Is Wilson worth $33M per year?

[bbsplitter]

I am split 50/50 whether or not he is worth that much. I have a feeling however we would miss him after our 5th failed attempt to find another starter, so unless we were to have an heir apparent ready, I would have to fall on the side of pay the man.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

we also paid guys like Kam, Sherman, Bennett, Avril, Bobby and KJ, MOST of which never played up to the level of their contract.

You still haven't produced any proof of this. The defense was #1 DVOA from 2012 all the way up through when Earl got hurt in 2016. We all trusted them to shut down games right up until that time. There was no lack of confidence in them at all amongst us until that time. Anything else is revisionist history.

In fact, I could point to Wilson often performing worse in the playoffs (at least in the first three quarters) than any of those defensive guys.

 

[Tical21]

Since we gave Russell his last big contract, would you say that move has worked out for the team?

 

[Sac]

Since we gave Russell his last big contract, would you say that move has worked out for the team?

If by "worked out" you mean "not going 7-9 with an elite defense and mediocre QB play in consecutive years" then yes, yes it has.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Well, it's clearly Russ' fault that he played behind Swiss Cheese o-line all season and ONLY won 9 games. It's clearly his fault that Wide Right Walsh cost them 2, maybe 3 games last year.
Hell yes it has worked out.

 

[rjdriver]

If he was taller he would be worth it.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

ding ding

 

[Sgt. Largent]

we also paid guys like Kam, Sherman, Bennett, Avril, Bobby and KJ, MOST of which never played up to the level of their contract.

You still haven't produced any proof of this. The defense was #1 DVOA from 2012 all the way up through when Earl got hurt in 2016. We all trusted them to shut down games right up until that time. There was no lack of confidence in them at all amongst us until that time. Anything else is revisionist history.

In fact, I could point to Wilson often performing worse in the playoffs (at least in the first three quarters) than any of those defensive guys.

Yep, until 2016, then it was a steady decline WHILE we were still paying all these defenders big money soaking up 60-65% of our cap space........of which wasn't being used to help Russell on the offensive side of the ball.

My point is if you're going to try to lay down an argument that we got worse after Russell signed his contract, then I say you have to take into account the defensive decline more than Russell because only one continued and STILL continues to play at a high level, Russell.

Btw, what was the alternative? Trade or let Russell walk and become a 7-9 team with a nasty defense and totally inept offense?

It's a ridiculous argument when you have no alternative at the most important position on the team. So we shouldn't have paid Russell? And done what at QB?

 

[adeltaY]

Since we gave Russell his last big contract, would you say that move has worked out for the team?

Since we drafted Frank Clark, would you say that has worked out for the team. Gotta consider the context and nuances of the situation.

Paid Wilson - - > didn't make SB since - - > Paying Wilson was a mistake is WAY too simplistic.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

we also paid guys like Kam, Sherman, Bennett, Avril, Bobby and KJ, MOST of which never played up to the level of their contract.

You still haven't produced any proof of this. The defense was #1 DVOA from 2012 all the way up through when Earl got hurt in 2016. We all trusted them to shut down games right up until that time. There was no lack of confidence in them at all amongst us until that time. Anything else is revisionist history.

In fact, I could point to Wilson often performing worse in the playoffs (at least in the first three quarters) than any of those defensive guys.

Yep, until 2016, then it was a steady decline WHILE we were still paying all these defenders big money soaking up 60-65% of our cap space........of which wasn't being used to help Russell on the offensive side of the ball.

My point is if you're going to try to lay down an argument that we got worse after Russell signed his contract, then I say you have to take into account the defensive decline more than Russell because only one continued and STILL continues to play at a high level, Russell.

Btw, what was the alternative? Trade or let Russell walk and become a 7-9 team with a nasty defense and totally inept offense?

It's a ridiculous argument when you have no alternative at the most important position on the team. So we shouldn't have paid Russell? And done what at QB?

Nah, we're nothing without Russell. In fact, despite the drought of help that you imply, Wilson had his best season in 2015 (up until the Carolina game), while those defensive players were continuing to provide great services. There wasn't a huge drop in the benefit-to-cost ratio.

Injury cost us our...oh wait, that's right, you refuse to acknowledge the randomness of injury as a legitimate factor, so let's take that into account...okay, Pete and John cost us our 2015-2016 running game by poor drafting at RB. 2016-2017 was lost on the same thing plus kicking woes. THAT's tangible and falsifiable. You can't easily argue it had to do with money fattening minds when there are other much more tangible factors at play.

 

[mrt144]

Since we gave Russell his last big contract, would you say that move has worked out for the team?

Since we paid the defense, how has that worked out? Hyperfocus doesn't benefit your argument.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Injury cost us our...oh wait, that's right, you refuse to acknowledge the randomness of injury as a legitimate factor, so let's take that into account...okay, Pete and John cost us our 2015-2016 running game by poor drafting at RB. 2016-2017 was lost on the same thing plus kicking woes. THAT's tangible and falsifiable. You can't easily argue it had to do with money fattening minds when there are other much more tangible factors at play.

It doesn't matter what the decline was from, it was still a decline, and a pretty damn fast one. Top 3 defense to out of the top 15 last year.

And you still didn't answer my question if you're still clinging to your argument, what was our alternative? We're in a SB window rolling and you're going to let Russell walk or trade him?

And do what? Be the Jags 2-3 years ago with a nasty defense and utterly inept offense that can't score 7 pts a game?

 

[mrt144]

Since we gave Russell his last big contract, would you say that move has worked out for the team?

Since we drafted Frank Clark, would you say that has worked out for the team. Gotta consider the context and nuances of the situation.

Paid Wilson - - > didn't make SB since - - > Paying Wilson was a mistake is WAY too simplistic.

Right?! It's reductive where to the point where you can see only that standard being applied to him because of a forgone conclusion. Were all the defensive extensions worth it? And I'm not a petite apologist for the defense usually (Im a big one) but when looking at the whole pie and how it got sliced up it's hard to say that all the studs we reupped on played in close to excess of what netted them in the first place.

 

[mrt144]

Injury cost us our...oh wait, that's right, you refuse to acknowledge the randomness of injury as a legitimate factor, so let's take that into account...okay, Pete and John cost us our 2015-2016 running game by poor drafting at RB. 2016-2017 was lost on the same thing plus kicking woes. THAT's tangible and falsifiable. You can't easily argue it had to do with money fattening minds when there are other much more tangible factors at play.

It doesn't matter what the decline was from, it was still a decline, and a pretty damn fast one. Top 3 defense to out of the top 15 last year.

And you still didn't answer my question if you're still clinging to your argument, what was our alternative? We're in a SB window rolling and you're going to let Russell walk or trade him?

And do what? Be the Jags 2-3 years ago with a nasty defense and utterly inept offense that can't score 7 pts a game?

Or the Broncos post SB win? I think that's a closer analog.

 

[mrt144]

we also paid guys like Kam, Sherman, Bennett, Avril, Bobby and KJ, MOST of which never played up to the level of their contract.

You still haven't produced any proof of this. The defense was #1 DVOA from 2012 all the way up through when Earl got hurt in 2016. We all trusted them to shut down games right up until that time. There was no lack of confidence in them at all amongst us until that time. Anything else is revisionist history.

In fact, I could point to Wilson often performing worse in the playoffs (at least in the first three quarters) than any of those defensive guys.

Yep, until 2016, then it was a steady decline WHILE we were still paying all these defenders big money soaking up 60-65% of our cap space........of which wasn't being used to help Russell on the offensive side of the ball.

My point is if you're going to try to lay down an argument that we got worse after Russell signed his contract, then I say you have to take into account the defensive decline more than Russell because only one continued and STILL continues to play at a high level, Russell.

Btw, what was the alternative? Trade or let Russell walk and become a 7-9 team with a nasty defense and totally inept offense?

It's a ridiculous argument when you have no alternative at the most important position on the team. So we shouldn't have paid Russell? And done what at QB?

Nah, we're nothing without Russell. In fact, despite the drought of help that you imply, Wilson had his best season in 2015 (up until the Carolina game), while those defensive players were continuing to provide great services. There wasn't a huge drop in the benefit-to-cost ratio.

Injury cost us our...oh wait, that's right, you refuse to acknowledge the randomness of injury as a legitimate factor, so let's take that into account...okay, Pete and John cost us our 2015-2016 running game by poor drafting at RB. 2016-2017 was lost on the same thing plus kicking woes. THAT's tangible and falsifiable. You can't easily argue it had to do with money fattening minds when there are other much more tangible factors at play.

Show me a QB that can compensate for that 2017 running game. RW's contract didn't cause whiff after whiff on RBs or OL from the draft for 3 years starting in 2014. "Ah, but they could have gotten FA or trade help if RW's salary was lower" I hear whispered in retort. How did the non drafted folks fare with the Seahawks? Poorly. So yah, they could have added another body or two to the pile.

Let me put that in better context - if RW was making 6 mil less per season that pencils out to one average Guard for a 2nd contract, if you're lucky and giving an injured player a 2nd chance.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Injury cost us our...oh wait, that's right, you refuse to acknowledge the randomness of injury as a legitimate factor, so let's take that into account...okay, Pete and John cost us our 2015-2016 running game by poor drafting at RB. 2016-2017 was lost on the same thing plus kicking woes. THAT's tangible and falsifiable. You can't easily argue it had to do with money fattening minds when there are other much more tangible factors at play.

It doesn't matter what the decline was from, it was still a decline, and a pretty damn fast one. Top 3 defense to out of the top 15 last year.

And you still didn't answer my question if you're still clinging to your argument, what was our alternative? We're in a SB window rolling and you're going to let Russell walk or trade him?

And do what? Be the Jags 2-3 years ago with a nasty defense and utterly inept offense that can't score 7 pts a game?

Or the Broncos post SB win? I think that's a closer analog.

I don't. The Broncos went out and spent a bunch of money on the defensive side of the ball in order to try to get to a SB before Manning fell apart, and congrats to them, it worked. Barely.

But that wasn't us, we were building for the long term, and we finally had a young elite top 10 QB. We wanted a dynasty, not a reload every year desperately trying to find a veteran QB that didn't suck to make it back to another SB while our defense was still elite.

If you're going to trade a top 5 QB, he better be old and you better be in rebuild mode. Show me a team that's traded a young top 5 QB in their SB window, and that'll be a first.

 

[mrt144]

Injury cost us our...oh wait, that's right, you refuse to acknowledge the randomness of injury as a legitimate factor, so let's take that into account...okay, Pete and John cost us our 2015-2016 running game by poor drafting at RB. 2016-2017 was lost on the same thing plus kicking woes. THAT's tangible and falsifiable. You can't easily argue it had to do with money fattening minds when there are other much more tangible factors at play.

It doesn't matter what the decline was from, it was still a decline, and a pretty damn fast one. Top 3 defense to out of the top 15 last year.

And you still didn't answer my question if you're still clinging to your argument, what was our alternative? We're in a SB window rolling and you're going to let Russell walk or trade him?

And do what? Be the Jags 2-3 years ago with a nasty defense and utterly inept offense that can't score 7 pts a game?

Or the Broncos post SB win? I think that's a closer analog.

I don't. The Broncos went out and spent a bunch of money on the defensive side of the ball in order to try to get to a SB before Manning fell apart, and congrats to them, it worked. Barely.

But that wasn't us, we were building for the long term, and we finally had a young elite top 10 QB. We wanted a dynasty, not a reload every year desperately trying to find a veteran QB that didn't suck to make it back to another SB while our defense was still elite.

If you're going to trade a top 5 QB, he better be old and you better be in rebuild mode. Show me a team that's traded a young top 5 QB in their SB window, and that'll be a first.

I was looking more at the 'what happens if you have a vaunted defense and try to get by with seemingly the bare minimum on offense or just flinging stuff at a wall and hoping it sticks' aspect, not the pathway of how you wind up in that situation. But yah, different pathway leading to a similar question and a look into the what if of a team with a tiger of a defense and a kitten of an offense.

 

[TreeRon]

Does anyone else feel that if Wilson were 6'1" there'd still be complaints that he's not 6'4" ?

 

[mrt144]

Since 1999, only one qb has won a super bowl while being one of the 5 highest paid quarterbacks. Zero have cost over 13.5% of team's cap. Just because everyone else is driving off a bridge, doesn't mean you have to.

Of course you have to pay your franchise quarterback. Of course you do. But, maybe
...

Does that eliminate cap and contract inflation from being entangled there? So like the present contract value was top 5 there would be only Manning but at time of signing the contract it was top 5 but in the SB winning season because of inflation that was no longer the case?

I'd also be curious about weighing that against the plethora of QBs drafted that never win a SB on their first contract. Like we have to be talking about Manning's 1/20 or 1/30 vs. the 10/300 or so, right?

Also screw Tom Brady for making this a confounder from hell.