Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Art Thiel ask if its Time to trade Russell

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • They are a 5 win team w/out him.
    I do enjoy a good podcast though. :2thumbs:
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:They are a 5 win team w/out him.
    I do enjoy a good podcast though. :2thumbs:


    that pretty much cuts through the BS.

    If you're a Russell detractor or critic, that's fine. But until we have a better replacement at the most vital position on the team, then all your points are moot.............and it's why we're going to continue to pay Russell through his next contract.

    because the alternative isn't tolerable.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13065
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • A top notch QB is very hard to find. So many teams have swung and missed on a franchise level talent. Hawks got their guy in the 3rd rd. I know it sounds strange, but I get more nervous in Round 1 and 2 with these guys than I do from rounds 3 thru 7. They clearly do their best work after the 1st round, and often between 3rd and 5th.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:A top notch QB is very hard to find. So many teams have swung and missed on a franchise level talent. Hawks got their guy in the 3rd rd.


    I pointed this out about a week ago but here are 3rd round or later QBs drafted since RW in 2012 (not including other 3rd round or later QBs from 2012)

    Garrett Grayson
    Sean Mannion
    Bryce Petty
    Brett Hundley
    Jacoby Brissett
    Cody Kessler
    Connor Cook
    Dak Prescott
    Cardale Jones
    Kevin Hogan
    Nate Sudfeld
    Jake Rudock
    Brandon Allen
    Jeff Driskel
    Brandon Doughty
    Davis Webb
    C.J. Beathard
    Joshua Dobbs
    Nathan Peterman
    Brad Kaaya

    Seems like slim pickins.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2997
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote::34853_doh:

    Ok, we get it. Russ is an average QB who has nothing to do with the success of the Team. And I guess any average QB could have taken them to 2 Super Bowl's. Is that better? I would think the best QB in team history would get a little more respect from the "fans"
    But, clearly he will NEVER live up to what people expect from him. How could a guy who has been nothing but a class guy, a total leader and been incredibly successful be so hated? It makes zero sense. But have at it.
    Go Hawks

    You need to level out, man. No one hates the guy and this has nothing to do with expectations or anything else.
    User avatar
    vin.couve12
    .NET Poster of the Month
     
    Posts: 4488
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:19 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • Definitely seems like russ doesn't start games well. But most times that takes the form of not moving the offense early. It doesn't take the form of turning it over (usually).
    Awful coincidental that protecting the ball early, and trying to win it in the fourth sounds just like what Pete wants.
    So I suspect that when we have a run game and can run the ball and take deep shots like Pete likes, Wilson will go back to looking like the best fit for Pete's offense.
    As variable as Wilson's play has been at times, I do not see the same fit here with the other FA QBs available even if they tend to be steadier throughout a game. Most QBs can't hit on those deep shots at a moments notice as Wilson can.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8338
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • scutterhawk wrote:
    IndyHawk wrote:
    vin.couve12 wrote:Many know that I've been more critical of RW than almost anyone here, but in the current climate even with a backup QB winning the SB, you keep RW because his contract is and will continue to be ever more outdated.

    RW is a very, very good QB/Point Guard. I don't think he should be payed at the top of the list even if some other lesser guys are making more, but an outdated contract fits. Let him play it out and if you see a diamond in the rough of a QB then draft him mid to late round and if he sits for a couple years then so be it. If RW can improve further as a pocket aware passer then maybe you pay and stay and so be it. The outcome should be all business and no message board sentiment will matter, including my own.

    BYAH!

    Fine with the playing contract out but looking at it with more vision..
    His trade value will never be higher before that contract ends because
    the closer you get the less you will get.
    Maybe he doesn't get any better or improve squat so keep paying?
    As above stated did we win the SB with an elite QB?
    I feel like I'm still waiting to see that.

    You SEEN it in the second half of 2015, you've just chosen to ignore it.
    He'd proved THEN, that he can be elite when he gets SOME HELP from his O-Line, EVEN WITHOUT having the likes of Marshawn Lynch to help keep Defenses on their heels.
    Oh and, it was the DEFENSE that gave up all those points put up by Cam Newton in the playoffs, and it was Russell Wilson that scored the Seahawks back within reach of winning that game in the second half.
    NO Quarterback is going to do it all by himself, not even LORD Brady.

    Easy big guy..
    I saw a half a season that doesn't make a career..
    That Carolina game in 2nd half?What happened in the first?Off the top of my head I see a pick 6
    and/or a RW fumble that led to another score by the Panthers.
    That 2nd half only makes that comeback stuff in above posts look more valid..
    The Carolina game(playoff loss) is not a good example to me.
    Of course he cannot do it all which is obvious but fanboys want it where
    there is an excuse for him and want to pay him whatever 30 plus million?
    No vision of winning anything or what it really takes to do it..
    Just plow 15% of the cap into a QB that will likely be in decline when he losses speed/leg injury
    That scares me..I'm not just content to see an average football team
    with a Matthew Stafford @the helm with no playoffs..
    I've already been there so I'm sorry for being greedy.
    Will Dissly
    2018 Adopt a rookie
    User avatar
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3922
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:42 pm


  • Bottom line for me on this topic is there's no way Pete and John trust the future of their jobs and trying to turn this roster over without Russell.

    If they turn the roster over without Russell, then it's 2-3 years, and probably longer of 4-12 records until another QB is found.

    No way that's happening.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13065
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Some roster turn over is going to happen whether they like it or not. They're NFL personnel, not gods, and therefore you have to plan ahead and start to groom a potential replacement for two years out. I the mean time, continue to retool your overall roster and get back to what made you dominant in the first place. If we end up re-uping RW for good reason when the time comes then we do.
    User avatar
    vin.couve12
    .NET Poster of the Month
     
    Posts: 4488
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:19 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • There are a lot of bottom line statements in this thread, but the real bottom line is that this subject is about the Seattle Seahawks, not Russell Wilson.
    User avatar
    vin.couve12
    .NET Poster of the Month
     
    Posts: 4488
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:19 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • vin.couve12 wrote:There are a lot of bottom line statements in this thread, but the real bottom line is that this subject is about the Seattle Seahawks, not Russell Wilson.


    Are you sure about that?
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2997
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • I would love to see a GM with stones elect to trade a top tier QB for a high draft pick with hopes they can develop a new QB on a much smaller salary. I just don't think such a GM exists. You whiff on a move like that and you lose your job.

    If the Browns called and offered the #4 and some other fun bells and whistles for Russ with Sam Darnold on the board though, that would be crazy tempting. I HIGHLY doubt it would ever happen. But it would be tempting.
    ImTheScientist wrote:This guy is the closest thing to beast mode we will ever see. You got a glimpse of that yesterday. He was instantly my favorite player when they signed him. Give the dude a chance and don't overreact or overthink preseason. Go Hawks. Lacy will rush for 1,100 and 10TDs. Bend the knee.
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11368
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Nah, I'm fine, no leveling needed. It's a message board.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • This is what is wrong with the media and the internet. A writer attempts to troll a topic and you guys reward him with 3 pages of posts discussing it so far.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 105224
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


  • hawk45 wrote:Definitely seems like russ doesn't start games well. But most times that takes the form of not moving the offense early. It doesn't take the form of turning it over (usually).
    Awful coincidental that protecting the ball early, and trying to win it in the fourth sounds just like what Pete wants.
    So I suspect that when we have a run game and can run the ball and take deep shots like Pete likes, Wilson will go back to looking like the best fit for Pete's offense.
    As variable as Wilson's play has been at times, I do not see the same fit here with the other FA QBs available even if they tend to be steadier throughout a game. Most QBs can't hit on those deep shots at a moments notice as Wilson can.


    I've been hitting that point most of last season. Pete drills in the "protect the football", "it's not how you start it's how you finish", "you cannot win in the 1st quarter....."..... and a few people want to put ALL the slow starts on Wilson alone, ridiculous. He is doing exactly what Pete preaches and what he was taught and is a product of his environment as much as anything else IMO (when you include crap protection = poor habits his entire career and now no run game).

    Be careful what you ask for Pete. :141847_bnono:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5081
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Hasselbeck wrote:I would love to see a GM with stones elect to trade a top tier QB for a high draft pick with hopes they can develop a new QB on a much smaller salary. I just don't think such a GM exists. You whiff on a move like that and you lose your job.

    If the Browns called and offered the #4 and some other fun bells and whistles for Russ with Sam Darnold on the board though, that would be crazy tempting. I HIGHLY doubt it would ever happen. But it would be tempting.


    What are the success rates with even first round QBs? I'm thinking well under 50%. That's not stones. That's stupid. About the only time something like that makes sense is Montana with Young in the wings. Even then you don't know if Young has what it takes, but you do know Montana is at the end of the road. Can't remember if Favre was traded out of GB or how that went down, but that would be another case of it potentially working.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 105224
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:They are a 5 win team w/out him.
    I do enjoy a good podcast though. :2thumbs:


    How do you know this though? How do you know this isn't a 12-4 team with a Sam Darnold and the same roster make up they had before Russ' big contract (elite running game and defense).

    This is same train of thought that has this roster in the mess it is right now. That notion that "OMG our defense isn't the same without Earl/Sherm/Kam .. we should lock them up!"

    I completely agree this team is terrible with Austin Davis in there and not Russell Wilson.. but don't think that's the case with a solid rookie and improvement everywhere else on the roster with the money that would be freed up.

    Again - I don't think Russ would ever be moved. But I don't agree with the assessment that this franchise immediately becomes the Browns without him.
    ImTheScientist wrote:This guy is the closest thing to beast mode we will ever see. You got a glimpse of that yesterday. He was instantly my favorite player when they signed him. Give the dude a chance and don't overreact or overthink preseason. Go Hawks. Lacy will rush for 1,100 and 10TDs. Bend the knee.
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11368
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • HawkGA wrote:This is what is wrong with the media and the internet. A writer attempts to troll a topic and you guys reward him with 3 pages of posts discussing it so far.


    Heaven's to betsy, when will we ever free ourselves from the desire to be social animals.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2997
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • It's just an opinion, like every other opinion on a message board. They would be a 5, maybe 6 win team w/out him back there. Hopefully we don't have to find out any time soon :D
    Have a great weekend. Go Hawks!
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • HawkGA wrote:This is what is wrong with the media and the internet. A writer attempts to troll a topic and you guys reward him with 3 pages of posts discussing it so far.


    LOL...so says the guy with 105,000 posts. :D
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5081
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Holy crap, 105 thousand? Pow
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9780
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • HawkGA wrote:
    Hasselbeck wrote:I would love to see a GM with stones elect to trade a top tier QB for a high draft pick with hopes they can develop a new QB on a much smaller salary. I just don't think such a GM exists. You whiff on a move like that and you lose your job.

    If the Browns called and offered the #4 and some other fun bells and whistles for Russ with Sam Darnold on the board though, that would be crazy tempting. I HIGHLY doubt it would ever happen. But it would be tempting.


    What are the success rates with even first round QBs? I'm thinking well under 50%. That's not stones. That's stupid. About the only time something like that makes sense is Montana with Young in the wings. Even then you don't know if Young has what it takes, but you do know Montana is at the end of the road. Can't remember if Favre was traded out of GB or how that went down, but that would be another case of it potentially working.


    Montana/Young/Favre are irrelevant to this. For starters, QB's weren't making the money they do now. By the time Russ' deal is up, you're looking at a minimum of $30M a year for one guy. Times have drastically changed.

    As far as QB success .. Nick Foles just won a Super Bowl. Blake Bortles narrowly missed getting to one. Tyrod Taylor got to the playoffs. The Vikings used a trio of game managers to get to the NFC Championship. The common thread here (well maybe not in the Bills case but the others) is that they had cheaper QB's that allowed them to load up at other positions.

    None of those guys are special players. I think Russ is better than all of them. But this logic doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO. Aaron Rodgers is one of the best QB's to ever play this game and has won as many Super Bowls as Joe Flacco. I get that your chances to win a title go up with better QB play, but lots of really good QB's did not win very many Super Bowls (Tom Brady and Montana account for nearly 20% of the Super Bowls won).

    I will agree though that a lot of people would shy away from rolling the dice on a younger/cheaper alternative with a Top 10 QB already on the roster, and a lot of people would call it stupid. Coaches and GM's tend to stick to safer alternatives when their careers are at stake. I would love to see it though .. if it blows up you obviously look like the biggest dummy in the world, but if it doesn't? Well, you may have very well set up your franchise for sustained runs at championships.

    Again - I give such a scenario, especially involving Russ, about a 0.1% chance of ever happening.. but it's always intrigued me in this day and age of wild QB salaries.
    ImTheScientist wrote:This guy is the closest thing to beast mode we will ever see. You got a glimpse of that yesterday. He was instantly my favorite player when they signed him. Give the dude a chance and don't overreact or overthink preseason. Go Hawks. Lacy will rush for 1,100 and 10TDs. Bend the knee.
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11368
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Holy crap, 105 thousand? Pow


    Ya, I think he failed to remember "it's my quarterback man"...... :twisted:

    Image
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5081
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    vin.couve12 wrote:There are a lot of bottom line statements in this thread, but the real bottom line is that this subject is about the Seattle Seahawks, not Russell Wilson.


    Are you sure about that?

    Yeah. It doesn't have much to do with what RW has done with the exception that we know some tendancies. As far as I'm concerned, this is about a 30 million dollar contract viability two years from now when his athletic ability starts to fade.

    Two years from now he needs to be a pure pocket passer or that contract is obiously in question. It's that simple. I've advocated against trading him and letting him play out his contract in this very thread.

    Some freak fanboys just get things twisted.
    User avatar
    vin.couve12
    .NET Poster of the Month
     
    Posts: 4488
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:19 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Even with his 1st-3rd-quarter faults well-documented, Russ is still better than the QB hell we'd be leaping into if we traded him. Get him a RB.


    Hypothetically say we moved him before the '17 draft to Cleveland and wound up with Deshaun Watson as his replacement. Would you still feel like they were in "QB hell" with an ultra talented QB on a contract significantly cheaper?
    ImTheScientist wrote:This guy is the closest thing to beast mode we will ever see. You got a glimpse of that yesterday. He was instantly my favorite player when they signed him. Give the dude a chance and don't overreact or overthink preseason. Go Hawks. Lacy will rush for 1,100 and 10TDs. Bend the knee.
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11368
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Given the recent, significant economic change that has occurred at the QB position, I think Thiel's article is very newsworthy.

    I would not trade Russ but a time may come when tough decisions have to be made. I don't think A. Davis is the QB of the future. The bigger question is, does Pete or JS see a QB of the future sitting there at #18. I wouldn't think so but you never know.

    I'm not saying anything good or bad about Russ. All I'm talking about is the economics of the QB position in light of recent deals.
    Tinymac2
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 163
    Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:18 am


  • Hasselbeck wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:
    Hasselbeck wrote:I would love to see a GM with stones elect to trade a top tier QB for a high draft pick with hopes they can develop a new QB on a much smaller salary. I just don't think such a GM exists. You whiff on a move like that and you lose your job.

    If the Browns called and offered the #4 and some other fun bells and whistles for Russ with Sam Darnold on the board though, that would be crazy tempting. I HIGHLY doubt it would ever happen. But it would be tempting.


    What are the success rates with even first round QBs? I'm thinking well under 50%. That's not stones. That's stupid. About the only time something like that makes sense is Montana with Young in the wings. Even then you don't know if Young has what it takes, but you do know Montana is at the end of the road. Can't remember if Favre was traded out of GB or how that went down, but that would be another case of it potentially working.


    Montana/Young/Favre are irrelevant to this. For starters, QB's weren't making the money they do now. By the time Russ' deal is up, you're looking at a minimum of $30M a year for one guy. Times have drastically changed.

    As far as QB success .. Nick Foles just won a Super Bowl. Blake Bortles narrowly missed getting to one. Tyrod Taylor got to the playoffs. The Vikings used a trio of game managers to get to the NFC Championship. The common thread here (well maybe not in the Bills case but the others) is that they had cheaper QB's that allowed them to load up at other positions.

    None of those guys are special players. I think Russ is better than all of them. But this logic doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO. Aaron Rodgers is one of the best QB's to ever play this game and has won as many Super Bowls as Joe Flacco. I get that your chances to win a title go up with better QB play, but lots of really good QB's did not win very many Super Bowls (Tom Brady and Montana account for nearly 20% of the Super Bowls won).

    I will agree though that a lot of people would shy away from rolling the dice on a younger/cheaper alternative with a Top 10 QB already on the roster, and a lot of people would call it stupid. Coaches and GM's tend to stick to safer alternatives when their careers are at stake. I would love to see it though .. if it blows up you obviously look like the biggest dummy in the world, but if it doesn't? Well, you may have very well set up your franchise for sustained runs at championships.

    Again - I give such a scenario, especially involving Russ, about a 0.1% chance of ever happening.. but it's always intrigued me in this day and age of wild QB salaries.


    I think this needs a little more digging - how many playoffs had Foles, Bortles or Tyrod been to before this year? What have the combined playoff appearances been between Brady and Rodgers alone over any time period you define? What if we expand that to Wilson and Big Ben as well?

    I think your analysis, while containing a nugget of insight makes a fundamental mistake of looking at very recent results and making an inference that QBs are fungible when the stalwarts of playoff appearances from 2012-2016 rests in the hands of 4 QBs - Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, Wilson. Venture a guess as to which QBs missed playoff appearances in that time frame? Want to add a little juice to the question and guess how many times that QB missed?

    I propose two alternative explanations:

    1. Winning SBs as a metric of QB value imparted to the team is crude. If we singularly define SBs as the only success (which is great for motivating people but not very...realistic?) then Flacco=Rodgers. That conclusion seems a bit daft when we expand the scope to look at just about anything outside of just SB wins. It would also suggest that Eli Manning > Rodgers which for my sanity rules out SBs as the ultimate measure of QB contributions.

    2. Consistent playoff berths are more valuable than SB wins over time. While Mike McCarthy may take this to the extreme and only coach a team that can get to the playoffs in the NFC North with Rodgers and then they sputter out at some point in the playoffs, the Packers are a keen example of relying on a singularly talented player as a crutch to more robust team building overall.

    Why would I flog my example of consistent playoff births being more valuable than SB wins over time? Because it makes the point - do you think its more likely that Bortles or Taylor or Foles make it back to the playoffs with their respective team than Rodger's led Packers? To wit, over the tenure of their respective careers who do you think will yield more playoff berths - a Packers team with Rodgers as the obvious focal point of the team or those 3 QBs combined not being the focal point? Right now it's not looking great for the combined 3 even if they equal Rodgers in SB wins thanks to Foles carrying the deadweight of Bortles and Taylor.

    The culmination of these two points is this thought - there are several ways to do things in the NFL and there is not a dogmatic 'right' way to do it - circumstance often dictates course. Are the Packers doing it wrong? Well we aren't fans of the team so we can definitely slight them for doing it their own way and failing to achieve the ultimate success but...the aggregate success of the Packers approach eclipses most other teams over the same time period.

    I will qualify that with the reality that stumbling into a Rodgers is not a tenable strategy. Ask the Colts how the Drew Luck and Nothing Else show has worked out for them. But the strategy of enhancing the supporting cast of around Rodgers once he was identified as a legit value adding player hasn't been an unmitigated disaster that many would imagine. Yet relying on a singularly great QB to carry you is brittle as hell if that QB is injured at any point.

    So this becomes a risk management enterprise and appropriately valuing and understanding the individual contributions to the whole thing. To that end, I think the smoking guns of Percy Harvin and Jimmy Graham were far more limiting factors to the entire enterprise than RW's salary. At least RW actually contributes at a baseline above average to his peers while similarly inhabiting a salary space that is average for those who survive their first contract.

    Edit: to clarify my last paragraph, the numerous dead weight mistakes the FO made had a worse impact on the overall team than RWs salary.
    Last edited by mrt144 on Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2997
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • Not bad, but I'd say SB wins and playoff berths are or can be on different planets though. Even SB appearances, in fact.

    A Bills fan of 30 years old or more might say,

    Image

    It had to have been agonizing.

    Edit: I would agree with your lasted edited statement there.
    Last edited by vin.couve12 on Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    User avatar
    vin.couve12
    .NET Poster of the Month
     
    Posts: 4488
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:19 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • vin.couve12 wrote:Not bad, but I'd say SB wins and playoff berths are or can be on different planets though. Even SB appearances, in fact.

    A Bills fan of 30 years old or more might say,

    Image

    It had to have been agonizing.


    It very well could be which would make the method of measure more interesting and important for determining the good long term guts of team building.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2997
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:This is what is wrong with the media and the internet. A writer attempts to troll a topic and you guys reward him with 3 pages of posts discussing it so far.


    LOL...so says the guy with 105,000 posts. :D


    But they're all high quality posts!
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 105224
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


  • Hasselbeck wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:
    Hasselbeck wrote:I would love to see a GM with stones elect to trade a top tier QB for a high draft pick with hopes they can develop a new QB on a much smaller salary. I just don't think such a GM exists. You whiff on a move like that and you lose your job.

    If the Browns called and offered the #4 and some other fun bells and whistles for Russ with Sam Darnold on the board though, that would be crazy tempting. I HIGHLY doubt it would ever happen. But it would be tempting.


    What are the success rates with even first round QBs? I'm thinking well under 50%. That's not stones. That's stupid. About the only time something like that makes sense is Montana with Young in the wings. Even then you don't know if Young has what it takes, but you do know Montana is at the end of the road. Can't remember if Favre was traded out of GB or how that went down, but that would be another case of it potentially working.


    Montana/Young/Favre are irrelevant to this. For starters, QB's weren't making the money they do now. By the time Russ' deal is up, you're looking at a minimum of $30M a year for one guy. Times have drastically changed.

    As far as QB success .. Nick Foles just won a Super Bowl. Blake Bortles narrowly missed getting to one. Tyrod Taylor got to the playoffs. The Vikings used a trio of game managers to get to the NFC Championship. The common thread here (well maybe not in the Bills case but the others) is that they had cheaper QB's that allowed them to load up at other positions.

    None of those guys are special players. I think Russ is better than all of them. But this logic doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO. Aaron Rodgers is one of the best QB's to ever play this game and has won as many Super Bowls as Joe Flacco. I get that your chances to win a title go up with better QB play, but lots of really good QB's did not win very many Super Bowls (Tom Brady and Montana account for nearly 20% of the Super Bowls won).

    I will agree though that a lot of people would shy away from rolling the dice on a younger/cheaper alternative with a Top 10 QB already on the roster, and a lot of people would call it stupid. Coaches and GM's tend to stick to safer alternatives when their careers are at stake. I would love to see it though .. if it blows up you obviously look like the biggest dummy in the world, but if it doesn't? Well, you may have very well set up your franchise for sustained runs at championships.

    Again - I give such a scenario, especially involving Russ, about a 0.1% chance of ever happening.. but it's always intrigued me in this day and age of wild QB salaries.


    Well now this is a good point. I said in another thread in the NFL Forum about Jimmy G's contract with the 9ers that I think Super Bowls are going to start to be won by rookie or first year QBs a lot more frequently for the exact reason you just described.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 105224
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


  • The idea of 30M for one player is seemingly insane. That's anywhere from 3 to 5 pro bowlers at varying other positions.

    It is precisely why this is a question. I once sold my soul as a Network Sales Engineer for two years when I was younger and the ROI at QB is extremely dangerous going forward. It can break you just as easily as make you.
    Last edited by vin.couve12 on Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    vin.couve12
    .NET Poster of the Month
     
    Posts: 4488
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:19 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:1. Trading Russ would be a next level stupid move.
    2. They don't even GET to the Super Bowl w/out him.
    3. Trade Russ and get ready for 6 or 7 win teams, if that.
    Kirk Cousins over Russ? What has Cousins ever won?
    Put down the pipe and slowly step away from the keyboard. :roll:



    I was with you up until you said "slowly step away..."
    I say "step away from the keyboard, throw a bunch of hard, pointy shit on the floor, turn of the lights, put on a blind fold, then run BACK to your keyboard. Hopefully nature and statistical data 'wins the race'.
    Love, Peace & Elbow Grease. Let's ROLL, Hawks!
    hgwellz12
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2543
    Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:17 pm


  • Without Russ they are the Brows straight up. Heck the Browns have a better Oline so they can at least run the ball. The amount of people who try to blame Russ for the shortcomings of playcalling and the oline is insane. The NFC championship Rodgers had multiple picks and Russ had multiple balls hit Kearse in the hands he would flub the catch and the Packers would pick it. Next up the Carolina game. Lynch straight up ran the wrong route and Russ threw the ball where he should have been because it was a timing route instead of an actual read. Gosh where has that burned us before :pukeface:

    I almost wish they would trade Russ for 1 33 two firsts and two seconds. Put him on the Browns and they are a championship contender instantly then maybe people here would realize what the Hawks had.
    randomation
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1235
    Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:35 pm


  • Hasselbeck wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:Even with his 1st-3rd-quarter faults well-documented, Russ is still better than the QB hell we'd be leaping into if we traded him. Get him a RB.


    Hypothetically say we moved him before the '17 draft to Cleveland and wound up with Deshaun Watson as his replacement. Would you still feel like they were in "QB hell" with an ultra talented QB on a contract significantly cheaper?


    No.

    But I made my post under the assumption that DeShaun Watson wasn't on our roster. That hasn't changed, has it? I admit I haven't been checking in as much lately...
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15765
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • vin.couve12 wrote:The idea of 30M for one player is seemingly insane. That's anywhere from 3 to 5 pro bowlers at varying other positions.


    It especially is for a QB that you're not really making the focal point of your offense.

    Which is why this is a debate on Russell. Not many people are debating that Russell's a great football player, and a great QB. But if Pete is doubling down on the pound the rock ball control run game, why would we pay our QB 25-30M a year sucking up that much cap space.

    Yes you pay guys like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Ryan, etc that kind of money because they are the focal points of their offenses.

    This is why our offense has been in this limbo ever since Russell got paid, it's been a tug of war between trying to make the offense work while paying the defense vs. wanting to run the ball when your QB is sucking up 50% of the cap space for the offense.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13065
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    vin.couve12 wrote:The idea of 30M for one player is seemingly insane. That's anywhere from 3 to 5 pro bowlers at varying other positions.


    It especially is for a QB that you're not really making the focal point of your offense.

    Which is why this is a debate on Russell. Not many people are debating that Russell's a great football player, and a great QB. But if Pete is doubling down on the pound the rock ball control run game, why would we pay our QB 25-30M a year sucking up that much cap space.

    Yes you pay guys like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Ryan, etc that kind of money because they are the focal points of their offenses.

    This is why our offense has been in this limbo ever since Russell got paid, it's been a tug of war between trying to make the offense work while paying the defense vs. wanting to run the ball when your QB is sucking up 50% of the cap space for the offense.


    And I'll say it again - RW's salary would be fine if they hadn't blown it with two trades and a spate of free agency signings and dubious draft picks. All RW's increased salary did was take away the wiggle room on blowing it multiple times. His salary alone doesn't explain why these additions failed to take well.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2997
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Hasselbeck wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:Even with his 1st-3rd-quarter faults well-documented, Russ is still better than the QB hell we'd be leaping into if we traded him. Get him a RB.


    Hypothetically say we moved him before the '17 draft to Cleveland and wound up with Deshaun Watson as his replacement. Would you still feel like they were in "QB hell" with an ultra talented QB on a contract significantly cheaper?


    No.

    But I made my post under the assumption that DeShaun Watson wasn't on our roster. That hasn't changed, has it? I admit I haven't been checking in as much lately...


    Your assumption is in the event Russell were moved, the QB we would have would be terrible and sentence this team to a decade of losing. Fact is, we cannot really assume either hitting a home run and finding a cheaper QB to take over or the idea that Wilson would be replaced with some stiff that would be terrible.

    I feel like this team would be as likely to land a Watson type rookie as they would a guy that would flop.
    ImTheScientist wrote:This guy is the closest thing to beast mode we will ever see. You got a glimpse of that yesterday. He was instantly my favorite player when they signed him. Give the dude a chance and don't overreact or overthink preseason. Go Hawks. Lacy will rush for 1,100 and 10TDs. Bend the knee.
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11368
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • randomation wrote:I almost wish they would trade Russ for 1 33 two firsts and two seconds. Put him on the Browns and they are a championship contender instantly then maybe people here would realize what the Hawks had.


    I do too. That would be an amazing haul for him, and he'd be out of the conference and would rarely be a threat to us.

    In reality though, the Browns will draft a QB .. probably ruin him forever (RIP Sam Darnold's career) .. and we will pay Wilson 30M a year and go 9-7/10-6 more often than not.
    ImTheScientist wrote:This guy is the closest thing to beast mode we will ever see. You got a glimpse of that yesterday. He was instantly my favorite player when they signed him. Give the dude a chance and don't overreact or overthink preseason. Go Hawks. Lacy will rush for 1,100 and 10TDs. Bend the knee.
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11368
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Love RW, but $30M a season? Would rather get a king's ransom from a team like the Browns for him if that's going to be his cap hit.
    massari
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1274
    Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:58 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    vin.couve12 wrote:The idea of 30M for one player is seemingly insane. That's anywhere from 3 to 5 pro bowlers at varying other positions.


    It especially is for a QB that you're not really making the focal point of your offense.

    Which is why this is a debate on Russell. Not many people are debating that Russell's a great football player, and a great QB. But if Pete is doubling down on the pound the rock ball control run game, why would we pay our QB 25-30M a year sucking up that much cap space.

    Yes you pay guys like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Ryan, etc that kind of money because they are the focal points of their offenses.

    This is why our offense has been in this limbo ever since Russell got paid, it's been a tug of war between trying to make the offense work while paying the defense vs. wanting to run the ball when your QB is sucking up 50% of the cap space for the offense.


    First off, Wilson makes 34% of the total offense cap WITHOUT Graham on there and he also has the 7th highest cap hit in the league right now. So throw out that exaggeration. 2nd. I keep hearing this term "focal point". Which means exactly what? How would we know when he is? Was he in 2nd half of 2015? Another term being tossed around that nobody can really define or substantiate even if he were. Don't ever expect Pete to become Sean Peyton, and remember that Wilson helps the run game too, in fact he was the run game last year. 80% + of the TDs, your top rusher, and 17 yards short of 4000 passing yards for the year and he's not our "focal point"?

    I suspect a compromise can be had. Bring in a strong screen game (that has worked well here with very little effort or priority given to it), and that alone could swing the passing stats and help the run game and pass rush as well. Schotty is said to do well with that, and that is my hope to help get us on track.
    Last edited by Seymour on Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5081
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    vin.couve12 wrote:The idea of 30M for one player is seemingly insane. That's anywhere from 3 to 5 pro bowlers at varying other positions.


    It especially is for a QB that you're not really making the focal point of your offense.

    Which is why this is a debate on Russell. Not many people are debating that Russell's a great football player, and a great QB. But if Pete is doubling down on the pound the rock ball control run game, why would we pay our QB 25-30M a year sucking up that much cap space.

    Yes you pay guys like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Ryan, etc that kind of money because they are the focal points of their offenses.

    This is why our offense has been in this limbo ever since Russell got paid, it's been a tug of war between trying to make the offense work while paying the defense vs. wanting to run the ball when your QB is sucking up 50% of the cap space for the offense.


    First off, Wilson makes 34% of the total offense cap WITHOUT Graham on there and he also has the 7th highest cap hit in the league right now. So throw out that exaggeration. 2nd. I keep hearing this term "focal point". Which means exactly what? How would we know when he is? Was he in 2nd half of 2015? Another term being tossed around that nobody can really define or substantiate even if he were. Don't ever expect Pete to become Sean Peyton, and remember that Wilson helps the run game too.

    I suspect a compromise can be had. Bring in a strong screen game (that has worked well here with very little effort or priority given to it), and that alone could swing the passing stats and help the run game and pass rush as well. Schotty is said to do well with that, and that is my hope to help get us on track.


    Focal point means just that, the offensive playcalling and scheme goes through the QB...........and yes out of necessity that's what happened last year, Russell was the focal point because the run game and line was so terrible.............and it didn't work out very well.

    Thus the concerted effort by Pete to fix the run game.

    I'm not arguing with you Seymour, it might work paying Russell 25-30M, and I'm in no way saying get rid of him. I'm saying that's the philosophical discussion that needs to be had.....................if you want to run the ball, control the clock, then is it wise to pay your QB to throw it maybe 20 times.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13065
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    vin.couve12 wrote:The idea of 30M for one player is seemingly insane. That's anywhere from 3 to 5 pro bowlers at varying other positions.


    It especially is for a QB that you're not really making the focal point of your offense.

    Which is why this is a debate on Russell. Not many people are debating that Russell's a great football player, and a great QB. But if Pete is doubling down on the pound the rock ball control run game, why would we pay our QB 25-30M a year sucking up that much cap space.

    Yes you pay guys like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Ryan, etc that kind of money because they are the focal points of their offenses.

    This is why our offense has been in this limbo ever since Russell got paid, it's been a tug of war between trying to make the offense work while paying the defense vs. wanting to run the ball when your QB is sucking up 50% of the cap space for the offense.


    First off, Wilson makes 34% of the total offense cap WITHOUT Graham on there and he also has the 7th highest cap hit in the league right now. So throw out that exaggeration. 2nd. I keep hearing this term "focal point". Which means exactly what? How would we know when he is? Was he in 2nd half of 2015? Another term being tossed around that nobody can really define or substantiate even if he were. Don't ever expect Pete to become Sean Peyton, and remember that Wilson helps the run game too.

    I suspect a compromise can be had. Bring in a strong screen game (that has worked well here with very little effort or priority given to it), and that alone could swing the passing stats and help the run game and pass rush as well. Schotty is said to do well with that, and that is my hope to help get us on track.


    Focal point means just that, the offensive playcalling and scheme goes through the QB...........and yes out of necessity that's what happened last year, Russell was the focal point because the run game and line was so terrible.............and it didn't work out very well.

    Thus the concerted effort by Pete to fix the run game.

    I'm not arguing with you Seymour, it might work paying Russell 25-30M, and I'm in no way saying get rid of him. I'm saying that's the philosophical discussion that needs to be had.....................if you want to run the ball, control the clock, then is it wise to pay your QB to throw it maybe 20 times.


    Well in trying to convince you, I am also trying to convince myself as well. :twisted:
    I think there is no doubt a limit to what we pay Wilson....and that is very close to the 30M figure. That is why this is a discussion, not so much because of Wilson's "shortcomings" that come with every QB that get tossed around here so much.
    Give him an average blocking oline and some help with play calling and things should change on offense I think. That oline should also help stop the carousel of RB's getting funneled through here wasting even more team resource.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5081
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Well if he is 85 percent of the offense he should get paid right?

    Numerous mediots are stating he is underpaid for his performance, after all Grab a Ho is getting paid more and he has not done anything in the league yet.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24368
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Where's the evidence that Russ has been bad in the first half his entire career? I said previously he had a better passer rating in the first half than the second half just last year. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a better career passer rating in the fourth than the first, but I doubt he has a really bad passer rating in any quarter overall. This year, he was bad in the first and amazing in the fourth, you'll get no argument from me there, the stats back it up. Is it true overall or was this just a bad year?

    I'm all for paying whatever it takes to keep him. Sure, we can imagine that we trade Russ and get Darnold and he's just as good on a cheap contract, but what's the likelihood of that? Someone brought up the hit rate on first round picks, even top ones. It's not fantastic. How great are Winston, Mariota, and Bortles really doing? I think the first two are really good, but they're going to need extensions soon and their teams haven't accomplished much. Goff and Wentz look damn good and so does Watson. Paxton Lynch looks like a bust, Pat Mahomes hasn't looked great in limited action, and Trubisky is a question mark because his team is so bad. If you really look at it, the only teams who have won or are poised to win the SB with a rookie contract QB are the Rams and Eagles. The other teams are still seasons away from really competing. If you're in the AFC, especially, forget it. If Brady's playing close to the level he played at this year, you have almost no chance.

    You trade Russell Wilson and have to rehaul the defense at the same time? We don't have an established OL (closer to established as crap, but I think it's looking up), question marks at TE, we have no idea what we have at RB, and Doug is our only surefire receiver (PRich might leave and Lockett is playing for a contract next season). You bring in a new QB and he's in the same situation as Trubisky (much better receivers, worse OL, worse RBs). Unless you're bringing in Andrew Luck 2.0 or have a really good offensive coaching staff, you won't have a championship-caliber offense for years! That's assuming we can get the defense back to championship-level in two years.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2900
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • adeltaY wrote:Where's the evidence that Russ has been bad in the first half his entire career? I said previously he had a better passer rating in the first half than the second half just last year.


    No he doesn't, 78.0 passer rating in first half, 112.00 rating in 2nd half.

    http://www.nfl.com/player/russellwilson ... ionalstats

    This isn't news, Russell's first to second half stats are night and day, and they have been his entire career. Just go through year by year on this site.

    Also not news is that he's a rhythm/tempo QB that needs to run around, get the tempo going and get those first 5-10 passes out of the way to try and find a rhythm.

    The question every year is how do we get Russell in rhythm and tempo quicker? Or can we?
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13065
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:Where's the evidence that Russ has been bad in the first half his entire career? I said previously he had a better passer rating in the first half than the second half just last year.


    No he doesn't, 78.0 passer rating in first half, 112.00 rating in 2nd half.

    http://www.nfl.com/player/russellwilson ... ionalstats

    This isn't news, Russell's first to second half stats are night and day, and they have been his entire career. Just go through year by year on this site.

    Also not news is that he's a rhythm/tempo QB that needs to run around, get the tempo going and get those first 5-10 passes out of the way to try and find a rhythm.

    The question every year is how do we get Russell in rhythm and tempo quicker? Or can we?


    I meant 2016 by last year, my bad. Here's the rest, with rounding.

    2012: 106/93
    2013: 106/96
    2014: 91/95
    2015: 101/111
    2016: 97/89
    2017: 78/112

    So, you can see that he was rated higher in the first half in three seasons and higher in the second half the other three. The major outlier is this past season. Everything else is good to great. You're 100% correct if we're talking about this season. He clearly started games off poorly and improved as he threw more. I think this comes down to coaching and holding him accountable. Call better plays early and convince him to take more risks or chew his ass out if he doesn't play well. Whatever it takes.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2900
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • adeltaY wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:Where's the evidence that Russ has been bad in the first half his entire career? I said previously he had a better passer rating in the first half than the second half just last year.


    No he doesn't, 78.0 passer rating in first half, 112.00 rating in 2nd half.

    http://www.nfl.com/player/russellwilson ... ionalstats

    This isn't news, Russell's first to second half stats are night and day, and they have been his entire career. Just go through year by year on this site.

    Also not news is that he's a rhythm/tempo QB that needs to run around, get the tempo going and get those first 5-10 passes out of the way to try and find a rhythm.

    The question every year is how do we get Russell in rhythm and tempo quicker? Or can we?


    I meant 2016 by last year, my bad.


    2016 is an outlier cause of Russell's injuries IMO, all his stats dropped.

    idk, good discussion. I love Russell, dude's a baller, and those are hard to find. My hope is if we can at least get an above average run game going, and he can get back to making plays when we need them, and not have to carry the offense getting pounded.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13065
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:Where's the evidence that Russ has been bad in the first half his entire career? I said previously he had a better passer rating in the first half than the second half just last year.


    No he doesn't, 78.0 passer rating in first half, 112.00 rating in 2nd half.

    http://www.nfl.com/player/russellwilson ... ionalstats

    This isn't news, Russell's first to second half stats are night and day, and they have been his entire career. Just go through year by year on this site.

    Also not news is that he's a rhythm/tempo QB that needs to run around, get the tempo going and get those first 5-10 passes out of the way to try and find a rhythm.

    The question every year is how do we get Russell in rhythm and tempo quicker? Or can we?


    I meant 2016 by last year, my bad.


    2016 is an outlier cause of Russell's injuries IMO, all his stats dropped.

    idk, good discussion. I love Russell, dude's a baller, and those are hard to find. My hope is if we can at least get an above average run game going, and he can get back to making plays when we need them, and not have to carry the offense getting pounded.


    We can finally discombobulate how much of this was due to Bevell and Cable falling into the abyss of their own beliefs on what works.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2997
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    We can finally discombobulate how much of this was due to Bevell and Cable falling into the abyss of their own beliefs on what works.


    Doubt it, first loss you'll see Fire Schottenheimer/Solari posts because they weren't the "right" coordinators.

    Maybe we'll see some subtle scheme and playcalling changes, but like I said even before Bevell and Cable were fired, this is Pete's team..............so doubt we'll even be able to notice a big scheme or playcalling difference.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13065
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:43 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online