Would Mike Wallace be too much?

a_minimalist

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,762
Reaction score
193
Does anyone know if going after Mike Wallace would be possible? Just $$$ wise. Giving Romo Wallace, Bryant, and Austin is much better than Bryant, Austin, and Ogletree.

If that were done they could take DeCastro in the 1st and concentrate on defensive needs afterward.
 
That guy is a legit #1. No way we pay him to come here. We've got much bigger needs than paying #1 money to a #3 WR, IMHO.
 
a_minimalist;4467091 said:
Does anyone know if going after Mike Wallace would be possible? Just $$$ wise. Giving Romo Wallace, Bryant, and Austin is much better than Bryant, Austin, and Ogletree.

If that were done they could take DeCastro in the 1st and concentrate on defensive needs afterward.

We would lose our no 1 pick if we signed him anyway he is a RFA
 
Mike Wallace has a tag on him. If we sign him, we not only have to outbid Pittsburgh, but give them a first rounder as compensation.

So your going to offer a mega deal, and lose the 14th pick overall, if you sign him.
 
Thanks guys. There's no way they could lose their #1 pick. I just hope it's DeCastro because signing Livings and Bearnadeau is baffling.

I do think another strong PROVEN WR is neccesary though.
 
a_minimalist;4467091 said:
Does anyone know if going after Mike Wallace would be possible? Just $$$ wise. Giving Romo Wallace, Bryant, and Austin is much better than Bryant, Austin, and Ogletree.

If that were done they could take DeCastro in the 1st and concentrate on defensive needs afterward.

It's going to cost around 50 million and considering we let out #3 receiver go (because he was offered 32 million by the Jags)... this would never happen. Doesn't hurt to dream though.
 
skinsscalper;4467094 said:
That guy is a legit #1. No way we pay him to come here. We've got much bigger needs than paying #1 money to a #3 WR, IMHO.

The problem with that is he would come in here as our best receiver on the roster.
 
Is it unfair to say Austin is an awesome #3 and Dez is a good #2 though? We need a #1 or two #2's competing for #1. Maybe I'm wrong though.
 
Cowboys&LakersFan;4467133 said:
He's not better than Dez or Miles don't be ridiculous.

That's subject to debate. It's hardly ridiculous.
 
CowboyChris33;4467142 said:
thats arguable:star:
It is. And if you're on the right side of the argument, you have Wallace as better.

Dez can be better. But we haven't seen it yet.
 
a_minimalist;4467141 said:
Is it unfair to say Austin is an awesome #3 and Dez is a good #2 though? We need a #1 or two #2's competing for #1. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I think Dez can be a dominating #1 and Austin, when healthy, can be a good #2.
 
Risen Star;4467159 said:
I think Dez can be a dominating #1 and Austin, when healthy, can be a good #2.
I think "can" is the key word there. He can, but will he? I think some competition might be good.

I'm interested in seeing what Dwayne Harris can do!
 
Yes, Wallace is too much. I'd never give up a first round pick and money to sign Wallace as a restricted FA. We've got two starters. I'd rather we try to draft the next Antonio Brown.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,040
Messages
14,508,616
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top