid but if it isn't in his basket it's 50/50) so why have him back their to double catch punts?

Oviedo
01-18-2013, 05:21 PM
He can barely catch a football (I kid but if it isn't in his basket it's 50/50) so why have him back their to double catch punts?

I was thinking it was being a little "gunshy" about getting hit hard!

RuthlessBurgher
01-18-2013, 05:32 PM
He can barely catch a football (I kid but if it isn't in his basket it's 50/50) so why have him back their to double catch punts?

Guys with more pure straight line speed (Wallace) make better kickoff returners (they have an opportunity to get up to full speed before defenders get to them), while guys with more quick-twitch jitterbug type moves (Brown) make better punt returners (they often have to try to make a defender miss with a quick move right away).

Chadman
01-20-2013, 01:28 PM
So, after Wallace said "No, thank you," to the Steelers, it would have been better to have 1 UFA (Wallace) and 2 RFAs (Brown and Sanders)? And if Brown and Sanders had pulled a Mike, refusing to sign their offers and not showing up for camp, where would the Steelers be?

The same place they are with the RB's- Mendy FA, Redman/Dwyer RFA's. Nobody thinks that was a problem..

Chadman's argument is not about the quality of Brown vs Wallace in this (has been in other threads, but letting that go). This is simple maths- the Steelers didnt need to extend Brown last season, and if they hadn't, they'd be able to put Brown & Sanders on the field for a 3rd of what Brown will cost against the cap this year. The money saved ($2-$3m) could have been used to bring back Max Starks, or Keenan Lewis..

If both Brown & Sanders had held out from Camp, then maybe the Steelers would have to evaluate how they go about negotiating contracts.

In fact- given the way the FO has dealt with a few contracts in the last 3 years- that might not be a bad thing to do, regardless.

SteelerOfDeVille
01-21-2013, 12:29 AM
they considered them 1 and 1a... when one didn't want to sign, they said, "cool, we'll take that contract to the other guy." Truth be told, with Arians out of the picture, Wallace isn't nearly the WR he was in years past... can you say Dink and Dunk... :-)

steelmann58
01-21-2013, 12:41 AM
Brown signed and Walllace chos to hold out t was his decision.

Oviedo
01-21-2013, 08:32 AM
Brown signed and Walllace chos to hold out t was his decision.

$$$$. Wallace is the one making the decisions. Nothing was "done to him." He chose to say no and risk going somewhere else. His decision. The Front Office did not do anything to him except offer him the opportunity to be a very rich man.

supersteeler
01-21-2013, 08:47 AM
$$$$. Wallace is the one making the decisions. Nothing was "done to him." He chose to say no and risk going somewhere else. His decision. The Front Office did not do anything to him except offer him the opportunity to be a very rich man.


I agree, remember when Hines was going to hold out but came to camp? By coming to camp he had a better shot of getting a deal done and he did get a nice deal. Wallace was afraid of getting injured while not having the big contract in place yet I guess, but this is all on him.
He had the opportunity and blew it, the Steelers don't cave in when are these players going to learn that.

BURGH86STEEL
01-21-2013, 09:04 AM
I agree, remember when Hines was going to hold out but came to camp? By coming to camp he had a better shot of getting a deal done and he did get a nice deal. Wallace was afraid of getting injured while not having the big contract in place yet I guess, but this is all on him.
He had the opportunity and blew it, the Steelers don't cave in when are these players going to learn that.

Wallace didn't blow anything by himself. Maybe the Steelers blew it too because they didn't offer Wallace enough up front money? It's not all on Wallace. If only we knew what the Steelers offered Wallace. If they offered Wallace the same deal as Brown I can understand why Wallace wanted a deal with more upfront money. As a result not getting a deal done, the Steelers will probably lose their most explosive play maker.

Players can care less if and when the Steelers decide to cave. There are 31 other teams in the league that can pay them.

Oviedo
01-21-2013, 09:59 AM
Wallace didn't blow anything by himself. Maybe the Steelers blew it too because they didn't offer Wallace enough up front money? It's not all on Wallace. If only we knew what the Steelers offered Wallace. If they offered Wallace the same deal as Brown I can understand why Wallace wanted a deal with more upfront money. As a result not getting a deal done, the Steelers will probably lose their most explosive play maker.

Players can care less if and when the Steelers decide to cave. There are 31 other teams in the league that can pay them.

I think the Steelers' front office and coaches are far less worried about losing Wallace than his fans are. If they really cared they would find a way to make it work but they won't make that extra effort for a player who doesn't seem to care about being here. I think they understand that Wallace has many flaws as a WR and one strength...his speed. One injury and that speed could be gone which is logically why the Steelers balked at a whole lot of upfront money. If Wallace "loses a step" its not like he has other WR strengths he can rely on if he would ever have to do anything except run "go routes"

Chadman
01-21-2013, 10:09 AM
And we still argue Wallace vs Brown, and not the point of the article which is that the Steelers over-reacted to Wallace rejecting their contract offer.

Brown, regardless of being an inferior or superior WR to Mike Wallace, was scheduled to be a RFA in 2013.

Restricted Free Agent.

If the Steelers had decided to offer Brown the highest tender- they'd have him under contract in 2013 for $2.879m. And if another team wanted him, they'd have to pony up a 1st round pick to get him. They could sign Sanders to his original round tender amount & pay him $1.323m. That's both WR's signed for a tick under $3.2m in 2013.

But the Steelers didn't do that, did they? They extended Brown to a $42m contract 2 days after Wallace rejected them. The result is that Antonio Brown will cost the Steelers $6.2m against the cap on his own in 2013. That doesn't include Sanders.

And the Steelers are near $20m over the cap as it is.

It was a BAD business decision, regardless of which WR is superior.

Chadman
01-21-2013, 10:25 AM
If they offered Wallace the same deal as Brown I can understand why Wallace wanted a deal with more upfront money. As a result not getting a deal done, the Steelers will probably lose their most explosive play maker.

Without trying to rehash the whole Wallace/Brown argument- this is the sticking point for Chadman. It's been reported quite a few times now that the money offered to Brown was very similar to the money the Steelers had previously offered to Wallace.

At the time of the contract offer (Slapstick- before you go apopleptic, just remember that the contract was offered prior to 2012, not after- so last season's stats are irrelevant) Wallace had 3 very good years production on his resume. And while we all want to argue the "Top 10 Money" thing- stats will show that Wallace's agent had a point. Yes- the 2nd half of 2011 showed a significant dip in Wallace's production- won't argue that, and there could be several reasons for that which, for the sake of human sanity, we won't go back over.

Now, conversely, at the time of the contract offer, Antonio Brown had 1 year's worth of good prodution as a returner, and half a year's production as a WR.

If the value of the contract offer is a reward for previous achievement- how is it possibly fair that Wallace & Brown get offered similar money based on production? Wallace was far superior over the course of his career, and deserved a higher rate of pay than Brown. Brown got overpaid by an organisation more intent on making a point about contract holdouts, instead of smart business decisions.

In the end- Wallace is as good as gone now, and will be paid by someone else. Will he be as successful elsewhere? Who knows? But the Steelers, Chadman is sure, will be hoping to get more than sub-800 yards recieving for their $6.2m cap hit in 2013. Problem is, there is no historical evidence supporting this happening in Brown's career.

Here's hoping the Steelers got it right.

Oviedo
01-21-2013, 10:43 AM
Without trying to rehash the whole Wallace/Brown argument- this is the sticking point for Chadman. It's been reported quite a few times now that the money offered to Brown was very similar to the money the Steelers had previously offered to Wallace.

At the time of the contract offer (Slapstick- before you go apopleptic, just remember that the contract was offered prior to 2012, not after- so last season's stats are irrelevant) Wallace had 3 very good years production on his resume. And while we all want to argue the "Top 10 Money" thing- stats will show that Wallace's agent had a point. Yes- the 2nd half of 2011 showed a significant dip in Wallace's production- won't argue that, and there could be several reasons for that which, for the sake of human sanity, we won't go back over.

Now, conversely, at the time of the contract offer, Antonio Brown had 1 year's worth of good prodution as a returner, and half a year's production as a WR.

If the value of the contract offer is a reward for previous achievement- how is it possibly fair that Wallace & Brown get offered similar money based on production? Wallace was far superior over the course of his career, and deserved a higher rate of pay than Brown. Brown got overpaid by an organisation more intent on making a point about contract holdouts, instead of smart business decisions.

In the end- Wallace is as good as gone now, and will be paid by someone else. Will he be as successful elsewhere? Who knows? But the Steelers, Chadman is sure, will be hoping to get more than sub-800 yards recieving for their $6.2m cap hit in 2013. Problem is, there is no historical evidence supporting this happening in Brown's career.

Here's hoping the Steelers got it right.

I think that you are narrowing the definition somewhat saying that "the value of the contract offer is a reward for previous achievement." It is a combination of both past production and the team's projection of that players future value to the team. To ignore that you think a player has a bigger upside is never part of the equation. IMO that is what happened with Wallace and Brown. The team saw that Brown potentially had a bigger upside than Wallace. Tomlin tried to make it a joke but he call Wallace a "one trick pony" for a very good reason.

BURGH86STEEL
01-21-2013, 01:41 PM
I think the Steelers' front office and coaches are far less worried about losing Wallace than his fans are. If they really cared they would find a way to make it work but they won't make that extra effort for a player who doesn't seem to care about being here. I think they understand that Wallace has many flaws as a WR and one strength...his speed. One injury and that speed could be gone which is logically why the Steelers balked at a whole lot of upfront money. If Wallace "loses a step" its not like he has other WR strengths he can rely on if he would ever have to do anything except run "go routes"
No point in worrying about who the team will lose. The team will move on and so will the player. It is what it is. Wallace probably wanted to be here but at the right price. I can't blame him for wanting a better deal the the one Brown received. Whether that deal was more upfront money or something else is still to be determined. I don't know the many flaws that you speak of in regard to Wallace? Wallace has improved as a route runner. He is still young enough to improve his overall game. At this point, Wallace has proven that he can produce and play at a high level. Even if Wallaces loses a step he will be faster then many of the WR's and DB's in the league. Wallace can run other routes besides go routes. However, the attention he draws and big play ability on go routes is where he will make his money.

One injury to any player can reduce that player's effectiveness and value. It's probably one reason why Wallace wanted more upfront money. I can't blame him. It's a smart business decision to get as much money as he can in his prime.

SS Laser
01-21-2013, 02:26 PM
I look at it this way Chadman. Brown got paid a bonus for 1k and 1k. He was the first to do it. Jersey's in the HOF. He made 2 BIG game saving catches I think. The football pinned to his helmet was sweet. And I think there was another. It was Browns clutch play and Wallace being greedy and not stepping up in the superbowl loss. Wallace is not clutch. Ward and Holmes were clutch also.

supersteeler
01-21-2013, 02:53 PM
Thinking a big receiver will solve our issues at WR is questionable.
Its not like our receivers can't be successful because they are shorter, or not physical, just look at Wallace and Browns numbers in 2011.
Go To Top Player Rec Yds Yds/Rec Long TD
Mike Wallace 72 1193 16.6 95 8
Antonio Brown 69 1108 16.1 79 2
Heath Miller 51 631 12.4 39 2
Hines Ward 46 381 8.3 31 2
Emmanuel Sanders 22 288 13.1 32 2
Rashard Mendenhall 18 154 8.6 35 0
Isaac Redman 18 78 4.3 12 0
Jerricho Cotchery 16 237 14.8 36 2
David Johnson 12 91 7.6 25 1
Mewelde Moore 11 104 9.5 24 1
Weslye Saunders 4 29 7.3 14 1
Ryan Mundy 1 33 33.0 33 0
Jonathan Dwyer 1 6 6.0 6 0




2012 NUMBERS


Mike Wallace 64 119 836 13.1 8 82 9 55.7 2 1 276 33
Heath Miller 71 101 816 11.5 8 43 11 54.4 0 0 351 44
Antonio Brown 66 105 787 11.9 5 60 10 60.5 2 1 319 43
Emmanuel Sanders 44 74 626 14.2 1 37 11 39.1 2 2 195 31
Isaac Redman 19 23 244 12.8 0 55 2 17.4 1 1 175 10
Jerricho Cotchery 17 27 205 12.1 0 24 4 14.6 0 0 36 12
Will Johnson 15 26 137 9.1 1 26 2 8.6 0 0 67 8
Jonathan Dwyer 18 25 106 5.9 0 15 0 8.2 0 0 101 7
Rashard Mendenhall 9 11 62 6.9 1 15 0 10.3 0 0 97 5
Chris Rainey 14 22 60 4.3 0 14 0 3.8 3 1 88 1
David Paulson 7 10 51 7.3 0 9 0 3.2 1 0 25 0
Plaxico Burress 3 7 42 14.0 1 18 0 10.5 0 0 3 3
Baron Batch 4 5 31 7.8 0 15 0 2.6 0 0 34 3
Leonard Pope 3 4 9 3.0 2 7 0 0.6 0 0 8 2
Totals 354 574 4012 11.3 27 82 49 250.8 12 7 1775 202
Opponents 299 523 3159 10.6 19 71 31 197.4 5 3 1167 169


Miller and Sanders yrds. went up in 2012 while Wallace and Brown went down but overall they aren't that far apart, the passes were distributed more evenly in 201 than in 2011.