Russell Wilson sets deadline for new contract

[Uncle Si]

I get the need for balance, and its a concern with this new ciontract. But its a very short list of teams that have won super bowls in the last 25 years without a top tier QB.

Its a significant risk either way

It depends on how you define top tier. Brady for instance, was statistically a fringe top 10 QB for his first 3 Super Bowls and his last Super Bowl. If you look at the league since 2000, 12 of the 18 Super Bowl winning QBs were outside the top 7 in just about every significant passing category. Brady also skews the financial part of the equation. 15 of those Super Bowl winning QBs weren't even in the top 5 in pay.

I'm struggling with this issue. The data shows that a good QB on a great contract is how you win a Super Bowl. Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Wilson, have all failed to even make a Super Bowl after being paid. However, except for Brees, all of them have consistently elevated the floor of their franchise after signing that contract.

This ties into the Peyton Manning vs Brady debate in some respect. Manning was far and away the best QB for most of their respective careers, but he also got paid near the top of the league in all of those years while Brady hovered in and out of the top 10. Brady has only won 1 Super Bowl in the 6 season where he's being paid in the top 5 at this position, he did however make 3, and one of those seasons his team went undefeated lol...

Ultimately this question comes down to expectations. Trading Wilson gives you the best odds of going on another dynastic run while also attaching a significant risk to the franchise's floor if you miss on his replacement. Paying Wilson top 5 money maintains status quo but limits your ability to be a legitimate threat to win it all every season.

Trading Wilson does not increase your odds, nor give it the best odds. You just went through and showed top tier QBs that didn't win more than one (probably, and hear me out, because the other top tier QBs may have been winning it).

Again... find the team that has been successful, consistently, without a top tier QB. and don't waffle on the definition, we know who they are.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Now, I am not saying the Seahawks should move on from Russell. I can just see the merit to the other side of the argument. It's a unique philosophical question that diverges right at the heart of what we know of John Schneider. John's at his best when he sticks to his value and doesn't over pay. His draft philosophy involves mitigating risk by spreading his assets out while leveraging his ability to find talent in the later rounds. At a certain point paying Wilson diametrically opposes the philosophy that has made Schneider successful. I doubt the Seahawks would move on from Wilson, but if there is a guy with the balls to do it... it's John Schneider.

What's the merit though?

The only example of a team winning a SB with a QB on a rookie deal is us, and ironically it's the QB Tical and others want to get rid of.

Every other year the winning team has had an experienced top 10 QB. That's it, end of argument.

So again, find me another Russell Wilson and I'm all ears. Until then, I'm keeping the Russell Wilson we already have.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

When we pay Russell his 40 million, anytime any players we draft to surround him with get good, we have to show them the door. It isn't going to work, period. Now, you can say my way probably won't work, but your way definitely won't work. That's the difference.

Except our way isn't impossible, either. You're drawing quite the line in the sand where it's not merited by the facts, and it's very bizarre.

 

[Sac]

Pay the man his market value, and let the front office and coaching staff worry about how to assemble at team around him that can win a super bowl. That's their freaking job anyway.

 

[Hawknballs]

"Trade him"

:lol: :lol: :roll:

Yeah some draft picks! Woo hoo - maybe we can get the next Josh Rosen!

Wilson is a great QB. If you can't play competitively and win with him and a new contract, you are bad at coaching and GMing and should be replaced. End of story. You don't deal someone of Wilson's caliber and put an unknown at the most important position in all of sports, sorry. Not to mention the team will sell more jerseys, tickets, and ads with a Wilson led team over starting some nobody.

Trading him wouldn't be a reasonable option even if this front office showed they were good at making first round picks, but they have only made two such picks in the last 6 years and those guys happen to be underwhelming in Ifedi and Penny, two players who have not disproven the narrative that they were reaches in the first round.

But yeah, go head and trade away a historically statistically fantastic QB who has zero character or off the field issues and does everything the right way and is a leader for some draft picks. :roll:

 

[knownone]

I get the need for balance, and its a concern with this new ciontract. But its a very short list of teams that have won super bowls in the last 25 years without a top tier QB.

Its a significant risk either way

It depends on how you define top tier. Brady for instance, was statistically a fringe top 10 QB for his first 3 Super Bowls and his last Super Bowl. If you look at the league since 2000, 12 of the 18 Super Bowl winning QBs were outside the top 7 in just about every significant passing category. Brady also skews the financial part of the equation. 15 of those Super Bowl winning QBs weren't even in the top 5 in pay.

I'm struggling with this issue. The data shows that a good QB on a great contract is how you win a Super Bowl. Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Wilson, have all failed to even make a Super Bowl after being paid. However, except for Brees, all of them have consistently elevated the floor of their franchise after signing that contract.

This ties into the Peyton Manning vs Brady debate in some respect. Manning was far and away the best QB for most of their respective careers, but he also got paid near the top of the league in all of those years while Brady hovered in and out of the top 10. Brady has only won 1 Super Bowl in the 6 season where he's being paid in the top 5 at this position, he did however make 3, and one of those seasons his team went undefeated lol...

Ultimately this question comes down to expectations. Trading Wilson gives you the best odds of going on another dynastic run while also attaching a significant risk to the franchise's floor if you miss on his replacement. Paying Wilson top 5 money maintains status quo but limits your ability to be a legitimate threat to win it all every season.

Trading Wilson does not increase your odds, nor give it the best odds. You just went through and showed top tier QBs that didn't win more than one (probably, and hear me out, because the other top tier QBs may have been winning it).

Again... find the team that has been successful, consistently, without a top tier QB. and don't waffle on the definition, we know who they are.

Haha, I love it.

I don't prognosticate based on narratives. So, you are right we most likely agree on who the consensus 'top tier QBs' are. Here's my slightly obnoxious rebuttal though, I don't trust my ability to decipher between narratives and reality. When I try to look at the situation objectively I throw out what I think about the individual narratives surrounding the players / teams, and only look at the objective reality.

The objective reality tells me that Kansas City was a top 3 team (winning%) in 5 years with Alex Smith at QB. Alex Smith had one year in that stretch as a top 10 QB in terms of pay, that year was the only year the Chiefs missed the playoffs. His best season statistically came when he was the 14th highest paid QB in the league, it's his only season as a top 10 QB in that stretch.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Andy Dalton has more winning seasons than Drew Brees since he entered the league, and as a many as Rodgers.

The Ravens have a single losing season in 9 years of Joe Flacco at QB. Joe Flacco is not a consensus top 10 QB, he's had 1 top 10 season in that span. He has as many Super Bowl wins and more playoff wins than any QB not named Brady since he entered the league. His team declined when he entered the top 5-10 in QB pay.

Trading Wilson gives you better odds of 'creating another dynastic run'; That's the important distinction I was making. I wasn't saying it gives you the best odds of consistent success. Just that to go on another dominant run like 2012-2015 trading Wilson gives you the best odds of doing that with the caveat being: ' a significant risk to the franchise's floor'. Significant being the keyword because you risk potentially falling out of contention entirely.

Now, I wasn't saying that elite QBs don't win Super Bowls. I'm saying they don't win when they are among the top of the league in pay. This isn't conjecture either, most of these elite QBs won their titles when they were on below market value contracts which was my point. There also doesn't appear to be any correlation between these salaries and realative elite-ness (lol). Eli Manning is one of the 3 QBs who won a Super Bowl while being in the top 5 in QB pay. The other two? Peyton Manning and Brad Johnson. Brady is technically in there, but they spread his signing bonus over two seasons, so while he's technically tied for 5th in 2014, his actual cap hit is 16th.

 

[knownone]

Now, I am not saying the Seahawks should move on from Russell. I can just see the merit to the other side of the argument. It's a unique philosophical question that diverges right at the heart of what we know of John Schneider. John's at his best when he sticks to his value and doesn't over pay. His draft philosophy involves mitigating risk by spreading his assets out while leveraging his ability to find talent in the later rounds. At a certain point paying Wilson diametrically opposes the philosophy that has made Schneider successful. I doubt the Seahawks would move on from Wilson, but if there is a guy with the balls to do it... it's John Schneider.

What's the merit though?

The only example of a team winning a SB with a QB on a rookie deal is us, and ironically it's the QB Tical and others want to get rid of.

Every other year the winning team has had an experienced top 10 QB. That's it, end of argument.

So again, find me another Russell Wilson and I'm all ears. Until then, I'm keeping the Russell Wilson we already have.

Well, no... not technically. Roethlisberger, Brady, Flacco, and Eli all won a Super Bowl on their rookie contracts. You could also make the case for Wentz, although he technically didn't win it himself.

Obviously, you are probably talking about after the rookie wage scale. In which case the sample size is too small to draw a meaningful conclusion. You can however draw conclusions on the success rate of teams making the playoffs with QBs on rookie deals. Watson, Wentz, Goff, Trubisky, Mariota, Mahomes, Carr, Prescott, Luck, Griffin, Bortles, etc... have all made the playoffs on their rookie deals.

Coaching appears to be a better predictor of success than a QBs relative talent level. Which means there is at least some credence to the idea that having an elite coach with a good bargain QB is better than having an elite coach with a great expensive QB. This seems to be the niche Brady and Belichick have exploited for the better half of the last 2 decades.

 

[Uncle Si]

So... brady is "good, bargain QB?"

Whatever it takes

 

[Spin Doctor]

So... brady is "good, bargain QB?"

Whatever it takes

Brady is a bargain QB tbh. Well, he's a great QB, but the thing is he also isn't paid like the other top guys. His salary last year wasn't even top 10. Brady was the 11th highest paid QB in the NFL.

In 2017 Brady was the 20th highest paid QB

In 2016 Brady was the 18th highest paid QB

in 2014 Brady was the 12th highest paid QB

As you can see, the guy truly a bargain at the QB position. I'd argue that his championship success has come in the later years, largely because of the massive hometown discounts he has given. Brady is a great QB, but I think if he was being paid like everyone else we'd see a different Patriots team. Brady, by virtue of being married to a super model has been able to cheat the system by being taking massive home town discounts. He is a great QB but so is Rodgers, Wilson, and Brees. The difference here is in the disparity in pay.

While Brady(12th) had a much higher salary than Wilson in the 2015 SuperBowl, he still was underpaid compared to his peers. I'd also argue that the 2014 Seahawks were the better team on paper, they certainly were rated much higher in categories such as DVOA. The Seahawks just screwed up when it mattered the most.

I think it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that Brady's salary definitely does give the Patriots an advantage that no team really has. A veteran QB, with multiple MVP's under his belt, top 5 in production in each of those SuperBowl years (at least), most experienced QB in the post season ever existed all for the price of a mid-tier QB.

 

[Uncle Si]

Yes. What he costs isnt what hes worth. That points been made for years.

The inference is that hes affordable because hes simply "good"... which is an understatement.

 

[LTH]

No one player is bigger than the team... and if Wilson wants so much money that it cripples the team then trade him... i have no problem with that...

LTH

 

[knownone]

Yes. What he costs isnt what hes worth. That points been made for years.

The inference is that hes affordable because hes simply "good"... which is an understatement.

I don't think I articulated myself well, so I understand your confusion.

I intended to state my example in a relative sense. The relative cost/performance is the key to the niche the Patriots have exploited. For example, Wilson is a much better QB now than he was in 2013, but his cost/performance relative to the rest of the league was much more significant in 2013.

So if we use my model: ' An elite coach with a good bargain QB is better than having an elite coach with a great expensive QB'; Brady represents an outlier because he is a great QB and a great bargain which allows the Patriots to take advantage of what historically seems to be the best way to win Super Bowls: Having a QB whose cost/performance ratio is such that it allows the team to put enough pieces around him, for the team to be successful.

You are a smart guy, and I know that most of what I am saying is an overly complicated way of saying what you've much more eloquently stated "His cost isn't what he's worth". I am firmly in the pay Wilson camp, and having read most of your posts on the situation, we agree on most fronts. I'm just trying to explore the situation as objectively as possible by modeling both sides of the equation........ because I am bored at work and it's fun to research.

 

[summesm]

:ditto: :ditto:

No one player is bigger than the team... and if Wilson wants so much money that it cripples the team then trade him... i have no problem with that...

LTH

 

[chris98251]

Some day we will find out how Brady was compensated, we all know what we see isn't always what's really going on with the Patriots.

Given Brady's competitive personality he would not be compensated lower then others. He doesn't need to win anything anymore to cement his legacy.

 

[Uncle Si]

Yes. What he costs isnt what hes worth. That points been made for years.

The inference is that hes affordable because hes simply "good"... which is an understatement.

I don't think I articulated myself well, so I understand your confusion.

I intended to state my example in a relative sense. The relative cost/performance is the key to the niche the Patriots have exploited. For example, Wilson is a much better QB now than he was in 2013, but his cost/performance relative to the rest of the league was much more significant in 2013.

So if we use my model: ' An elite coach with a good bargain QB is better than having an elite coach with a great expensive QB'; Brady represents an outlier because he is a great QB and a great bargain which allows the Patriots to take advantage of what historically seems to be the best way to win Super Bowls: Having a QB whose cost/performance ratio is such that it allows the team to put enough pieces around him, for the team to be successful.

You are a smart guy, and I know that most of what I am saying is an overly complicated way of saying what you've much more eloquently stated "His cost isn't what he's worth". I am firmly in the pay Wilson camp, and having read most of your posts on the situation, we agree on most fronts. I'm just trying to explore the situation as objectively as possible by modeling both sides of the equation........ because I am bored at work and it's fun to research.

No i got it... just misinterpreted the point a bit. and you said it perfectly when you said "the Patriots have exoited that imbalance"

Its why Brady cant be an example as his situation is more of an anomaly.

Wilson begore his first contract is the ideal maybe Tical is looking for. But... that requires a lot of luck.

 

[Scorpion05]

This is such a copycat league. No one has an original thinking bone in their body. Before, you needed an elite pocket QB to win a SB. So everyone wanted a Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, or Brady. Then everyone was convinced the Belicheck way was the best way, so they started hiring all these Belicheck disciples...and they all failed. Then teams started trying the Belicheck way of getting cheap players and getting rid of players early. Didn't work. The irony of people praising the Patriots and Tom Brady for taking a pay cut is, Belicheck rarely pays for superstars. He just drafts well

Then Pete Carroll and Russell Wilson came along and made back to back Super Bowls. All of a sudden, the smart thing to do was to get a young QB and stack a team around him. No one has won a SB that way since

Then, the Eagles make the SB, and they stack up on free agents. Now, all these other teams are trying to make a free agency splash.

If a top tier QB wins a SB(again), we'll go back to saying elite QBs should be paid, so long as they're worth it. Teams like the Steelers somehow managed to pay Antonio Brown, Bell, AND Big Ben. Yet somehow there's this idea that we can't pay other players with a top QB. That is so overblown. Had the Seahawks drafted well in recent years, this wouldn't even be an issue. The Rams were way more talented than the Patriots, but the Rams didn't do crap in the big game when it mattered. A top QB with a great team drafted around him can win.

 

[hawkfan68]

Now, I am not saying the Seahawks should move on from Russell. I can just see the merit to the other side of the argument. It's a unique philosophical question that diverges right at the heart of what we know of John Schneider. John's at his best when he sticks to his value and doesn't over pay. His draft philosophy involves mitigating risk by spreading his assets out while leveraging his ability to find talent in the later rounds. At a certain point paying Wilson diametrically opposes the philosophy that has made Schneider successful. I doubt the Seahawks would move on from Wilson, but if there is a guy with the balls to do it... it's John Schneider.

What's the merit though?

The only example of a team winning a SB with a QB on a rookie deal is us, and ironically it's the QB Tical and others want to get rid of.

Every other year the winning team has had an experienced top 10 QB. That's it, end of argument.

So again, find me another Russell Wilson and I'm all ears. Until then, I'm keeping the Russell Wilson we already have.

I agree with you regarding Russell Wilson. I think the Seahawks getting Russell Wilson was sheer luck rather than drafting brilliance because the Seahawks have been unable to find another QB to be a decent backup much less take over for Russ since.

Regarding your point about top 10 QBs winning Superbowls....I wouldn’t put Nick Foles and Joe Flacco in that category but they each have a Superbowl ring.

 

[jmahon316]

Now, I am not saying the Seahawks should move on from Russell. I can just see the merit to the other side of the argument. It's a unique philosophical question that diverges right at the heart of what we know of John Schneider. John's at his best when he sticks to his value and doesn't over pay. His draft philosophy involves mitigating risk by spreading his assets out while leveraging his ability to find talent in the later rounds. At a certain point paying Wilson diametrically opposes the philosophy that has made Schneider successful. I doubt the Seahawks would move on from Wilson, but if there is a guy with the balls to do it... it's John Schneider.

What's the merit though?

The only example of a team winning a SB with a QB on a rookie deal is us, and ironically it's the QB Tical and others want to get rid of.

Every other year the winning team has had an experienced top 10 QB. That's it, end of argument.

So again, find me another Russell Wilson and I'm all ears. Until then, I'm keeping the Russell Wilson we already have.

I agree with you regarding Russell Wilson. I think the Seahawks getting Russell Wilson was sheer luck rather than drafting brilliance because the Seahawks have been unable to find another QB to be a decent backup much less take over for Russ since.

Regarding your point about top 10 QBs winning Superbowls....I wouldn’t put Nick Foles and Joe Flacco in that category but they each have a Superbowl ring.

They haven't really taken that seriously though. I mean look at their backups in the last 5 years, it's like they weren't even trying and knew that Russ was their golden ticket and they didn't even have to care.

 

[Fade]

Brady is a bargain QB tbh. Well, he's a great QB, but the thing is he also isn't paid like the other top guys. His salary last year wasn't even top 10. Brady was the 11th highest paid QB in the NFL.

In 2017 Brady was the 20th highest paid QB

In 2016 Brady was the 18th highest paid QB

in 2014 Brady was the 12th highest paid QB

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2017/

Russell Wilson 2017 - 18th | Brady - 20th ( -600K difference, that is it.).

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2018/

Russell Wilson 2018 - 8th | Brady - 11th (-1.7M difference).

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2019/

Russell Wilson 2019 - 6th | Brady - 4th (+2.7M difference).


In the last 3 years avg. the Seahawks & Patriots have had their Franchise QBs account the same against the cap. In a rolling cap. The Patriots have actually spent a little more by, a measly (300k).

This whole, Brady takes less is comical. Technically, he hasn't taken less than Russell Wilson over the last 3 years avg wise.

They way you guys kiss Tom Brady's feet, you should keep that same energy for Wilson.

I mean he is coming in cap wise just under him, basically the same, but technically Wilson is cheaper.

Add 15 & 16 you say ?

'16 -4.8M
'15 +7M

So over the course of Wilson's 2nd contract The Seahawks have had Wilson count less than Tom Brady by $2.5M against their salary cap.

15 +7M
16 -4.8M
17 -600K
18 -1.7M
19 +2.7M

If we're talking about who has taken less to help their team win, it is actually Wilson, more so than Brady.

You guys better come up with a new narrative, because this one has been debunked. Or do you want me to account for Wilson's rookie wage scale numbers, versus when Tom Brady was still getting paid Franchise QB money?

The Seahawks problems and/or lack of Championships have stemmed, not from paying Wilson these last few years.

But two things.

1. Tom Cable

2. Pete Carroll refusing to have a top level offensive mind coach the offense, and have Pete focusing on the defense.

But blaming the QB getting paid is much easier. Even if he comes in cheaper than Brady, while you guys are simultaneasly praising Brady for his low cap numbers, that your paid QB comes in less than over a 5 yr avg. :2thumbs:

 

[Uncle Si]

The narrative isnt kissing Bradys feet... or even comparing him to Wilson over the last 7 years.

Its the idea that a Hall of Fame QB is being paid vastly under market value for his skillset and in the very near future the Seahawks will lose that similar leverage.

The narrative, now, is simply a question... what next? Futute of the franchise question.

I dont thonk JS or PC would ever trade Wilson, so probably a moot one... but still worthy of debate