We just don't have the cap space to have both and fill the rest of our holes. I would let Clay walk and have Sims/ Cameron as our te pair. Good size, hands, blocking, and allows us to fill other needs with cap space. Clay is just not worth the money it will take
I realize your concern for cap, but I also see this a different way. Go back a few years and look at the preseason when we had Keller. Keller stepped on the field day one and Tannehill immediately experienced growth in his game and was starting to develop a game changing chemistry that would have been the strength of our offense. Then tragedy struck. And our offense reverted back to depending on our WRs. It took longer for the same chemistry to reappear in the offense. This time it was Gibson. But it's most important to understand the reason Gibson become important... the chemistry and catches were happening over the middle of the field, right where Keller was having success. Right when Tannehill was clicking with Gibson, tragedy struck again.
Tannehill has never clicked with Wallace. Tannehill clicked with Hartline out of lack of options; he was one of the few reliable options running the routes RT is best. And last year, Tannehill clicked with Landry; a faster and better version of Hartline but still occupying the spaces RT is best. Clay has disappeared for games at a time, but when those two are on the same page, magic happens.
It's obvious to most of us that Tannehill's strength is the short to intermediate game. He's deadly precise in those areas and when we run the offense through that style of play calling, we excel.
I think the coaches and FO have learned what Tannehill truly needs. And I think they are trying to reshape the standard offense this year with packages and players that fill his strengths. This is what we should be doing. You don't see coaches trying to make Peyton run the option. Seems ridiculous doesn't it? So, why continue to draft and sign players that fill the mold of Wallace when RT doesn't have as much success in the deep ball. Play to his strengths.
Wallace is still gonna be the deep threat to unload the top end of the defense. But now we have better matchups to exploit the outs, middle and underneath, which is where RT does his best cooking. People get too stuck on comparing our needs to "standard" needs.
Personally, I'd like to go 4WR, 4TE and have Clay and Cameron tearing up the defenses while on the field at the same time.
Clay's strength is mismatches coming out of the backfield as an H-Back. In all fairness, I see Cameron as Hartline/Gibxon's replacement. Blending his abilities with Landry and Wallace's natural deficiencies and you can see how many more mismatches Clay will now get with the defense keying on Cameron. It's a defensive nightmare. They can't matchup with all 4 on the field at the same time.
And just when the defense has Wallace, Landry, Cameron and Clay matched up, Miller streaks out of the backfield with elite speed to burn the least effective coverage guy remaining on the defense.
Stop thinking we are investing too heavily in TE's. Look at Hartline/Gibson's position/role in the offense. Now replace them with Cameron and you just made your 4th (Wallace, Landry, Clay, Hartline/Gibson) receiving option into your 1st receiving option (Cameron, Wallace, Landry, Clay). We just turned over the receiving rotation and give RT yet another weapon is his natural strength.
It's not allocation of WRs and TEs, it's allocation of receiving options.
We are tremendously better with Cameron AND Clay. And besides, the money was in the contracts of the people Cameron replaces. And by keeping Clay, we have a built in insurance policy for Cameron.
We signed Cameron first, all other variables with Clay come into play as a result of the first action. It's not a decision to debate should we have signed Clay over Cameron. Cameron is already signed and Clay is still an option. The decision now is about creating a strength for your Franchise QB. Develop players and positions into his talent. Don't blindly fill roster spots because other teams do.
JMO
