Russell Wilson and the 3 year, $45.5 million baseline

[Ad Hawk]

I like turtles

Really?


I'm curious, was someone on this thread trying to compare Cam Newton (mental midget) to Wilson?

This reminded me more of Kaep...

 

[Hawkfan77]

I like turtles

Really?


I'm curious, was someone on this thread trying to compare Cam Newton (mental midget) to Wilson?

This reminded me more of Kaep...

Yeah that's a more apt description of Kaepernick not Cam Newtom. Odd to bring him up though unno:

 

[Scottemojo]

FTR, though, I just went to Spotrac.com to look up QB contracts and 2015 salaries.

That record breaking contract signed by Flacco two years ago that crushed the Ravens title team is now just the 4th highest QB salary and just a million or so more than the likes of Tannehill and Kapernick. Oh, and the Ravens are right back at the top of the AFC.

In 2015, Flacco has just $4 million in salary with a $14 million cap hit. The Ravens will face their maker in 2016 when that number jumps to $28 million, although I suggest a restructure is already in the works there.

The most interesting thing about that model is the inevitable rebuild at the end of the cycle. The Saints are facing it soon, the Cowboys will too. The cycle of pushing QB money down the road with a restructure eventually ends painfully.

But moving on with a new QB after the franchise guy rides into the sunset is usually painful anyway. So I absolutely understand why teams gravitate to that model when they get their hands on a franchise guy. Better to be in the desert with really expensive water than to be in the desert with no water. I consider Newsome to be a really good GM, and he has no problem with the kick my QB can down the road model. Probably because he remembers the Kyle Boller years.

 

[London12]

Can someone summarise this objectively? Just too many essays to read through over the past few pages..

 

[Willyeye]

How many Heisman winning QB has been to the Superbowl since 1994 when the salary cap era began? I get what your saying, but saying we can just plug in a new QB and win regardless is also risking your Superbowl window.

Pete Carroll said next man up to from Hasselbeck to Charlie Whitehurst to Tavaris Jackson until they finally got a QB, so your telling me that they need to go look in the trash bin to see if they can find a servicable QB. That's the most riskiest thing you can do for your team.

Trash bin is your creation, not mine. I believe Wilson had plenty of trade value should it become impossible to sign him to a salary commensurate with his performance. I would rather trade him than pay him an artificially high salary such as Baltimore did with Flacco.

Ok let's say we trade Wilson next year, draft a QB or get em in free agency. Ok what happens next, Lynch decides to retire, oh no running game now. The defense have been injured for the last two years and I can see that continuing, this defense is going to take a step back each year, they can't be #1 forever. If they start having a few losing seasons, the veterans would want to get bigger contracts elsewhere meaning the LOB will be dismantle within the next 3 or 4 years. The defense will be gone but the only thing that could stay for an entire career to keep your odds of returning to the Superbowl is a QB, and I stated many times if you have an efficient offense and a top 15 defense your chances are still pretty good to contend for one.

We are a team built around the running game and defense. The team philosophy is "next man up". You are operating with the premise that you must keep someone for their entire career, which is contrary to what Carroll has been dealing with on a regular basis at USC and now even in Seattle.

And having distilled all that your conclusion is that we must hold onto the QB for his entire career?

Carroll built the defense from basically nothing, and personnel have changed on a yearly basis yet it remains #1. Maybe it can't be #1 forever, but it can be as long as Carroll has a say about it.

Lynch retires - no running game? Where do you get that? Don't we still have Tom Cable? Don't they still make running backs in college? Haven't we got Christine Michael on a chain in the basement being fed raw slabs of beef?

Our odds of returning to the Super Bowl rest on the effectiveness of our defense and running game, because that's our coach's philosophy, and of all things on the team, that's the one thing that won't change as long as Carroll is in charge. in light of that it is the height of nonsense so sell out to a QB at the expense of our core philosophy.

Your assuming that every player Pete Carroll finds is a starter, last year had shown that we lost alot of depth from 2013 and it affected alot of things. The Buffalo Bills were almost the #1 Defense all they had to do was make one more defensive play or so. Seattle had -16.8 and Bills were -15.5, that's a farcry from the 2014 Seahawks season of -25.9 and the 2nd to that was the Arizona Cardinals at -16.4 in that same year by a good margin.

It shows that our defense was slipping, this year is telling, I hope it goes back up though.

The Chicago Bears were the #1 ranked Defense by DVOA in 2012 with a score of -26.7 and Seattle was #2 with -14.5, but no one talked about that defense as being elite as they had a better score than the 2014 Seahawks. That bears team couldn't even make the playoffs and it came down to the QB.

Whatever Pete decides I'm ok with it, with this team Wilson will never be credited with anything, majority of football fans think it's only the defense and running game. Heck even if Wilson puts up crazy stats this year people will say that it's because of all the weapons he have. If Pete trade Wilson I hope he goes to a team that would haunt him forever.

I think you're confusing "slipping" with some bad luck with injuries. The number of injuries last year was crazy. A healthy D would not have put the Hawks in a situation where they had to come back at the end of the SB...the game would have been over in the 3rd quarter. Aside from losing key guys like Mebane, Maxwell , Hill, Wagner, Chancellor and Lane for multiple games, they also lost some depth guys like KPL and Marsh. And then, perhaps even more importantly, think back to games where guys like Kam played through injuries and looked like he could barely make a tackle, much less put someone on their butt. 2014 was a horrible year for injuries. If you expected the D to have a 2013 season with all those injuries, you were expecting way too much. My point is that if the D can stay somewhat healthy, I believe that D goes back to more of a 2013 DVOA score in 2015.

 

[Willyeye]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

Nor does it not.

I actually kind of agree with Kiwi and have been wondering along these lines the last few weeks. Pete comes from that college system, and incorporates a lot of those values into his pro thinking. An 80 man deep roster with competition throughout and no giving spots. Very collegiate. A commitment to roster turnover every 3 to 5 years. Very collegiate. A willingness to take athletes and find a spot for them. Very collegiate.

He just might be banking on turning over the QB position like any other. Palmer, Lienart, Sanchez, Barkley with a few Booty's in between. The team kept rolling without a hitch. How much to they believe in their ability to identify and coach the next QB?

Not saying I agree with it. I obviously don't. But that could be their thinking. Obviously they would prefer the proven commodity, but I do wonder if they aren't willing to roll the dice on their drafting and coaching prowess.

I agree with this to an extent, but the NFL differs greatly from college in that respect. When a player transforms into an NFL superstar, unlike college, their teams tend to hang onto them for more than 4 years. The NFL is not a 4-year revolving door. Judging from the contracts the Hawks have given out the last 2 years, they do make a point to keep their stars for longer than just their rookie contracts. Most Seahawk fans recognize that the Hawks NEED to extend Wilson and Wagner in order to compete successfully in the NFL, and in order to have any kind of shot at another championship. I'm pretty sure that JS/PC concur with this assessment. Perhaps that 4 years of college turns into 8 years, at which time the Hawks seem more apt to let players walk, due to age and difficulty getting players to accept the fact that their value has decreased. I honestly don't see that there's any way that the Hawks don't extend Wilson and Wagner prior to the start of the season, and they will pay whatever it takes to get that done.

I think that's the goal winning teams strive for...to keep the guys that are irreplaceable, and to know when a player surpasses their value to the team, thus knowing when to part ways. A good example is Lynch. They obviously felt that, at least for 2015, Lynch is irreplaceable if the team wants to succeed. It may turn out that they overpaid for a RB of Lynch's age. It's decisions like this that determine how well a team does. Teams that make a lot of "Harvin decisions" are obviously not very successful. Even the decision to part ways with Bryant may have come a season or 2 too early, but on the other hand, perhaps Bryant simply wanted more than they felt his value justified. In hindsight, after all the injuries to the DL, they may have come to a different decision...of course Kevin Williams ended up being their insurance policy anyway.

 

[theincrediblesok]

I like turtles

Really?


I'm curious, was someone on this thread trying to compare Cam Newton (mental midget) to Wilson?

This reminded me more of Kaep...

Yeah that's a more apt description of Kaepernick not Cam Newtom. Odd to bring him up though unno:

LOL I had to lighten up the mood in this thread a little bit. The "I like Turtles" line is from a little kid in a halloween type makeup that was asked a question for a news channel and that's what he said which had nothing to do with the question being asked.

I know about the injury I knew it affects stats, but Injury is part of the game, the cardinals lost almost all of their starters, and yet all their depth players played almost better than the starters. The 2013 Seahawks always found the ball, no matter where it was not matter how long they were in the air, they were able to get tips ball from all angles, all plays. It seemed like every single INT was caught and rarely dropped unlike the 2014 season. The pass rush was crazy and we made it a living hell for a QB to stay in the pocket. We also kept the points low per game. What I'm trying to illustrate is that our depth wasn't as good as our 2013 self and it showed. Even our starters were playing sluggish for the first half of the season, they had a little Superbowl hangover/complacent before they went back to kill mode. Byron was also getting beat and had to move inside sometimes. How many times were we screaming at the defense when the QB had all day to sit back there.

I saw our backups in the preseason and I knew that our defense were in trouble with our depth. our 2nd and 3rd stringer couldn't beat their 2nd or 3rd tier offense.

This was mainly to let Kiwihawk see that the next man up might not be as good as he think they should be, not all our backups are starter material.

2014 - 13 INT, 19 Force Fumble, 36 Sacks
2013 - 28 INT, 24 Force Fumble, 43 Sacks

I do think they get back to form, but the defense must stay healthy, and our depth players need to step it up.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Can someone summarise this objectively? Just too many essays to read through over the past few pages..

It's quite simple you have some idiots thinking you can just draft a Russell Wilson any old time. Another group of idiots thinking any clipboard Jesus type (Flynn, Whitehurst or Joe Montana at 65 would due given it's all about Lynch and nobody else).

Then the real ignorance starts. Pretty simple right?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

It is pretty hilarious. Throw anyone back there and they'll be fine. Wrong

 

[CurryStopstheRuns]

Can someone summarise this objectively? Just too many essays to read through over the past few pages..

It's quite simple you have some idiots thinking you can just draft a Russell Wilson any old time. Another group of idiots thinking any clipboard Jesus type (Flynn, Whitehurst or Joe Montana at 65 would due given it's all about Lynch and nobody else).

Then the real ignorance starts. Pretty simple right?

Sound so like you Are attacking posters and not the posts.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Can someone summarise this objectively? Just too many essays to read through over the past few pages..

It's quite simple you have some idiots thinking you can just draft a Russell Wilson any old time. Another group of idiots thinking any clipboard Jesus type (Flynn, Whitehurst or Joe Montana at 65 would due given it's all about Lynch and nobody else).

Then the real ignorance starts. Pretty simple right?

This is what some posters suggest others think, but I doubt anyone here actually feels this way.

Since no deal has been made between RW and the Hawks in his rookie contract, there is speculation as to why it hasn't happened. RW is right to be asking for a lot. The JS is going to get the best deal he can. The options, as I see them having been presented:

1. Sign RW at all costs or we lose our SB chances after this next year. A franchise QB only comes around every so often, and we'll never duplicate him, or replace his worth in games won or intangibles. Make him the highest paid QB in history since he won't be after the next QB gets a contract. The rest of the team is much less important to future success. Plus, not giving him the money is a sign of disrespect.

2. Sign RW to a deal that shows his worth. It can be creatively structured, but the FO will need to open their wallet. May make him highest in history in some area. He's earned it, though may not have reached elite status or his ceiling yet. We may lose Wagner or others who are valuable, but the QB is the place to put the money.

3. Offer RW a contract that is somewhat team-friendly, keeps the team in both the long and short term out of cap trouble, but allows the team to maintain it's nucleus of strong players, especially on Defense. If RW wants to win, he'll help make the contract doable for the whole team. Hopefully we can find a stop-gap QB if RW walks. He really can't be replaced, but that's life in the NFL with the cap.

4. If RW wants a contract to make him the highest paid QB, but his stats aren't the "best ever" (even if they're some of the best for first 3 years in league), then we'll keep him on his rookie contract this year, and he can test FA next year. We may franchise him for more than one year, but not at the expense of keeping the rest of the team. Defense wins championships. We're better off keeping the rest of the team, and settling for a lesser QB until we can find another diamond like Russ.

regarding #1 and #2, I'd love to sign Russ to a top-flight offer. I think he's worth it, and I believe the team is much better with him leading it. The question is whether we have the cap-space to do it after signing all the others. If we don't, then what? This is where I'll wait and see how the FO gets it done. I believe we'll sign him. I think it will be creatively done. It will be for a LOT of money. But it must accommodate a great team around him. Tough decisions are ahead.

Go Hawks!

 

[ctrcat]

I like turtles

Really?


I'm curious, was someone on this thread trying to compare Cam Newton (mental midget) to Wilson?

Pretty harsh MHG. Cam graduated from Auburn recently, doing something the vast majority of Americans over 25 haven't done, despite only being there one full wildly successful yet highly scrutinized year. You don't do what he's done being a mental midget. Not quite sure what that even means. Blaine Gabbert scored a league high 42 on the wonderlic fwiw.

 

[bmorepunk]

I don't think a sociology degree proves that someone isn't stupid. I don't know how smart Newton is, but that's not much of a qualifier.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I like turtles

Really?


I'm curious, was someone on this thread trying to compare Cam Newton (mental midget) to Wilson?

Pretty harsh MHG. Cam graduated from Auburn recently, doing something the vast majority of Americans over 25 haven't done, despite only being there one full wildly successful yet highly scrutinized year. You don't do what he's done being a mental midget. Not quite sure what that even means. Blaine Gabbert scored a league high 42 on the wonderlic fwiw.

Possibly you're correct in saying I was a bit over the top there. Especially given the fact I used the wrong term entirely. I don't question his raw IQ but I do question his grit and defy anyone to compare him to Wilson in that department and expect me, let alone countless others to take it seriously.


What makes Wilson worth whatever he gets paid is GRIT. That indefinable something like Joe Montana had even when he played for Kansas City. The Seahawks are loaded with that type of player. Cam Newton doesn't have it....yet. He's trying but isn't there yet and may never be.

 

[QuickLightning]

The 2016 QB franchise tag actually seems to be $25.18 Million right now.

That's expensive as hell.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -contract/

 

[edogg23]

The 2016 QB franchise tag actually seems to be $25.18 Million right now.

That's expensive as hell.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -contract/

That's if they want to use excusive tag. I think it is generally assumed they would just use the non-exclusive tag because a team would be pretty crazy to give up 2 first round picks plus make an offer high enough that we couldn't match.

 

[BelfastHawk]

That's if they want to use excusive tag. I think it is generally assumed they would just use the non-exclusive tag because a team would be pretty crazy to give up 2 first round picks plus make an offer high enough that we couldn't match.

I think it will most definitely be the exclusive tag. You don't think a team like Cleveland would give up two first rounders for Russell? No matter how you view him (top 5, top 10, top 15 qb), he would instantly add gravitas to a franchise seeking it for years. All that for Brandon Weeden and Jonny Football? Yes please!

 

[Anthony!]

The 2016 QB franchise tag actually seems to be $25.18 Million right now.

That's expensive as hell.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -contract/

That's if they want to use excusive tag. I think it is generally assumed they would just use the non-exclusive tag because a team would be pretty crazy to give up 2 first round picks plus make an offer high enough that we couldn't match.

Doe smatter both tags come with the same 25.18 mil price. Add to that what most experts say is a week QB draft over the next few years and it is not worth the gamble. As to the 2 first lets think about it a link on this site showed that Wilsons passing efficiency equal and add 5.7 games a season compared to an AVG Qb.

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

So lets look at what that would do for just a few teams that missed the playoffs

Phill was 10-6 and out would be 15-1 and in
Was was 4-12 would be 9-7 or 10-6 and maybe
Rams was 6-10 would be 11-5 and in
Buff was 9-7 and out would be 14-2 and in
Jets was 4-12 would be 9-7 or 10-6 and in
Clev was 7-9 and out would be 12-4 and in
Houston was 9-7 and out would be 14-2 and in

I think I have my point here. The reality is giving up 2 #1s for a young franchise QB would be a no brainer. The only reasons someone might not do it, is if they thought that after the first tag year and the tag price goes through the rough they would not tag him. Remembering if next year is 25.18 it will go up big time the following year.

 

[DTexHawk]

Clev was 7-9 and out would be 12-4 and in

Stats can be used in many way.

RW adds 5.73 wins to the Hawks over what an average QB efficiency would with the Hawks.

Using your link, if you look at the CLE situation, an average QB efficiency would get you 4 wins which would put them at 11-5.

So then the question becomes, if an average QB can get you to 11 wins, then how much is it worth to pay an above average QB to get 1 or 2 additional wins and can you do so without impacting the cap in regards to other positions.



Sidenote: your link shows that Rivers, Roethlisberger, and Romo add value to their teams which is completely different from what I've heard around here for years.

 

[Anthony!]

Clev was 7-9 and out would be 12-4 and in

Stats can be used in many way.

RW adds 5.73 wins to the Hawks over what an average QB efficiency would with the Hawks.

Using your link, if you look at the CLE situation, an average QB efficiency would get you 4 wins which would put them at 11-5.

So then the question becomes, if an average QB can get you to 11 wins, then how much is it worth to pay an above average QB to get 1 or 2 additional wins and can you do so without impacting the cap in regards to other positions.



Sidenote: your link shows that Rivers, Roethlisberger, and Romo add value to their teams which is completely different from what I've heard around here for years.

1-2 more wins could be the difference in getting to and winning the SB and not so yes it is worth it. As to the side note you did not hear that from me.