I do know this though, I give Pitts credit for extending their young talent well before their contracts come up, its something Ireland hasn't done a single time since he's been here. You can take that both ways too, either he's just not smart or good enough to get it done or the "talent" he brings in isn't worth extending. Both scenarios are the absolute suck.
We need receivers now. Those two guys happen to be available. Okay. It's an automatic column for Greg Cote to demand the highest profile free agents but I hope we don't get mesmerized. It reminds me of Las Vegas when one game is sitting there in an isolated time slot. Do I bet it because it deserves to be bet, or am I betting it simply to have action?
Jennings is a clever player. Wallace can flash beyond you. I could see both as upgrades but hardly spectacular. Easy to believe at least one would disappoint. The league won't be trembling, let's put it that way.
I'd prefer to keep our chips and invest in the draft, a more wide open field. In free agency, if we are interested in those two players, I'd like to gamble on our instincts and pursue one of them. We're overdue to make the correct choice. And if not, Ireland is one step closer to gone. He'd have earned it.
Jennings is the guy I want, he's cheaper, he's less of a risk, he knows the system and he'll be a mentor for Tannehill and our young rookie wide receivers. So, now that we have Jennings who would be the perfect compliment to our offense? Mike Wallace. He would blow the top off any defense and with Jennings, Wallace and Hartline (or our newest TE Eifert) out there we should have our way with any defense.
So get Jennings first but after we have Jennings on the roster Wallace looks tempting, very tempting.
Can we afford both? Yes we can.
Is it a good decision to sign both? This is where it gets a little sticky, its probably not a good decision to sign both looking at it in a vacuum, but it could be worth doing solely for the buzz (and confidence) it would create, the Dolphins would instantly become relevant again. For sure we would be talked about a lot on NFL Network and most of it would be good for a change. To use another gambling analogy: its kind of like purposely making a -ev decision in a poker hand with the sole purpose of generating action for future hands. It doesn't always work out like you hope but every once in a while you hit the mother load.
The bottom line though is without drafting well (which we have to do regardless) or if Tannehill isn't the answer its not going to take us anywhere, but at least it'll be a fun ride.