Is Russell Wilson worth 6 years $129m???

[brimsalabim]

this thread has been a fun read.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

If you don't pay it to him, someone else will. You guys wanna go up against a Russell Wilson led Rams/Cards team while we're rolling with T-Jack or some Matt Flynn clone? How's that going to turn out?

Popeye makes some interesting arguments, but the above quote is exactly why he's worth that extra amount to the Seahawks. Don't think either of those teams wouldn't break the bank to add Wilson to their rosters. Either of those teams with Wilson would have to be in the conversation for Super Bowl contenders, just as Seattle is now.

 

[HansGruber]

I was using past facts to demonstrate the flaw in Tical's thinking, in my opinion, on this one. *shrug*

Fair enough, but that's kind of at the heart of it, as Tical's thinking was presented in the present and future tense.

The past is over. Because of Sherman, Thomas, and Wilson being (IMO) the three most underpaid players in the NFL last year the Hawks will likely never have as good of a chance of winning the Super Bowl in the next decade as they did last year (why it's sooooo great for the fans that they delivered. See: the sad reality for 9ers fans).

With Thomas and Sherman kicking in next year they'll now likely never have as good of a chance of winning a Super Bowl in the next decade as they do this year (and that's a bit diminished, because they've already had to start letting go of the Tates, Reds, Clemons', Browners, and Lanes of the world).

With Wilson then kicking in the year after that they'll likely never have as good of a chance of winning the Super Bowl in the next decade as they do that year (more talent is going to have to go, and replacing talent over time is always a game of roulette).

Just for comparison, any 9ers fan that doesn't realize that in their most likely year to win the Super Bowl in the present era they've ALREADY lost the Super Bowl on the final play and in their second most likely year to win the Super Bowl in the present era they've ALREADY lost the NFCC at the end of the game is just a total homer. And the 9ers so far have done oddly well at reloading, but the salary cap waits for no man. Are they gonna keep on hitting on the Reids and Betheas and Kilgores and Carriers and MIllers and Coxs and Brocks and Williams/Dorseys and Lynchs of the world? That's not too likely, and that's before we even talk about the REAL Pro Bowlers like Justin Smith, Mike Iupati, and Frank Gore rather than just the marginal ones like Goldson and Whitner or important role players like Brown, Walker, Goodwin, Rogers, etc.

As long as Carroll and Wilson are with this team, they will be competitive.

LBs and players on defense are more easily replaced than a franchise QB, so it's the coach's job to find pieces that work once that QB is in place. If you look at the Patriots, that's exactly how they managed to succeed long after everyone thought the salary cap would do them in. Yes, it is harder to win Superbowls, but you can still win.

Compared to the situation in SF, the Seahawks are in a very good position.

 

[Ozzy]

The crux of it is that I never see Wilson as a guy that is going to be able to carve up a defense and make it look easy. I don't think he diagnoses what he is seeing quickly enough or attacks the middle of the defense well enough. He holds onto the ball too long against the blitz rather than finding his hot routes. These things are fine for a young QB, but I just don't see him improving greatly in these areas. He has to work so hard for everything, which is great, but is it sustainable? It would be nice to see him learn how to make things easier on himself.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. The degree of difficulty on most Russell Wilson plays is quite higher than the plays of most -- let's face it -- taller QBs. He likely won't ever be that guy who quick releases in the face of enveloping pass pressure. He won't be the guy who consistently gets his WRs stats in the middle of the field. The reality of playing WR in Seattle is going to be a hard pill to swallow for quite a while. That being said, the dude is special and the best QB this franchise has ever seen by long shot.

What I think your overlooking a bit is the impact that Russell's mobility has on the run game. I think Pete Carroll has "seen the light" in terms of mobile quarterbacks, and I don't think he's ever going back. A guy who can run out on the edge and throw bombs anywhere behind the LOS opens up huge holes in the traditional run game. A QB keeper is also high on "explosive" potential, low on turnover potential. A competent running QB plays into everything Carroll wants out of his offense, and we've already seen him proclaim that a mobile quarterback is the most dangerous element in football.

Look at the QBs that Carroll has brought in since he had his revelation moment with Russell Wilson: BJ Daniels and Terrelle Pryor. Personally, I bet Pete daydreams about what he might've been able to do in his last years at USC if he had a Russell Wilson-type QB. From this point on, I think Pete is always going to want a true athlete at that position and that eliminates a ton of potential alternatives. Guys who can run and throw are going to be taken off the board sooner and sooner. Guys like Russell Wilson (who can manage an offense and run all over the field) are few and far between. Honestly, besides Wilson, Newton and maybe Kaepernick, there may not be any other guys in the league who give Pete exactly what he's looking for. Wilson gives Pete the added bonus of basically being his personality doppelganger in the locker room.

Did you guys not watch the Atlanta playoff game? Or one of dozens end of half drives? He is as capable as anyone to carve up a defense and has multiple times when the situation arises. I couldn't disagree anymore than I do with this statement.

 

[kearly]

You're talking about the 1993 Dallas Cowboys swapping Troy Aikman for Scott Mitchell.
The 1982 San Francisco 49ers swapping Joe Montana for Steve Bartkowski.
The 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers swapping Terry Bradshaw for Steve Grogan.
The 2001 NE Patriots swapping Tom Brady for Quincy Carter.

I know you're not arguing that we get rid of Russell Wilson, or not pay him. Just putting the move into perspective. This is literally what would be the equivalent of Tical's completely failed logic.

Completely agree.

And even if they swapped out Wilson for an attainable QB like Alex Smith, they'd still have to pay him $17 million a year. Hardly any savings.

The irony is that right now, the elite QBs are some of the biggest bargains in the sport.

 

[AROS]

Pay Him. Whatever. He. Wants.

 

[McGruff]

You're talking about the 1993 Dallas Cowboys swapping Troy Aikman for Scott Mitchell.
The 1982 San Francisco 49ers swapping Joe Montana for Steve Bartkowski.
The 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers swapping Terry Bradshaw for Steve Grogan.
The 2001 NE Patriots swapping Tom Brady for Quincy Carter.

I know you're not arguing that we get rid of Russell Wilson, or not pay him. Just putting the move into perspective. This is literally what would be the equivalent of Tical's completely failed logic.

Completely agree.

And even if they swapped out Wilson for an attainable QB like Alex Smith, they'd still have to pay him $17 million a year. Hardly any savings.

The irony is that right now, the elite QBs are some of the biggest bargains in the sport.

Excellent point. When the difference between Russell Wilson and Alex Smith is the difference between 17 million and 21 million . . . you pay the 21.

 

[Popeyejones]

As long as Carroll and Wilson are with this team, they will be competitive....


If you look at the Patriots, that's exactly how they managed to succeed long after everyone thought the salary cap would do them in. Yes, it is harder to win Superbowls, but you can still win.

The Patriots! That's a great example!

If you want to stay competitive like the Patriots you get your head coach, your QB, two or three other key guys and everyone else is totally replaceable.

If you want to stay competitive b/c of your coach and your QB like the Patriots you need to be in the top 5 in pass attempts per game, not the bottom five in pass attempts per game.

The Hawks absolutely COULD do that and stay competitive for a decade. I'm not saying they can't. Wilson IMO has as good of a chance of getting there as any young QB.

For the Hawks to follow the Patriots' blueprint though they have to fundamentally change how they win. Running backs and defensive players for the Patriots over the last ten years have been replaceable, because unlike the Hawks, the Pats don't win with the running game and their defense. Same with the Packers. Same with the Saints. Same with the Falcons. Same with the Broncos.

I'm not saying the Hawks can't be like these guys, I'm saying they can't both win like these teams win and maintain how they've been winning. You just can't pay a QB 20 million + and not be a QB-centered team. (And you can talk about how important and awesome Wilson is all you want and I won't disagree, but when your QB averages less attempts per start than any other QB in the NFL, there's no way around it: you're NOT a QB-centered team.)

Compared to the situation in SF, the Seahawks are in a very good position.

Ehh, the Hawks have MUCH, MUCH more talent in the prime and entering the prime of their careers, but because of the salary cap and the way salaries work in the NFL I think that's actually debatable. (E.G. The "Who's better off, the 49ers with a 34 year old Boldin or the Seahawks with a Golden Tate on the Lions" dilemma. ).

 

[HansGruber]

You're talking about the 1993 Dallas Cowboys swapping Troy Aikman for Scott Mitchell.
The 1982 San Francisco 49ers swapping Joe Montana for Steve Bartkowski.
The 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers swapping Terry Bradshaw for Steve Grogan.
The 2001 NE Patriots swapping Tom Brady for Quincy Carter.

I know you're not arguing that we get rid of Russell Wilson, or not pay him. Just putting the move into perspective. This is literally what would be the equivalent of Tical's completely failed logic.

Completely agree.

And even if they swapped out Wilson for an attainable QB like Alex Smith, they'd still have to pay him $17 million a year. Hardly any savings.

The irony is that right now, the elite QBs are some of the biggest bargains in the sport.

What makes me laugh the hardest is Tical suggesting that you let Wilson walk so that you can sign Bobby Wagner and maybe a pass rushing DE. LIke you stated, going with a starting-caliber average QB puts you at about $10-15m/yr. You save, what, $5-8m/yr? OK, that gives you Bobby Wagner.

Now go poll every GM in the NFL. Ask if they'd let Russell Wilson walk so they could keep Bobby Wagner. They'd laugh you out of the building. They'd ask what drugs you're on. QBs like Wilson come along literally ONCE in a generation, maybe twice. Wilson is that special. There isn't an MLB in the history of the game who would rank like that with an NFL GM. Not even close.

You can find quality MLBs in the draft every year, a handful of them. There are about 8-10 MLBs playing right now who are at Bobby's level or better. Same with DEs. Sure, you have to pick them early, but they're there every year in the draft and even if you go free agency, you can find guys like Bennett.

You will NEVER find a QB anywhere near Wilson's level, in free agency or the draft. This team spent 38 years trying to find one. I laugh HARD at fools who think those guys are just out there for the taking. Much less someone of Wilson's caliber. You seriously think Schneider lets that guy leave the building? That once-in-a-generation QB who will be mentioned in future arguments of who's the best of all-time; Wilson, Montana or Brady? So you can.... sign a few defensive players?? LOL. Put down the pipe.

Wilson is going to get paid, and he's going to set the record for QBs. Get used to it, because it's going to happen. Clayton was on ESPN laughing when talking about it, and said Wilson's contract is going to change the bracket. And ya know what? Awesome. Because as long as that kid is in Seattle, the Seahawks will be contenders.

 

[HansGruber]

As long as Carroll and Wilson are with this team, they will be competitive....


If you look at the Patriots, that's exactly how they managed to succeed long after everyone thought the salary cap would do them in. Yes, it is harder to win Superbowls, but you can still win.

The Patriots! That's a great example!

If you want to stay competitive like the Patriots you get your head coach, your QB, two or three other key guys and everyone else is totally replaceable.

If you want to stay competitive b/c of your coach and your QB like the Patriots you need to be in the top 5 in pass attempts per game, not the bottom five in pass attempts per game.

The Hawks absolutely COULD do that and stay competitive for a decade. I'm not saying they can't. Wilson IMO has as good of a chance of getting there as any young QB.

For the Hawks to follow the Patriots' blueprint though they have to fundamentally change how they win. Running backs and defensive players for the Patriots over the last ten years have been replaceable, because unlike the Hawks, the Pats don't win with the running game and their defense. Same with the Packers. Same with the Saints. Same with the Falcons. Same with the Broncos.

I'm not saying the Hawks can't be like these guys, I'm saying they can't both win like these teams win and maintain how they've been winning. You just can't pay a QB 20 million + and not be a QB-centered team. (And you can talk about how important and awesome Wilson is all you want and I won't disagree, but when your QB averages less attempts per start than any other QB in the NFL, there's no way around it: you're NOT a QB-centered team.)

Compared to the situation in SF, the Seahawks are in a very good position.

Ehh, the Hawks have MUCH, MUCH more talent in the prime and entering the prime of their careers, but because of the salary cap and the way salaries work in the NFL I think that's actually debatable. (E.G. The "Who's better off, the 49ers with a 34 year old Boldin or the Seahawks with a Golden Tate on the Lions" dilemma. ).

You seem to have a fixed perspective on what is a "QB-centered team."

The Seahawks have already switched to an offense-dominant QB-centered team. Look at the stats. Our offense is driving this team, and Russell Wilson is a HUGE part of that.

Second, being a QB-centric team doesn't just mean throwing for 5000 yards a season from the pocket. Running a spread. That sort of thing. That performance in Washington was a QB-dominant beatdown. Russell Wilson was the entire offense, basically.

The entire national media is abuzz about Wilson's performance and the offensive gameplan in Seattle, and how teams are going to have to defend Wilson as a unique all-around weapon. He's not just a read-option threat. He's not just a run/scramble threat. He's not just a passing threat. He's all of those things. He doesn't even really have any weaknesses at this point. Minor issues to work on, but no major flaws. Plus, add improvisational skills that are simply off the charts, and you're talking about a weapon that will be practically impossible to prepare for on a weekly basis (because even Wilson doesn't know exactly what he's going to do, but he has a way of getting it done).

I was listening to a show from New York earlier today and some college coach was commenting on Wilson's performance and said that his ability to make plays from all aspects (run, throw, improvise) was unlike anything he'd ever seen in football. Ever. He said Wilson was basically a combination of Steve Young (scrambling/improv), Dan Marino (arm) and Joe Montana (brain). Further said that if Seattle continues to attack with that sort of mixed game plan, using Harvin and Lynch and letting Wilson run loose, that teams will basically be unable to defend. You'll have a few losses, but the overall recipe doesn't look good for the rest of the NFL. I've been hearing it all day thanks to an RSS feed that gives me all kinds of media streams and today I've been focused on the Russell Wilson talk, and it's GREAT. He gets more love outside of Seattle than inside Seattle right now. Russell Wilson is blowing people's minds - and not just "analysts". Coaches, players and GMs are talking about him.

122 yards and a rushing touchdown, to go with another 200 yards passing and 2 passing TDs? That's absolutely SICK. I don't remember a QB performance that dominant since Randal Cunningham was dominating the league back in 89. You can blame that on Washington all you want. We've been seeing it since he opened a can of whoop-ass on the Broncos back in the 2012 preseason and stole Flynn's job.

I'm saying it right now and everyone will be saying it in 4-5 years. Russell Wilson will be the biggest weapon in Seattle's arsenal for a long time. You give him 1-2 good players on that offense and it's over. You just can't defend against him. That's why he's going to get paid, in a big way. Seattle is going to give him whatever he wants, because they know that as long as he's on this team, we will be a very very tough offense to stop. Call it QB-dominant, if you will. But it is what it is.

 

[bigwrm]

While I absolutely think that we should pay Wilson $24 million or whatever it takes to get him signed, Tical's scenario is at least thought-provoking. What I don't think people are considering is that given the hypothetical scenario where we decide to move on from Wilson, we would then be able to trade him to a QB-desperate team. Can you imagine what other teams would be willing to give up to get him? Would 3 1st rounders and 3 2nd rounders even be enough? So aside from the extra money available to extend players and acquire free agents, we'd also be draft-rich for the next several years.

 

[HansGruber]

While I absolutely think that we should pay Wilson $24 million or whatever it takes to get him signed, Tical's scenario is at least thought-provoking. What I don't think people are considering is that given the hypothetical scenario where we decide to move on from Wilson, we would then be able to trade him to a QB-desperate team. Can you imagine what other teams would be willing to give up to get him? Would 3 1st rounders and 3 2nd rounders even be enough? So aside from the extra money available to extend players and acquire free agents, we'd also be draft-rich for the next several years.

Thought-provoking in the way that home lobotomy experiments with power tools are "thought-provoking." It provokes thoughts of "WTF are you even proposing" to anyone with common sense. What good are a few draft picks if it sets your team back a few years and you're unable to find a good QB with any of those picks?

That would be worse than the Herschel Walker trade. It would automatically make John Schneider the laughing stock of the entire NFL. He would be fired and no other team would hire him. The entire country would laugh at Seattle for the next 50 years over that stupid trade.

It is perhaps the worst idea I have ever heard on this site.

 

[McGruff]

I'm not saying the Hawks can't be like these guys, I'm saying they can't both win like these teams win and maintain how they've been winning. You just can't pay a QB 20 million + and not be a QB-centered team. (And you can talk about how important and awesome Wilson is all you want and I won't disagree, but when your QB averages less attempts per start than any other QB in the NFL, there's no way around it: you're NOT a QB-centered team.)

Just curious . . . what percentage of an offense would have to be generated by the QB for an offense to be "QB-centered?"

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I'm not saying the Hawks can't be like these guys, I'm saying they can't both win like these teams win and maintain how they've been winning. You just can't pay a QB 20 million + and not be a QB-centered team. (And you can talk about how important and awesome Wilson is all you want and I won't disagree, but when your QB averages less attempts per start than any other QB in the NFL, there's no way around it: you're NOT a QB-centered team.)

Just curious . . . what percentage of an offense would have to be generated by the QB for an offense to be "QB-centered?"

I'd say 50%, by whatever means of the total offensive plays.

 

[BleedGreenNblue]

Just give him a blank cheque and let him fill in his own amount - he is worth it.

YES!

 

[Hawks46]

Not that it helps your case being supported by a 9ers fan ( :lol: -- albeit a 9ers fan who sincerely loves Wilson as a player ), but this has been my read too. This was the year that I was expecting him to start finding the pocket and spending time in his progressions as the plays are designed in it rather than over-relying on an internal clock to bail from the top of it. So far this year I haven't seen any development in that regard.

What pocket? You have to have a pocket to be able to find it. Explain to me how hes suppose to improve as a pocket passer without a pocket holding up for more then 2 seconds.

THIS ! ^^^

Figured this would come up. :lol:

I'm talking about what Wilson does when he has a pocket to step into, not what he does when he's getting pressure up the middle. When you're getting pressure up the middle the smart play IS to hit a hot read (what Tical is talking about) OR to bail on the pocket and get creative, which Wilson is MUCH better at than anybody. Tical is saying he needs to get better at the former (FWIW I agree), and I'm talking about when he's not getting pressure up the middle, which, you know, is what usually happens despite the fact that the Hawks aren't great in pass pro.

I'd have to agree with this. If Wilson is constantly bailing on the pocket instead of hitting hot reads quickly, he becomes a bit more predictable. Look at what teams did last year (and this year): they flushed Wilson, knowing he would go either straight back, or roll to the right. Now Wilson is pretty damned good, and he studies film and his own tendencies, which is why you're seeing Wilson roll to the left more this year, but look at the Wash game....he still tried to fade straight back, then spun and rolled left on that play to Marshawn. He was fortunate that he only had to juke a NT and not another DE or that play goes differently.

I agree with Tical, in that I'd hoped Wilson would see other reads and hit hot routes more this year. I honestly believe that having such a piss poor pass blocking OL stunted his growth a bit last year, in that it just reinforced what he's already doing which is make his reads (he'll go 3 or 4 deep when he has time) then bail and try to throw, then scramble for yardage. This year isn't any better, and is starting to look worse. Here's where I disagree a bit with convention: it's said that a QB really hits his peak in years 3-5. After that they've usually found their ceiling. With poor pass blocking, Wilson isn't able to progress, but that doesn't mean he'll hit his ceiling this year or next year. He studies continually and is always looking to get better. So if we actually get a OL to pass block in 2 years from now, he'll get better and in different ways.

On Volsung's point on defense winning championships, I agree. Thing is, we won a championship with defense. Then the NFL made it a point to emphasis rules for offensive efficiency. They keep changing things to favor the offense. I honestly believe you can only fight it so long. In 5 years, we're going to the average game be 35-27.

 

[hawkpride]

Russell is worth more than he will be paid. What price do you pay to the best QB we have ever had and is this franchise's QB for the future?
I know we will lose guys do to the salary cap but when you have the best QB and some other key players, the rest can be replaced (plugged in).

Write the check Paul, and be happy boss.

 

[Cartire]

As long as Carroll and Wilson are with this team, they will be competitive....


If you look at the Patriots, that's exactly how they managed to succeed long after everyone thought the salary cap would do them in. Yes, it is harder to win Superbowls, but you can still win.

The Patriots! That's a great example!

If you want to stay competitive like the Patriots you get your head coach, your QB, two or three other key guys and everyone else is totally replaceable.

If you want to stay competitive b/c of your coach and your QB like the Patriots you need to be in the top 5 in pass attempts per game, not the bottom five in pass attempts per game.

The Hawks absolutely COULD do that and stay competitive for a decade. I'm not saying they can't. Wilson IMO has as good of a chance of getting there as any young QB.

For the Hawks to follow the Patriots' blueprint though they have to fundamentally change how they win. Running backs and defensive players for the Patriots over the last ten years have been replaceable, because unlike the Hawks, the Pats don't win with the running game and their defense. Same with the Packers. Same with the Saints. Same with the Falcons. Same with the Broncos.

I'm not saying the Hawks can't be like these guys, I'm saying they can't both win like these teams win and maintain how they've been winning. You just can't pay a QB 20 million + and not be a QB-centered team. (And you can talk about how important and awesome Wilson is all you want and I won't disagree, but when your QB averages less attempts per start than any other QB in the NFL, there's no way around it: you're NOT a QB-centered team.)

Im sorry, but the patriots are a prime example of what over a decade of zero competition in a division can provide. They are a good team. And both Tom Brady and BB are reasons for that. But their extremely lackluster division has coasted them to the playoffs. We can make of fun of the (then) afc west, and the now afc south, but the truth is, the only reason people never joked about the afc east is because the patriots were ALWAYS relevent. Even in the 2 years the Jets made a their spontaneous runs. Otherwise, the patriots have had zero comp in their division and THATS whats kept them competitive.

 

[Evil_Shenanigans]

This team has already tried the "Lets get a mid range quarterback and we can make up the rest as we go" approach. No offense to TJack but thats more or less how he got here. The results were less than stellar. Then the ill fated Matt Flynn dumpster fire. JS and PC have lightning in a bottle and there is simply no scenario I can think of that would allow them to let him go!

 

[lukerguy]

I'd rather go 10 years around 180MM