Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 166
Like Tree78Likes

Thread: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

  1. #136
    jmk321's Avatar
    jmk321 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    albany
    Posts
    591
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    lol small sample size guy

    First, Let me say we need to improve our receiving core; however I dont want Mike Wallace because he will be an overpriced diva

    And its not 2010 its 2012 (about to be 2013) What has Wallace done this season?

    Every time mike wallace does good its said good QB play every time he does bad its because bad QB play...I dont think Wallace's poor play should solely be based on QB play

    Example: We saw Josh Freeman last week he wasn't at his best and he was getting pressured by our D line (Brockers is looking great btw) but Vincent Jackson found holes and made plays he proves week in week out he is a #1

    Matt Stafford has looked down right badd at times however Megatron is just producing regardless of how bad stafford looks at times...Also any time stafford goes down u think Megatron cares he still produces with shaun hill (mediocre QB)

    Even Larry Fitz he has had the worst QB play this season but he is going to put up numbers close to Wallace and that is a great feat we saw how bad lindly is and we destroyed kolb early in the season

    If your a bona-fide #1 receiver that demands that much money you should put up big games when your team needs it to make the playoffs...Wallace want a contract like big time WR

    Sorry he just didn't get it done when his team needed him to this season...We defiantly need to improve the receivers but Wallace is not our answer

    If you bring up his 2010 season you should also bring up the drops in the SB and his performance in those playoffs
    Mike Wallace has more receiving yards and TD's this season than Larry Fitzgerald so I don't know what you are trying to prove with this argument that somehow QB play doesn't effect a receiver's numbers. Number 1 receivers like Randy Moss, Jerry Rice and Reggie Wayne all saw big declines when the guy throwing them the ball changed from a quality QB to someone mediocre.

    The small sample size "he doesn't perform well in playoff games" argument is ridiculous as well. Hall of Fame and future HOF receivers have all had playoff games where their numbers are not the greatest so this microscope that you are analyzing him under is not at all reasonable. And if being a diva receiver(which he isn't) is a deal breaker for you then you've elminated a good portion of the great receivers in the league. Whether you like him or not, Mike Wallace is a number 1 receiver. The only other receivers in the past 30 years who have more receiving yards or TD's than him in their first 3 years in the league are Jerry Rice and Randy Moss so yeah we should definitely pass on him because he had a couple bad games where Charlie Batch and an extremely banged up Ben weren't able to get him the ball and because you think hes a Diva for some reason.


  2. #137
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    idk how you guys can keep calling Mike Wallace a "pro-bowl" caliber WR and talk him up so much

    Your #1 WR should be your go-to guy; the guy that will come up big for you in Huge division and playoff deciding games

    Look at AJ Green his QB did not have a great game did make the greatest of throws yet he put up over 100 yards and was the reason his team clinched a playoff spot...
    It's interesting that you qualify that a #1 WR should be the guy that will come up big in huge division games, then cite A.J. Green. While it's true Green put up some quality numbers yesterday as the Bengals beat the Steelers in their second match-up of the year, it's worth pointing out that Green only caught one pass against the Steelers earlier in the season in the first contest.

    Based on your definition, it would be fair to question whether or not Green is truly a go to #1 type receiver because of that performance. After all, that was a key division game. But that would be rather ridiculous. My point is, you can't expect these players to consistently put up great numbers every game; even the best of them have off games where something just isn't working. They're all human.

    Your latest response talks about how Megatron produces regardless of situation, but look at the numbers this year. In Detroit's first two division games of the season, Johnson was pedestrian (5 rec for 54 yds vs. MIN & 3 rec for 34 yds @ CHI). He's been a beast for the second half of the year, but it's a fantasy to pretend like he hasn't had down games as well. And he's clearly the best guy playing the position right now, which illustrates the point that it can happen to anyone.

    You question what Wallace has ever done in the playoffs, and yet seem to forget that he put up 89 yards and a touchdown in 2010 in the Super Bowl against Green Bay. Maybe that doesn't count since it was 2010, I dunno. I think it's worth noting that Wallace appeared on yesterday's post-game injury report, and it's being reported today that he has a strained hip. It's hard to say to what extent that may have affected his ability to be effective yesterday, but it's worth pointing out.

    Look, I wouldn't go so far as to say Wallace is one of the best receivers in the game. He's not Top Five at his position, but he is very good, and when I'm looking through the names of top free agent receivers that could hit the market this offseason, he's the best of the bunch and would instantly become the Rams' top weapon. I can't imagine people dissatisfied with Wallace's consistency would actually prefer Dwayne Bowe, who strikes me as more inconsistent.

    It's probably a moot point though, because the Rams didn't exactly dive into the free agent market of WRs very aggressively last year, and don't strike me as a team that's suddenly going to do it this year.

  3. #138
    CRAZYHORNS's Avatar
    CRAZYHORNS is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Maryland near DC
    Age
    47
    Posts
    633
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003 View Post
    Ravens- Boldin and Torrey Smith are far more talented than any receivers we've had in years. Also the Ravens had Derrick Mason, you know the guy with 8 1,000 yard seasons.

    People keep saying these teams don't have top receivers, yet they have guys like Branch, Troy Smith, Boldin, Mason, Kenny Britt, all guys who are better than any receiver we have and these teams are the exception.

    I can't believe that people are even trying this argument. The benefit of an elite level receiver is unquestioned. Yet with some of the posters on this board you'd think this is some hot button topic.

    Great offensive teams have great playmakers and we do not, it's that simple. Keep trying to find as many fringe good teams as you can and then trying to say they are great but it's extremely obvious how valuable top receivers are. There's a reason Wide receiver's go top 3-5 and running backs rarely ever do. I think I'll take NFL personnel view on top wide receivers over those of a few on this board.
    You really consider those guys Elite players. If that is the standard then do not forget the Rams must have at least two Elite Recievers on the roster Danny A. and Steve S.

    What about the Jets when they went to back to back AFC Championship games. Who was the Elite Wide receiver S. Holmes? What about the Bears when they went to the SuperBowl and who was the Elite reciever on the team the year the Seahawks went?

    Lucy you got sum explaaining to DO.....

  4. #139
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jmk321 View Post
    Mike Wallace has more receiving yards and TD's this season than Larry Fitzgerald so I don't know what you are trying to prove with this argument that somehow QB play doesn't effect a receiver's numbers. Number 1 receivers like Randy Moss, Jerry Rice and Reggie Wayne all saw big declines when the guy throwing them the ball changed from a quality QB to someone mediocre.

    The small sample size "he doesn't perform well in playoff games" argument is ridiculous as well. Hall of Fame and future HOF receivers have all had playoff games where their numbers are not the greatest so this microscope that you are analyzing him under is not at all reasonable. And if being a diva receiver(which he isn't) is a deal breaker for you then you've elminated a good portion of the great receivers in the league. Whether you like him or not, Mike Wallace is a number 1 receiver. The only other receivers in the past 30 years who have more receiving yards or TD's than him in their first 3 years in the league are Jerry Rice and Randy Moss so yeah we should definitely pass on him because he had a couple bad games where Charlie Batch and an extremely banged up Ben weren't able to get him the ball and because you think hes a Diva for some reason.
    First, When I say Diva I am referring to a guy holding out and asking for 10 mil a year like he did... The guy was a restricted free agent in a great situation with a contending team and he made some high demands

    What I was saying with the bad QB situation was people were blaming he lack of production entirely on the QB situation...as bad as the QB play was from Batch and Leftwich Wallace should shoulder some blame...No I dont expect Wallace to produce as well as he did with Ben but man it seemed like he just didnt do anything in those games

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    It's interesting that you qualify that a #1 WR should be the guy that will come up big in huge division games, then cite A.J. Green. While it's true Green put up some quality numbers yesterday as the Bengals beat the Steelers in their second match-up of the year, it's worth pointing out that Green only caught one pass against the Steelers earlier in the season in the first contest.

    Based on your definition, it would be fair to question whether or not Green is truly a go to #1 type receiver because of that performance. After all, that was a key division game. But that would be rather ridiculous. My point is, you can't expect these players to consistently put up great numbers every game; even the best of them have off games where something just isn't working. They're all human.

    Your latest response talks about how Megatron produces regardless of situation, but look at the numbers this year. In Detroit's first two division games of the season, Johnson was pedestrian (5 rec for 54 yds vs. MIN & 3 rec for 34 yds @ CHI). He's been a beast for the second half of the year, but it's a fantasy to pretend like he hasn't had down games as well. And he's clearly the best guy playing the position right now, which illustrates the point that it can happen to anyone.

    You question what Wallace has ever done in the playoffs, and yet seem to forget that he put up 89 yards and a touchdown in 2010 in the Super Bowl against Green Bay. Maybe that doesn't count since it was 2010, I dunno. I think it's worth noting that Wallace appeared on yesterday's post-game injury report, and it's being reported today that he has a strained hip. It's hard to say to what extent that may have affected his ability to be effective yesterday, but it's worth pointing out.

    Look, I wouldn't go so far as to say Wallace is one of the best receivers in the game. He's not Top Five at his position, but he is very good, and when I'm looking through the names of top free agent receivers that could hit the market this offseason, he's the best of the bunch and would instantly become the Rams' top weapon. I can't imagine people dissatisfied with Wallace's consistency would actually prefer Dwayne Bowe, who strikes me as more inconsistent.

    It's probably a moot point though, because the Rams didn't exactly dive into the free agent market of WRs very aggressively last year, and don't strike me as a team that's suddenly going to do it this year.
    True true true...That first game with the steelers was just bad i remember he caught that pass in the middle of the endzone and Dalton tried to hit Green for a couple of deep ball but he was just well covered and the bears shutdown Megatron

    But at the end of the day your stars need to play like stars when you need them too...especially stars expecting 10mil/year contracts

    Green has come up big with some important receptions when they need him...Last year Megatron just kept going off as he has been doing this year; Lions needed him to go off at the end last year and he did

    Fine I will give you that superbowl performance he came on great at the end...but he you know as well as I do that 2nd Big Ben pick was really his fault but that is nitpicking

    Wallace is the most talented WR in free agency with his age and skills thats not a debate...But giving this guy a huge 5-6 year deal is NOT...This is a situation where the Risk outweighs the reward

    I think people are over hyping this guy...As you said he is not a top 5 yet he wants to be paid like one...Yes we do need a WR but we should not just go pay the consensus top WR all the money he desires

  5. #140
    RockinRam's Avatar
    RockinRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    4,074
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    We need improvement in the WR corps. We need improvement on the O-line. There.

  6. #141
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Wallace is the most talented WR in free agency with his age and skills thats not a debate...But giving this guy a huge 5-6 year deal is NOT...This is a situation where the Risk outweighs the reward
    Here's my question to you.

    Is Mike Wallace worth more than Pierre Garcon?

    Because last year, Pierre Garcon agreed to a $42 million contract over five years. For those playing at home, that averages out to more than $8 million per year.

    To me, the undeniable answer is yes, Mike Wallace is better than Pierre Garcon.

    Maybe there are people that think that's just too much to pay for a free agent receiver who isn't a Megatron or Fitzgerald, but consider that Megatron and Fitzgerald are getting $16-18 million per year on average from a contract that has a total value in the triple digits.

    Plus, the Garcon deal seems to be the going rate for above average wide receivers when you consider both DeSean Jackson and Vincent Jackson were paid more, and Robert Meachem paid a bit less.

    Needless to say, great receivers are expensive.

    But back to the point, I would rank Wallace as better than a Pierre Garcon, and while no one said anything about paying him everything he desires, the bottom line is you are probably going to have to pay the guy something comparable to his peers, even if you don't think he's "elite."

    And again, I guess my thought process is, even though I think a receiver of Wallace's talent would really benefit this offense from Day One in 2013, the fact that the Rams lowballed Garcon (IIRC) doesn't generate much hope that they'll be willing to find common ground with Wallace, should he hit the market. So again, probably a moot debate.
    Last edited by Nick; -12-25-2012 at 02:02 AM.

  7. #142
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Here's my question to you.

    Is Mike Wallace worth more than Pierre Garcon?

    Because last year, Pierre Garcon agreed to a $42 million contract over five years. For those playing at home, that averages out to more than $8 million per year.

    To me, the undeniable answer is yes, Mike Wallace is better than Pierre Garcon.

    Maybe there are people that think that's just too much to pay for a free agent receiver who isn't a Megatron or Fitzgerald, but consider that Megatron and Fitzgerald are getting $16-18 million per year on average from a contract that has a total value in the triple digits.

    Plus, the Garcon deal seems to be the going rate for above average wide receivers when you consider both DeSean Jackson and Vincent Jackson were paid more, and Robert Meachem paid a bit less.

    Needless to say, great receivers are expensive.

    But back to the point, I would rank Wallace as better than a Pierre Garcon, and while no one said anything about paying him everything he desires, the bottom line is you are probably going to have to pay the guy something comparable to his peers, even if you don't think he's "elite."

    And again, I guess my thought process is, even though I think a receiver of Wallace's talent would really benefit this offense from Day One in 2013, the fact that the Rams lowballed Garcon (IIRC) doesn't generate much hope that they'll be willing to find common ground with Wallace, should he hit the market. So again, probably a moot debate.
    Mike Wallace is certainly worth more than Pierre Garcon

    and the way he is overhyped in this thread: "pro-bowl caliber receiver" "top 7 in football HANDS DOWN" and how his QB is solely to blame for his lack of production .... all of that is how the media will perceive him as well and there will be some team out there thats going to give him more than VJAX money and he is not worth that much

    Agreed it is a moot debate...Last off-season instead of paying premium for a WR we paid solid money to a quality DT and look how well it paid off

    I know Quick hasnt burst on the scene as quickly as we would have liked but we gotta stick to the plan and build through the draft Premium FA call for Premium money while the new rookie salary cap offers better options for us financially...Lineman and safety are cheaper in FA than WRs
    Last edited by BarronWade; -12-25-2012 at 10:53 AM.

  8. #143
    RockinRam's Avatar
    RockinRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    4,074
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    I know Quick hasnt burst on the scene as quickly as we would have liked but we gotta stick to the plan and...
    The plan is that we are revolving this team around Bradford and have to get him weapons as soon as possible. As far as I know, that is the plan. The plan is not about Brian Quick. The plan is about Sam Bradford and winning football games.

    IMO, this FO should do everything in its power to make us win more football games next year. If they think it's spending more money on a premium FA WR, then they will do it. If they think it's developing Quick and Givens, then they'll go in that route. If they think it's drafting a WR, then that will happen.

    But the way I see it, there are no "plans" except for the one to win more games and make the playoffs next year.

  9. #144
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Mike Wallace is certainly worth more than Pierre Garcon

    and the way he is overhyped in this thread: "pro-bowl caliber receiver" "top 7 in football HANDS DOWN" and how his QB is solely to blame for his lack of production .... all of that is how the media will perceive him as well and there will be some team out there thats going to give him more than VJAX money and he is not worth that much
    Well, that gives us a range for discussion purposes then. He's worth more than Garcon's $8.5 million per year average but less than Jackson's $11 million per year. I would agree with that.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    I know Quick hasnt burst on the scene as quickly as we would have liked but we gotta stick to the plan and build through the draft Premium FA call for Premium money while the new rookie salary cap offers better options for us financially...
    But the plan likely isn't to solely build through the draft, or else they wouldn't have given Finnegan a $10-million-per contract last offseason or Scott Wells a contact that averages $6 million per year. You've got to be able to do both, and even if you do sign a veteran and then Quick develops, it sure would be a nice change of pace offensively to have multiple weapons for Sam to utilize.


    Quote Originally Posted by BarronWade View Post
    Lineman and safety are cheaper in FA than WRs
    Safety? Maybe. But not offensive lineman. Carl Nicks' five-year contract averaging over $9 million per season from last year begs to differ.

    If you don't think this team can afford to sign one of the best free agent WRs because of the cost, then you'd better start preparing yourself for the idea of not getting one of the top linemen for the same reason because they aren't that far apart in price.

    Again, we aren't that far removed from Jacob Bell and Jason Brown, both of whom cost this team a pretty sizable chunk when they inked their free agent contracts with the Rams.

  10. #145
    mcpeepants232003's Avatar
    mcpeepants232003 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    739
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by CRAZYHORNS View Post
    You really consider those guys Elite players. If that is the standard then do not forget the Rams must have at least two Elite Recievers on the roster Danny A. and Steve S.

    What about the Jets when they went to back to back AFC Championship games. Who was the Elite Wide receiver S. Holmes? What about the Bears when they went to the SuperBowl and who was the Elite reciever on the team the year the Seahawks went?

    Lucy you got sum explaaining to DO.....
    where did I ever say they were elite receivers? They had good receivers. We don't even have good receivers.

    Btw you keep bringing up teams that fell short when they made the playoffs and who were hurt by their lack of big time playmakers.

    You'd think this wouldn't even be an argument. Especially considering the best stretch of our team's history came when we had 2 elite receivers.

  11. #146
    CRAZYHORNS's Avatar
    CRAZYHORNS is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Maryland near DC
    Age
    47
    Posts
    633
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003 View Post
    Ravens- I can't believe that people are even trying this argument. The benefit of an elite level receiver is unquestioned. Yet with some of the posters on this board you'd think this is some hot button topic.
    Your argument continues to change. I gave you clear example of teams who have made it to the superbowl, championship games. and Superbowl teams that did not have Elite receiver's. You keep spinning things. I first gave you the Titans because I thought it was the most relevant to our conversations since Fsher was the HC. You called foul because it was the 90's and the league has changed. Yes, the league has changed but you still have teams like the Whinners, Jets, Bears, Ravens, Titans, and Seahawks who have done well without your so called Elite receiver or clear number 1.

    Finally, how can you call Wallace an elite or number 1 receiver right now when his own team has bench him?
    Rambos and Rammed like this.

  12. #147
    ZiaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, United States
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,530
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    WOW!! lol What a interesting thread... When you see a thread pass 3 pages on ClanRam you know for a fact that there is going to be some epic debates going on! HaHa!!

    BtW those of you saying Mike Wallace wouldn't be a good addition to our team are delusional!! Only way he wouldn't make a good addition to our beloved team is With a high price tag....
    With that being said Bowe and Jennings would be SICK to get!!

  13. #148
    mcpeepants232003's Avatar
    mcpeepants232003 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    739
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by CRAZYHORNS View Post
    Your argument continues to change. I gave you clear example of teams who have made it to the superbowl, championship games. and Superbowl teams that did not have Elite receiver's. You keep spinning things. I first gave you the Titans because I thought it was the most relevant to our conversations since Fsher was the HC. You called foul because it was the 90's and the league has changed. Yes, the league has changed but you still have teams like the Whinners, Jets, Bears, Ravens, Titans, and Seahawks who have done well without your so called Elite receiver or clear number 1.

    Finally, how can you call Wallace an elite or number 1 receiver right now when his own team has bench him?
    and your argument makes no sense. Whether some teams have been good without an elite Wr does not matter because an elite WR is obviously a huge factor in many teams success. So yes you can find teams here and there without elite receivers who are good teams but even those teams have far better receivers than us. That is why we need a clear upgrade.

    Btw Wallace has not been benched. He has a hip injury that he's been dealing with for a few weeks.

    Before last weeks games he had 16 catches 271 yards and 2 td's in 3 games. If he's benched they sure are doing a poor job of keeping him off the field.

  14. #149
    BarronWade's Avatar
    BarronWade is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,427
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: The Official "Mike Wallace" Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by RockinRam View Post
    The plan is that we are revolving this team around Bradford and have to get him weapons as soon as possible. As far as I know, that is the plan. The plan is not about Brian Quick. The plan is about Sam Bradford and winning football games.

    IMO, this FO should do everything in its power to make us win more football games next year. If they think it's spending more money on a premium FA WR, then they will do it. If they think it's developing Quick and Givens, then they'll go in that route. If they think it's drafting a WR, then that will happen.

    But the way I see it, there are no "plans" except for the one to win more games and make the playoffs next year.
    The PLan is build a championship contender through the draft...If the plan is executed well the result will be WINS and PLAYOFFS

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Well, that gives us a range for discussion purposes then. He's worth more than Garcon's $8.5 million per year average but less than Jackson's $11 million per year. I would agree with that.
    What we think he is worth and what he thinks he is worth is like the NFLPA and NFL deciding on the CBA...The guy thinks he so great because his early numbers keep being compared to Jerry Rice




    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    But the plan likely isn't to solely build through the draft, or else they wouldn't have given Finnegan a $10-million-per contract last offseason or Scott Wells a contact that averages $6 million per year. You've got to be able to do both, and even if you do sign a veteran and then Quick develops, it sure would be a nice change of pace offensively to have multiple weapons for Sam to utilize.
    Im glad you brought up how important Free Agency is; because now with the new rookie cap signing premium FA that dont pan out will set your team back further than missing on a 1st round pick...Im telling you Wallace is a good (not great) talent he held out for ridiculous money and didnt produce on a contract year (but on this thread its all the QB's fault so it's okay).

    I hate sounding like spagnoulo era ram fan but this guy is just a situation where the risk outweighs the the reward substantially




    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Safety? Maybe. But not offensive lineman. Carl Nicks' five-year contract averaging over $9 million per season from last year begs to differ.

    If you don't think this team can afford to sign one of the best free agent WRs because of the cost, then you'd better start preparing yourself for the idea of not getting one of the top linemen for the same reason because they aren't that far apart in price.

    Again, we aren't that far removed from Jacob Bell and Jason Brown, both of whom cost this team a pretty sizable chunk when they inked their free agent contracts with the Rams.
    Every time I think of those 2 I think of the guy that got him Bell-Linehan; Brown- Spags those are just 2 memory i dont like thinking about

    It really is crazy thou how the pay for Lineman has escalated to the point of a premium WR...I guess it all comes down to at the end of the day every Free Agent signing carries its own risk...I have my opinion on Mike Wallace and many others have a different opinion

    But it really is interesting because the 2 guys making the decision have a history:
    1) Fisher has never drafted an O-Lineman in the 1st and instead looks for high impact players and has taken guys like Kenny Britt; Mike Griffin (safety), Pacman Jones, VY, Dyson he drafts IMPACT gamechanging players offensive and defensively

    2) Les was there in ATL when they drafted those 2 stud wideouts White and Jones in the first

    Might be easier said then done but you gotta draft your skill position guys early and make sure you dont miss

  15. #150
    CRAZYHORNS's Avatar
    CRAZYHORNS is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Maryland near DC
    Age
    47
    Posts
    633
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Mike Wallace Benched?

    Quote Originally Posted by mcpeepants232003 View Post
    Also lol at going back 13 years to bring up an example of a team that lost a Super Bowl to aid your argument. This is not the 90's and nearly every elite level team has at least one top receiver and those who don't have a clear #1 have a group of talented playmakers.
    I guess it would be confusing if you actually forget your own response. I think I gave you more than enough examples of teams who have been very successful with out your clear Elite or number 1 receiver. Teams in the 90's and present teams but you made a BOLD statement and when provided evidence that contradicts what you said you now what to play the Your confusing card.

    Obviously this is not productive if your going to keep back peddling in an attempt to support your theory.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: -04-13-2012, 03:24 PM
  2. A Mike Wallace tidbit
    By Nick in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: -03-23-2012, 07:44 PM
  3. Mike Wallace , WR RFA -- Pittsburgh Steelers
    By richtree in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: -02-24-2012, 11:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •