What Would You Rather: Stills w/ Cap-Friendly Deal OR Wallace w/ Cap-Busting Deal? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

What Would You Rather: Stills w/ Cap-Friendly Deal OR Wallace w/ Cap-Busting Deal?

What Would You Rather: Stills w/ Cap-Friendly Deal OR Wallace w/ Cap-Busting Deal?

  • Total voters
    104
  • Poll closed .
Wildbill3

Wildbill3

Onion Fetish
Club Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
29,517
Reaction score
3,128
Age
46
Location
Kentucky
If you had the following options, what would you do?

Stills with a cap-friendly deal which makes it easier to put pieces around Tannehill or wallace with a huge contract that makes it prohibitive to put pieces around Tannehill. Which do you think would give the team the best shot to win a Super Bowl?
 
Over under on how many pages this thread takes to become a Tannehill Vs Wilson debate?


Jk lol obviously taking Stills A) because I hated the intangible presence Wallace had on the team and B) I think paying any WR that much money per year is inhibitive to building a Super Bowl contender...
 
Wallace was a punk and never wanted him to begin with. We WAY overpaid for his one-dimensional services. IMO, Stills is a noticeable better all around WR than Wallace is.
 
Stills will maximize his value so long as he is able to threaten the field deep in the same manner that Wallace did. I expect the production that Wallace brought in terms of numbers will be picked up by the other WRs.

All we need Stills to do is keep those shorter routes open for Landry when we are in 3rd and medium situations. If Stills and Tannehill have some chemistry that did not exist between Tannehill and Wallace, he could perhaps connect on a few deep throws. That would simply be gravy.
 
russianbear said:
Over under on how many pages this thread takes to become a Tannehill Vs Wilson debate?


Jk lol obviously taking Stills A) because I hated the intangible presence Wallace had on the team and B) I think paying any WR that much money per year is inhibitive to building a Super Bowl contender...
Click to expand...
It will become a Tannehill/Brees debate because he comes from the Saints...
 
NBP81 said:
It will become a Tannehill/Brees debate because he comes from the Saints...
Click to expand...

Or a Tannehill/Bridgewater debate because of Wallace ...

Either way, I picked option C.


:snack:
 
Bumpus said:
Or a Tannehill/Bridgewater debate because of Wallace ...

Either way, I picked option C.


:snack:
Click to expand...
Lol! so did I, but grabbed a slice of pizza instead of popcorn...
 
giphy.gif


giphy.gif
 
Would you rather have a guy that can track and adjust to the ball and plays physical or a guy that needs pinpoint accuracy, has a small catch radius and possesses inconsistent hands?

Bill can you change my vote to the ensuing war? I selected without reading that option :lol:
 
This is no contest. Stills plus copious cap room, obviously.

Stills ability to adjust to the ball and good hands should provide more explosive plays than Wallace. So Tannehill may prefer Stills regardless of the cap space. But, nobody opens up the run game like Wallace, so Miller may have a tougher time.
 
This a serious poll ?

I rather take a fat turd and pay it millions of dollars .... Than have Mike Wallace on our team for 2 dollars and a stick of bubble gum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom