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

[-The Glove-]

SMH at some of the comments. I'll bet all I have the FO doesn't think so little of what RW does that they believe they can insert any decent QB in the lineup and we'd still win a SuperbOwl. Have we become that spoiled as fans that some of us believe it is really that easy. It boggles my mind that fans of a team that has had so many mediocre QB's throughout its history would be so quick to dismiss the first legit elite one we have.

 

[RolandDeschain]

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?

Sigh. Why are you looking at raw dollar amounts that way? You know better. Look at the percentage of the salary cap those respective salaries took up for those years, and all of those salaries were for the season leading up to their Super Bowl win, so it's not like they only got hamstrung after winning the Lombardi.

The salary cap froze for a couple years, but it was under massive growth through the 2000s. Also, an important part of why the salaries have gone up quite a bit the past couple of years is knowing the cap is going to grow a lot for years to come, so it won't be as long-term of a hamstring as it appears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap ... all_League

 

[Tical21]

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?

Sigh. Why are you looking at raw dollar amounts that way? You know better. Look at the percentage of the salary cap those respective salaries took up for those years, and all of those salaries were for the season leading up to their Super Bowl win, so it's not like they only got hamstrung after winning the Lombardi.

The salary cap froze for a couple years, but it was under massive growth through the 2000s. Also, an important part of why the salaries have gone up quite a bit the past couple of years is knowing the cap is going to grow a lot for years to come, so it won't be as long-term of a hamstring as it appears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap ... all_League

I think Ben was in his first year of his massive contract, and that roster has struggled ever since. The Rodgers and Flacco Super Bowls were recent, so I guess I don't really know what you're getting at.

I guess take away the Mannings, I will give you those. Is there any other evidence in the form of Super Bowls that would suggest that paying your QB a huge percentage of your salary cap is a prudent move for your franchise?

 

[Shock2k]

Russell is going to get exactly what he wants. Which should be the largest QB contract in NFL history. Because he could get it with any other team. Jacksonville would pay it in a heartbeat.

I don't think he should discount either. I don't know about you, but an "extra" 2 to 4 million is something I'm not turning down. You can always adjust your salary down later to pick up the right folks, or make the right contracts happen (like Brees has done, almost immediately after he got his contract).

 

[Cartire]

:shock: A thread where I fully agree with Roland. Only you Tical could make that happen.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I guess take away the Mannings, I will give you those. Is there any other evidence in the form of Super Bowls that would suggest that paying your QB a huge percentage of your salary cap is a prudent move for your franchise?

I wish I could get away with just taking away a substantial set of facts from an argument to support my assertion. :|

I give up.

 

[OkieHawk]

Why is everyone coming up with a 6 year deal, why not an 8 year deal? The majority of us believe that he is our franchise QB, so lock him up as such.

 

[Cartire]

Why is everyone coming up with a 6 year deal, why not an 8 year deal? The majority of us believe that he is our franchise QB, so lock him up as such.

Players have to agree to the deal too. No agent wants to see an 8 year deal.

Reason 1. Massive amount of money could be backloaded and an obvious restructure/release will happen before any of that money appears.

Reason 2. Salary cap goes up to a point where RW is once again being paid well below his value and the team is locked in for 8 years.

Reason 3. Looking for a second contract that will extend the life of the 2 contracts combined to well past 8 years and way more money is easier if Russell is 31 and not 33.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Why is everyone coming up with a 6 year deal, why not an 8 year deal? The majority of us believe that he is our franchise QB, so lock him up as such.

6 years has been the current baseline for Wilson's age (25-26) on this round of contracts. If he's willing to go 7-8 years I'm sure the Seahawks wouldn't be against it. 7-8 years is heavily advantageous to the team not Wilson.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Why is everyone coming up with a 6 year deal, why not an 8 year deal? The majority of us believe that he is our franchise QB, so lock him up as such.

Franchise QB's with all the leverage (as Russell will have) want the luxury of a 2nd big deal in their early 30's (like Brady, Manning, etc.)

Russell might do an 8 year deal, if there was a player opt out clause after 5 or 6 years.

 

[HansGruber]

But guys.... honestly....

Obviously, there will be like 5 or 6 quality quarterbacks in the next draft. Obviously. That's why there are so many quality starting QBs in the league right now. I mean, look around you. Why would we value a QB?

QBs like Russell Wilson are a dime a dozen.

 

[TCHawkfan]

I believe that Mr. Wilson deserves to be paid like the top tier, SB winning QB that he is! However, one of his greatest attributes is his brain!

Surely he understands that a certain level of talent must be maintained on the team and that takes salary cap space. He is great but probably wouldn't enjoy the same success playing for Jax. Once a player accumulates a certain amount of money, the money becomes kinda pointless for the sake of the money itself. I think Russell cares more about his team, his teammates and the city of Seattle than he does about receiving 150-200 mil. Continued winning seasons and playoff and SB success would mean more in endorsement money than contracts ever would and he knows that he needs a supporting cast to achieve that.

Some on the board suggest that some important members of the team should not be resigned and that JS & PC just go out and find some plug & play guy to fill that role. While they have been awesome finding draft picks and free agents to build the roster, you can't just go out and replace a Beast or a Bobby or KJ any old time you want to. Point is, Russell is a good enough teammate to understand that personally breaking the bank won't enhance chances for future success and cares more about winning than being the highest paid guy around.

 

[Tical21]

Theoretically, how would we judge whether or not re-signing Russell Wilson was good or bad for the franchise?

 

[Tical21]

I guess take away the Mannings, I will give you those. Is there any other evidence in the form of Super Bowls that would suggest that paying your QB a huge percentage of your salary cap is a prudent move for your franchise?

I wish I could get away with just taking away a substantial set of facts from an argument to support my assertion. :|

I give up.

So three of the past 10 or 15 Superbowls have been won by QB's with monster contracts that weren't in the beginning of their contract. All three were won by a QB with the last name of Manning. This supports your assertion how?

 

[HansGruber]

I guess take away the Mannings, I will give you those. Is there any other evidence in the form of Super Bowls that would suggest that paying your QB a huge percentage of your salary cap is a prudent move for your franchise?

I wish I could get away with just taking away a substantial set of facts from an argument to support my assertion. :|

I give up.

So three of the past 10 or 15 Superbowls have been won by QB's with monster contracts that weren't in the beginning of their contract. All three were won by a QB with the last name of Manning. This supports your assertion how?

What point were you even trying to make?
Only new quarterbacks win Superbowls?

You're proposing that our team let Russell Wilson walk or try to force him into a lowball contract, or else we go find another young, cheap QB. Because that's somehow easier than finding a young, cheap MLB or OLB.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? NFL franchises spend 40 years trying to find quarterbacks before they stumble on guys like Brady and Wilson. Or, they choke it up on purpose like Indy and end up with okay QBs like Manning and Luck who can win games but can never seem to win Superbowls.

The ability to win Superbowls is special, whether you realize it or not. The ability to win multiple Superbowls is extremely special. There have been less than a dozen QBs in the entire history of the NFL to do that. Out of the countless thousands of QBs to play, less than a dozen. Think about that for a second. Are you getting it yet?

 

[Tical21]

I guess take away the Mannings, I will give you those. Is there any other evidence in the form of Super Bowls that would suggest that paying your QB a huge percentage of your salary cap is a prudent move for your franchise?

I wish I could get away with just taking away a substantial set of facts from an argument to support my assertion. :|

I give up.

So three of the past 10 or 15 Superbowls have been won by QB's with monster contracts that weren't in the beginning of their contract. All three were won by a QB with the last name of Manning. This supports your assertion how?

What point were you even trying to make?
Only new quarterbacks win Superbowls?

You're proposing that our team let Russell Wilson walk or try to force him into a lowball contract, or else we go find another young, cheap QB. Because that's somehow easier than finding a young, cheap MLB or OLB.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? NFL franchises spend 40 years trying to find quarterbacks before they stumble on guys like Brady and Wilson. Or, they choke it up on purpose like Indy and end up with okay QBs like Manning and Luck who can win games but can never seem to win Superbowls.

The ability to win Superbowls is special, whether you realize it or not. The ability to win multiple Superbowls is extremely special. There have been less than a dozen QBs in the entire history of the NFL to do that. Out of the countless thousands of QBs to play, less than a dozen. Think about that for a second. Are you getting it yet?

Sure, yet once said QB gets that massive contract, often after winning the Super Bowl, it seems they are almost never able to get back and win it again. I'm just asking if there is any correlation. Is it possible that finding said quarterback and paying to keep him in fact prevents you from winning multiple Super Bowls? You pay your QB, the rest of your roster goes to crap, and you can't win another one. Seems like there is plenty of evidence of this, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Is it possible that finding said quarterback and paying to keep him in fact prevents you from winning multiple Super Bowls?

Yes if the team doesn't do a good job of;

- managing their cap
- keeping and dumping the right players
- continuing to draft well

But to even hint that we'd be better off not giving Russell a big contract is insanity. He IS the engine of this offense, and the face of the franchise. You cannot, I repeat CANNOT replace a guy like Russell without taking a gigantic step back.

Guys like Wilson, you hold onto like grim death. This is not Eli Manning, this is not Joe Flacco, this is not Rapelessberger........this is a one in a generation QB that will continue to keep us competitive even when we have far less talent then we do now..........and those years will come.

 

[Cartire]

Sure, yet once said QB gets that massive contract, often after winning the Super Bowl, it seems they are almost never able to get back and win it again. I'm just asking if there is any correlation. Is it possible that finding said quarterback and paying to keep him in fact prevents you from winning multiple Super Bowls? You pay your QB, the rest of your roster goes to crap, and you can't win another one. Seems like there is plenty of evidence of this, wouldn't you agree?

I wouldnt say there is plenty of evidence since the sample size is quite too small. And you seem to want to take 3 of them out of the equation just because their last name is manning (which I dont know why Eli would have such a privilege). But the majority of them have had dynamite seasons and still made it to the playoffs after the paydays. But once youre in the playoffs, its one and done and most notable known as a crap shoot. So, you cant really correlate any of that.

I do think overly toxic contracts can put strain on a team, and thus why I hate the idea of $25. But I think a team can overcome a $19-22.

 

[TCHawkfan]

How many QBs are really capable of winning a SB? Not that many as evidenced by the list of repeat winners. It took the Seahawks what, 34 drafts to FINALLY find one who could and did? The great SB winners also usually aren't the guys who throw for a gazillion yards a season. Give me Joe Montana or Troy Aikman or Russell Wilson over Dan Marino, Dan Fouts or even Peyton Manning (I know, he won 1!) any day. A great QB is about so much more than simply passing yards and TD passes. The great ones all have IT, and our guy Mr. Wilson has IT!

I'm just hoping we can sign him long term without breaking the bank and as I posted earlier, I think he is smart enough to realize why that is so important.

 

[OkieHawk]

Why is everyone coming up with a 6 year deal, why not an 8 year deal? The majority of us believe that he is our franchise QB, so lock him up as such.

Players have to agree to the deal too. No agent wants to see an 8 year deal.

Reason 1. Massive amount of money could be backloaded and an obvious restructure/release will happen before any of that money appears.

I doubt that RW or his agent would agree to this happening, and doubt that it would with this FO.

Reason 2. Salary cap goes up to a point where RW is once again being paid well below his value and the team is locked in for 8 years.

An extension could always be worked out before the contract ends, or have performance modifiers in there.

Reason 3. Looking for a second contract that will extend the life of the 2 contracts combined to well past 8 years and way more money is easier if Russell is 31 and not 33.

Meh, I think that a lot of QB's are able to play damn near to 40, so this is a moot point.