Thank you Mike Wallace!

I had a fleeting thought today and broke out in a cold sweat. What if...Mike Wallace had accepted the Steelers most generous $60 million dollar contract proposal? If he had done that, he would have been the Steelers number one receiver for the foreseeable future and we probably would not have signed Antonio Brown to his lucrative contract. He would have, in all likelihood, played himself out of Pittsburgh with his performance and we would have been stuck with the diva. I don't think there would have been any way we paid number one receiver money to two guys and, in fact, there is precedent for it. A few years ago the Steelers had a choice to make. Hines Ward or Plaxico Burress. They chose Ward and they chose correctly. I commend Colbert for moving so swiftly to sign AB to what has amounted to a bargain contract shortly after Wallace spurned his contract offer. And I am soooooooo happy Wallace said NO!

 

I think most of us are on-board that the Steelers have managed the WR position rather well the past 10 years or so. The new crop looks nice too. I know some folks are down on Wheaton, but the guy is a true possession receiver and he appears to have a good attitude and he is already a pretty good route runner and the ceiling is very very high for Bryant.

 

Loss Plaxico then to Holmes, lost Holmes, then got Wallace, got brown let Wallace go, had sanders lost sanders, now have Bryant. Yeah they have had a little luck at WR the last 10 years.

Then amidst all that lost the Steelers all time WR Hines Ward to retirement

 

What do all of these receivers have in common?

 

You're forgetting Sweed!!!

 

Rumor has it the Dolphins are going to cut Wallace at the end of the season
maybe we can get him back cheap

 

Yeah, I think we're set at the WR spot for the next few years so a big, fat NO THANKS on that one.

Wallace has about half the receptions of AB this season and would have to average about 100 yards a game the final two games to get to 1,000 for the season. I said when he left the Steelers a couple of years back that he's already had the two best statistical seasons he'll ever have. So far he's proving me right.

 

To think some board members thought Mike Wallace had more upside than AB LOL. As there favorite head coach called it a one trick PONY.

 

Honestly, I am somewhat surprised that Wallace has done as well as he has in Miami. With a crap QB, he's having an OK season. Kinda wish E Sanders would have put together a year like he's having in Denver for us last year..... Oh well, Peyton can make any WR look good (see Eric Decker).

 

And that was the point I was trying to make above when I asked what all of our receivers had in common. The answer, of course, is Ben. Wallace has Ben to thank for his $65 million dollar contract. If you're willing to put in the work, an average receiver can be good, a good receiver very good, and a very good receiver can be great under Ben. The great QBs can do that. Ask Eric Decker and ask Mike Wallace. And I don't think Wallace is doing particularly well. Tannehill is a good quarterback and for the second straight season Wallace will have less than 1,000 yards receiving. He's not putting up number one receiver numbers by a long shot.

 

I'm not sure I would toot Colbert's horn too much about this. After all, he wanted Wallace over AB and only offered AB that contract after Wallace said to take a hike. Colbert's hand was forced to make that offer to AB. If it was up to Colbert, Wallace would be #1 here and brown would be playing somewhere else.

 

I think that was the OP's point. He's relieved Mike said no.

Colbert deserves a semi-toot, though, for giving the money to AB. Remember, he still had a year left on his peanuts rookie contract. That's not a very common move. AB had only had ONE good season as a pro. $42 million seemed like a lot for someone who had done less than Mike Wallace at that point. Colbert's hand wasn't forced. He could have given it to no one, and waited a year. But he decided to lock up AB early, before he got too expensive. That turned out to be a good move.

I don't think your assertion that Colbert would have had Wallace here and Brown somewhere else is based on fact. Colbert would have had a year to come up with the money for AB. He may well have been planning to keep both, although it would have been hard.

One question I have... Was it established that Pittsburgh offered Mike Wallace $60M? I thought it was something of a mystery, but I was guessing considerably less. There was chatter at the time that the deal they gave to AB was the same deal Wallace turned down. If the number was 42 and not 60, that would make more sense all around - it's a more reasonable number for Pittsburgh to offer, and a more reasonable number for Wallace to turn down.

 

Thats what I was going to post before I read this....and follow it with a for effect.

 

I remember a lot of people 'round here were wondering how AB would do without Wallace and assuming (wrongly of course) that AB was a product of Wallace.

I tried to point out the same thing was said about Wallace when they cut Holmes and the same about Holmes when the let Burress walk, but they didn't want to listen.

 

. Say Wallace signs, then maybe you lose Brown, but sign Sanders to a middle contract to be a number two wo, and use the Bryant and Wheaton draft picks to sign defensive players because you still have your take the top off the defense guy with Wallace. Or maybe not. Who knows? I myself am pretty happy with Colbert and his time here. When he came over from Detroit and replaced Donahoe I was tremendously worried seeing as how Detroit had done diddly in drafts, except, not surprising, wideouts.,

 

I'm bumping this because I genuinely don't know the answer to this question:

Was it established that Pittsburgh offered Mike Wallace $60M? I thought it was something of a mystery, but I was guessing considerably less. There was chatter at the time that the deal they gave to AB was the same deal Wallace turned down. If the number was 42 and not 60, that would make more sense all around - it's a more reasonable number for Pittsburgh to offer, and a more reasonable number for Wallace to turn down.

 

Don't matter to me snack. I am happy we signed Brown. No way we could have signed them both. Can't swear to it but think we offered 11 somewhere around 50 mill

 

Never read anywhere that it was $60M. I do remember reading a whole lot about what AB received was what they had offered Wallace.

 

There seems to be varying reports out there but this article from a Miami news source says he turned down an offer from Pittsburgh which was north of the $55.5 million that Vincent Jackson received. I also remember Bouchette reporting that the Steelers offered $60 million. FWIW.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...-owner-steve-ross-ryan-tannehill-mike-wallace

 

I'm glad we have AB over Wallace too, Wallace didn't like to catch balls in traffic and that is the one thing a lot of our receivers have had trouble with over the years with the exception of AB. The big reason for Wallace's success was Ben and as it was already mentioned, a good QB can do a lot to make receivers look good. All one has to do is look at Santonio Holmes, he went from Ben to Sanchez and his production tanked and basically ended his career, Wallace gets his money in Miami and by that time he'll be a step slower and his career will be in the Toilet while AB is still putting up HOF numbers.

 

And how can you be SURE of that? I think the contract that MW turned down was bigger than the contract that AB ultimately took. It's hard to find the number, but based on what I've read it was probably AT LEAST $10 million a year, $50 million+ total.

 

Thanks for the responses. I did some quick research just now, and I found numbers all over the place. No one quotes anyone or seems to have proof. They sort of just say it like it's an established fact. But they conflict.

I've seen it was the same contract AB got ($42 million) a bunch of times.
I've seen it was $50 million.
I've seen it was more than $55.5 million.
I've seen it was $7 million per year, which totals $35 million on the same number of years.

It kinda just seems like nobody knows and they're talking anyway.

I don't think we'll ever know, unless the Steelers come out and say it, which they won't. My personal belief is that it was either the same contract AB got ($42M) or slightly higher (45, maybe 49?). I don't think there's any way in hell they break 50.

What I don't understand is why so many people are quick to assume the Steelers did offer him more than 50, more than 55, even 60. Why? I was probably Wallace's number one defender around here when everyone started making up stories about what he was doing on the field. But even I shook my head at Miami for giving him so much. Plenty of teams didn't make an offer to him at all, probably because they would never go above a certain number for him, like maybe $7 million. Why are you assuming the Steelers are as stupid as Miami?

The only answer I can come up with is that it furthers the storyline that he was a greedy SOB and we're better off without him.