A new article on NFL.com reports that Mike Wallace may have turned down $76mil from the Vikes, opting for "less" money (relatively speaking...) to play in sunny Miami. This lines up with previous reports that the Vikings brass was willing to offer Wallace upwards of $13mil/yr (a 6-yr contract at that price would be in the ballpark of the reported total). Whether or not these reports are true is anyone's guess, as Darth Spielman keeps his typical 'mum' on these topics -- but if they are to be believed, perhaps it was for the better.
We landed Greg Jennings via FA, and his leadership will most likely be paramount not only to a young WR corps, but to a team who lost another veteran locker room leader in Antoine Winfield. The Vikes then drafted Cordarrelle Patterson to be our future X (which would have been Wallace's position on the field); Patterson will also fill in on return duty, replacing Percy Harvin who, like Winfield, ended up in
Vikings West Seattle. While the impact of Patterson won't be immediate, as the addition of Wallace most assuredly would have been, it would appear this scenario is the better option in the long run.
On the other hand, what if we had landed Wallace?? Certainly it would have eaten up a lot of our cap space, but Jerome Simpson likely would not have been brought back. We also would have waited on a WR in the draft, perhaps a possession-type like Aaron Dobson or Keenan Allen or Quinton Patton, and thus would not have given up our 2nd and 3rd round picks to move back up into the 1st round. Lest we forget we also made a play at Anquan Boldin, this may have been the plan all along and we ended up having to adapt (again, hopefully for the better).
Point of discussion: are you happier with how everything turned out, or are you longing for the 'what if' scenario??
For voting: answer with a question, Jeopardy style, however you feel best describes the reports: