Russell Wilson to Giants? - NBC Sports comentary

[Chapow]

:roll: Clark aint getting $20M!
Clark also said he is fine with being tagged which means he doesn't see his value way over that!
Prescott aint getting $35+M. His talent level is clearly below most of those you are comparing him to.
You will see.

Dak's talent level is clearly below Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr, Blake Bortles, and Case Keenum?

You sure about that?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

:roll: Clark aint getting $20M!
Presscott aint getting $35+M. His talent level is clearly below most of those you are comparing him to.
You will see.

Did you click on my link? Dak's talent is below Garrappolo, Carr, Stafford, Flacco and Cousins?

Flacco: 22M (signed 2016)
Carr: 25M (signed 2017)
Stafford: 27M (signed 2017)
Garrappolo: 27.5M (signed 2018)
Cousins: 28M (signed 2018)
Ryan: 30M (signed 2018)
Rodgers: 33.5M (signed 2018)

These are in order of signings over the past three years, see a trend? Again, maybe Dak's guaranteed and/or bonus won't be as high as Rodgers, but he'll have a higher per year salary, or very close.

So will Russell.

 

[Seymour]

:roll: Clark aint getting $20M!
Presscott aint getting $35+M. His talent level is clearly below most of those you are comparing him to.
You will see.

Did you click on my link? Dak's talent is below Garrappolo, Carr, Stafford, Flacco and Cousins?

Flacco: 22M (signed 2016)
Carr: 25M (signed 2017)
Stafford: 27M (signed 2017)
Garrappolo: 27.5M (signed 2018)
Cousins: 28M (signed 2018)
Ryan: 30M (signed 2018)
Rodgers: 33.5M (signed 2018)

These are in order of signings over the past three years, see a trend? Again, maybe Dak's guaranteed and/or bonus won't be as high as Rodgers, but he'll have a higher per year salary, or very close.

So will Russell.

Did you click on mine that ranks him #14 in the NFL? Must not have! :roll:

None of those guys even earns over $28M and you are saying Dak is +7 to 10 over that?? :177692:

Nope...not happening.

 

[Seymour]

:roll: Clark aint getting $20M!
Clark also said he is fine with being tagged which means he doesn't see his value way over that!
Prescott aint getting $35+M. His talent level is clearly below most of those you are comparing him to.
You will see.

Dak's talent level is clearly below Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr, Blake Bortles, and Case Keenum?

You sure about that?

Again. Apples to oranges. All 7 to 10 million less annually than the $35M I'm saying no way to.

Look....you don't pay the #14 ranked QB over what the #1-2 QB just got paid 1 year prior unless you belong in an asylum.

 

[lukerguy]

Good post by twisted husky. I made some similar comments.

I think if you can get 6th overall and 38 and 1st next, you definitely go for it. Murray or Haskins potentially at 6, or take elite position player if you think you can get a mobile QB steal in the 2nd.

 

[mrt144]

While one might posit that a large part of our success was in large part due to the offensive tactical football style to play, such a notion then demands explanations of other successful methods. As you say, there is a variety of ways to win a championship, so why settle exactly on a paradigm from 6 years ago to strive for exclusively?

I don't see the substance in this argument. 6 years ago was...only 6 years ago. The NFL was not substantially different in 2013-2014 from what it is now, and those who argue along those lines in an attempt to validate a different offensive style are grasping at straws.

Here's what I'd like to ask: why do others want the byzantine labyrinth pass-first offense so badly? Because it's more exciting? Because the pundits slob its knob harder? Or just because of a perception that run-first no longer working? Because if it's the perception that it's no longer working, I'd respond that nobody can make the Super Bowl every year, and there are plenty of reasons other than our offensive philosophy to explain our struggles to get back to the NFC championship. Peteball is far from the only potential culprit.

6 Years ago is more than enough time to cycle out the vast majority of personnel that made previous offensive tactical paradigms hum. It is also more than enough time to engage in some deep self criticism about the ideals you're chasing and room for improvement by reading the meta of the league itself. There is always room for working a heterodox tactic in the face of an opponent mostly prepared for an orthodox tactic, no argument, but one must evaluate the execution of that heterodox tactic against the orthodox, and must be compelled to correctly identify what their opponent is throwing at them. (Dare I bring up our playoff bounce against the Cowboys again or are you sick of it already?)

To your 2nd question, it's mostly based on statistical inference that passing has a higher per play value in general. It's not based in getting my money's worth in entertainment value because I'm allergic to rooting for any team besides the Hawks so you unlucky bastards get all my complaints. It's certainly not because of what talking heads say given my almost complete ignorance of what people on ESPN, etc opine.

'Running no longer working' is a strawman as a possible rationale because it presumes many of us are arguing for one of two binary options. As far as I can recall on the spot, the value of passing on a per play basis has increased over time, while rushing has not. That is the sole impetus for heckling Pete for living like a cave man. Most of us are not calling for one or the other rather, a seemingly better tactical application of that rushing heavy paradigm that skips past the 'why' of rushing but seeks to qualify the 'when, where, who and how' of rushing.

Don't take my criticism or others as wanting an inverse application of tools available, rather, take it as a nudge for the team to evaluate football tactics and strategy as if the Red Queen Hypothesis applies elegantly here.

 

[mrt144]

The NFL has an interesting situation right now.

The conventional wisdom used to be that in order to be successful or even competitive, you have to have a great QB.

This has led to teams essentially repeatedly driving themselves into the ground in order to get a bad enough record that they can get a good enough draft pick to get the QB. But since QB drafts are not an exact science, you are left with teams repeatedly having to go back to the well to get a QB.

This has led to a frenzy for QBs though, and that means keeping a QB so much more expensive it strips the team. So now, for the most part (Patriots not withstanding), having a great QB means you will be competitive but likely not successful.

The key to the SB no longer is getting the great QB and riding a mini dynasty for a few years. Instead it is getting a rookie QB, finding other high impact 1st contract players and then filling the gaps with all pro free agents.

The teams with good to great QBs still have good records to keep the fans engaged. The teams with bad records that draft a good or great QB can suddenly end up contenders in year 2 or 3 after that draft just by leveraging the increased budget available because the rookie QB salary gives them so much more spend than teams with veteran QBs.

It all works out perfectly for the NFL to keep teams competitive, which is one of the secrets to their success.

(The problem is that the mid-tier and lower tier QBs are getting huge contracts and so you get teams like Miami that get stuck with whatshisname, who they cannot even trade. Or the poor Jaguars after their godawful extension of Bortles.)

So the key here is that extending Wilson means we won't be reaching SBs but it means we will be reaching 9-11 win seasons regularly. That is how the system is set up. Teams with great QBs will have strong regular seasons but will always have glaring weaknesses that will usually cause them to fall short in the playoffs.

Wilson knows, we are a team with a lot of our better players on 2nd+ contracts. Even with his GIANT contact, if he goes to a team with a lot of young players on 1st contracts - he can probably still contend. He will not be a contender here, and worse, he won't even put up numbers that would get him the production he needs to leverage for the kind of legacy he wants to leave. 200 yds per game won't cut it, it isn't his fault but it might be his record unless he leaves.

Important to consider the earlier paragraphs, staying here he isn't getting to the Super Bowl. Somewhere else he has a small chance, but that is better than almost zero in our current situation. I see Wilson pushing to go to a place with a lot of young impact players where Wilson's impact to the salary cap will not hurt their chances as much. I don't see how the Giants fit this mold though.

Note that this situation didn't arise out of the ether, it is one of many outcomes of how the contracts of rookies and vet minimums were altered in the latest CBA.

I often wonder if fans are mad about changes like those because they have a solid rationale against it, or if its because they find the team they root for incapable of actualizing those changes with how they pursue tactics and strategy, top to bottom.

Show of hands, how many fans wanted no more Jamarcus Russell contracts ever and would have accepted the present outcome as a tradeoff?

 

[TwistedHusky]

I don't know if it is a bad thing.

The Seahawks certainly shouldn't. If you have Wilson you get 10 wins, you might get to the playoffs but you will certainly win enough games that fans and sponsors stay happy.

The issue was whether Wilson would feel it was better for him to move to a place he can win SuperBowls.

Personally, I prefer a system where we somewhat hamstring the teams financially that have the all-everything QBs. The game has shifted the rules so ridiculously in favor of them it bothers me that a team that drafts the next Barry Sanders or fields an Amazing defense like those old Ravens defenses, still has the deck stacked against them.

If you did not have a great QB in the past you had no hope. Now, you can fill the rest of the team up over time and maybe get lucky with a great QB in the draft. So at least as a losing team there is always hope, there is always reason to stay engaged.

(This disregards the issue that the better you fill your team at everything else, the more you might win too much to lose any shot at the great QB in his rookie contract that you almost HAVE to have to go to the SB now.)

I don't think we need to change anything at all. The system works perfectly to assure that teams with the elusive better QBs do not run roughshod over the rest of league in a way that assures only those few teams excel in the playoffs.

It just means that if you are a Seattle or Green Bay, your chances are limited. You can hope have everything fall into place with some lucky drafts and a few poorer seasons to stock the cupboard - then wait until your rich QB contract is no longer as rich comparatively speaking. The Saints did this, and almost made it work (but for getting screwed by likely the NFL and the referees). Even then it took a hall of fame QB and literally rebuilding an entire defense over 4+ years to get that one shot. They won't get that shot next year.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Show of hands, how many fans wanted no more Jamarcus Russell contracts ever and would have accepted the present outcome as a tradeoff?

I think everyone would. The new slotted rookie contract cap rules are far more fair than allowing Jamarcus Russell or Matthew Stafford's agents to hold their respective teams hostage for 40M without ever playing a single down.

Now is the league still VERY top heavy with how teams distribute over 80% of the cap to a very small percentage of each roster's elite players each year? Absolutely.

Everyone's fixated on all these crazy quarterback contracts, but there's also a disproportionate cap expense for WR, D-line and tackles.

So I don't know what the answer is........you can either pay you elite/top 10 QB and hope to have enough cap to build around him, or you can spend your cap all over your roster and hope your rookie QB doesn't suck.

neither is ideal.

 

[mrt144]

Show of hands, how many fans wanted no more Jamarcus Russell contracts ever and would have accepted the present outcome as a tradeoff?

I think everyone would. The new slotted rookie contract cap rules are far more fair than allowing Jamarcus Russell or Matthew Stafford's agents to hold their respective teams hostage for 40M without ever playing a single down.

Now is the league still VERY top heavy with how teams distribute over 80% of the cap to a very small percentage of each roster's elite players each year? Absolutely.

Everyone's fixated on all these crazy quarterback contracts, but there's also a disproportionate cap expense for WR, D-line and tackles.

So I don't know what the answer is........you can either pay you elite/top 10 QB and hope to have enough cap to build around him, or you can spend your cap all over your roster and hope your rookie QB doesn't suck.

neither is ideal.

So this goes to the point I made earlier about how teams construct their teams in the service of applying their tactical and strategic ideas. When I was rebuffed on my notion that 6 years is sufficient time for things to change in the NFL, yours and Husky's are points I would refer to.

If we accept that the outcome of the CBA change had an impact on the relative value between position, rookies vs. vets, and two emergent mid to high level alternative approaches to team construction appeared in the short time that it has been in place, it stands to reason then that managing a tactical operation without accounting for those changes is likely to come up short of prior success.This speaks towards elevating humility in the face of success, so you don't get trapped buying your own hype that in fact was enabled in large part by surrounding circumstance and people.

Of course, accounting for Broken Aesops, one might reason that the answer is to replicate the prior scenario almost in its entirety, which hey, if you can get 31 other teams to agree to, great!

Credit where credit is due - JS and PC are not laggards or shy about their hunches of what makes things go in the draft and budding talent. My points might reference the Hawks but I'm looking at the far larger picture which we lose sight of sometimes.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

So this goes to the point I made earlier about how teams construct their teams in the service of applying their tactical and strategic ideas. When I was rebuffed on my notion that 6 years is sufficient time for things to change in the NFL, yours is a point I would refer to.

If we accept that the outcome of the CBA change had an impact on the relative value between position, rookies vs. vets, and two emergent mid to high level alternative approaches to team construction in the short time that it has been in place, it stands to reason then that managing a tactical operation without accounting for those changes is likely to come up short of prior success.This speaks towards elevating humility in the face of success, so you don't get trapped buying your own hype that in fact was enabled in large part by surrounding circumstance and people.

Of course, accounting for Broken Aesops, one might reason that the answer is to replicate the prior scenario almost in its entirety, which hey, if you can get 31 other teams to agree to, great!
.

But there are only drastic changes to the CBA when either of the two sides are unhappy with the current format.

Right now the owners are making money hand over fist, and the players keep getting their 8-12M per year bump in cap in order to extract the most guaranteed money possible for their best players.

Which apparently most of them are cool with, because you never hear anyone complaining about the hundreds of players each year that are making the vet minimum scratching and clawing for the cap scraps.

So it has nothing to do with "we accept." It has everything to do with the two sides accepting it, and they both seem content to continue with the Grand Canyon size disparity in how the cap is distributed.

 

[mrt144]

So this goes to the point I made earlier about how teams construct their teams in the service of applying their tactical and strategic ideas. When I was rebuffed on my notion that 6 years is sufficient time for things to change in the NFL, yours is a point I would refer to.

If we accept that the outcome of the CBA change had an impact on the relative value between position, rookies vs. vets, and two emergent mid to high level alternative approaches to team construction in the short time that it has been in place, it stands to reason then that managing a tactical operation without accounting for those changes is likely to come up short of prior success.This speaks towards elevating humility in the face of success, so you don't get trapped buying your own hype that in fact was enabled in large part by surrounding circumstance and people.

Of course, accounting for Broken Aesops, one might reason that the answer is to replicate the prior scenario almost in its entirety, which hey, if you can get 31 other teams to agree to, great!
.

But there are only drastic changes to the CBA when either of the two sides are unhappy with the current format.

Right now the owners are making money hand over fist, and the players keep getting their 8-12M per year bump in cap in order to extract the most guaranteed money possible for their best players.

Which apparently most of them are cool with, because you never hear anyone complaining about the hundreds of players each year that are making the vet minimum scratching and clawing for the cap scraps.

So it has nothing to do with "we accept." It has everything to do with the two sides accepting it, and they both seem content to continue with the Grand Canyon size disparity in how the cap is distributed.

Our acceptance of the situation we had no hand in the making matters to the extent that our acceptance informs how we pursue conversation and weighing pragmatism against idealism in our arguments about what the team should do. I didn't mean to imply we have to accept the situation in our hearts or that merely watching football is acceptance of the situation that precludes opinion, rather that we have to accept that the situation at present is dynamic (I refuse to entertain the notion that the league or teams themselves haven't changed to an appreciable degree in the past 5 given that we're even having this conversation about how a seemingly small change had a material effect on the league) and the situation is at the mercy of negotiations between players and owners.

Me imploring the audience towards acceptance is me imploring the audience towards the acceptance of a premise that we are observing the outcomes of change in real time and the book on 'how to do it' is not written in stone. I can't say Pete et al are objectively wrong in how they pursue football, but the seeming rationale that to enjoy prior success, one must ape prior success as well as possible feels wrong given my life and work experiences.

The acceptance I seek are steps in my argument, not the situation at hand.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

So this goes to the point I made earlier about how teams construct their teams in the service of applying their tactical and strategic ideas. When I was rebuffed on my notion that 6 years is sufficient time for things to change in the NFL, yours is a point I would refer to.

If we accept that the outcome of the CBA change had an impact on the relative value between position, rookies vs. vets, and two emergent mid to high level alternative approaches to team construction in the short time that it has been in place, it stands to reason then that managing a tactical operation without accounting for those changes is likely to come up short of prior success.This speaks towards elevating humility in the face of success, so you don't get trapped buying your own hype that in fact was enabled in large part by surrounding circumstance and people.

Of course, accounting for Broken Aesops, one might reason that the answer is to replicate the prior scenario almost in its entirety, which hey, if you can get 31 other teams to agree to, great!
.

But there are only drastic changes to the CBA when either of the two sides are unhappy with the current format.

Right now the owners are making money hand over fist, and the players keep getting their 8-12M per year bump in cap in order to extract the most guaranteed money possible for their best players.

Which apparently most of them are cool with, because you never hear anyone complaining about the hundreds of players each year that are making the vet minimum scratching and clawing for the cap scraps.

So it has nothing to do with "we accept." It has everything to do with the two sides accepting it, and they both seem content to continue with the Grand Canyon size disparity in how the cap is distributed.

Our acceptance of the situation we had no hand in the making matters to the extent that our acceptance informs how we pursue conversation and weighing pragmatism against idealism in our arguments about what the team should do. I didn't mean to imply we have to accept the situation in our hearts or that merely watching football is acceptance of the situation that precludes opinion, rather that we have to accept that the situation at present is dynamic (I refuse to entertain the notion that the league or teams themselves haven't changed to an appreciable degree in the past 5 given that we're even having this conversation about how a seemingly small change had a material effect on the league) and the situation is at the mercy of negotiations between players and owners.

Me imploring the audience towards acceptance is me imploring the audience towards the acceptance of a premise that we are observing the outcomes of change in real time and the book on 'how to do it' is not written in stone. I can't say Pete et al are objectively wrong in how they pursue football, but the seeming rationale that to enjoy prior success, one must ape prior success as well as possible feels wrong given my life and work experiences.

The acceptance I seek are steps in my argument, not the situation at hand.

I gotcha, and it's certainly one of, if not THE most interesting debate going in the NFL right now. The pay your elite QB and risk not winning a SB because that's what all the data suggests............or trade him away and try to find the next rookie contract QB so you can spend cap elsewhere.

I'm stuck in the middle. I'm certainly not of the camp that we MUST sign Russell. But I've lived through the dark Seahawk times, so I know that utter and complete feeling of despair when your team goes 2-14 and has decades long revolving door of terrible QB's.

So bottom line for me? Until we have a promising young QB like Mahomes or Lamar Jackson that's ready to step in? I can't fathom trading Russell. Because the alternative of having NEITHER is unconscionable.

 

[mrt144]

So this goes to the point I made earlier about how teams construct their teams in the service of applying their tactical and strategic ideas. When I was rebuffed on my notion that 6 years is sufficient time for things to change in the NFL, yours is a point I would refer to.

If we accept that the outcome of the CBA change had an impact on the relative value between position, rookies vs. vets, and two emergent mid to high level alternative approaches to team construction in the short time that it has been in place, it stands to reason then that managing a tactical operation without accounting for those changes is likely to come up short of prior success.This speaks towards elevating humility in the face of success, so you don't get trapped buying your own hype that in fact was enabled in large part by surrounding circumstance and people.

Of course, accounting for Broken Aesops, one might reason that the answer is to replicate the prior scenario almost in its entirety, which hey, if you can get 31 other teams to agree to, great!
.

But there are only drastic changes to the CBA when either of the two sides are unhappy with the current format.

Right now the owners are making money hand over fist, and the players keep getting their 8-12M per year bump in cap in order to extract the most guaranteed money possible for their best players.

Which apparently most of them are cool with, because you never hear anyone complaining about the hundreds of players each year that are making the vet minimum scratching and clawing for the cap scraps.

So it has nothing to do with "we accept." It has everything to do with the two sides accepting it, and they both seem content to continue with the Grand Canyon size disparity in how the cap is distributed.

Our acceptance of the situation we had no hand in the making matters to the extent that our acceptance informs how we pursue conversation and weighing pragmatism against idealism in our arguments about what the team should do. I didn't mean to imply we have to accept the situation in our hearts or that merely watching football is acceptance of the situation that precludes opinion, rather that we have to accept that the situation at present is dynamic (I refuse to entertain the notion that the league or teams themselves haven't changed to an appreciable degree in the past 5 given that we're even having this conversation about how a seemingly small change had a material effect on the league) and the situation is at the mercy of negotiations between players and owners.

Me imploring the audience towards acceptance is me imploring the audience towards the acceptance of a premise that we are observing the outcomes of change in real time and the book on 'how to do it' is not written in stone. I can't say Pete et al are objectively wrong in how they pursue football, but the seeming rationale that to enjoy prior success, one must ape prior success as well as possible feels wrong given my life and work experiences.

The acceptance I seek are steps in my argument, not the situation at hand.

I gotcha, and it's certainly one of, if not THE most interesting debate going in the NFL right now. The pay your elite QB and risk not winning a SB because that's what all the data suggests............or trade him away and try to find the next rookie contract QB so you can spend cap elsewhere.

I'm stuck in the middle. I'm certainly not of the camp that we MUST sign Russell. But I've lived through the dark Seahawk times, so I know that utter and complete feeling of despair when your team goes 2-14 and has decades long revolving door of terrible QB's.

So bottom line for me? Until we have a promising young QB like Mahomes or Lamar Jackson that's ready to step in? I can't fathom trading Russell. Because the alternative of having NEITHER is unconscionable.

Is there a statute of limitations in place for using past as prologue?

 

[chris98251]

Are we back to the fantasy draft experts that want to unload Wilson to see who they can get and how many picks that Pete would not use in the same way these extremists would want to?

 

[lukerguy]

Twisted husky gets it.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

But there are only drastic changes to the CBA when either of the two sides are unhappy with the current format.

Right now the owners are making money hand over fist, and the players keep getting their 8-12M per year bump in cap in order to extract the most guaranteed money possible for their best players.

Which apparently most of them are cool with, because you never hear anyone complaining about the hundreds of players each year that are making the vet minimum scratching and clawing for the cap scraps.

So it has nothing to do with "we accept." It has everything to do with the two sides accepting it, and they both seem content to continue with the Grand Canyon size disparity in how the cap is distributed.

Our acceptance of the situation we had no hand in the making matters to the extent that our acceptance informs how we pursue conversation and weighing pragmatism against idealism in our arguments about what the team should do. I didn't mean to imply we have to accept the situation in our hearts or that merely watching football is acceptance of the situation that precludes opinion, rather that we have to accept that the situation at present is dynamic (I refuse to entertain the notion that the league or teams themselves haven't changed to an appreciable degree in the past 5 given that we're even having this conversation about how a seemingly small change had a material effect on the league) and the situation is at the mercy of negotiations between players and owners.

Me imploring the audience towards acceptance is me imploring the audience towards the acceptance of a premise that we are observing the outcomes of change in real time and the book on 'how to do it' is not written in stone. I can't say Pete et al are objectively wrong in how they pursue football, but the seeming rationale that to enjoy prior success, one must ape prior success as well as possible feels wrong given my life and work experiences.

The acceptance I seek are steps in my argument, not the situation at hand.

I gotcha, and it's certainly one of, if not THE most interesting debate going in the NFL right now. The pay your elite QB and risk not winning a SB because that's what all the data suggests............or trade him away and try to find the next rookie contract QB so you can spend cap elsewhere.

I'm stuck in the middle. I'm certainly not of the camp that we MUST sign Russell. But I've lived through the dark Seahawk times, so I know that utter and complete feeling of despair when your team goes 2-14 and has decades long revolving door of terrible QB's.

So bottom line for me? Until we have a promising young QB like Mahomes or Lamar Jackson that's ready to step in? I can't fathom trading Russell. Because the alternative of having NEITHER is unconscionable.

Is there a statute of limitations in place for using past as prologue?

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

 

[mrt144]

Our acceptance of the situation we had no hand in the making matters to the extent that our acceptance informs how we pursue conversation and weighing pragmatism against idealism in our arguments about what the team should do. I didn't mean to imply we have to accept the situation in our hearts or that merely watching football is acceptance of the situation that precludes opinion, rather that we have to accept that the situation at present is dynamic (I refuse to entertain the notion that the league or teams themselves haven't changed to an appreciable degree in the past 5 given that we're even having this conversation about how a seemingly small change had a material effect on the league) and the situation is at the mercy of negotiations between players and owners.

Me imploring the audience towards acceptance is me imploring the audience towards the acceptance of a premise that we are observing the outcomes of change in real time and the book on 'how to do it' is not written in stone. I can't say Pete et al are objectively wrong in how they pursue football, but the seeming rationale that to enjoy prior success, one must ape prior success as well as possible feels wrong given my life and work experiences.

The acceptance I seek are steps in my argument, not the situation at hand.

I gotcha, and it's certainly one of, if not THE most interesting debate going in the NFL right now. The pay your elite QB and risk not winning a SB because that's what all the data suggests............or trade him away and try to find the next rookie contract QB so you can spend cap elsewhere.

I'm stuck in the middle. I'm certainly not of the camp that we MUST sign Russell. But I've lived through the dark Seahawk times, so I know that utter and complete feeling of despair when your team goes 2-14 and has decades long revolving door of terrible QB's.

So bottom line for me? Until we have a promising young QB like Mahomes or Lamar Jackson that's ready to step in? I can't fathom trading Russell. Because the alternative of having NEITHER is unconscionable.

Is there a statute of limitations in place for using past as prologue?

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

Can I get an Amen!

 

[Sports Hernia]

Are we back to the fantasy draft experts that want to unload Wilson to see who they can get and how many picks that Pete would not use in the same way these extremists would want to?

Pretty much.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Our acceptance of the situation we had no hand in the making matters to the extent that our acceptance informs how we pursue conversation and weighing pragmatism against idealism in our arguments about what the team should do. I didn't mean to imply we have to accept the situation in our hearts or that merely watching football is acceptance of the situation that precludes opinion, rather that we have to accept that the situation at present is dynamic (I refuse to entertain the notion that the league or teams themselves haven't changed to an appreciable degree in the past 5 given that we're even having this conversation about how a seemingly small change had a material effect on the league) and the situation is at the mercy of negotiations between players and owners.

Me imploring the audience towards acceptance is me imploring the audience towards the acceptance of a premise that we are observing the outcomes of change in real time and the book on 'how to do it' is not written in stone. I can't say Pete et al are objectively wrong in how they pursue football, but the seeming rationale that to enjoy prior success, one must ape prior success as well as possible feels wrong given my life and work experiences.

The acceptance I seek are steps in my argument, not the situation at hand.

I gotcha, and it's certainly one of, if not THE most interesting debate going in the NFL right now. The pay your elite QB and risk not winning a SB because that's what all the data suggests............or trade him away and try to find the next rookie contract QB so you can spend cap elsewhere.

I'm stuck in the middle. I'm certainly not of the camp that we MUST sign Russell. But I've lived through the dark Seahawk times, so I know that utter and complete feeling of despair when your team goes 2-14 and has decades long revolving door of terrible QB's.

So bottom line for me? Until we have a promising young QB like Mahomes or Lamar Jackson that's ready to step in? I can't fathom trading Russell. Because the alternative of having NEITHER is unconscionable.

Is there a statute of limitations in place for using past as prologue?

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

Yep, people are forgetting the glorious T-Jack era (as starting QB).