pehawk":f0a2704d said:
Scottemojo":f0a2704d said:
Fact: The source for the story is not a Seahawk front office guy. The source is Mike Florio. I'm not kidding. It's like the New York Post using the National Enquirer as a story source.
You would learn more from the comments at PFT than you will from this non story.
Hmm, I disagree. PFT first reported the story, but, PFT has been reliable with this regime. Remember my nonsense last week saying the Seahawks use NFL insider types to their advantage? Welp, I think that's what this is.
I see nothing wrong with the story, it makes sense. This has been Wilson's worst year as a pro, IMO. Even throwing Percy out of the mix, he's just been off, a lot.
I both like and appreciate this report.
My thoughts exactly, Pe. There is little downside in us NOT extending Wilson. IF Wilson's people will be seeking 20 mil per, I don't predict a bevy of teams getting in that line. We all love Wilson, we all want him back, but his success with this team doesn't ascertain equaled success with just any team.
Worst case is actually best case. Say Wilson refocuses his entirety on fine tuning his craft this off season, comes in next year and just lights it up. Obviously that improvement will translate to wins and we will be quick to open the wallet and reward him handily. Sure we run the risk of a bidding war, but I doubt the number will exceed what we would be paying him with an extension, anyway.
And then there is also the possibility the FO has every intention of getting him extended, but leaking such stuff as part of the chess match. Nobody has been more critical (here) of the FO than myself. I would applaud this tactic, appreciating we are operating within a window. NOT extending the cuddly one will likely get more production from him next year than extending him would. That could translate to another championship for us and there should be no higher priority than that, imo. .