ESPN - "Waiting for Wilson"

[HawkWow]

I personally see more upside than down in not (yet) extending Wilson. Certainly it comes down to the millions, as in, how many will RW settle for? But we are holding the cards here, not Russ. (It's biness). We can play him next year at his current salary, then F-tag him the following year for no more than what we'd likely have to pay him to extend.

What's the worst case? Russ would get pissed...then what?

This franchise has been very good to Russ. Reports suggest only Philly was seriously looking at him and they obviously weren't looking very hard. I love Russ Wilson. I don't want to lose Russ Wilson but he has not progressed enough as a passer to warrant a 20 mil per deal, imo. I doubt Russ and his people would disagree with that statement. So we sit down with Russ and co, explain the situation and tell him he will need to make strides in the passing dept next year. If he does, we will open the check book. If he keeps being more football player than QB, we will have to evaluate the situation with the option of F-tagging him.

This is all just my opinion but saving 15 mil this upcoming year could mean another championship for this franchise. I sincerely doubt Russ will go into pout mode and play a lesser game. That wouldn't be prudent. Again, we are holding the cards and whether Paul wrote the checks or Microsoft, Braun (etc) wrote the checks, this franchise has made Russ a household name and a very rich young man. I'm not worried.

Well I'm glad you're not in charge. If we extend him this off season even for $20m+ the first few years we can mitigate the cap hit. Kraep's cap hit is $3m this year. Next year its only $12m. Then it jumps in year 3. If we go the franchise route, in addition to pissing him off, he gets his meager 2015 salary but then the franchise tag will be $17m+ (maybe higher by 2016). In effect we save no money and just make him mad at the front office.

ETA: In addition to that we want to extend Wilson before Luck or Newton sign. Once they sign he will be able to point to those contracts as examples he wants. I wouldnt be surprised if Luck gets $25m/yr. We don't want Wilson pointing to that deal as an example of what he wants.

Are you serious?

You're glad I'm not in charge of this franchise? I have no idea why you wish to hate on me like this. Very hurtful. I wish I had a dog, a little fluffy one. I'd name it Luck then kick the crap out of it.

Speaking of Luck. Luck is a much better pure QB than Russell Wilson and that's not a debate Russ' people would wish to bring to the table. But...Russ is a much better QB than Cam Newton. I suggest his contract amount should be somewhere between the 2. I think Luck is worth 20 per. Newton 12. So there you go, we give Wilson 16.

Still think I shouldn't run this franchise?

I wasn't trying to be a dick, but it comes off that way, I apologize.

So you think Luck is worth less than Flacco? Also Grigson will take his GM of the year award and probably try to hand Luck $30m/yr so that people can continue to say that Luck just needs a better team around him. I genuinely think Luck will have the biggest annual deal ever. $25m is the floor I think, especially given the salary cap inflation recently.

Naw...you weren't being a dick. I'm messing with you. If I was put in charge of the Hawks the first thing I'd do is steal Lynch's jersey. I have a hard enough time running my own company and it's a company that actually pays me to stay away. I'm serious.

Your point regarding Flacco is solid. But I think it works both ways. I don't think Flacco's ridiculous pay ascertains that contracts are going to continue to rise. His may actually work the other way for agents seeking big compensation. Unsure if an agent wants to say "look at what Flacco got". He may open himself up to a conversation he didn't wish to have.

The league, imo, has done a solid with the rookie deals. I think they also need to cap the vets. And if the owners are making profits so obscene that money needs to be spread around more...a good start would be dramatically reducing the price of tickets. The TV deals etc are huge enough... to hell with giving a 24 yo kid 120 million. That's insanity. Instead, make it so a dad can again take the family to a game without having to refi the house in order to do so. But that's just me. Future commissioner of the NFL.

 

[HawkWow]

If HawkWow ran the franchise we wouldn't have traded for Percy. Of course in this scenario, I'd be Pete and once Wow declined to procure me Harvin, I'd talk him into Sproles or Reggie Bush instead. A different hybrid.

The Wilson pick also helped us separate the hacks from the knowledgeable bloggers. Kearly deserves from love. He ditched the usual emotional and practical insurance of hedging his belief in Wilson. Tip of the cap and sniff of the mule, Skip Laterbeer!

You and I think a lot alike and on a lot of things. I wanted Sproles, I wanted Bush and I even wanted Woodhead. But Woodhead and Bush could never be in the same backfield, sounds too much like an 80s porn flick and Goodell would have us trade one or the other for sure.

I also tip the hat to Kearly because I threw my hat across the room when Wilson's named was announced with the 75th pick. I literally threw my hat across the room and yelled a particular word that rhymes with Luck. I was a Wilson fan at whiskey but no way in hell did I think he'd make it in the NFL. I now thank the baby Jesus daily for Russ Wilson.

 

[Anthony!]

I personally see more upside than down in not (yet) extending Wilson. Certainly it comes down to the millions, as in, how many will RW settle for? But we are holding the cards here, not Russ. (It's biness). We can play him next year at his current salary, then F-tag him the following year for no more than what we'd likely have to pay him to extend.

What's the worst case? Russ would get pissed...then what?

This franchise has been very good to Russ. Reports suggest only Philly was seriously looking at him and they obviously weren't looking very hard. I love Russ Wilson. I don't want to lose Russ Wilson but he has not progressed enough as a passer to warrant a 20 mil per deal, imo. I doubt Russ and his people would disagree with that statement. So we sit down with Russ and co, explain the situation and tell him he will need to make strides in the passing dept next year. If he does, we will open the check book. If he keeps being more football player than QB, we will have to evaluate the situation with the option of F-tagging him.

This is all just my opinion but saving 15 mil this upcoming year could mean another championship for this franchise. I sincerely doubt Russ will go into pout mode and play a lesser game. That wouldn't be prudent. Again, we are holding the cards and whether Paul wrote the checks or Microsoft, Braun (etc) wrote the checks, this franchise has made Russ a household name and a very rich young man. I'm not worried.

Well I'm glad you're not in charge. If we extend him this off season even for $20m+ the first few years we can mitigate the cap hit. Kraep's cap hit is $3m this year. Next year its only $12m. Then it jumps in year 3. If we go the franchise route, in addition to pissing him off, he gets his meager 2015 salary but then the franchise tag will be $17m+ (maybe higher by 2016). In effect we save no money and just make him mad at the front office.

ETA: In addition to that we want to extend Wilson before Luck or Newton sign. Once they sign he will be able to point to those contracts as examples he wants. I wouldnt be surprised if Luck gets $25m/yr. We don't want Wilson pointing to that deal as an example of what he wants.

Are you serious?

You're glad I'm not in charge of this franchise? I have no idea why you wish to hate on me like this. Very hurtful. I wish I had a dog, a little fluffy one. I'd name it Luck then kick the crap out of it.

Speaking of Luck. Luck is a much better pure QB than Russell Wilson and that's not a debate Russ' people would wish to bring to the table. But...Russ is a much better QB than Cam Newton. I suggest his contract amount should be somewhere between the 2. I think Luck is worth 20 per. Newton 12. So there you go, we give Wilson 16.

Still think I shouldn't run this franchise?

Yes I do not think you should run a franchise, Let me tell you why, First you assessment of Luck vs Wilson is at best lacking in info0rmation on more levels than you know, for example Luck is in a throwing offense with much better talent around him then Wilson, Luck is in a much easier division and conference and has had to play a much easier schedule. Put Luck on this team with this offense, schedule, WRs, oline and he is not good at all. While Wilson would shine in Indy.

Now as to the rest, no you do not wait to extend him besides the fact the price would go up and yes Lucks and Cams contracts would impact his, ie he has the ring, the records etc. Here is what happens, you do not extend his, he holds out, he refuses to come in until either he gets his extention or you promise not to use the tag on him, he then comes in and most assuredly leaves when it is over as you have managed to show him and the whole world how you treat a franchise SB winning QB that being badly.

So yes I am glad you are not in charge, hate to tell you but Wilson has plenty of leverage, holding out is a lot of leverage for any player but especially a franchise, record setting, SB winning QB.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Yeah let's definitely do that thing in this thread where people get all offended at Luck being complimented for being great.

 

[pehawk]

Yeah let's definitely do that thing in this thread where people get all offended at Luck being complimented for being great.

Well, lets be fair, did you really expect Anthony! (I screamed that, btw) to let this one lie? Even if he wanted to, the google alert wont stop until he defends Wilson!'s honor.

 

[HawkWow]

Yeah let's definitely do that thing in this thread where people get all offended at Luck being complimented for being great.

Well, lets be fair, did you really expect Anthony! (I screamed that, btw) to let this one lie? Even if he wanted to, the google alert wont stop until he defends Wilson!'s honor.

I screamed Anthony! by stating Luck was a better pure QB than Wilson. Just wondered what he was up to. Making sure he's OK, enjoying the forum.

 

[hgwellz12]

You folk genuinely amuse the hell outta me :lol:

 

[brimsalabim]

Risky Buisness. If we don't extend Wilson and IF Trestman keeps his job then we will be bidding against the Bears.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I personally see more upside than down in not (yet) extending Wilson. Certainly it comes down to the millions, as in, how many will RW settle for? But we are holding the cards here, not Russ. (It's biness). We can play him next year at his current salary, then F-tag him the following year for no more than what we'd likely have to pay him to extend.

What's the worst case? Russ would get pissed...then what?

This franchise has been very good to Russ. Reports suggest only Philly was seriously looking at him and they obviously weren't looking very hard. I love Russ Wilson. I don't want to lose Russ Wilson but he has not progressed enough as a passer to warrant a 20 mil per deal, imo. I doubt Russ and his people would disagree with that statement. So we sit down with Russ and co, explain the situation and tell him he will need to make strides in the passing dept next year. If he does, we will open the check book. If he keeps being more football player than QB, we will have to evaluate the situation with the option of F-tagging him.

This is all just my opinion but saving 15 mil this upcoming year could mean another championship for this franchise. I sincerely doubt Russ will go into pout mode and play a lesser game. That wouldn't be prudent. Again, we are holding the cards and whether Paul wrote the checks or Microsoft, Braun (etc) wrote the checks, this franchise has made Russ a household name and a very rich young man. I'm not worried.

Well I'm glad you're not in charge. If we extend him this off season even for $20m+ the first few years we can mitigate the cap hit. Kraep's cap hit is $3m this year. Next year its only $12m. Then it jumps in year 3. If we go the franchise route, in addition to pissing him off, he gets his meager 2015 salary but then the franchise tag will be $17m+ (maybe higher by 2016). In effect we save no money and just make him mad at the front office.

ETA: In addition to that we want to extend Wilson before Luck or Newton sign. Once they sign he will be able to point to those contracts as examples he wants. I wouldnt be surprised if Luck gets $25m/yr. We don't want Wilson pointing to that deal as an example of what he wants.

Are you serious?

You're glad I'm not in charge of this franchise? I have no idea why you wish to hate on me like this. Very hurtful. I wish I had a dog, a little fluffy one. I'd name it Luck then kick the crap out of it.

Speaking of Luck. Luck is a much better pure QB than Russell Wilson and that's not a debate Russ' people would wish to bring to the table. But...Russ is a much better QB than Cam Newton. I suggest his contract amount should be somewhere between the 2. I think Luck is worth 20 per. Newton 12. So there you go, we give Wilson 16.

Still think I shouldn't run this franchise?

I wasn't trying to be a dick, but it comes off that way, I apologize.

So you think Luck is worth less than Flacco? Also Grigson will take his GM of the year award and probably try to hand Luck $30m/yr so that people can continue to say that Luck just needs a better team around him. I genuinely think Luck will have the biggest annual deal ever. $25m is the floor I think, especially given the salary cap inflation recently.

I do agree that I'm glad you're not in charge but it's posts like this that make my job much easier and remind me why I think you're a cool guy.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

If HawkWow ran the franchise we wouldn't have traded for Percy. Of course in this scenario, I'd be Pete and once Wow declined to procure me Harvin, I'd talk him into Sproles or Reggie Bush instead. A different hybrid.

The Wilson pick also helped us separate the hacks from the knowledgeable bloggers. Kearly deserves from love. He ditched the usual emotional and practical insurance of hedging his belief in Wilson. Tip of the cap and sniff of the mule, Skip Laterbeer!

No to Reggie Bush Pe. He's a pussy. But a HUGE yes to Sproles.
Sorry Wow, not agreeing with you on this one. Sign him in the offseason. Sign Wags too.

 

[HawkWow]

If HawkWow ran the franchise we wouldn't have traded for Percy. Of course in this scenario, I'd be Pete and once Wow declined to procure me Harvin, I'd talk him into Sproles or Reggie Bush instead. A different hybrid.

The Wilson pick also helped us separate the hacks from the knowledgeable bloggers. Kearly deserves from love. He ditched the usual emotional and practical insurance of hedging his belief in Wilson. Tip of the cap and sniff of the mule, Skip Laterbeer!

No to Reggie Bush Pe. He's a pussy. But a HUGE yes to Sproles.
Sorry Wow, not agreeing with you on this one. Sign him in the offseason. Sign Wags too.

Understood. I mainly wanted Bush because I felt there was value there. I felt he'd be a good change of pace guy to complement Lynch and Turbin. But I only thought about him briefly, not knowing his relationship with Pete. If I were Pete, I wouldn't have a relationship with Bush but I woulda' thought Pete wouldn't want a relationship with Harvin, either. So who knows? The Pete works in mysterious ways. .

 

[TXHawk]

Just an FYI the 5th year on a qb in the first round that year would probably be around 16 million. Still would be nice though.

That I did not know. So basically it's no more advantageous than just using the F tag? I assumed the 5th year option was more of a carry over, paying the player the same as his salary the year before. Not really a huge benefit and in fact, not much at all when considering the 6 mil (1.5 per) saved the previous 4 years by taking the player in the 3rd.

Gargantual: No disagreement from me. Wilson, Wags, Turbin and Sweezy just awesome picks. Less thrilled with what we've got from Bruce considering him at 15. Some of that his fault but certainly not all. He is turning into a machine and that's great news. The not so great news is he will need to be paid like one year after next. But it's funny how the mind works. I'd love the Bruce pick at #75 but money aside, what difference does it make? Sensational draft and we need another just like it next April to make up for the not so spectacular drafts since. IMO.

Bill Barnwell of Grantland recently analyzed the top ten picks of the 2012 draft. Other than Andrew Luck and Luke Kuechly it has been a fairly underwhelming group so far. Bruce Irvin has been one of the more productive picks of the first round that year.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-r ... nfl-draft/

 

[HawkWow]

Just an FYI the 5th year on a qb in the first round that year would probably be around 16 million. Still would be nice though.

That I did not know. So basically it's no more advantageous than just using the F tag? I assumed the 5th year option was more of a carry over, paying the player the same as his salary the year before. Not really a huge benefit and in fact, not much at all when considering the 6 mil (1.5 per) saved the previous 4 years by taking the player in the 3rd.

Gargantual: No disagreement from me. Wilson, Wags, Turbin and Sweezy just awesome picks. Less thrilled with what we've got from Bruce considering him at 15. Some of that his fault but certainly not all. He is turning into a machine and that's great news. The not so great news is he will need to be paid like one year after next. But it's funny how the mind works. I'd love the Bruce pick at #75 but money aside, what difference does it make? Sensational draft and we need another just like it next April to make up for the not so spectacular drafts since. IMO.

Bill Barnwell of Grantland recently analyzed the top ten picks of the 2012 draft. Other than Andrew Luck and Luke Kuechly it has been a fairly underwhelming group so far. Bruce Irvin has been one of the more productive picks of the first round that year.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-r ... nfl-draft/

There's a science to the draft, but certainly not an exact science. Other than Griffin, who I stated here wasn't worthy of a 1st rd pick, most that went top 10 appeared to be worthy. They weren't reaches.

I am not saying Irvin has not been productive. I do believe he could have been taken lower than where he was selected. So whether or not he has been productive, when not suspended, really isn't the point. If we could have traded down to get him while adding a 2, he would be no less productive and we would have had that 2.

Recently I've read someone saying someone "was going to take Irvin right after us had we not taken him". It's very difficult to put much stock in such things, imo.

 

[bigtrain21]

Just an FYI the 5th year on a qb in the first round that year would probably be around 16 million. Still would be nice though.

That I did not know. So basically it's no more advantageous than just using the F tag? I assumed the 5th year option was more of a carry over, paying the player the same as his salary the year before. Not really a huge benefit and in fact, not much at all when considering the 6 mil (1.5 per) saved the previous 4 years by taking the player in the 3rd.

Gargantual: No disagreement from me. Wilson, Wags, Turbin and Sweezy just awesome picks. Less thrilled with what we've got from Bruce considering him at 15. Some of that his fault but certainly not all. He is turning into a machine and that's great news. The not so great news is he will need to be paid like one year after next. But it's funny how the mind works. I'd love the Bruce pick at #75 but money aside, what difference does it make? Sensational draft and we need another just like it next April to make up for the not so spectacular drafts since. IMO.

Bill Barnwell of Grantland recently analyzed the top ten picks of the 2012 draft. Other than Andrew Luck and Luke Kuechly it has been a fairly underwhelming group so far. Bruce Irvin has been one of the more productive picks of the first round that year.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-r ... nfl-draft/

There's a science to the draft, but certainly not an exact science. Other than Griffin, who I stated here wasn't worthy of a 1st rd pick, most that went top 10 appeared to be worthy. They weren't reaches.

I am not saying Irvin has not been productive. I do believe he could have been taken lower than where he was selected. So whether or not he has been productive, when not suspended, really isn't the point. If we could have traded down to get him while adding a 2, he would be no less productive and we would have had that 2.

Recently I've read someone saying someone "was going to take Irvin right after us had we not taken him". It's very difficult to put much stock in such things, imo.

We did trade down to get him. We moved from number 12 to 15 and picked up 2 additional draft picks. One was used to draft Jeremy Lane.

John stated at the time that they weren't comfortable moving back any further at the time.

 

[bigwrm]

Just an FYI the 5th year on a qb in the first round that year would probably be around 16 million. Still would be nice though.

That I did not know. So basically it's no more advantageous than just using the F tag? I assumed the 5th year option was more of a carry over, paying the player the same as his salary the year before. Not really a huge benefit and in fact, not much at all when considering the 6 mil (1.5 per) saved the previous 4 years by taking the player in the 3rd.

Gargantual: No disagreement from me. Wilson, Wags, Turbin and Sweezy just awesome picks. Less thrilled with what we've got from Bruce considering him at 15. Some of that his fault but certainly not all. He is turning into a machine and that's great news. The not so great news is he will need to be paid like one year after next. But it's funny how the mind works. I'd love the Bruce pick at #75 but money aside, what difference does it make? Sensational draft and we need another just like it next April to make up for the not so spectacular drafts since. IMO.

Bill Barnwell of Grantland recently analyzed the top ten picks of the 2012 draft. Other than Andrew Luck and Luke Kuechly it has been a fairly underwhelming group so far. Bruce Irvin has been one of the more productive picks of the first round that year.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-r ... nfl-draft/

That whole draft year was pretty underwhelming overall, which makes our already amazing draft class look all the more impressive. Even better is comparing it to the 49ers from that year. I'm not even sure they have a single player from that draft still on their roster.

 

[BlueTalon]

I am not saying Irvin has not been productive. I do believe he could have been taken lower than where he was selected. So whether or not he has been productive, when not suspended, really isn't the point. If we could have traded down to get him while adding a 2, he would be no less productive and we would have had that 2.

Recently I've read someone saying someone "was going to take Irvin right after us had we not taken him". It's very difficult to put much stock in such things, imo.

That information came out immediately after the draft, it's not a recent rumor. We had already traded back twice (IIRC) in the first round for more draft choices, doing it more would have been playing with dynamite. You can play the what-if game with an additional 2nd round pick if you want, but you'd be doing it without Irvin on our roster.

 

[HawkWow]

I am not saying Irvin has not been productive. I do believe he could have been taken lower than where he was selected. So whether or not he has been productive, when not suspended, really isn't the point. If we could have traded down to get him while adding a 2, he would be no less productive and we would have had that 2.

Recently I've read someone saying someone "was going to take Irvin right after us had we not taken him". It's very difficult to put much stock in such things, imo.

That information came out immediately after the draft, it's not a recent rumor. We had already traded back twice (IIRC) in the first round for more draft choices, doing it more would have been playing with dynamite. You can play the what-if game with an additional 2nd round pick if you want, but you'd be doing it without Irvin on our roster.

Not doubting you, but I'd have to see something to substantiate that. Most reports were calling Irvin a reach weeks after the draft. They would have been less inclined to make such comments had there been other suitors. Coaches oft times stick together. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine one taking the pressure off of another in making such a statement. Not saying that is the case here, I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me.

My point in trading down: Trading down from 12th to 15th to get Irvin wasn't exactly dramatic. I am saying there are many, myself included, that feel we could have traded down much further and still got Irvin while adding a much higher pick than we did. IF there is evidence someone would have taken Irvin immediately following us, then I would be proven wrong.

None of this is meant to diminish that excellent draft. Back when Pete still had his finger on the pulse of college football. My point was that our 3rd looks more like a 1st and our 1st looks more like a 3rd and I incorrectly thought taking Russ with the 1st gave us a 5th year at the same pay as the 4th. And despite Irvin's recent improvement, I feel that still holds true (Wilson looks a 1st, Irvin a 3rd).

 

[pehawk]

The Jets were gonna take Irvin two picks after the Hawks.

 

[TXHawk]

Not doubting you, but I'd have to see something to substantiate that. Most reports were calling Irvin a reach weeks after the draft.

You mean the same media driven rubbish that was giving the Seahawks the worst grade in the draft because they didn't follow Mel Kiper's or Todd McShay's board? Thank God they "reached" on a lot of picks in 2012 because we wouldn't have a Super Bowl title now if they had followed the draft gurus' advice.

 

[Hawknballs]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=11992863