Holmgren:‘Huge mistake’ if RW doesn’t sign ‘very fair' offer

[onanygivensunday]

They've got Russ under contract for the next year for a ridiculously low amount -- he'll be making less than 10% of the salary of his quarterback peers.

Even if RW doesn't sign next year, they can franchise tag him for a lot less than what he is allegedly asking. And the year after that, they could still franchise tag him. . .not to mention using a non-exclusive tag and maybe getting a couple of first round draft picks, which, of course, would cost a whole lot less to sign.

Consider this for a moment.

Let's assume Wilson plays out his rookie contract at $1.5M this year.

In all likelihood, Wilson and the team are unable to reach an agreement next spring... so we franchise him.

He refuses to sign the franchise tag tender... and holds out through training camp for a "Cannot franchise me again" clause in his one-year contract... the team caves... and guess what???... Mark Rodgers and Russell get their wish by getting him to UFA for the 2017 season.

Isn't this exactly what Rodgers has been saying all along?????

 

[Narniaman]

Even if RW doesn't sign next year, they can franchise tag him for a lot less than what he is allegedly asking.

Exclusive franchise tag for next year is right now over $25 million or over 15% of the cap.

Hmm. . .interesting. . .

From USA Today. . ."With slight variations to the calculus, the tag is basically worth the average of the top five salaries at the player's position."

From the same article, the franchise tag for 2015 for quarterbacks was about $18.5 million dollars.

So that means according to HawkNation2015, by next year the average salary of the top five quarterbacks will go up by $6.5 million dollars to . . . $25 million dollars.

So if what we're hearing about the supposed Seahawk salary offers is true, they want Russell Wilson to be paid considerably less than a top five quarterback???

 

[hawknation2015]

Even if RW doesn't sign next year, they can franchise tag him for a lot less than what he is allegedly asking.

Exclusive franchise tag for next year is right now over $25 million or over 15% of the cap.

Hmm. . .interesting. . .

From USA Today. . ."With slight variations to the calculus, the tag is basically worth the average of the top five salaries at the player's position."

From the same article, the franchise tag for 2015 for quarterbacks was about $18.5 million dollars.

So that means according to HawkNation2015, by next year the average salary of the top five quarterbacks will go up by $6.5 million dollars to . . . $25 million dollars.

So if what we're hearing about the supposed Seahawk salary offers is true, they want Russell Wilson to be paid considerably less than a top five quarterback???

That's money in one given year. For example, Flacco's average is only $20.1 million -- much less than the Seahawks are rumored to have offered Russell -- but his cap hit next year will be $28.55 million unless he restructures.

This article shows the unusually high increase in the exclusive franchise tag for the QB position next year:
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -contract/

 

[lukerguy]

I am under the opinion that Wilson should not be the highest paid player. He is not better than Rodgers. However, devil's advocate says that Russell signed 2 years after Rodgers, and is 5 years younger. Rodgers sat for 3 years, so pretty much the only way we can start comparing the two will be based on Wilson's stats between now and the next 5 years. I would put my money on Wilson, but I really hope we can stop all this soon.

 

[Narniaman]

Even if RW doesn't sign next year, they can franchise tag him for a lot less than what he is allegedly asking.

Exclusive franchise tag for next year is right now over $25 million or over 15% of the cap.

Hmm. . .interesting. . .

From USA Today. . ."With slight variations to the calculus, the tag is basically worth the average of the top five salaries at the player's position."

From the same article, the franchise tag for 2015 for quarterbacks was about $18.5 million dollars.

So that means according to HawkNation2015, by next year the average salary of the top five quarterbacks will go up by $6.5 million dollars to . . . $25 million dollars.

So if what we're hearing about the supposed Seahawk salary offers is true, they want Russell Wilson to be paid considerably less than a top five quarterback???

That's money in one given year. For example, Flacco's average is only $20.1 million -- much less than the Seahawks are rumored to have offered Russell -- but his cap hit next year will be $28.55 million unless he restructures.

This article shows the unusually high increase in the exclusive franchise tag for the QB position next year:
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -contract/

Well I might be wrong, but it looks to me like the reason Flacco's salary is only $20.1 million dollars and his cap hit next year is $28.55 million -- is the extra $8.45 million was part of the bonus that he received in year 1 of his contract.

In other words. . . . . his compensation for next year is actually -- what the cap hit is. He just got part of the money in year one under the name "bonus" rather than "salary".

So what the Seahawks are allegedly offering Wilson is about $6 million less in actual compensation than what Flacco, who is rated maybe the #8 quarterback in the league or so, receives. . . .

 

[hawknation2015]

Exclusive franchise tag for next year is right now over $25 million or over 15% of the cap.

Hmm. . .interesting. . .

From USA Today. . ."With slight variations to the calculus, the tag is basically worth the average of the top five salaries at the player's position."

From the same article, the franchise tag for 2015 for quarterbacks was about $18.5 million dollars.

So that means according to HawkNation2015, by next year the average salary of the top five quarterbacks will go up by $6.5 million dollars to . . . $25 million dollars.

So if what we're hearing about the supposed Seahawk salary offers is true, they want Russell Wilson to be paid considerably less than a top five quarterback???

That's money in one given year. For example, Flacco's average is only $20.1 million -- much less than the Seahawks are rumored to have offered Russell -- but his cap hit next year will be $28.55 million unless he restructures.

This article shows the unusually high increase in the exclusive franchise tag for the QB position next year:
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... -contract/

Well I might be wrong, but it looks to me like the reason Flacco's salary is only $20.1 million dollars and his cap hit next year is $28.55 million -- is the extra $8.45 million was part of the bonus that he received in year 1 of his contract.

In other words. . . . . his compensation for next year is actually -- what the cap hit is. He just got part of the money in year one under the name "bonus" rather than "salary".

So what the Seahawks are allegedly offering Wilson is about $6 million less in actual compensation than what Flacco, who is rated maybe the #8 quarterback in the league or so, receives. . . .

No, I think you are confusing several different issues here.

Flacco's average salary of $20.1 million per year includes his $29 million signing bonus. The reason his cap hit is so much higher next year, than it has been for the first three years of the deal, is because the Ravens pushed off most of the compensation until the final two years of the deal.

That is going to create an extremely difficult situation for them next season if Flacco does not restructure. The same thing happened to the Saints with Drew Brees . . . they too elected to push off most of his salary until the final two years of the deal. Even though his average salary is only $20 million, they owe him $26.4 million this year, hence their need to trade away some of their best players like Jimmy Graham. Needless to say, that's not a good way to allocate an extension, because if the QB does not restructure, the team eventually has to pay the piper.

Ideally, Russell would take a ~$30 million signing bonus this year, allowing the team to pay him a higher average than any other player in the league ($22+ million APY), while at the same time keeping his cap hits to 13% or less going forward. That way, you don't end up in a disastrous situation like the Saints are in now, and like the Ravens will be in a year from now.

 

[kearly]

Holmgren's QB biases obviously flavor his opinion here. There are many head coaches around the league who undervalue Russ due to the fact that he is not a prototypical QB, and Holmgren in particular was more irritated by sandlot play than most.

I disagree with Holmgren's judgement regarding the decision to wait. It is very unlikely that Wilson would make as much money today than he would waiting until after Luck signs his deal next year.

That said, if I were in Holmgren's position and asked that question, I would probably side with the team as well. Siding with the player only makes the negotiations even tougher for the Seahawks brass and would contribute in a negative way to the negotiation process.

Even though I think Wilson's demands are completely logical, I am, like every fan, rooting for the FO to get the 'cheapest' deal they possibly can. So for that, I'm glad for Holmgren's comments.

 

[HawkGA]

I kind of think the Seahawks should give Wilson what he is asking for, but with the stipulation that he make a list of the players for them to cut to be able to afford his salary. This whole "get yours" attitude is fine and all but let's face it, however much he gets isn't going to affect how much money the team spends on players. He's not getting more of Paul Allen's money. Likely, he's getting Mebane's money. Maybe Okung's money.

 

[Tical21]

Holmgren's QB biases obviously flavor his opinion here. There are many head coaches around the league who undervalue Russ due to the fact that he is not a prototypical QB, and Holmgren in particular was more irritated by sandlot play than most.

I disagree with Holmgren's judgement regarding the decision to wait. It is very unlikely that Wilson would make as much money today than he would waiting until after Luck signs his deal next year.

That said, if I were in Holmgren's position and asked that question, I would probably side with the team as well. Siding with the player only makes the negotiations even tougher for the Seahawks brass and would contribute in a negative way to the negotiation process.

Even though I think Wilson's demands are completely logical, I am, like every fan, rooting for the FO to get the 'cheapest' deal they possibly can. So for that, I'm glad for Holmgren's comments.

Agreed on a lot of points here. I also know that while there are some things about Wilson that Holmgren absolutely loves, he certainly wishes there was more emphasis on the class part of being a passer.

I just have a gut feeling that Luck's deal isn't going to be the game-changer that many are anticipating. There will be a lot of pressure on him by agent and peers to take a huge deal, so I don't think he's going to come cheap by any means, but relative to what he could get, I think his deal is going to be pretty friendly. If he takes a deal a little bit more similar to the one Rodgers has now, where does that leave Russell? I just don't know that waiting for Luck is necessarily going to raise Russell's dollar value much, if any.

This season is going to be so weird if he doesn't have a deal in place. Every throw he makes is going to be under a microscope. I am not sure I like the feeling of that.

 

[Tical21]

I kind of think the Seahawks should give Wilson what he is asking for, but with the stipulation that he make a list of the players for them to cut to be able to afford his salary. This whole "get yours" attitude is fine and all but let's face it, however much he gets isn't going to affect how much money the team spends on players. He's not getting more of Paul Allen's money. Likely, he's getting Mebane's money. Maybe Okung's money.

Maybe Lynch's money. "Okay, Russ, we'll give you your 25 million, but you're going to have to play without Marshawn after this season." Does that change anything? At the least it is amusing to ponder.

 

[hawknation2015]

My feeling is that Luck is too much of a forward thinker to put his team in a disastrous footing with the salary cap, so I expect he will sign whatever fair extension the Colts offer him . . . in the same way that Rodgers signed for a top average per year but allowed it to be team friendly. His cap hits have stayed at 13% or less.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I kind of think the Seahawks should give Wilson what he is asking for, but with the stipulation that he make a list of the players for them to cut to be able to afford his salary. This whole "get yours" attitude is fine and all but let's face it, however much he gets isn't going to affect how much money the team spends on players. He's not getting more of Paul Allen's money. Likely, he's getting Mebane's money. Maybe Okung's money.

Maybe Lynch's money. "Okay, Russ, we'll give you your 25 million, but you're going to have to play without Marshawn after this season." Does that change anything? At the least it is amusing to ponder.

RW: Who is this Martian they are talking about?

Team: Marshawn..LYNCH...the dude ya hand the ball off to.

Oh..uh....I can run. :mrgreen: :twisted: :stirthepot:

 

[DavidSeven]

Everyone says Aaron Rodgers signed his deal two years ago so it doesn't work as a benchmark, yet they ignore the fact that Ben Roethlisberger, a legitimate top-5 QB, just signed a deal for less than Aaron Rodgers money this offseason.

So, forget the Rodgers example. Should Seattle be offering Russ substantially more than what PIT just signed Big Ben to? If so, why? Ben ain't ancient. He's got plenty of years left and is coming off one of his best seasons.

 

[TheRealDTM]

I wish we would have traded wilson for mariota

 

[erik2690]

I wish we would have traded wilson for mariota

These hot takes are getting bad.

Just to be clear, I think Mariota could be awesome, but being high on trading a known for unknown seems wild.

 

[erik2690]

Everyone says Aaron Rodgers signed his deal two years ago so it doesn't work as a benchmark, yet they ignore the fact that Ben Roethlisberger, a legitimate top-5 QB, just signed a deal for less than Aaron Rodgers money this offseason.

So, forget the Rodgers example. Should Seattle be offering Russ substantially more than what PIT just signed Big Ben to? If so, why? Ben ain't ancient. He's got plenty of years left and is coming off one of his best seasons.

I can certainly understand the logic, but there are clear differences. This was not Ben's first opportunity to make big money. He was a first round pick 10 plus years ago, many QB's take less money as time goes by, not as many seemingly do on their first extension. He's also 7 years older than RW which is a difference, how big a difference is debatable, but it is a difference. Also, this is a bit more of an odd theory, but 10 years in and last year he had crazy good offensive weapons around him. The mindset of a Big Ben, veteran with maybe some of the best weapons on offense of his career might just naturally have a different mindset than RW in his 4th year who hasn't had the big weapons outside of beast until this year. They just might naturally be on different wavelengths. That's a bit of a shot in the dark. I think the easiest thing to point to is the 100 mil that Ben already has behind him. That just seems like it would play a factor whether it should or not. Cam is the better market comparison over Ben because it's his first extension, younger guy.

So I get your point, but there are differences.

 

[DavidSeven]

Everyone says Aaron Rodgers signed his deal two years ago so it doesn't work as a benchmark, yet they ignore the fact that Ben Roethlisberger, a legitimate top-5 QB, just signed a deal for less than Aaron Rodgers money this offseason.

So, forget the Rodgers example. Should Seattle be offering Russ substantially more than what PIT just signed Big Ben to? If so, why? Ben ain't ancient. He's got plenty of years left and is coming off one of his best seasons.

I can certainly understand the logic, but there are clear differences. This was not Ben's first opportunity to make big money. He was a first round pick 10 plus years ago, many QB's take less money as time goes by, not as many seemingly do on their first extension. He's also 7 years older than RW which is a difference, how big a difference is debatable, but it is a difference. Also, this is a bit more of an odd theory, but 10 years in and last year he had crazy good offensive weapons around him. The mindset of a Big Ben, veteran with maybe some of the best weapons on offense of his career might just naturally have a different mindset than RW in his 4th year who hasn't had the big weapons outside of beast until this year. They just might naturally be on different wavelengths. That's a bit of a shot in the dark. I think the easiest thing to point to is the 100 mil that Ben already has behind him. That just seems like it would play a factor whether it should or not. Cam is the better market comparison over Ben because it's his first extension, younger guy.

So I get your point, but there are differences.

Fair points, but your reasoning mostly accounts for Russell's mindset rather than what is objectively a fair offer irrespective of what he thinks he's "owed" for playing on a cheap deal for a few years. I agree the fact that Russell is younger has some value but I think you account for that by giving him more in guarantees (but not the moon). Russell also plays a more dangerous style than Ben so that could arguably be factored in to his detriment as well.

At this point, I get that Russell's mindset has himself as the most valuable player in the NFL by some large margin. I'm more interested in what is actually fair and reasonable based on what other people are signing. Not expecting a discount. Just a commitment at market rates.

 

[erik2690]

Fair points, but your reasoning mostly accounts for Russell's mindset rather than what is objectively a fair offer irrespective of what he thinks he's "owed" for playing on a cheap deal for a few years. I agree the fact that Russell is younger has some value but I think you account for that by giving him more in guarantees (but not the moon). Russell also plays a more dangerous style than Ben so that could arguably be factored in to his detriment as well.

At this point, I get that Russell's mindset has himself as the most valuable player in the NFL. I'm more interested in what is actually fair and reasonable based on what other people are signing. Not expecting a discount. Just a commitment.

If you compare Early Ben vs. Early RW they both take sacks. Ben's sacks have decreased over time. I'm not sure that should play in very much. I'm fine with the idea of comparisons and debating "fairness" even though it gets a bit abstract at times, but I still don't think Ben is the better comparison vs. Cam. I think determining what is "fair" is pretty tough with any sort of finality or certainty. The market seems to dictate he will get >Cam money. Fairness gets more foggy because Cam has less, Brady has more, Cutler has less and so on.

 

[ctrcat]

^ It's absolutely foggy but that's why agents (even the Bus Cook's, Tom Condon's, David Dunn's, Drew Rosenhaus's, etc.) get paid to not only be pr*cks but to get deals done. Yet here comes this turkey and the chicken (Rodgers) vs egg (RW) debate into the unknown.

 

[idahohawk]

Russell will sign next week when training camp starts and all of this fun debate will be over.

To be honest I think that's the plan all along. .. if he signed earlier, we'd have nothing to talk about and be bored out of our skulls until training camp. At least now we can talk about Russell and then when he signs we can talk about training camp

That's cute.