Wilson's First 3 Years Are Arguably the Best in NFL History

[Tical21]

You do also have to take into consideration that almost every single time a quarterback that isn't one of those top 3 or 4 has gotten paid, it has been an absolute disaster. Just because Joe Flacco can get 20 mil per season doesn't make it a good idea. At some point, somebody is going to try to go the route of not paying their QB and spending all that money on 3 good players instead. I would, at the least, be interested in how that experiment turns out.

There is no doubt Flacco hurt them. But they also wasted several years of good D with a QB named Kyle Boller. YOu think Baltimore wants to go back to that? If not for some deceptive issues with the Patriots who the hell is eligible, we might be taking about Flacco as the opposing QB in the SB we just played. So if that is what overpaying a QB causes, bring it on.

Wilson is going to get overpaid. It will cause problems with depth and keeping some core guys, of that I have no doubt. But I also have no doubt letting him go would be stupid.

It isn't like I'm going to kick and scream and yell in disgust and renounce my fandom when we re-sign Russell. There are plenty of worse guys to gamble the house on. I just personally wouldn't do it, given the power to make such a decision. That's all. I'd gamble that I'd be able to hit on another good quarterback, and have my cake and eat it too. Or is it a situation of "In John and Pete we trust...but only with 21 of the 22 positions?"

 

[theincrediblesok]

Sometimes I'm not even sure if Tical is just trolling or if Tical is also Anthony! Sure is a riot reading both of their opinion it's like your right and left conscience talking to you, polar opposites. I'll just sit here and :snack: enjoy the show

 

[kearly]

Wilson is going to get overpaid. It will cause problems with depth and keeping some core guys, of that I have no doubt. But I also have no doubt letting him go would be stupid.

Interesting. I am interested to know your thought process on why you think Wilson will be overpaid. I'm sure you have a good reason. That said, I strongly disagree. Here is my thought process:

As I explained in a previous post, Wilson's value above replacement will easily exceed his percentage of his team's cap commitment. So strictly in a moneyball "wins per dollar" approach, Wilson is a bargain even on a huge deal. He's like a Mike Trout type asset. It's almost impossible to overpay the guy from a moneyball perspective. If Seattle is a 12-4 team with Wilson, and you take that $22-$24 million and give it to say, the next Bennett, Avril, and Wright instead, they probably aren't a 12-4 team anymore.

And this assumes that you can save all that money, which is unrealistic. If Tjack got us to 10+ wins every year, you wouldn't be keeping him every year at a buck twenty five. Instead, he'd be the new Alex Smith or Andy Dalton at the negotiating table. You've said yourself, this is pretty much the last thing any franchise wants.

You can't run a contending team with a perennial $1 million salary QB. You just can't. The economic forces of the NFL wouldn't allow it, unless you did nothing but play QBs on rookie deals every four or five years, and that's not a recipe for success.

True, Wilson will make more money than Brady and Manning, but if Brady and Manning were also 26 years old, this would not be the case.

As you said so well, there are basically two QBs in the NFL with (I would say somewhat arguably) more value than Wilson going forward. Luck and Rodgers. Whatever Wilson gets this offseason, Luck is going to get more in 2016. Whatever Wilson gets this offseason, Rodgers will get more the next time he signs an extension. It's true, for one year, Wilson will be less of a bargain than Luck. And for a few years, he will be less of a bargain than Rodgers. But being less than the biggest bargain in the sport does not mean you are overpaid.

 

[Anthony!]

Wilson is going to get overpaid. It will cause problems with depth and keeping some core guys, of that I have no doubt. But I also have no doubt letting him go would be stupid.

How is Wilson overpaid though? Replace Wilson with Tjack and Seattle is probably a 9 or 10 win team. And if Tjack got us to 10 wins every year, he wouldn't cost us $1.25 million.

well for one we are not a 9-10 win team with Tjack, however besides that I think he is talking about when Wilson gets his new contract. After that he is making assumptions. For one he cannot say Wilson will be overpaid, for example if he gets paid the current market value that 8si not over paid as that is the market value. As to causing problems with depth and keeping core guys again a big assumption as for all he knows all the guys the FO feel are core are already signed ie the LOB. Just loads of assumptions. I could make the assumption by signing Wilson to the long term deal, it will force the FO to change the offense to pass more and Wilson will shine and lead us to more Sb victories. Its amazing what you can do when you assume.

 

[kearly]

well for one we are not a 9-10 win team with Tjack

I would agree that 10 wins feels like a high end estimate, especially with some of the issues on the team that Wilson covers up.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

You do also have to take into consideration that almost every single time a quarterback that isn't one of those top 3 or 4 has gotten paid, it has been an absolute disaster. Just because Joe Flacco can get 20 mil per season doesn't make it a good idea. At some point, somebody is going to try to go the route of not paying their QB and spending all that money on 3 good players instead. I would, at the least, be interested in how that experiment turns out.

There is no doubt Flacco hurt them. But they also wasted several years of good D with a QB named Kyle Boller. YOu think Baltimore wants to go back to that? If not for some deceptive issues with the Patriots who the hell is eligible, we might be taking about Flacco as the opposing QB in the SB we just played. So if that is what overpaying a QB causes, bring it on.

Wilson is going to get overpaid. It will cause problems with depth and keeping some core guys, of that I have no doubt. But I also have no doubt letting him go would be stupid.

It isn't like I'm going to kick and scream and yell in disgust and renounce my fandom when we re-sign Russell. There are plenty of worse guys to gamble the house on. I just personally wouldn't do it, given the power to make such a decision. That's all. I'd gamble that I'd be able to hit on another good quarterback, and have my cake and eat it too. Or is it a situation of "In John and Pete we trust...but only with 21 of the 22 positions?"

Again what are you talking about? Haven't you noticed that we've pretty much locked up every player most would consider core already beyond Wagner and Wilson.

And we've already seen the results of gambling to find another "good" quarterback in the draft or otherwise on the cheap. It's called the Seahawks from 1976-2004 to be charitable.

 

[KiwiHawk]

When it comes down to whether or not we replace Wilson, the only argument to consider is value above replacement.

How difficult is it to find a franchise QB in the NFL? Seems to me that only around 10-12 teams really have one, which means roughly 2/3 of the league is still looking for one. Given that there's a draft every year and literally thousands of college athletes from which to choose, it seems that true franchise QBs are few and far between.

Then factor in the timing. A Super Bowl window opens for a short period of time. If you don't strike while the iron is hot, you can kiss your chances goodbye, and who knows when things will align again allowing you to get back to the Super Bowl, much less have a chance to win it? How often are you the strongest team not only in your division, but in your entire conference?

Baltimore knew this with Flacco. They knew who he was and what he was capable of. They knew he was no Aaron Rodgers. They paid him, however, because they believed their Super Bowl window was still open and they still had a shot to go back. Turns out they were wrong, but changing QBs at that point would have closed the window for sure.

The Seahawks are at a similar cusp. They can't say for absolute certainty that Wilson is empirically worth $20 million per year. What they do know for certain, however, is that:

Franchise QBs are rare.
We have no guarantees of getting one.
We don't draft high enough to get one.
They don't appear to available in this draft anyway.
Our Super Bowl window is now open.

If you factor those things an then consider Wilson's value above replacement, then signing him for $20 million a year becomes a relative no-brainer.

 

[Scottemojo]

Wilson is going to get overpaid. It will cause problems with depth and keeping some core guys, of that I have no doubt. But I also have no doubt letting him go would be stupid.

Interesting. I am interested to know your thought process on why you think Wilson will be overpaid. I'm sure you have a good reason. That said, I strongly disagree. Here is my thought process:

As I explained in a previous post, Wilson's value above replacement will easily exceed his percentage of his team's cap commitment. So strictly in a moneyball "wins per dollar" approach, Wilson is a bargain even on a huge deal. He's like a Mike Trout type asset. It's almost impossible to overpay the guy from a moneyball perspective. If Seattle is a 12-4 team with Wilson, and you take that $22-$24 million and give it to say, the next Bennett, Avril, and Wright instead, they probably aren't a 12-4 team anymore.

And this assumes that you can save all that money, which is unrealistic. If Tjack got us to 10+ wins every year, you wouldn't be keeping him every year at a buck twenty five. Instead, he'd be the new Alex Smith or Andy Dalton at the negotiating table. You've said yourself, this is pretty much the last thing any franchise wants.

You can't run a contending team with a perennial $1 million salary QB. You just can't. The economic forces of the NFL wouldn't allow it, unless you did nothing but play QBs on rookie deals every four or five years, and that's not a recipe for success.

True, Wilson will make more money than Brady and Manning, but if Brady and Manning were also 26 years old, this would not be the case.

As you said so well, there are basically two QBs in the NFL with (I would say somewhat arguably) more value than Wilson going forward. Luck and Rodgers. Whatever Wilson gets this offseason, Luck is going to get more in 2016. Whatever Wilson gets this offseason, Rodgers will get more the next time he signs an extension. It's true, for one year, Wilson will be less of a bargain than Luck. And for a few years, he will be less of a bargain than Rodgers. But being less than the biggest bargain in the sport does not mean you are overpaid.

I guess I mean overpaid in the sense of his salary will limit the team from spending elsewhere, not in the sense of he doesn't deserve what he gets. Keeping a good QB costs money, overpaying (in the sense of restricting other business) is just the cost of the business right now.

 

[kearly]

I guess I mean overpaid in the sense of his salary will limit the team from spending elsewhere, not in the sense of he doesn't deserve what he gets. Keeping a good QB costs money, overpaying (in the sense of restricting other business) is just the cost of the business right now.

Wouldn't that simply be called "getting paid?"

Sorry if I am being a semantics vigilante. I just think the "overpaid" narrative is both inaccurate and perhaps even slightly harmful.

As an aside, I think Wilson's deal is going to cost us far less than people think. Among starting QBs who are not currently on rookie deals, the NFL median AYP salary is $18 million (Jay Cutler).

Remember when Alex Smith was a free agent in 2011 and nobody wanted him? He ended up staying in SF. The next year, his team nearly got to a SB. Next thing you know Alex Smith is a $17 million AYP QB. Just like that.

Matt Flynn says hello. How about Matt Cassel?

Basically, the whole premise of getting QB play on the cheap is not based in reality. If a QB wins, or even if he has a few really good games, he gets paid. Period.

If Wilson signed for $22 million, he wouldn't actually cost that full amount because you'd have to pay the guy who replaces him... and he'd be only be costing us about $4 million more than the "typical" established starting QB.

There would be some short term savings I guess, but long term, QBs who win always get paid.

The only real way to save money would be to draft a QB and only use his rookie deal years. Obviously, no one has ever done this method because it's completely insane.

I'm not trying to rip Tical, but I think the more you really think about the financial realities of the NFL, you realize that Wilson really isn't costing us all that much. The difference between his projected pay and Jay Cutler's would pay for a single mid-tier free agent.

 

[hawknation2015]

I guess I mean overpaid in the sense of his salary will limit the team from spending elsewhere, not in the sense of he doesn't deserve what he gets. Keeping a good QB costs money, overpaying (in the sense of restricting other business) is just the cost of the business right now.

Sure, but wouldn't that simply be called "getting paid?"

Sorry if I am being a semantics vigilante. I just think the "overpaid" narrative is both inaccurate and perhaps even slightly harmful.

I have a question of genuine interest, what is the maximum amount you would offer to Russell (average per year/total guaranteed)?

You have said before I think that Schneider should be willing to give Russell the $22 million average per year that Rodgers is currently making, thereby making Russell the highest paid player in the league. Would you be willing to offer Russell more than $22 million per year? $25 million? $30 million? And what percentage of his deal should be guaranteed? 40% 50%? 60%? 70%?

I think 5 years, $120 million ($24 million apy) with $60 million guaranteed would be my reservation point. Obviously, I would hope we could sign him for less than that -- those are additional millions that will be needed to sign players at other positions.

 

[kearly]

I think you would probably have to get to at least $50 million AYP before Wilson would be hurting the team. I consider him to be worth about a third of Seattle's win total (4 wins), and $50 million would be about a third of Seattle's adjusted cap number. That's why I consider $25 million to be more than a fair deal.

If I was GM though, I would of course play it the same exact way JS has. In this world, things have value because society assigns that value, whether it be fine art or the piece of paper we purchase it with. In the same way, the QB position has a certain value range based on what "the group" has decided. Wilson is worth far more than $22 million, but nobody is actually going to pay him $50 million AYP. Wilson's agent is probably asking for $25 million, JS is probably offering $18 million. They'll probably meet around $22. And it will be a win for the Seahawks.

No way Wilson walks. Won't happen. At worst, you got one more cheap year and two reasonably priced franchise tags. Wilson might as well be on a 3/42 deal right now, because the team effectively has him under control for 3 more years if they use their franchise tags.

Among deals that are realistic, I have don't have a 'reservation point.' I think the deal helps Seattle regardless. I would prefer to avoid a fully guaranteed contract if only to keep risk down and to keep the other 31 GMs from hating our guts. 40 to 50% guaranteed would be the norm for a deal like this.

I'd like to see JS get a longer deal for Wilson; the longer the better. If Wilson is smart, he'll get a shorter deal. My guess is that they settle right around the contract Aaron Rodgers got a couple years ago. Maybe a tiny bit higher.

(I have you off ignore now, it was deleting your PMs (even though the site FAQs said it wouldn't)... it was more trouble than it was worth.)

 

[hawknation2015]

I think you would probably have to get to at least $50 million AYP before Wilson would be hurting the team. I consider him to be worth about a third of Seattle's win total (4 wins), and $50 million would be about a third of Seattle's adjusted cap number. That's why I consider $25 million to be more than a fair deal.

If I was GM though, I would of course play it the same exact way JS has. Things have value because society assigns that value. In the same way, the QB position has a certain value range based on what "the group" has decided. Wilson is worth far more than $22 million, but nobody is actually going to pay him $50 million AYP. Wilson's agent is probably asking for $25 million, JS is probably offering $18 million. They'll probably meet around $22. And it will be a win for the Seahawks.

No way Wilson walks. Won't happen. At worst, you got one more cheap year and two reasonably priced franchise tags. Wilson might as well be on a 3/42 deal right now, because the team effectively has him under control for 3 more years if they use their franchise tags.

Among deals that are realistic, I have don't have a 'reservation point.' I think the deal helps Seattle regardless. I would prefer to avoid a fully guaranteed contract if only to keep risk down and to keep the other 31 GMs from hating our guts. 40 to 50% guaranteed would be the norm for a deal like this.

I'd like to see JS get a longer deal, the longer the better. If Wilson is smart, he'll get a shorter deal. My guess is that they settle right around the contract Aaron Rodgers got a couple years ago. Maybe a tiny bit higher.

(I have you off ignore now, it was deleting your PMs (even though the site FAQs said it wouldn't)... it was more trouble than it was worth.)

Wait a minute . . . if $25 million APY is "more than a fair deal," then what is the actual maximum deal you would offer? Are you saying $50 million per year is your walk away point?

I would risk playing out this year without an extension in place and then franchise him for two years before offering over $25 million per year, much less $50 million per year -- 227% of the current highest yearly salary. That would absolutely cripple the team and lead to a forced exodus of our future HoF defenders. Anything above $25 million per year would make it extremely difficult to maintain a championship-caliber defense.

 

[WilsonMVP]

You do also have to take into consideration that almost every single time a quarterback that isn't one of those top 3 or 4 has gotten paid, it has been an absolute disaster. Just because Joe Flacco can get 20 mil per season doesn't make it a good idea. At some point, somebody is going to try to go the route of not paying their QB and spending all that money on 3 good players instead. I would, at the least, be interested in how that experiment turns out.

"Every Single time?"

Which 3 or 4 were good investments?
Which weren't?

Rodgers? (Super Bowl win)
Big Ben? (Super Bowl win)
Matt Ryan? (NFC Championship game)
Joe Flacco? (Super Bowl win)
Drew Brees? (Super Bowl win)
Peyton Manning (Super Bowl win, so many records)
Kaep (three straight NFC Championships.. only 11% guaranteed)
Jay Cutler (bust)
Tony Romo (great regular season QB)
Matt Stafford (mix of Cutler/Romo)

So here are your top 10 highest paid. One could say all but one (Cutler) was worth the money paid. There is no detail as to when they were paid or what the record was after.

My suggestion is these QBs earned their raises on the merit of their achievements as much as investment for the future. In Wilson, the Seahawks can hope for both.

Rodgers I don't believe has gone back since he got paid. Ben hasn't gone back since his huge payday. The Falcons have gone down the crapper since Ryan got paid. Flacco I will say is a work in progress, we'll see, but I don't think he can get them back, and the contract will be regrettable. What was Brees making when he won the Super Bowl? These quarterbacks aren't helping their teams get back, if anything their contract is having the exact opposite effect.

The Mannings are the exception. Brady has worked out, I think I would still pay Brees. But looking back, not sure I would pay anybody else on that list that kind of money.

The rest of the contracts have prevented their teams from going to the promised land. The winning formula seems to be that you have to take advantage of having your QB on his first or smaller contracts. Once they get paid, the odds of you fielding a good enough team to win a Super Bowl go down quite dramatically.

The year they actually won the superbowl they shouldnt of even been in the playoffs to begin with. Other teams fell apart and they squeaked in on a tiebreaker I believe. The year they went 15-1 they didnt even get to the superbowl or NFC championship game I dont think.

Having said that ....If you take Rodgers off that team they are basically as good as the Vikings have been aside from one year with favre, with a worse RB and worse Oline

 

[WilsonMVP]

You do also have to take into consideration that almost every single time a quarterback that isn't one of those top 3 or 4 has gotten paid, it has been an absolute disaster. Just because Joe Flacco can get 20 mil per season doesn't make it a good idea. At some point, somebody is going to try to go the route of not paying their QB and spending all that money on 3 good players instead. I would, at the least, be interested in how that experiment turns out.

There is no doubt Flacco hurt them. But they also wasted several years of good D with a QB named Kyle Boller. YOu think Baltimore wants to go back to that? If not for some deceptive issues with the Patriots who the hell is eligible, we might be taking about Flacco as the opposing QB in the SB we just played. So if that is what overpaying a QB causes, bring it on.

Wilson is going to get overpaid. It will cause problems with depth and keeping some core guys, of that I have no doubt. But I also have no doubt letting him go would be stupid.

It isn't like I'm going to kick and scream and yell in disgust and renounce my fandom when we re-sign Russell. There are plenty of worse guys to gamble the house on. I just personally wouldn't do it, given the power to make such a decision. That's all. I'd gamble that I'd be able to hit on another good quarterback, and have my cake and eat it too. Or is it a situation of "In John and Pete we trust...but only with 21 of the 22 positions?"

Ya id much rather roll with a Christian Ponder or Matt Cassel type QB... :roll:

Those QBs might get you to the playoffs but they arent winning you a superbowl

 

[kearly]

I would risk playing out this year without an extension in place and then franchise him for two years before offering over $25 million per year, much less $50 million per year -- 227% of the current highest yearly salary. That would absolutely cripple the team and lead to a forced exodus of our future HoF defenders. Anything above $25 million per year would make it extremely difficult to maintain a championship-caliber defense.

Well, as said, I'm not paying the guy $50 million because I don't have to. I'm just saying that Wilson is probably a 4 win player, and it requires a LOT of value to go from 8 wins to 12 wins, sustainably, without a franchise QB.

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources. At $30 million, it's still a mistake. At $40 million, it's more ambivalent. At $50 million, it's totally ambivalent. That's how I look at it.

I admit, it's fuzzy math. But you put Aaron Rodgers on the Jaguars, and they probably go from 2 wins to 10+ wins overnight. You almost can't overstate the value of an elite QB for elevating a team.

And as said, it's not like Russell is really costing us his full contract, he's costing us whatever the difference is from what we'd be paying his replacement over those years. And odds are, if Seattle still had a pulse without Wilson, that his replacement would get a pretty penny as well. Alex Smith syndrome.

As far as playing the string and going the double-franchise route, it's a solid strategy. I would prefer to sign Wilson sooner, because his market price now will probably be 20-30% lower than it might be in four years due to the rapid degree of NFL inflation. And as is typically done in negotiations, the cheap year and the franchise options, the "3 years 42 million" team controlled asset, is used as a baseline to hammer a deal out. This is done in baseball all the time when teams buy out arbitration years, etc. I'm sure it's done that way in football too. I'm sure that's how JS is handing this, and I wouldn't do it any different than he has so far. Though I am rooting for him to get a deal done this offseason.

 

[hawknation2015]

I would risk playing out this year without an extension in place and then franchise him for two years before offering over $25 million per year, much less $50 million per year -- 227% of the current highest yearly salary. That would absolutely cripple the team and lead to a forced exodus of our future HoF defenders. Anything above $25 million per year would make it extremely difficult to maintain a championship-caliber defense.

Well, as said, I'm not paying the guy $50 million because I don't have to. I'm just saying that Wilson is probably a 4 win player, and it requires a LOT of value to go from 8 wins to 12 wins, sustainably, without a franchise QB.

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources. At $30 million, it's still a mistake. At $40 million, it's more ambivalent. At $50 million, it's totally ambivalent. That's how I look at it.

I admit, it's fuzzy math. But you put Aaron Rodgers on the Jaguars, and they probably go from 2 wins to 10+ wins overnight. You almost can't overstate the value of an elite QB for elevating a team.

And as said, it's not like Russell is really costing us his full contract, he's costing us whatever we'd be paying his replacement over those years. And odds are, if Seattle was still winning more than they were losing, that his replacement would get a pretty penny as well.

Why would we let him leave after this year? He's either signing a long-term deal with us or we would exercise the franchise tag option to keep him on the team . . . and then we would franchise him again in 2017 if we still somehow could not reach an agreement. At that point, he's 29 years old and his market value has been set. In his words, he would ideally like to play his whole career with one franchise.

 

[kearly]

Why would we let him leave after this year?

Where did I say that? Here is what I did say:

No way Wilson walks. Won't happen. At worst, you got one more cheap year and two reasonably priced franchise tags. Wilson might as well be on a 3/42 deal right now, because the team effectively has him under control for 3 more years if they use their franchise tags.

Also, why is it that everything I say is something you try to twist against me? I don't mind the discussion, but I'm not all that into gamesmanship.

 

[hawknation2015]

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources.

 

[Anthony!]

well for one we are not a 9-10 win team with Tjack

I would agree that 10 wins feels like a high end estimate, especially with some of the issues on the team that Wilson covers up.

Agreed add in with basically the same team and a much easier schedule he only got us to 7-9 and while you could argue the defense is better, the schedule is also much tougher.

 

[kearly]

If JS let Wilson walk for $26 million and Seattle fell to 8-8 next year, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thought it was a wise way to save 17% of the teams cap resources.

So where did I say I would let Wilson walk after one year? I was clearly saying it would be a huge mistake to let Wilson walk for $26 million.

For the record, I meant to say "the next year", instead of next year. Hope that helps.