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

[HansGruber]

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.

That's nonsense and you know it. Don't be a hater.

Their division being weak doesn't explain the postseason dominance. Name one better team in the postseason over the last decade.

At least give credit where it's due.

 

[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.

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.

Huh? The Herschel Walker trade was great for the Cowboys. Anyways, like I said, I still don't think it would be worth it because Wilson is that valuable, but it's interesting to think about.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

Love MissouHawkgal. and others........been off this board for a couple of days and seemingly the sane people that see the bigger picture. Teams don't fail because they have to pay their QB, they are in contention every year (Packers, Patriots, Broncos etc.) because they have the QB.

If Schneider is worth his money, he can backfill some of the spots where we may have to make tough decisions, but the days of extending certain players is not out of the window. I just think it places more emphasis on draft day and the trades of 6th rounders for Burley as a nickel that shows what we have.

I have this coming in for RW at 7 for 150 and 80M guaranteed if we go back to back.....and it won't be a penny less than that figure.

 

[Cartire]

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.

That's nonsense and you know it. Don't be a hater.

Their division being weak doesn't explain the postseason dominance. Name one better team in the postseason over the last decade.

At least give credit where it's due.

I said they were a good team. But post season dominance? They were always competing with the colts and steelers and 2 years made it 2 the bowl where they lost. I said last decade.

But getting to the playoffs is the hard part for teams. It was NEVER hard for the patriots. So please, dont give me the give credit where credit is due. Dominance is a overused term in their case. They are the only division (besides maybe the colts for a stretch) where they were pretty much GUARANTEED playoff access. Once you get to the playoffs, its basically a different season. They are a good/great team. But their over decade long run of playoff football has more to say about their division then just their team.

 

[suppaball]

Let's make it easy, ... Yes, yes he is.

 

[HansGruber]

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.

That's nonsense and you know it. Don't be a hater.

Their division being weak doesn't explain the postseason dominance. Name one better team in the postseason over the last decade.

At least give credit where it's due.

I said they were a good team. But post season dominance? They were always competing with the colts and steelers and 2 years made it 2 the bowl where they lost. I said last decade.

But getting to the playoffs is the hard part for teams. It was NEVER hard for the patriots. So please, dont give me the give credit where credit is due. Dominance is a overused term in their case. They are the only division where they were pretty much GUARANTEED playoff access. Once you get to the playoffs, its basically a different season.

You do realize records are freely available online? Perhaps you should look up how they've performed compared to those teams and get back to me. Like I said, name a better postseason team over the last 12 years.

The patriots completely owned the Colts in the postseason and it hasn't even been close.

A weak division doesn't explain that away no matter how many times you repeat yourself. It's a failed logic. And last I checked, neither the Steelers or Colts have as many rings.

Try again.

 

[Cartire]

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.

That's nonsense and you know it. Don't be a hater.

Their division being weak doesn't explain the postseason dominance. Name one better team in the postseason over the last decade.

At least give credit where it's due.

I said they were a good team. But post season dominance? They were always competing with the colts and steelers and 2 years made it 2 the bowl where they lost. I said last decade.

But getting to the playoffs is the hard part for teams. It was NEVER hard for the patriots. So please, dont give me the give credit where credit is due. Dominance is a overused term in their case. They are the only division where they were pretty much GUARANTEED playoff access. Once you get to the playoffs, its basically a different season.

You do realize records are freely available online? Perhaps you should look up how they've performed compared to those teams and get back to me. Like I said, name a better postseason team over the last 12 years.

The patriots completely owned the Colts in the postseason and it hasn't even been close.

A weak division doesn't explain that away no matter how many times you repeat yourself. It's a failed logic. And last I checked, neither the Steelers or Colts have as many rings.

Try again.

Maybe you should check how long a decade is and get back to me on how many rings someone has.

 

[Mick063]

Seattle has used and abused Russell's cheap 3rd round salary. To the point of loading up other positions for a championship and to include being in the running for back to back championships.

I look at it like this. You figure the sum of his new contract along with his rookie deal and divide it by the total length of both. Basically, you get a 15 million a year franchise player over ten years. Seattle has already collected on this bargain price.

They need to pay him his relative worth and not only pay him for what he will provide in the future, but reward him for abiding by his rookie deal without the slightest whimper.

Russell is still ascending. Everyone agrees that he has not hit a wall. What he really needs is a long, fast target like Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, or Vincent Jackson. That is how Seattle will truly realize the full worth of Wilson.

 

[Cartire]

Seattle has used and abused Russell's cheap 3rd round salary. To the point of loading up other positions for a championship and to include being in the running for back to back championships.

I look at it like this. You figure the sum of his new contract along with his rookie deal and divide it by the total length of both. Basically, you get a 15 million a year player over ten years. Seattle has already collected on this bargain price.

They need to pay him his relative worth and not only pay him for what he will provide in the future, but reward him for abiding by his rookie deal without the slightest whimper.

Well whimpering is a useless discussion since its no longer in the rookies hands. Pre-2011, yea, I would agree with you on that. But we live in a different world now.

 

[HansGruber]

Maybe you should check how long a decade is and get back to me on how many rings someone has.

Why would I get back to you on anything? You're the one making the most asinine statement possible and trying to back it up with more fail. It's YOUR job to back it up, not mine.

But yeah... Brady has 3 rings and 5 Superbowl appearances, the same as Manning and Roethlisberger combined (that was your laughable comparison attempt, not mine btw) but ONLY because Rex Ryan and Eric Mangini suck as head coaches. Belichick has a postseason record of 17-7, one of the best postseason records of ALL TIME, but only because Miami is incompetent. That's why the Patriots went undefeated in 2007 reg season and broke every NFL record on offense. Because the Jets and Dolphins suck. That's why they had the best home record for over a decade, a decade of total dominance over the entire NFL. Because the AFC East sucks. Yeah. Of course. Because we all know they only played AFC East teams in all those countless wins over the years. They never beat anyone else.

The fact that you brought up the Colts and Peyton just makes it more hilarious. The Colts have a 6-12 record against the Patriots in the postseason and have been Brady's bitch that entire time. It has been the butt of endless jokes. But yeah, that's only because the Jets suck. It had nothing to do with the Patriots being better than the Colts.

I totally see your point now. The question is: How can the Seahawks get into the AFC East so we can get some too? We don't need Russell Wilson or any quality players or Pete Carroll or anyone else. We just need to relocate to the AFC East so we can win as many Superbowls as Belichick did.

 

[Cartire]

Maybe you should check how long a decade is and get back to me on how many rings someone has.

Why would I get back to you on anything? You're the one making the most asinine statement possible and trying to back it up with more fail. It's YOUR job to back it up, not mine.

But yeah... Brady has 3 rings and 5 Superbowl appearances, the same as Manning and Roethlisberger combined (that was your laughable comparison attempt, not mine btw) but ONLY because Rex Ryan and Eric Mangini suck as head coaches. Belichick has a postseason record of 17-7, one of the best postseason records of ALL TIME, but only because Miami is incompetent. That's why the Patriots went undefeated in 2007 reg season and broke every NFL record on offense. Because the Jets and Dolphins suck. That's why they had the best home record for over a decade, a decade of total dominance over the entire NFL. Because the AFC East sucks. Yeah. Of course. Because we all know they only played AFC East teams in all those countless wins over the years. They never beat anyone else.

The fact that you brought up the Colts and Peyton just makes it more hilarious. The Colts have a 6-12 record against the Patriots in the postseason and have been Brady's bitch that entire time. It has been the butt of endless jokes. But yeah, that's only because the Jets suck. It had nothing to do with the Patriots being better than the Colts.

I totally see your point now. The question is: How can the Seahawks get into the AFC East so we can get some too? We don't need Russell Wilson or any quality players or Pete Carroll or anyone else. We just need to relocate to the AFC East so we can win as many Superbowls as Belichick did.

You still underestimate that its more difficult to get to the playoffs then compete in them. Hans, I love your enthusiasm you bring to convos, but Im sorry, youre wrong. With a more challenging division, the Pats wouldnt have the record they currently do. Once again, I never said they are not a good team. They are. They have done great things. But being able to coast to a division title every year is something that other good teams could only dream of. Especially in a parity driven NFL. Im not underestimating Brady or BB's contributions. In fact, ive already stated in previous post that they are the main reason the team continues its success. To say its the most asinine implies that its comparable to other teams. Its not. Almost every other division in the last 10 years has had parity driven division winning changes. The pats have not. Both the Bills and Phins have been constant losing teams. And the jets with the exception of a few years have been as well. Every other division has had at least 3 teams rotating winning seasons. Even if they dont win the division, they have teams that are still putting up decent seasons. And I say at least 3 teams per division. So dont throw the browns, raiders, or jags at me.

The pats are good. No one is taking that away. But SOME of their success is predicated on their easy access to the playoffs each year.

 

[Popeyejones]

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?"

Smells like a trap.

Look, if people want to close their eyes and pretend for a thread that the Hawks (like the 9ers and Chiefs) aren't different than the mid to late 2000 powerhouses (e.g. Pats, Saints, Packers) in that they've focused on suffocating defense and a ball control, run-oriented offense that eats clock and limits turnovers there's really nothing I can do about. Save for this thread it's a wildly uncontentious statement, though.

Neither the Hawks or 9ers consistently have top five defenses because they don't care about defense. Neither of them consistently have top 5 running attacks because they don't care about running the ball. They're also both suspiciously in the bottom five in the league in pass attempts. If for this thread only we must play the game in which that doesn't mean that they might not be winning in the same QB-centric way that the Packers, Saints, and Patriots have won, so be it...

Again, I'm not saying that Wilson CAN'T do it. I'm just saying PURELY from a salary perspective and as a hypothetical, would the Hawks win more games with Tavaris Jackson, Marshawn Lynch, Earl Thomas and Richard Shermon or would they win more games with Russell Wilson, Robert Turbin, Brandon Maxwell, and Deshawn Shead? Russell Wilson isn't going to cost these guys in particular (or at least Sherman and Thomas in particular) but that could be the salary outlay we're talking about if his agent is looking for the top deal on the open market, as some people in this thread think, and as all the "pay him anything" people are advocating for. I'm also not saying either of these options WOULD win more games. I'm just saying it's an interesting question.

 

[Tical21]

It's been a decade since the Pats won a Super Bowl. Does Brady's contract have anything to do with that? Flacco got signed and the Ravens lost half their defense and their best offensive player in the process. You probably have to pay the QB. Is there a dollar amount that ultimately hurts your team?

The Seahawks have proven that they can find talent just at just about every position. What happened to "next man up?" Doesn't apply to QB? Aren't you confident that they could find a quite ample replacement?

Would Matt Ryan or Matt Stafford or even a Sam Bradford have developed differently with a great running game and the best defense in the league? If they weren't asked to take chances and win ballgames, would they have become more efficient winners?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be painful or a decision that would keep you up for weeks. But if I was put in charge of being the main talent evaluator and juggling the salary cap and I had built this team the way it is built, and the bottom line was that I had to pay Russell Wilson 6 years and 129 million dollars, I wouldn't do it. That's too much for what we ask him to do considering some of the limitations that may possibly be lurking out there.

It'll never happen, I understand, and it is silly to even argue about. The only thing up for debate is how much he's going to end up getting. But if it was me, I think it would be a mistake.

 

[ZagHawk]

The problem is he already won a SB. So his agent can demand anything. If he wanted 30M a year, fans would still go nuts if we let him go. Ah well

 

[davidonmi]

The problem is he already won a SB. So his agent can demand anything. If he wanted 30M a year, fans would still go nuts if we let him go. Ah well

He isn't going to demand 30 million per year, no team including the Seahawks are going to consider that. Agents live in reality

 

[HansGruber]

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?"

Smells like a trap.

Look, if people want to close their eyes and pretend for a thread that the Hawks (like the 9ers and Chiefs) aren't different than the mid to late 2000 powerhouses (e.g. Pats, Saints, Packers) in that they've focused on suffocating defense and a ball control, run-oriented offense that eats clock and limits turnovers there's really nothing I can do about. Save for this thread it's a wildly uncontentious statement, though.

Neither the Hawks or 9ers consistently have top five defenses because they don't care about defense. Neither of them consistently have top 5 running attacks because they don't care about running the ball. They're also both suspiciously in the bottom five in the league in pass attempts. If for this thread only we must play the game in which that doesn't mean that they might not be winning in the same QB-centric way that the Packers, Saints, and Patriots have won, so be it...

Again, I'm not saying that Wilson CAN'T do it. I'm just saying PURELY from a salary perspective and as a hypothetical, would the Hawks win more games with Tavaris Jackson, Marshawn Lynch, Earl Thomas and Richard Shermon or would they win more games with Russell Wilson, Robert Turbin, Brandon Maxwell, and Deshawn Shead? Russell Wilson isn't going to cost these guys in particular (or at least Sherman and Thomas in particular) but that could be the salary outlay we're talking about if his agent is looking for the top deal on the open market, as some people in this thread think, and as all the "pay him anything" people are advocating for. I'm also not saying either of these options WOULD win more games. I'm just saying it's an interesting question.

Well then, let's cut through the crap and answer your question directly. Your proposed lineup is the 2011 Seahawks. They won 7 games and missed the playoffs. Largely due to a stupid fumble by Tarvaris Jackson on 3rd down in the 4th quarter with a minute to go and down by 2 points against the 49ers on Christmas Eve. All they needed was a field goal, and T-Jack fumbled on the 37 yard line. Costing them a playoff appearance. That was one of many failed last-minute opportunities for ol' T-Jack. I got to watch it all up close and personal. It was freaking horrible and if you told me the Seahawks were letting Russell Wilson go and starting T-Jack at QB, I'm literally not even sure I could stand being a Seahawks fan any more. I simply can't watch that garbage EVER AGAIN.

I think it's hilarious that you're even asking that question. What kind of serious football fan even asks something like that? It's not an interesting question, it's a stupid one. It's the type of question that if you asked someone like Mike Ditka that question, he would literally slap you for wasting his time. It makes my brain hurt. It makes me wonder how football fans even come up with this nosense crap. I honestly wish that Pete Carroll was sitting here having a beer with me so I could show him your post and watch him spit beer through his nose and hear him go off on a tirade about how that is the dumbest thing he has ever heard in all of his years of coaching. I think my brain is actually bleeding.

 

[RolandDeschain]

It's been a decade since the Pats won a Super Bowl. Does Brady's contract have anything to do with that? Flacco got signed and the Ravens lost half their defense and their best offensive player in the process. You probably have to pay the QB. Is there a dollar amount that ultimately hurts your team?

Rodgers was making $6.5m for the year they won the Super Bowl.

Flacco was $6.76m for his Super Bowl win.

Eli was making about $15m/year before and through his second Super Bowl win, and just shy of $10m for his first one.

Peyton was in the 3rd year of a $98m five-year contract when he won his Super Bowl.

Roethlisberger was a couple years into a $102m eight-year contract when he won his most recent Super Bowl.

Remember, virtually all young QBs who have won Super Bowls were highly drafted and making good money from day one. The rookie wage scale only started with the last CBA, and Wilson is the FIRST QB to win a Super Bowl saving his team massive amounts of money. Brady cost the Patriots nothing for theirs, but that's because he was a 6th-round pick.

Sorry Tical, but almost all Super Bowl champions are already paying a lot of dough for their QBs when they win the Lombardi. Sure, it'd be nice if we could just draft a new QB every four years and never have to pay the piper, but that's almost guaranteed to be a failing strategy as far as championships are concerned.

 

[Silentwander]

Pay him what is worth. No way we want to let him walk away because our team would have to chase after him when he runs with his legs/arms. Also after the super bowl won, RW said," he wanted or hoped to play for Seahawks another 20 years". He earns it because he does good at everything.

 

[chris98251]

So Russell hits the Market, could you imagine the 49ers signing him and trading Kaep. After all 3 teams we have dealings with are Detroit, Cleveland or the 49ers as far as guys coming and going.

 

[Tical21]

It's been a decade since the Pats won a Super Bowl. Does Brady's contract have anything to do with that? Flacco got signed and the Ravens lost half their defense and their best offensive player in the process. You probably have to pay the QB. Is there a dollar amount that ultimately hurts your team?

Rodgers was making $6.5m for the year they won the Super Bowl.

Flacco was $6.76m for his Super Bowl win.

Eli was making about $15m/year before and through his second Super Bowl win, and just shy of $10m for his first one.

Peyton was in the 3rd year of a $98m five-year contract when he won his Super Bowl.

Roethlisberger was a couple years into a $102m eight-year contract when he won his most recent Super Bowl.

Remember, virtually all young QBs who have won Super Bowls were highly drafted and making good money from day one. The rookie wage scale only started with the last CBA, and Wilson is the FIRST QB to win a Super Bowl saving his team massive amounts of money. Brady cost the Patriots nothing for theirs, but that's because he was a 6th-round pick.

Sorry Tical, but almost all Super Bowl champions are already paying a lot of dough for their QBs when they win the Lombardi. Sure, it'd be nice if we could just draft a new QB every four years and never have to pay the piper, but that's almost guaranteed to be a failing strategy as far as championships are concerned.

I actually thought you were agreeing with me for a while there and proving my point. Rodgers and Flacco weren't making much. Both got huge raises and their teams haven't done much since. I can't argue against Eli. Peyton didn't win another and it has now been a while for Ben. Is it possible that the teams can weather the storm at the beginning of the contracts, and eventually those contracts weigh more and put more pressure on the cap as they go along?

The Saints roster has gotten weaker. The Packers have lost a lot of good players. The Cowboys basically gutted their roster once they paid Romo. The Lions have no flexibility and will be a team of three players and a bunch of minimum guys. The Pats roster has gotten nothing but worse. The Steelers have lost a good number of quality complimentary players. How many times has giving your QB a monster contract worked out in the long haul?