ckparrothead
Premium Member
I think Brandon Gibson is the part of any of these equations that doesn't really make much sense to me.
Gibson + Welker > Wallace OR Gibson + Cook > Wallace
- Thread starter BenchFiedler
- Start date
Personally I would rather have Gibson, T. Austin and Dustin Keller
CK I respect your opinion as much as anyone on here, but should this team get in a bidding war for Wallace, especially if the number may reach 13-15m. I know Gibson is young and upcoming and Stevie Johnson called him the 3rd best Free Agent WR available. Just wanting to know your thoughts on Gibson.
What role does Gibson even fit here? 4.59 40 says he has little deep ball ability, he's only 6' 3/8" and benched 225 10 times, so he doesn't look like a big redzone threat. Honestly, he looks like Hartline Lite to me; I don't get it.
A logical approach would be:
Wallace: Deep ball guy
Cook: Physical freak redzone mismatch guy
Hartline: #2 move the chains guy
Austin/Swope: Lethal slot guy
Matthews: Developmental guy
too bad theres not much logic around these parts.
A logical approach would be:
Wallace: Deep ball guy
Cook: Physical freak redzone mismatch guy
Hartline: #2 move the chains guy
Austin/Swope: Lethal slot guy
Matthews: Developmental guy
too bad theres not much logic around these parts.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
I'm not a big fan of the idea of paying Mike Wallace that much money. There's no question, he's talented. He's fast as hell and marries that with great ability to play the football in the air. His speed makes him a threat after the catch even if he's not exactly a DeSean Jackson that way. But when you're talking $12 or $13 million a year, you're talking 10% of your entire team is Mike Wallace. That's hard to swallow. A lot has been made about how in this offense Joe Philbin can't stomach having a #1 wide receiver, a guy that you focus on getting the ball to every game. He supposedly loves a more egalitarian approach where the ball flows naturally according to the coverage. If 10% of your team (salary cap-wise) is Mike Wallace, can you afford to do that? What happens when you lose a football game 23-27 and Mike Wallace was only thrown the football 6 times?
His most efficient year in the league was 2010. That was when he had 1257 yards and 10 TDs on 60 catches and 93 attempts. But perhaps people don't realize in that year, he was thrown the football 6 times or fewer in 12 games that year. Could people stomach that in Miami if he's making $12.5 million a year and is literally supposed to be 10% of the team?
And what happened when the team leaned on him more? Well they did that in the Super Bowl that very same year. When the going got rough they leaned on Mike Wallace to the tune of 16 attempts his direction. He repaid them with 9 catches for 89 yards, 1 TD and 2 INTs on balls heading his direction. Not the best of games.
In fact in his career he's been targeted 10+ times in a game a total of 10 games. The production in those 10 games amounts to 74 catches on 116 attempts for 967 yards and 7 TDs with 5 INTs thrown in his direction. In the other games in his career he's got 177 catches on 327 targets for 3,218 yards, 26 TDs and 11 INTs in his direction. That's a big drop, from 9.8 yards per attempt to 8.3 yards per attempt.
So there's some question whether we can ever re-create the circumstances for him that saw him producing 13.5 yards per attempt in 2010...or even 10.6 yards per attempt in 2011...to where most games he's getting targeted maybe 4 to 6 times per game. There's also some worry that at 27 years old he's certainly still in his prime so to speak but maybe a little less so than he was when he was 24 years old in 2010...and certainly in 3 years he'll still be very much under contract and still be very expensive and at 30 years old you wonder if he'll be as explosive then too.
The whole thing is dicey. You'd like to not have to buy this kind of player at PEAK price levels in his career...and that's what we'd be doing.
His most efficient year in the league was 2010. That was when he had 1257 yards and 10 TDs on 60 catches and 93 attempts. But perhaps people don't realize in that year, he was thrown the football 6 times or fewer in 12 games that year. Could people stomach that in Miami if he's making $12.5 million a year and is literally supposed to be 10% of the team?
And what happened when the team leaned on him more? Well they did that in the Super Bowl that very same year. When the going got rough they leaned on Mike Wallace to the tune of 16 attempts his direction. He repaid them with 9 catches for 89 yards, 1 TD and 2 INTs on balls heading his direction. Not the best of games.
In fact in his career he's been targeted 10+ times in a game a total of 10 games. The production in those 10 games amounts to 74 catches on 116 attempts for 967 yards and 7 TDs with 5 INTs thrown in his direction. In the other games in his career he's got 177 catches on 327 targets for 3,218 yards, 26 TDs and 11 INTs in his direction. That's a big drop, from 9.8 yards per attempt to 8.3 yards per attempt.
So there's some question whether we can ever re-create the circumstances for him that saw him producing 13.5 yards per attempt in 2010...or even 10.6 yards per attempt in 2011...to where most games he's getting targeted maybe 4 to 6 times per game. There's also some worry that at 27 years old he's certainly still in his prime so to speak but maybe a little less so than he was when he was 24 years old in 2010...and certainly in 3 years he'll still be very much under contract and still be very expensive and at 30 years old you wonder if he'll be as explosive then too.
The whole thing is dicey. You'd like to not have to buy this kind of player at PEAK price levels in his career...and that's what we'd be doing.