Rapoport: Wilson's agent likely to end contract talks soon

[hawknation2015]

Okay, so you're contending that we even get to two Super Bowls and win one, WITHOUT Russell Wilson at the lead?
You're both dreaming.
You are not going to win your way to two Super Bowls with a top tier Defense, and an inept Quarterback.
Easy to speculate that you can just plug in any whimsical Quarterback (regardless if there's not even one available).
Does anybody truly believe that a "Pure Pocket Passer", and no true #1 targets could flourish behind an O-Line that's designed for the Run Game, while playing for peanuts even exist?
Russell Wilson is the absolute perfect fit for the Seahawks Offensive scheme...Does he miss seeing some wide open Receivers?, yep, but the same can be said of every single Quarterback that's ever played the game.

How did we do in 2011? Yep. No SB or playoffs. Top D, great running game, crap QB. So many here have forgotten, it wasn't that long ago either. :177692:

Ranked 21st in team rushing in 2011 with total of 4.0 yards per attempt average for a combined 1756 yards for the season. Our passing rank was just one lower at 22. Yep sounds like a legit great running game. :34853_doh:

It wasn't 'til Russell Wilson came on board as a Rookie to substantially bolster the Seahawks "Running Game", helping to move them up the ranks, and that's the whole point that Seahawkgal was making.
In the Off-Season of Year two, there was concern that our opponents would now have tape on RW, and be able to nullify his ability to tuck & run, and that didn't happen.....Year three, Russell Wilson adds nearly 900 Yards to the Running Game, Sidney Rice out, Golden Tate, gone and without having ANY true #1 Wide Receiver on board, we come to within 1 Yard of claiming the World Championship for the second Year in a row.
Look, if the Defense is constantly on the field because of insufficient QB play, sooner or later, they start to falter because they start wearing down, and the TOP slides to the opponents favor.
We need ALL the pieces clicking, and working together, IF we want to stay around the top of the heap, but, if it's your contentment to be an "Also Ran" then by all means, ditch RW, then go and find a cheap replacement.

I doubt any serious Seahawk fan would like to "ditch RW."

It remains to be seen whether RW will seek to ditch the Seahawks in favor of an unreasonable contract with a weaker franchise.

 

[rideaducati]

You cannot compare the 2011 team to the current team. 50 of the 53 players on the roster are improved from that team. Look at the rosters. Doesn't improving at 50 positions automatically net you a few extra wins?

With Brian Hoyer, or TJax, this now is at worst an 11 win team. The quarterback position by design has less to do with our success than any other franchise in the NFL right now. Russell's great, nobody is really arguing that. His importance, however, and the franchise's ability to perhaps find another ample replacement for him are very debatable.

You are vastly overrating Tarvaris Jackson. You'll never convince me that Tarvaris could or would win 11 games with ANY team.

 

[hawknation2015]

You cannot compare the 2011 team to the current team. 50 of the 53 players on the roster are improved from that team. Look at the rosters. Doesn't improving at 50 positions automatically net you a few extra wins?

With Brian Hoyer, or TJax, this now is at worst an 11 win team. The quarterback position by design has less to do with our success than any other franchise in the NFL right now. Russell's great, nobody is really arguing that. His importance, however, and the franchise's ability to perhaps find another ample replacement for him are very debatable.

You are vastly overrating Tarvaris Jackson. You'll never convince me that Tarvaris could or would win 11 games with ANY team.

It's actually hard to say. With the best defense and running game in the league supporting him, how many games could Tarvaris Jackson win?

Jackson won 8 of the 12 games he started for Minnesota in 2007. Through a 16-game season that would have equated to 11 wins.

His biggest problem has been the multitude of injuries he has battled through, including the pectoral tear that really hampered him as the starter in 2011.

So it's hard to say, not that I would ever want to trade a Top 5 QB, like Wilson, for an average and relatively injury-prone one like Jackson.

 

[DavidSeven]

That 2011 team wasn't really far off from winning 10 games. There were a couple brutal losses at the end of the season, and T-Jack's pec injury and Charlie Whitehurst's ineptitude probably cost the team another win or two. Everyone who actually watched the games saw a much better team in 2011 than in 2010, even though the records were identical.

And yeah, you can't compare the 2015 versions of Sherman, ET, Kam, et al. to their 2011 counterparts.

 

[DavidSeven]

That being said, without an above-average QB, we're probably a better version of the Bengals, not a franchise knocking on the door of dynasty.

 

[hawknation2015]

That being said, without an above-average QB, we're probably a better version of the Bengals, not a franchise knocking on the door of dynasty.

Which is a credit to Schneider, Carroll, and Co. for drafting Wilson, when very few other teams were willing to give him an opportunity due to his height, and building a system from which develop Wilson into one of the Top 5 QBs in the league today.

 

[Hawkpower]

I feel like Wilson can not do a team friendly deal at this time as it would seem like a giant concession to his last interception.

I think he is more than willing to bet on himself and I have no idea why so many are upset/ furious with him. I know he said he would happily play out his contract. Hate away at him, I'm sure that will help.

Hate . . . upset . . . furious.

Still knocking down straw men, I see.

The strawmans have been out in full force lately.

I understand. Objectivity can be hard.

Many of our fellow fans are very protective of the guy that says "hike" for our favorite team.

Not so much of being "Protective" in these discussions about Russell Wilson......Just not so damned quick to dismiss his importance to the Seahawks as you are.
If you want to downplay his value, go for it, but don't expect everyone else to buy into your illogical stance on the matter.

Well, I see accusations of "Seahawk fans hating Wilson, furious at him, wanting to "ditch him" even though I havent see that posted here really much at all.

If rushing to post exaggerations every time someone frowns in his direction isnt what one calls protecting him, well I guess we agree to disagree.

As to your accusation that I have an illogical stance on the matter, I would respectfully ask you to define what mine is? You seem to think you have it figured out. I certainly am not downplaying his value, as you claim, just pointing out that he plays on the most talented roster in the NFL, so fans with perspective at least take a moment to ponder the intelligence of committing too much money to a player that may or may not be replaceable from a production stand point, especially if committing that money ends up weakening the team as a whole.

Downplaying his value compared to someone who thinks he's the best player in the NFL? I guess. But I would say my stance mirrors what most NFL fans and coaches outside Seattle think: top 5-7 QB in the league. Is that downplaying his value?

 

[Hawkpower]

Sure, but if I'm a GM in the NFL, and I get to pick top ranked defense or huge chunk of my cap hit on a QB, I'm picking defense every time and its not even close.

Of course its nice to have both, but dominant defenses dominate in the NFL.[/quote]
:13:[/quote]
Okay, so you're contending that we even get to two Super Bowls and win one, WITHOUT Russell Wilson at the lead?
You're both dreaming.
You are not going to win your way to two Super Bowls with a top tier Defense, and an inept Quarterback.
Easy to speculate that you can just plug in any whimsical Quarterback (regardless if there's not even one available).
Does anybody truly believe that a "Pure Pocket Passer", and no true #1 targets could flourish behind an O-Line that's designed for the Run Game, while playing for peanuts even exist?
Russell Wilson is the absolute perfect fit for the Seahawks Offensive scheme...Does he miss seeing some wide open Receivers?, yep, but the same can be said of every single Quarterback that's ever played the game.[/quote]




Nowhere did I say "inept QB" Why is that the only other option vs. Wilson in this argument? LOL.

Its possible to have a top tier defense with an above average QB. Its probably much more difficult to have a #1 ranked defense and pay a superstar QB the market rate.

And in my opinion the team with the average to above average QB and a #1 defense has a better chance of winning the superbowl on any given year vs a team with a super star QB money tied up and an average D.

 

[Chrome_Seahawk]

Unless of course JS doesn't value RW in the way we think he should or might.

Wouldn't surprise me to find out that the FO has a line in the sand that they aren't willing to cross...now or ever.

Debating the intelligence of such a stance is worthy, but the FO beats to their own drum, they value defense and running games, they have A LOT of superstars on the roster....and RW has some question marks, valid ones.

Maybe RW has leverage in most cases....but here? I don't know.

JS was beside himself with exuberant anticipation about getting "RW" in the Draft, and Pete Carroll designating him as the starter over Flynn & Jackson in his Rookie outing, + the culminating results of all three Seasons with him at the helm, and you honestly believe that JS doesn't see his value?

This "Running Game" is most effective BECAUSE of the numbers that Russell Wilson has helped to add to it, it is NOT all Marshawn Lynch's doing.

The Seahawks Defense is the absolute best, bar none, with no arguments, but, they are not of and by themselves, the only reason for the culminated success.

A lot of the blame for the loss in Super Bowl 49, was laid on RW, but, most people seem to have amnesia when it comes to the Patriots coming back from a 10 point deficit (against the Seahawks vaunted Defense) to secure the win.

As I see it, there are too many here, that want to downplay Russell Wilson's value, to fit their end of the argument, and even going so far as trying to crystal ball what JS & Co. think of him, to hedge their beliefs on the matter.

If you look from an another angle, the defense kept the team in play for the NFC championship game. If you look at the totality of all games played over Petes tenure as a the coach, the defense was a bigger element on taking the ball over and giving it to the offense. There were so many 3 and outs and Bevell hating in the not too distant future. The defense wins championships, if the team was built in the philosophy of an high octane offense, I would readily agree with the thought process. If we don't have a stellar defense, Russel would be sitting on the sidelines instead of being on the field IMHO.

You're side-stepping one facet of the argument, in that a lot of those "3 And Outs" were because Russell Wilson has had to rely on his non-#1 Receivers to get somewhat open, hence, his nearly 900 Yards of tucking the ball in, and running for it.
Contrary to the worn out adage of "Defense Wins Championships", it would be way more accurate, and honest to say that Defenses HELP to win Championships.

It's still a fact that the Seahawks had a 10 point advantage for quite awhile in 49, but it was the Defense that couldn't hold Brady from eating up the deficit.

It's going to be interesting to see what kind of Season Wilson will have with the likes of Jimmy Graham on board.
The Offensive line has been pretty damned decent at pushing the running game up the ranks, but they pretty much suck at QB protection.

Kearse wasn't making the catches (interceptions) NFCCG, that's not all on RW, but ultimately, he managed to compete, and helped to get the win.

IF Wilson and his Agent are being unreasonable in negotiations, we will find out when all comes to light.
Until I hear the particulars, I'm not on board with putting all the blame on Wilson for the hold-ups.

To me, there is no doubt in my mind that Wilson is making a foolish decision to go into this year without a new contract. (assuming the report of him being offered a 4 year extension at roughly 22 million a year, with a reasonable amount of guarantees etc. is correct. )

Wilson loses a number of things.

1. The ability to invest/gain interest on any signing bonus for 12+ months. Don't kid yourself, this alone is worth millions of dollars.

2. He risks injury and while we don't know the exact extent of his insurance policy, it's certainly not for as much as his 25 million plus guaranteed dollars.

3. He loses whatever the substantial insurance policy premium he's having to pay is.

4. We won't know how much until this ordeal is over, but he's losing substantial amounts of faith/goodwill of fans and having his golden boy image tarnished.

5. His change in image will directly affect his ability to make off the field money through endorsements etc. Sure, if the Seahawks continue to win, he will get some endorsements, but the less people like him, the fewer he will get.

6. You want to know how Wilson goes from Seattle's only winning Superbowl QB to Arod status in 3 years? If Wilson fights to become the highest paid player in the league, Lynch leaves/gets hurts during or after the next season, and the Seahawks start winning 7-10 games a season because of a poor offense. Or maybe Wilson dings a knee and becomes merely average without the his great mobility and the offense is poor. OR ANYTHING that makes the Seahawks play poorly, will be blamed squarely on Wilson whose job is going to be to carry this team and who will garner no sympathy for any excuse if he bends the Hawks over for every penny possible.

7. If everyone is healthy, nobody thinks Wilson is likely to regress. I certainly don't, I love Wilson as a QB. But any rational person has to admit it's possible. If the Hawks go 10-6 this year, and Wilson's numbers stay static, and the Hawks don't get past the first round of the playoffs, Wilson's value has gone down significantly imo. God forbid he and the Hawks do even worse than 10-6. A lot of his value right now is based on the assumption that he's a talent on the ascension, and again I agree he likely is. But any rational person has to acknowledge the possibility he either doesn't improve or regresses, even if that's only like 20-30%. Probably a conservative estimate when taking account the possible that he just stays at his currently level. It's quite possible Wilson is what he was this last season, a very good QB, but not one who will continue to improve on his passing, and one who will struggle whenever his legs slow down.

Compare this to what Wilson gains even if he becomes the highest paid player in the league getting a new contract after this season. (The best case scenario for Wilson).

1. Let's assume Wilson's dream comes true. He's great this season, the Hawks win another Superbowl and he demands the world. What's the world? At best, 27-28 million dollars a year? So in an ideal world he's making 4-6 million a year more over four years. That's it. That is the only upside I see. And going back to the Superbowl and having his best statistical season ever is the only way to possibly push his value any higher as it is already sky high. This is especially risky because he can't even control how well the Seahawks do as a team given 31 other teams trying to make the Hawks fail, and his need to rely on 60 other players/coaches for team success.

So that's his gamble, enough money guaranteed to live richly for three generations with no additional income, and no doubt much mre money if he stays healthy gets the majority of his contract/endorsements. Seahawks fan love for life and saving a good chunk of his golden boy image nationally. He could have that today.

OR

He can shoot for the moon and potentially get 110 million over four years instead of 88, while risking ending up with only whatever his insurance policy is for. Risking his endorsements, his good will with the fans, his national reputation. And again, he only gets his additional money if the Seahawks have another dynasty type season and he is a big part of it. Possible? Certainly. But nowhere near a guarantee.

Russell Wilson is the only person who knows if he has the leverage or if Seattle has the leverage.

If he wants to be paid 25+ million a year, there is a team willing to do so to obtain him without giving up players/picks. I guarantee it.

Here's the definition of leverage:
To use (something) to maximum advantage

Russell makes enough in endorsements to live like a king. He doesn't NEED his extra $20MM this year.

The only perceived "leverage" Seattle has in this situation is time and team (city), not money. If Wilson is not concerned with time or what team he plays for, he can surely cash in more elsewhere, and that is a fact. Rodgers is 100% correct that an open market will yield Wilson the biggest contract.

We will only find out in time who actually holds the leverage in this negotiation.

To guys like Sherm/ Chanc/Earl getting big payouts early and staying with their brothers is more important than being paid like a true unrestricted FA...With that said, Russell is a different guy, and none of us know if he's even the slightest bit concerned about being paid immediately or which team he plays with.

Your last paragraph is so right on.

We have no idea. I think we thought we knew Wilson based on his carefully crafted public persona he submits to the fans and media. With the choices regarding the contract potentially conflicting with that image, many fans are having a tough time knowing how to react.

Oh, yeah just so you know nobody but Brady, Rodgers and Manning make any endorsement money of note via NFL players when talking the big time money. Especially compared to the other major sports and/or celebrity types.

Not sure if this article supports or contradicts that statement or what is considered big time endorsement money. But it claims Brady made $7 million, Rodgers at $7.5, and Manning at $12. Brees and Eli are in there as well. And since Cam's contract has more effect on RW than any other right now, I thought it was appropriate to post. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12990 ... appeal-nfl. But you are correct, compared to Michael Jordan making approximately a billion so far in sources other than playing salary, these numbers fall far short.

Forbes says Brees makes $11 million per year on endorsements.

http://www.forbes.com/profile/drew-brees/

The top basketball players make a lot more endorsement money than football players, i.e. Lebron James's $44 million, Kevin Durants' $35 million, etc., but Wilson has such a well-crafted persona and has gotten his face out there enough, that I could see him racking up $20+ million in endorsements at some point if he continues to win. Before these negotiations heated up, he was tops in jersey sales, which indicates his popularity. Anyway, the NFL is far more popular than the NBA. I see no reason why a football player couldn't challenge for those basketball endorsement numbers.

 

[rideaducati]

You cannot compare the 2011 team to the current team. 50 of the 53 players on the roster are improved from that team. Look at the rosters. Doesn't improving at 50 positions automatically net you a few extra wins?

With Brian Hoyer, or TJax, this now is at worst an 11 win team. The quarterback position by design has less to do with our success than any other franchise in the NFL right now. Russell's great, nobody is really arguing that. His importance, however, and the franchise's ability to perhaps find another ample replacement for him are very debatable.

You are vastly overrating Tarvaris Jackson. You'll never convince me that Tarvaris could or would win 11 games with ANY team.

It's actually hard to say. With the best defense and running game in the league supporting him, how many games could Tarvaris Jackson win?

Jackson won 8 of the 12 games he started for Minnesota in 2007 (75%). Through a 16-game season that would have equated to 12 wins.

He then led the Vikings to a 12-4 season in 2009 . . . he was 8-0 as the starter.

His biggest problem has been the multitude of injuries he has battled through, including the pectoral tear that really hampered him as the starter in 2011.

So it's hard to say, not that I would ever want to trade a Top 5 QB, like Wilson, for an average and relatively injury-prone one like Jackson.

Yes, Tarvaris won 8 of 12 games in 2007. He threw 9 touchdowns and 12 interceptions and fumbled the ball away 3 times. How many more games would they have won with just an average QB? Probably a few.

I think you need to do a LITTLE more research on Tarvaris Jackson. The Vikings were 12-4 in 09 with some guy named Brett Favre starting. Tarvaris was thrown in late in games for mop up duty. He had ZERO starts that year and was 14/21 for 200 yards TOTAL for the year. While the VIKINGS were 8-0 in games that he played, he was not responsible for ANY of those wins.

It's actually NOT hard to say, with the best defense and running game in the league supporting him, Tarvaris Jackson could find a way to lose more than he wins.

 

[hawknation2015]

You cannot compare the 2011 team to the current team. 50 of the 53 players on the roster are improved from that team. Look at the rosters. Doesn't improving at 50 positions automatically net you a few extra wins?

With Brian Hoyer, or TJax, this now is at worst an 11 win team. The quarterback position by design has less to do with our success than any other franchise in the NFL right now. Russell's great, nobody is really arguing that. His importance, however, and the franchise's ability to perhaps find another ample replacement for him are very debatable.

You are vastly overrating Tarvaris Jackson. You'll never convince me that Tarvaris could or would win 11 games with ANY team.

It's actually hard to say. With the best defense and running game in the league supporting him, how many games could Tarvaris Jackson win?

Jackson won 8 of the 12 games he started for Minnesota in 2007. Through a 16-game season that would have equated to 11 wins.

He then led the Vikings to a 12-4 season in 2009 . . . he was 8-0 as the starter.

His biggest problem has been the multitude of injuries he has battled through, including the pectoral tear that really hampered him as the starter in 2011.

So it's hard to say, not that I would ever want to trade a Top 5 QB, like Wilson, for an average and relatively injury-prone one like Jackson.

Yes, Tarvaris won 8 of 12 games in 2007. He threw 9 touchdowns and 12 interceptions and fumbled the ball away 3 times. How many more games would they have won with just an average QB? Probably a few.

Jackson's career numbers are not as bad as you make them out to be: 60% completions, 78.5 QB rating, etc.

Anyway, no one is advocating that Jackson would be an adequate replacement for Wilson, although he is an above average backup.

If Wilson decides he would rather chase absurd money with a weaker franchise, then the team will be forced to find a new franchise QB. Just like they will need to find a new franchise RB when Lynch decides to retire.

 

[rideaducati]

It's actually hard to say. With the best defense and running game in the league supporting him, how many games could Tarvaris Jackson win?

Jackson won 8 of the 12 games he started for Minnesota in 2007. Through a 16-game season that would have equated to 11 wins.

He then led the Vikings to a 12-4 season in 2009 . . . he was 8-0 as the starter.

His biggest problem has been the multitude of injuries he has battled through, including the pectoral tear that really hampered him as the starter in 2011.

So it's hard to say, not that I would ever want to trade a Top 5 QB, like Wilson, for an average and relatively injury-prone one like Jackson.

Yes, Tarvaris won 8 of 12 games in 2007. He threw 9 touchdowns and 12 interceptions and fumbled the ball away 3 times. How many more games would they have won with just an average QB? Probably a few.

Jackson's career numbers are not as bad as you make them out to be: 60% completions, 78.5 QB rating, etc.

Anyway, no one is advocating that Jackson would be an adequate replacement for Wilson, although he is an above average backup.

If Wilson decides he would rather chase absurd money with a weaker franchise, then the team will be forced to find a new franchise QB. Just like they will need to find a new franchise RB when Lynch decides to retire.

Tarvaris Jackson's QB rating was ranked 28th in that "great" 07 season and 21st in his 2011 season...yay. :th2thumbs:
Who would think that 39 touchdown and 35 interceptions would be bad for a QB? :34853_doh:
We don't know if Tarvaris is above average at anything including being a backup QB. He has never even had to play as a backup in Seattle. The last time Tarvaris actually WAS a backup QB outside of Seattle, he was relegated to fifth string in Buffalo, that is not an "above average" backup.

Who is to say he could win 12 games in a season? DEFINITELY NOT ME. Someone else is free to say it, they're WRONG, but they are free to say it.

If Russell decides to play hardball (in two years at the earliest), I have no doubt that the Seahawks will have a better replacement in place than Tarvaris Jackson.

 

[hawknation2015]

It's actually hard to say. With the best defense and running game in the league supporting him, how many games could Tarvaris Jackson win?

Jackson won 8 of the 12 games he started for Minnesota in 2007. Through a 16-game season that would have equated to 11 wins.

He then led the Vikings to a 12-4 season in 2009 . . . he was 8-0 as the starter.

His biggest problem has been the multitude of injuries he has battled through, including the pectoral tear that really hampered him as the starter in 2011.

So it's hard to say, not that I would ever want to trade a Top 5 QB, like Wilson, for an average and relatively injury-prone one like Jackson.

Yes, Tarvaris won 8 of 12 games in 2007. He threw 9 touchdowns and 12 interceptions and fumbled the ball away 3 times. How many more games would they have won with just an average QB? Probably a few.

Jackson's career numbers are not as bad as you make them out to be: 60% completions, 78.5 QB rating, etc.

Anyway, no one is advocating that Jackson would be an adequate replacement for Wilson, although he is an above average backup.

If Wilson decides he would rather chase absurd money with a weaker franchise, then the team will be forced to find a new franchise QB. Just like they will need to find a new franchise RB when Lynch decides to retire.

Tarvaris Jackson's QB rating was ranked 28th in that "great" 07 season and 21st in his 2011 season...yay. :th2thumbs:
Who would think that 39 touchdown and 35 interceptions would be bad for a QB? :34853_doh:
We don't know if Tarvaris is above average at anything including being a backup QB. He has never even had to play as a backup in Seattle. The last time Tarvaris actually WAS a backup QB outside of Seattle, he was relegated to fifth string in Buffalo, that is not an "above average" backup.

Who is to say he could win 12 games in a season? DEFINITELY NOT ME. Someone else is free to say it, they're WRONG, but they are free to say it.

If Russell decides to play hardball (in two years at the earliest), I have no doubt that the Seahawks will have a better replacement in place than Tarvaris Jackson.

Many people would disagree with you about Jackson not being an above average backup, namely the front office, which patiently waited to sign him so that he could once again be our backup.

ESPN rated him No. 5 in the league among "backup QBs":

5. Tarvaris Jackson, Seattle Seahawks

He's the perfect backup to Russell Wilson. He's 17-17 in starts and averages 22.5 points per game, which would be more than enough to pile up wins with Seattle's elite defense.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13076 ... rbacks-nfl

You're cherry picking raw numbers from seasons where the guy was playing hurt, while his overall numbers are still positive. At his best, he has flashed the potential to be a decent QB. With our defense and running game, I think he could definitely win some games for us.

 

[rideaducati]

Yes, Tarvaris won 8 of 12 games in 2007. He threw 9 touchdowns and 12 interceptions and fumbled the ball away 3 times. How many more games would they have won with just an average QB? Probably a few.

Jackson's career numbers are not as bad as you make them out to be: 60% completions, 78.5 QB rating, etc.

Anyway, no one is advocating that Jackson would be an adequate replacement for Wilson, although he is an above average backup.

If Wilson decides he would rather chase absurd money with a weaker franchise, then the team will be forced to find a new franchise QB. Just like they will need to find a new franchise RB when Lynch decides to retire.

Tarvaris Jackson's QB rating was ranked 28th in that "great" 07 season and 21st in his 2011 season...yay. :th2thumbs:
Who would think that 39 touchdown and 35 interceptions would be bad for a QB? :34853_doh:
We don't know if Tarvaris is above average at anything including being a backup QB. He has never even had to play as a backup in Seattle. The last time Tarvaris actually WAS a backup QB outside of Seattle, he was relegated to fifth string in Buffalo, that is not an "above average" backup.

Who is to say he could win 12 games in a season? DEFINITELY NOT ME. Someone else is free to say it, they're WRONG, but they are free to say it.

If Russell decides to play hardball (in two years at the earliest), I have no doubt that the Seahawks will have a better replacement in place than Tarvaris Jackson.

Many people would disagree with you about Jackson not being an above average backup, namely the front office, which patiently waited to sign him so that he could once again be our backup.

ESPN rated him No. 5 in the league among "backup QBs":

5. Tarvaris Jackson, Seattle Seahawks

He's the perfect backup to Russell Wilson. He's 17-17 in starts and averages 22.5 points per game, which would be more than enough to pile up wins with Seattle's elite defense.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13076 ... rbacks-nfl

You're cherry picking raw numbers from seasons where the guy was playing hurt, while his overall numbers are still positive. At his best, he has flashed the potential to be a decent QB. With our defense and running game, I think he could definitely win some games for us.

ANY QB could win some games for the Seahawks and I would argue MOST would be better than Tarvaris. Disagree all you want and I'll still argue. Tarvaris S.U.C.K.S. sucks.

John Clayton's rankings have just as much clout with me as your rankings would. Both are subjective and based on how YOU would rank them. John Clayton's list has as many ranked below Tarvaris as I would rank above Tarvaris. It's all opinion, and that is mine. John Clayton also says that if Tarvaris Jackson had to start the entire season, the Seahawks would go 8-8. Listen for yourself. http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_pla ... rd%20Facts

 

[Tical21]

The point isn't about Tarvaris. The point is that our roster and coaching staff are so good that we could still win 11 games with Tarvaris freaking Jackson. Is there anybody here that thinks within two years we wouldn't have a better quarterback than Jackson on our roster?

And keep the best defense in the league?

And get two first rounders, probably high ones?

I don't really care about the first rounders, but getting a sick receiver could be cool. Gun to my head, sign me up.

IF we get all that, AND somehow find another good quarterback, we're going to win some Super Bowls, plural. It is just so scary to dive into that freezing cold water known as Unknown Quarterback Ocean.

 

[rideaducati]

The point isn't about Tarvaris. The point is that our roster and coaching staff are so good that we could still win 11 games with Tarvaris freaking Jackson. Is there anybody here that thinks within two years we wouldn't have a better quarterback than Jackson on our roster?

And keep the best defense in the league?

And get two first rounders, probably high ones?

I don't really care about the first rounders, but getting a sick receiver could be cool. Gun to my head, sign me up.

IF we get all that, AND somehow find another good quarterback, we're going to win some Super Bowls, plural. It is just so scary to dive into that freezing cold water known as Unknown Quarterback Ocean.

The two first round picks would be middle of the round at worst because Russell wouldn't play poorly enough on any team to net a top pick in the draft.

I don't think ANY coaching staff and roster is good enough to win 11 games with Tarvaris Jackson. At the same time, by the time ANY of that matters, Tarvaris will be gone or backing up the next Seahawk QB.

 

[Hawkpower]

Jackson's career numbers are not as bad as you make them out to be: 60% completions, 78.5 QB rating, etc.

Anyway, no one is advocating that Jackson would be an adequate replacement for Wilson, although he is an above average backup.

If Wilson decides he would rather chase absurd money with a weaker franchise, then the team will be forced to find a new franchise QB. Just like they will need to find a new franchise RB when Lynch decides to retire.[/quote]

Tarvaris Jackson's QB rating was ranked 28th in that "great" 07 season and 21st in his 2011 season...yay. :th2thumbs:
Who would think that 39 touchdown and 35 interceptions would be bad for a QB? :34853_doh:
We don't know if Tarvaris is above average at anything including being a backup QB. He has never even had to play as a backup in Seattle. The last time Tarvaris actually WAS a backup QB outside of Seattle, he was relegated to fifth string in Buffalo, that is not an "above average" backup.

Who is to say he could win 12 games in a season? DEFINITELY NOT ME. Someone else is free to say it, they're WRONG, but they are free to say it.

If Russell decides to play hardball (in two years at the earliest), I have no doubt that the Seahawks will have a better replacement in place than Tarvaris Jackson.[/quote]

Many people would disagree with you about Jackson not being an above average backup, namely the front office, which patiently waited to sign him so that he could once again be our backup.

ESPN rated him No. 5 in the league among "backup QBs":

5. Tarvaris Jackson, Seattle Seahawks

He's the perfect backup to Russell Wilson. He's 17-17 in starts and averages 22.5 points per game, which would be more than enough to pile up wins with Seattle's elite defense.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13076 ... rbacks-nfl

You're cherry picking raw numbers from seasons where the guy was playing hurt, while his overall numbers are still positive. At his best, he has flashed the potential to be a decent QB. With our defense and running game, I think he could definitely win some games for us.[/quote]

ANY QB could win some games for the Seahawks and I would argue MOST would be better than Tarvaris. Disagree all you want and I'll still argue. Tarvaris S.U.C.K.S. sucks.

John Clayton's rankings have just as much clout with me as your rankings would. Both are subjective and based on how YOU would rank them. John Clayton's list has as many ranked below Tarvaris as I would rank above Tarvaris. It's all opinion, and that is mine. John Clayton also says that if Tarvaris Jackson had to start the entire season, the Seahawks would go 8-8. Listen for yourself. http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_pla ... rd%20Facts[/quote]





Why do you keep arguing about Tavaris Jackson?

He isnt the alternative to Wilson. This isnt Wilson OR Tavaris for gods sake.

For a backup, he is pretty good, but he wouldnt be who we bank on if Wilson walks.

 

[hawknation2015]

Why do you keep arguing about Tavaris Jackson?

He isnt the alternative to Wilson. This isnt Wilson OR Tavaris for gods sake.

For a backup, he is pretty good, but he wouldnt be who we bank on if Wilson walks.

:13:

 

[rideaducati]

Why do you keep arguing about Tavaris Jackson?

He isnt the alternative to Wilson. This isnt Wilson OR Tavaris for gods sake.

For a backup, he is pretty good, but he wouldnt be who we bank on if Wilson walks.

:13:

Because I have people trying to tell me that the Seahawks could/would win 11 games with him. They wouldn't/couldn't.
Please quit trying to tell me he is a good backup. The ONLY reason people "think" he is a good backup is because we haven't seen him play since 2011 and people actually forget just how awful he was.

 

[Hawkpower]

Why do you keep arguing about Tavaris Jackson?

He isnt the alternative to Wilson. This isnt Wilson OR Tavaris for gods sake.

For a backup, he is pretty good, but he wouldnt be who we bank on if Wilson walks.

:13:

Because I have people trying to tell me that the Seahawks could/would win 11 games with him. They wouldn't/couldn't.
Please quit trying to tell me he is a good backup. The ONLY reason people "think" he is a good backup is because we haven't seen him play since 2011 and people actually forget just how awful he was.

Ok, lets assume that they couldnt win 11 games with Tavaris. What does that have to do with Russ and his contract?

BTW, most backups in this league arent good. Thats why they are backups. Tavaris, rated as the fifth best backup, is just fine in that role. Your insistence in proving otherwise seems odd.