Russell Wilson to Giants? - NBC Sports comentary

[A-Dog]

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.

First of all, how are you defining "successful?" Is winning a Superbowl a requirement for this? Or is being a contender enough? For the purposes of this post, I will consider the definition of success as "making it to the Superbowl."

Secondly, how are you defining a "great QB?" For the purposes of this post, I will define great as "Top 5" in the league, which Wilson would arguably qualify for.

That said, to your point about "conventional wisdom," I disagree that conventional wisdom is that you need a "great" QB to be successful. I believe that conventional wisdom is that you need a GOOD ENOUGH QB to be "successful."

Look at these names: Chris Chandler, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Kerry Collins, Tony Eason, Jim McMahon, Neil O'Donnell, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Jeff Hostetler, Jake Delhomme, Rex Grossman.

All of those QBs have started in the SB and some of them won. So, let's just throw that premise out the window. Teams aren't purposely tanking their seasons in hopes of getting a "great" QB. Teams just want a QB that is good enough that they aren't a blocker [relative to their overall philosophy] for getting to the Superbowl.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

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.

First of all, how are you defining "successful?" Is winning a Superbowl a requirement for this? Or is being a contender enough? For the purposes of this post, I will consider the definition of success as "making it to the Superbowl."

Secondly, how are you defining a "great QB?" For the purposes of this post, I will define great as "Top 5" in the league, which Wilson would arguably qualify for.

That said, to your point about "conventional wisdom," I disagree that conventional wisdom is that you need a "great" QB to be successful. I believe that conventional wisdom is that you need a GOOD ENOUGH QB to be "successful."

Look at these names: Chris Chandler, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Kerry Collins, Tony Eason, Jim McMahon, Neil O'Donnell, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Jeff Hostetler, Jake Delhomme, Rex Grossman.

All of those QBs have started in the SB and some of them won. So, let's just throw that premise out the window. Teams aren't purposely tanking their seasons in hopes of getting a "great" QB. Teams just want a QB that is good enough that they aren't a blocker [relative to their overall philosophy] for getting to the Superbowl.

None of your examples have won a SB in the last 15+ years. That's when the rules started changing. You need more than just a game manager.

 

[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.

First of all, how are you defining "successful?" Is winning a Superbowl a requirement for this? Or is being a contender enough? For the purposes of this post, I will consider the definition of success as "making it to the Superbowl."

Secondly, how are you defining a "great QB?" For the purposes of this post, I will define great as "Top 5" in the league, which Wilson would arguably qualify for.

That said, to your point about "conventional wisdom," I disagree that conventional wisdom is that you need a "great" QB to be successful. I believe that conventional wisdom is that you need a GOOD ENOUGH QB to be "successful."

Look at these names: Chris Chandler, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Kerry Collins, Tony Eason, Jim McMahon, Neil O'Donnell, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Jeff Hostetler, Jake Delhomme, Rex Grossman.

All of those QBs have started in the SB and some of them won. So, let's just throw that premise out the window. Teams aren't purposely tanking their seasons in hopes of getting a "great" QB. Teams just want a QB that is good enough that they aren't a blocker [relative to their overall philosophy] for getting to the Superbowl.

None of your examples have won a SB in the last 15+ years. That's when the rules started changing. You need more than just a game manager.

Your post made me think of something on a tangent (the following isn't a rebuttal to your post). It's almost like there is more bitter disappointment in having that which purports to give you the advantage only not to realize that advantage at all.

More directly: It seems like a share of fans accept the idea that you need more than just a placeholder at Quarterback but are then outraged when they have a QB that seems to check a few of those boxes and the goods still aren't delivered. This causes a strong reaction that questions the value of having more than a placeholder QB at all because EVEN with that in hand, it is not a guarantee of outcome.

To an extent it feels like if there is no guarantee, then the effort and expense itself isn't worth it. But that undermines the basis of playing the game and the intrigue that surrounds it.

For years, the Packers strategy seemed to be "Win the Division and see how it shakes out once there". That's not a terrible hierarchy of goals to have and in fact might be a good way to conserve thought and energy on what's in front of your face. But as we saw time and time again, just getting to the playoffs isn't enough to win the whole thing nor are fans satisfied with just making the playoffs absent a periodic trophy. Hell, even Pats fans tear their hair out a couple times a season despite being a shoe-in to win their division and at least make the AFC Championship game.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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).

....or the Rick Mirer era, or the Stan Gelbaugh era, or the Jon Kitna era, or the Brock Huard era, or the Dan McGwire era, or the Kelly Stouffer era, or the Trent Dilfer era, or the Jeff Kemp era, or the Seneca Wallace era, or the John Friesz era..............all QB's that started at one time or another for the Hawks.

I don't want to go back................I can't. I WON'T!!

 

[chris98251]

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).

....or the Rick Mirer era, or the Stan Gelbaugh era, or the Jon Kitna era, or the Brock Huard era, or the Dan McGwire era, or the Kelly Stouffer era, or the Trent Dilfer era, or the Jeff Kemp era, or the Seneca Wallace era, or the John Friesz era..............all QB's that started at one time or another for the Hawks.

I don't want to go back................I can't. I WON'T!!

You left out Sean Salisbury, he is going to be upset now.

 

[A-Dog]

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.

First of all, how are you defining "successful?" Is winning a Superbowl a requirement for this? Or is being a contender enough? For the purposes of this post, I will consider the definition of success as "making it to the Superbowl."

Secondly, how are you defining a "great QB?" For the purposes of this post, I will define great as "Top 5" in the league, which Wilson would arguably qualify for.

That said, to your point about "conventional wisdom," I disagree that conventional wisdom is that you need a "great" QB to be successful. I believe that conventional wisdom is that you need a GOOD ENOUGH QB to be "successful."

Look at these names: Chris Chandler, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Kerry Collins, Tony Eason, Jim McMahon, Neil O'Donnell, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Jeff Hostetler, Jake Delhomme, Rex Grossman.

All of those QBs have started in the SB and some of them won. So, let's just throw that premise out the window. Teams aren't purposely tanking their seasons in hopes of getting a "great" QB. Teams just want a QB that is good enough that they aren't a blocker [relative to their overall philosophy] for getting to the Superbowl.

None of your examples have won a SB in the last 15+ years. That's when the rules started changing. You need more than just a game manager.

Joe Flacco did. So did Nick Foles, as well as Eli Manning, who I didn't list. Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer (who I also didn't list, how could we forget him?) just barely missed your 15 year statute of limitations cut. Are any of those "great" QBs - top five in the league?

But also, you are disregarding my earlier point about how we are defining "success" for a franchise - I was defining it as making it to the Superbowl. Sounds like you are going with "Winning a Superbowl is the only measure of success, everything else is failure" definition.

Lastly, is there not a spectrum of QBs between "just a game manager" and "great?" Or after "great," is the next rung down "game manager?" Seems like a pretty steep dropoff to me.

 

[A-Dog]

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.

The thing here is, since the Rookie Wage Scale was introduced (after Sam Bradford got a then NFL record $50M guaranteed signing bonus as a rookie), no quarterback not named Russell Wilson has won a Superbowl within his first four seasons, when their cap hit is relatively low. Maybe Goff can do it next year but it looks like he got pretty exposed by the Pats this time around (not uncommon for a young QB), he's about to get very expensive in 2020, and the Rams cap isn't so favorable any more.

It's fun to dream up moneyball strategies for building franchises but I just can't get on board with this one. The best chance the Seahawks have of getting another championship banner is by singing Russell Wilson to another contract.

 

[lukerguy]

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.

It's actually a pretty well thought out discussion on the philosophy behind paying the mega contract to the QB vs. trying to hit a homerun on a cheap rookie deal.

Russ is a no brainer at $25-$30 million. Upwards of $35MM would require some pause for me. You simply just cannot pay him "whatever" it takes to keep him if he decides he wants $40MM a year..

 

[Sports Hernia]

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).

....or the Rick Mirer era, or the Stan Gelbaugh era, or the Jon Kitna era, or the Brock Huard era, or the Dan McGwire era, or the Kelly Stouffer era, or the Trent Dilfer era, or the Jeff Kemp era, or the Seneca Wallace era, or the John Friesz era..............all QB's that started at one time or another for the Hawks.

I don't want to go back................I can't. I WON'T!!

Exactly!

 

[IndyHawk]

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.

It's actually a pretty well thought out discussion on the philosophy behind paying the mega contract to the QB vs. trying to hit a homerun on a cheap rookie deal.

Russ is a no brainer at $25-$30 million. Upwards of $35MM would require some pause for me. You simply just cannot pay him "whatever" it takes to keep him if he decides he wants $40MM a year..

It's 25 for me and I don't even like that..
I stated a long while back that it's time to cap all the positions
especially the QB one,it's beyond stupid how it's going.

 

[getnasty]

"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).

....or the Rick Mirer era, or the Stan Gelbaugh era, or the Jon Kitna era, or the Brock Huard era, or the Dan McGwire era, or the Kelly Stouffer era, or the Trent Dilfer era, or the Jeff Kemp era, or the Seneca Wallace era, or the John Friesz era..............all QB's that started at one time or another for the Hawks.

I don't want to go back................I can't. I WON'T!!

Exactly!

What a frustrating time to be a fan but there were also a lot more problems then just those quarterbacks on those teams. Between ownership and coaching that was a tough time.

 

[mrt144]

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.

It's actually a pretty well thought out discussion on the philosophy behind paying the mega contract to the QB vs. trying to hit a homerun on a cheap rookie deal.

Russ is a no brainer at $25-$30 million. Upwards of $35MM would require some pause for me. You simply just cannot pay him "whatever" it takes to keep him if he decides he wants $40MM a year..

It's 25 for me and I don't even like that..
I stated a long while back that it's time to cap all the positions
especially the QB one,it's beyond stupid how it's going.

Flesh out why it is stupid and not merely a situation for NFL teams to deal with

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It's 25 for me and I don't even like that..
I stated a long while back that it's time to cap all the positions
especially the QB one,it's beyond stupid how it's going.

Owners and GM's don't have to pay 35M, they are in total control of how they spend their salary cap.

Belichick trades his stars away before they get expensive, and he probably would have traded Brady away a long time ago if he demanded to be the highest paid QB at any one of his prior extension contracts.

Same with Gruden, he just traded away most of his stars because he think paying a pass rusher 23M a year is insane.

The market is going to be what the market's going to be, because the salary cap keeps going up 10-12M per year. IMO the focus shouldn't be on capping positions, it should be on doing a better job of scheme and player acquisition.

Why haven't John and Pete drafted another QB that could step in and play the position well in the past SEVEN drafts? Or traded for one to develop?

If we're being angry about Russell's situation, then lets be mad about that.........and not being mad at Russell wanting as much money as he can get.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

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.

First of all, how are you defining "successful?" Is winning a Superbowl a requirement for this? Or is being a contender enough? For the purposes of this post, I will consider the definition of success as "making it to the Superbowl."

Secondly, how are you defining a "great QB?" For the purposes of this post, I will define great as "Top 5" in the league, which Wilson would arguably qualify for.

That said, to your point about "conventional wisdom," I disagree that conventional wisdom is that you need a "great" QB to be successful. I believe that conventional wisdom is that you need a GOOD ENOUGH QB to be "successful."

Look at these names: Chris Chandler, Brad Johnson, Rich Gannon, Kerry Collins, Tony Eason, Jim McMahon, Neil O'Donnell, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Jeff Hostetler, Jake Delhomme, Rex Grossman.

All of those QBs have started in the SB and some of them won. So, let's just throw that premise out the window. Teams aren't purposely tanking their seasons in hopes of getting a "great" QB. Teams just want a QB that is good enough that they aren't a blocker [relative to their overall philosophy] for getting to the Superbowl.

None of your examples have won a SB in the last 15+ years. That's when the rules started changing. You need more than just a game manager.

Joe Flacco did. So did Nick Foles, as well as Eli Manning, who I didn't list. Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer (who I also didn't list, how could we forget him?) just barely missed your 15 year statute of limitations cut. Are any of those "great" QBs - top five in the league?

But also, you are disregarding my earlier point about how we are defining "success" for a franchise - I was defining it as making it to the Superbowl. Sounds like you are going with "Winning a Superbowl is the only measure of success, everything else is failure" definition.

Lastly, is there not a spectrum of QBs between "just a game manager" and "great?" Or after "great," is the next rung down "game manager?" Seems like a pretty steep dropoff to me.

You're right, I missed Flacco. But Flacco, Foles, and Manning didn't play like game managers in their playoff seasons. They played like elite QB's. You need someone who can reach that capacity.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

But as we saw time and time again, just getting to the playoffs isn't enough to win the whole thing nor are fans satisfied with just making the playoffs absent a periodic trophy.

We've had a periodic trophy. There are seven or eight other fan bases out there saying the exact same thing as you did; they can't all win. So how do you define NFL success other than staying in the playoffs and occasionally getting a trophy?

 

[mrt144]

But as we saw time and time again, just getting to the playoffs isn't enough to win the whole thing nor are fans satisfied with just making the playoffs absent a periodic trophy.

We've had a periodic trophy. There are seven or eight other fan bases out there saying the exact same thing as you did; they can't all win. So how do you define NFL success other than staying in the playoffs and occasionally getting a trophy?

Incremental improvement over last season's effort until it puts you in a place to net occasional trophy. There's a reason I was ridiculously optimistic even after the 2012 playoff bounce and it was the delta from where they started and where they finished with new parts in the machine.

And this lens applies to both the most and least successful teams. Even if a team won 3 SBs in a row, there are still ways to improve to make it a 4th even. The clock never runs out on self criticism and a plan to improve.

 

[IndyHawk]

It's 25 for me and I don't even like that..
I stated a long while back that it's time to cap all the positions
especially the QB one,it's beyond stupid how it's going.

Owners and GM's don't have to pay 35M, they are in total control of how they spend their salary cap.

Belichick trades his stars away before they get expensive, and he probably would have traded Brady away a long time ago if he demanded to be the highest paid QB at any one of his prior extension contracts.

Same with Gruden, he just traded away most of his stars because he think paying a pass rusher 23M a year is insane.

The market is going to be what the market's going to be, because the salary cap keeps going up 10-12M per year. IMO the focus shouldn't be on capping positions, it should be on doing a better job of scheme and player acquisition.

Why haven't John and Pete drafted another QB that could step in and play the position well in the past SEVEN drafts? Or traded for one to develop?

If we're being angry about Russell's situation, then lets be mad about that.........and not being mad at Russell wanting as much money as he can get.

I agree with most of your post and I'm not mad at RW..
It is the owners and GM's who cannot get out of their own way
when it comes to paying average to mediocre players what they
are really worth.
They overpay and keep overpaying good/bad players a cycle that
never ends.
Instead the answer is (raise the cap) so we can pay the next player
more than the one before at the position.
The reason I came up with capped positions is that it will force
change to the status quo which is getting out of hand.
Why should the fans watch players bitch like Earl or see holes
all over because that is what happens whe you get 2-3 stars
taking a huge chunk of the pie?
I want to enjoy the team with a chance at SB's not just focus
on a couple players and hope to get to the playoffs.
I am sure many fans feel the same .
I do want RW @ QB but I don't at the expense of not having
a shot at SB's.
The way it is ..Is just not working.

 

[mrt144]

It's 25 for me and I don't even like that..
I stated a long while back that it's time to cap all the positions
especially the QB one,it's beyond stupid how it's going.

Owners and GM's don't have to pay 35M, they are in total control of how they spend their salary cap.

Belichick trades his stars away before they get expensive, and he probably would have traded Brady away a long time ago if he demanded to be the highest paid QB at any one of his prior extension contracts.

Same with Gruden, he just traded away most of his stars because he think paying a pass rusher 23M a year is insane.

The market is going to be what the market's going to be, because the salary cap keeps going up 10-12M per year. IMO the focus shouldn't be on capping positions, it should be on doing a better job of scheme and player acquisition.

Why haven't John and Pete drafted another QB that could step in and play the position well in the past SEVEN drafts? Or traded for one to develop?

If we're being angry about Russell's situation, then lets be mad about that.........and not being mad at Russell wanting as much money as he can get.

I agree with most of your post and I'm not mad at RW..
It is the owners and GM's who cannot get out of their own way
when it comes to paying average to mediocre players what they
are really worth.
They overpay and keep overpaying good/bad players a cycle that
never ends.
Instead the answer is (raise the cap) so we can pay the next player
more than the one before at the position.
The reason I came up with capped positions is that it will force
change to the status quo which is getting out of hand.
Why should the fans watch players bitch like Earl or see holes
all over because that is what happens whe you get 2-3 stars
taking a huge chunk of the pie?
I want to enjoy the team with a chance at SB's not just focus
on a couple players and hope to get to the playoffs.
I am sure many fans feel the same .
I do want RW @ QB but I don't at the expense of not having
a shot at SB's.
The way it is ..Is just not working.

Well the cap inflation is predicated on revenue increases. It's not like a central bank printing off currency to spur inflation and reduce the value of debt among other things. The owners don't sit in a room and go "Ya know, we all could use an extra 10 MM before the 2020 season" There is always the off chance that the league's revenue doesn't increase YoY which would make for one hell of an awkward offseason for the unlucky few whose contract does come up.

Second, any rule, process, etc will tinge the market. Putting a cap on each positions salary either relative to other people at the position or relative to overall cap will create distortions in the market that allow for dislocations between output and cost. Less equipped teams will not see or seize those dislocation opportunities.

Third, a totally free labor market isn't necessary when some test of a game is building a better team through the tools available and within the parameters defined. There are also good reasons for stability to have a regulated labor market in a mostly self contained enterprise that simply don't find a parallel if applied to every other single labor market. Thus making the NFL more similar to "the real world" (which is its own can of worms) shouldn't be a desire as the function of the NFL is to present a game as entertainment and then charge advertisers, networks, fans in seats to see it, not deliver outcomes with the least dead weight loss. Avoiding dead weight loss for its own sake might have a negative impact on the primary purpose of entertainment.

I theorize that if each position had a cap limit, we'd be having a conversation 10 years later about how to improve a seemingly crap situation once half the field has come to understand the market with new parameters better.

 

[TwistedHusky]

There is no circumstance, within the rules or financial framework we have now, where resigning Wilson results in a SuperBowl appearance. For the same reason Rodgers and Brees are not going to the Super Bowl either.

(The Saints almost did it, but they would have been an exception to the rule most likely...)

Signing a top QB to a league-leading deal hamstrings the team. You become weak in key areas. There are going to be too many holes to fill with the draft and we don't fill holes with the draft spectacularly well anyway.

Wilson has a near zero chance at a SB here. MAYBE in the last year or so of his contract, he can do what the Saints did. But that is the only doorway he can take. There is no path to the Super Bowl for him with a team that limited in spend in other areas, with what a QB contract takes out of the salary cap.

It does not happen. And it won't. Signing Wilson assures we will not sniff the SuperBowl for years.

But it does assure us of being over .500. Not signing Wilson makes bad records much more possible, if not probable.

If we do not resign him, somehow keep Carroll and push forward we have maybe, (charitably) a 5-10% chance of reaching a SB (Not winning, reaching) IF we somehow draft a good to great QB...which likely means a year or 2 of godawful records. And by then Carroll is likely retired anyway or near it, you generally get your chance in year 2 or 3 of a rookie deal.

That would mean Carroll lasting roughly 5 more years without retiring. Just to get lucky that one year? Good luck.

Signing Wilson and keeping Carroll, we pretty much give up any shot at being in a SB. But we also almost assuredly have over .500 records and maybe close to 10 win seasons. That means a lot of great regular season experiences.

Given the above, signing Wilson is clearly in the best interest of the Seahawks, even with no SB likely. But that lack of being able to hit a SB might frustrate Wilson so his own best opportunity to leave a legacy outside of Seattle rests in him leaving.

 

[John63]

It's 25 for me and I don't even like that..
I stated a long while back that it's time to cap all the positions
especially the QB one,it's beyond stupid how it's going.

Owners and GM's don't have to pay 35M, they are in total control of how they spend their salary cap.

Belichick trades his stars away before they get expensive, and he probably would have traded Brady away a long time ago if he demanded to be the highest paid QB at any one of his prior extension contracts.

Same with Gruden, he just traded away most of his stars because he think paying a pass rusher 23M a year is insane.

The market is going to be what the market's going to be, because the salary cap keeps going up 10-12M per year. IMO the focus shouldn't be on capping positions, it should be on doing a better job of scheme and player acquisition.

Why haven't John and Pete drafted another QB that could step in and play the position well in the past SEVEN drafts? Or traded for one to develop?

If we're being angry about Russell's situation, then lets be mad about that.........and not being mad at Russell wanting as much money as he can get.

I agree with most of your post and I'm not mad at RW..
It is the owners and GM's who cannot get out of their own way
when it comes to paying average to mediocre players what they
are really worth.
They overpay and keep overpaying good/bad players a cycle that
never ends.
Instead the answer is (raise the cap) so we can pay the next player
more than the one before at the position.
The reason I came up with capped positions is that it will force
change to the status quo which is getting out of hand.
Why should the fans watch players bitch like Earl or see holes
all over because that is what happens whe you get 2-3 stars
taking a huge chunk of the pie?
I want to enjoy the team with a chance at SB's not just focus
on a couple players and hope to get to the playoffs.
I am sure many fans feel the same .
I do want RW @ QB but I don't at the expense of not having
a shot at SB's.
The way it is ..Is just not working.

Okay so you would prefer not singing Wilson to 35 mil, take a few draft picks and HOPE they work out, get a few FA (not likely as not signing Wilson makes us a rebuilding team) and HOPE we get a good enough QB to win an SB.

Rather than signing Wilson, knowing we will always have a chance every year.