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

[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.

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.

Hardly moot at all. Doesnt matter what you think they can do. Its what the teams think they can do. And his value of a long term option shrinks the older he gets. Thats just a fact.

Youre other 2 counter points tend to make it seem like the FO is only out to help RW when the fact is, they will be trying to help the team. If its an 8 year contract, the FO will definently want to try and backload. I dont understand why you would think they wouldnt want to do that. Also, why would the team want to rework a contract that they are benefiting from again?

You seem to be under the impression the FO is a fan and not a business. My reasons were for why RW and his agent wouldnt want to do these deals. The FO WOULD LOVE an 8 contract.

 

[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.

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.

He still would be fairly young by current QB standards. It seems like they are all playing until 40 now...at least the great ones do. I'll have to check, but wasn't Brady's latest deal when he was 34? Nope, he was 34 with the original $75M contract and then redid the new extension over a year ago when he was 36. I guess we can possibly take the age thing out of this equation then.

 

[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.

Hardly moot at all. Doesnt matter what you think they can do. Its what the teams think they can do. And his value of a long term option shrinks the older he gets. Thats just a fact.

Youre other 2 counter points tend to make it seem like the FO is only out to help RW when the fact is, they will be trying to help the team. If its an 8 year contract, the FO will definently want to try and backload. I dont understand why you would think they wouldnt want to do that. Also, why would the team want to rework a contract that they are benefiting from again?

You seem to be under the impression the FO is a fan and not a business. My reasons were for why RW and his agent wouldnt want to do these deals. The FO WOULD LOVE an 8 contract.

I realize they aren't out to help him, but I fail to see how an 8 year contract couldn't be advantageous to all parties. I'm not saying it WILL happen, it is merely an exercise in which provides an alternative that hasn't been discussed yet. Never say never.

 

[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.

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.

He still would be fairly young by current QB standards. It seems like they are all playing until 40 now...at least the great ones do. I'll have to check, but wasn't Brady's latest deal when he was 34? Nope, he was 34 with the original $75M contract and then redid the new extension over a year ago when he was 36. I guess we can possibly take the age thing out of this equation then.

Take the age thing out of the equation? How many QB's play until theyre 40? What, like 3 have ever and 3 more are in their upper 30's approaching 40, and thats it. Now, how many QB's have played the game?

Yea, sorry, your idea of using 6 ELITE qb's that have weathered the injury bug, as the standard for every QB, is exactly why FO's dont do these crazy contracts. Because the odds are NOT in the favor of playing till your 40.

 

[Cartire]

I realize they aren't out to help him, but I fail to see how an 8 year contract couldn't be advantageous to all parties. I'm not saying it WILL happen, it is merely an exercise in which provides an alternative that hasn't been discussed yet. Never say never.

And I gave you the reasons that its not beneficial to both parties. Its a benefit to the FO. ITs not a benefit to RW. That would be banking on his continued dominance and ability to stave off injury, why at the same time hoping that the team would be willing to renogtiate early or at the minimum, he was still highly valued after 8 years. Which is a long time in football terms.

Agents like 6 max because it cuts 2 years off the "hopefully" phase.

Could a QB do an 8. Sure. But you can rest assured that both the player and the agent would prefer a shorter contract.

 

[volsunghawk]

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?

No, it does not apply to QB. And I'm not confident that they could find an ample replacement. After all, they did go after Charlie Whitehurst pretty hard when they first started.

My opinion is that finding a genuine franchise QB is an incredibly difficult thing to do. The Seahawks had been trying to find one for their entire existence up until Wilson (and personally, I think we finally got one.... you may not). The Browns have been looking for one since Kosar. I'm not sure if the Bears have ever really had one.

The QB isn't just about how many times they throw the ball. It's about controlling the offense, and Wilson does that so incredibly well for us. He leads and inspires his teammates on both sides of the ball. That's invaluable.

And that doesn't even begin to get into his role as the face of the team and as an ambassador for the league. There's value in that, as well. You don't lowball that guy or cut him loose just because you'll save a few million a year.

 

[OkieHawk]

I realize they aren't out to help him, but I fail to see how an 8 year contract couldn't be advantageous to all parties. I'm not saying it WILL happen, it is merely an exercise in which provides an alternative that hasn't been discussed yet. Never say never.

And I gave you the reasons that its not beneficial to both parties. Its a benefit to the FO. ITs not a benefit to RW. That would be banking on his continued dominance and ability to stave off injury, why at the same time hoping that the team would be willing to renogtiate early or at the minimum, he was still highly valued after 8 years. Which is a long time in football terms.

Agents like 6 max because it cuts 2 years off the "hopefully" phase.

Could a QB do an 8. Sure. But you can rest assured that both the player and the agent would prefer a shorter contract.

Kap's contract is also a benefit to the FO, so that means he shouldn't have accepted it? I wouldn't want RW to accept a contract like that. I'm just spit balling here man, I don't get why it couldn't be beneficial to both parties. I doubt it would happen, but it is intriguing to me is all. I would love to discuss this some more, but I have to bounce for work.

P.S. I agree with your points, but that doesn't mean I'm still not curious about the possibility of a longer term contract for Russ is all. :thirishdrinkers:

 

[Popeyejones]

He IS the engine of this offense, and the face of the franchise.

FWIW I think it could be argued that Lynch is the engine of the offense and that Sherman is the face of the franchise.

I can't be the only one that noticed that in multiplayer Seahawks promo graphics the NFL put Sherm's mug front and center with Wilson in the background.

Not saying Wilson COULDN'T be the engine of the offense or the face of a franchise, I just don't think the Hawks USE him that way. If they break the bank for him they WILL use him that way, and he (and they) very well could be successful doing that, it's just diffferent than what they've been doing. Not objectively better or worse, just different.

 

[Sarlacc83]

The answer to Tical's objection is quite simple.

It was not the massive contracts to Brees, Brady, Rapistburger that damaged the team. It was the fact that teams changed the team identity to make the payment defensible. Teams like the Patriots and the Steelers won Super Bowls on the one path of "everybody contributes", as Seattle does now, and then tried to move to the QB showcase. It nearly worked for Brady, but even he fell short at 18-1. Manning is a great test case because Polian built the entire team around him rather than making him a part of the whole. If not for a suddenly good defense ( and a game against the Bears) , he might not have a ring - big contract or not. The same struggle can be identified in the Niners showcase of Kaepernick right now instead of the resumption of the power run game where Colin is a cog.

On the flip side, the Bengals just paid Dalton, but they haven't made him the sole owner of the offense, so we'll see if that pays dividends.

Concluding then: pay Wilson but the team shouldn't try to justify it by inflating his numbers with a different team identity.

 

[Cartire]

I realize they aren't out to help him, but I fail to see how an 8 year contract couldn't be advantageous to all parties. I'm not saying it WILL happen, it is merely an exercise in which provides an alternative that hasn't been discussed yet. Never say never.

And I gave you the reasons that its not beneficial to both parties. Its a benefit to the FO. ITs not a benefit to RW. That would be banking on his continued dominance and ability to stave off injury, why at the same time hoping that the team would be willing to renogtiate early or at the minimum, he was still highly valued after 8 years. Which is a long time in football terms.

Agents like 6 max because it cuts 2 years off the "hopefully" phase.

Could a QB do an 8. Sure. But you can rest assured that both the player and the agent would prefer a shorter contract.

Kap's contract is also a benefit to the FO, so that means he shouldn't have accepted it? I wouldn't want RW to accept a contract like that. I'm just spit balling here man, I don't get why it couldn't be beneficial to both parties. I doubt it would happen, but it is intriguing to me is all. I would love to discuss this some more, but I have to bounce for work.

P.S. I agree with your points, but that doesn't mean I'm still not curious about the possibility of a longer term contract for Russ is all. :thirishdrinkers:

No, Kaep really shouldnt have accepted that contract in reality. It extremely benefits the FO in relation to Kaep. You said yourself you wouldnt want RW to accept it.

The theory of your 8 year contract is that everything works out in the end. But thats a risky way to negotiate a contract, because we all know that it rarely happens that everything falls into place throughout the duration of a contract.

 

[Popeyejones]

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.

First of all the 9ers would never, ever do that, but to take the question seriously:

1) I think Wilson is absolutely a better QB at this point than Kap.

2) That said, as a fan I'd seriously question this move. I'd love to root for Wilson as my favorite team's QB, but given the style of play the 9ers use, I simply don't think the extra 8-12 million dollars a year in salary cap space to upgrade from Kap to Wilson is worth it. If we were talking about the Packers, Patriots, or Saints it would be a different story, but for the style of ball the 9ers play, 8-12 million bucks just isn't worth it to make that jump.

3) FWIW it's the same story with Alex Smith to Kaepernick. Kaepernick is immensely more talented than Alex Smith. He keeps defenses honest with his legs, and he can, like, complete passes to wide receivers and stuff. That said, given the style of ball the 9ers play, I think Smith at 9 million opens up a lot more possibilities for the team as a whole than Kaepernick at 14 million. That's just five million bucks per, but it matters. Given how the 9ers play, that Kap is a better QB than Alex doesn't matter nearly as much as it would on another team, because neither of them are throwing as much as other teams, and the offense (and team) doesn't lean on the QB as much as other teams. The most damning stat to the "importance" of QB play for the 9ers org is that even though Kap allows the 9ers to do so much more, Alex and Kap had virtually identical winning %s under the same regime.

 

[Shock2k]

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 will get two contracts in their career now (after the new CBA). They don't want 6 years, you want your first big contract and your "almost 30 year old" contract (when your 28/29). And if you are really, really lucky, you get a third, but only QB's will get these... and maybe some CB's and Lineman.

 

[Popeyejones]

The answer to Tical's objection is quite simple.

It was not the massive contracts to Brees, Brady, Rapistburger that damaged the team. It was the fact that teams changed the team identity to make the payment defensible. Teams like the Patriots and the Steelers won Super Bowls on the one path of "everybody contributes", as Seattle does now, and then tried to move to the QB showcase. It nearly worked for Brady, but even he fell short at 18-1. Manning is a great test case because Polian built the entire team around him rather than making him a part of the whole. If not for a suddenly good defense ( and a game against the Bears) , he might not have a ring - big contract or not. The same struggle can be identified in the Niners showcase of Kaepernick right now instead of the resumption of the power run game where Colin is a cog.

On the flip side, the Bengals just paid Dalton, but they haven't made him the sole owner of the offense, so we'll see if that pays dividends.

Concluding then: pay Wilson but the team shouldn't try to justify it by inflating his numbers with a different team identity.

Almost all agreed with you up until the very end. It's not that teams like the Patriots and Steelers were trying to JUSTIFY they're expenditure on their QBs, it's just a reality of the salary cap that if you put a bunch of new money in one position you have to take it out of others.

You can hit over and over again in the draft (a la the Steelers) but you're always going to have to let those guys walk in free agency, or you can try to consistently plug in 30 year old + recently injured or malcontent players on the downside of their careers for cheap contracts (a la the Patriots) but it's going to be a constant game of roulette as you shuffle these guys in and out.

It's not about justifying the 20 million dollar salary, it's about strategically navigating the repercussions of the 20 million dollar salary.

And the like the Patriots and the Steelers, if you're going to be giving your QB 20 million, you better be having him throwing (or running on designed plays) 40-50 times a game. Not doing so would be like giving Richard Sherman 12 million a year and only using him as a situational nickle back.

 

[Sarlacc83]

The answer to Tical's objection is quite simple.

It was not the massive contracts to Brees, Brady, Rapistburger that damaged the team. It was the fact that teams changed the team identity to make the payment defensible. Teams like the Patriots and the Steelers won Super Bowls on the one path of "everybody contributes", as Seattle does now, and then tried to move to the QB showcase. It nearly worked for Brady, but even he fell short at 18-1. Manning is a great test case because Polian built the entire team around him rather than making him a part of the whole. If not for a suddenly good defense ( and a game against the Bears) , he might not have a ring - big contract or not. The same struggle can be identified in the Niners showcase of Kaepernick right now instead of the resumption of the power run game where Colin is a cog.

On the flip side, the Bengals just paid Dalton, but they haven't made him the sole owner of the offense, so we'll see if that pays dividends.

Concluding then: pay Wilson but the team shouldn't try to justify it by inflating his numbers with a different team identity.

Almost all agreed with you up until the very end. It's not that teams like the Patriots and Steelers were trying to JUSTIFY they're expenditure on their QBs, it's just a reality of the salary cap that if you put a bunch of new money in one position you have to take it out of others.

You can hit over and over again in the draft (a la the Steelers) but you're always going to have to let those guys walk in free agency, or you can try to consistently plug in 30 year old + recently injured or malcontent players on the downside of their careers for cheap contracts (a la the Patriots) but it's going to be a constant game of roulette as you shuffle these guys in and out.

It's not about justifying the 20 million dollar salary, it's about strategically navigating the repercussions of the 20 million dollar salary.

And the like the Patriots and the Steelers, if you're going to be giving your QB 20 million, you better be having him throwing (or running on designed plays) 40-50 times a game. Not doing so would be like giving Richard Sherman 12 million a year and only using him as a situational nickle back.

This is exactly the conventional wisdom against which I am arguing. You do not have to justify the salary through stats. You do it through wins - particularly Super Bowl victories. QB is not comparable to CB or the other positions - the QB can and should do more than chuck the ball. Moreover, you're paying the big bucks for the ability to change the game or take the lead in the 4th quarter and lead TD drives in OT. All of which Wilson does. 45 and 4500 can be achieved in wins and losses - ask Stafford.

The point of the game is to win, not accumulate personal numbers ( ask Peyton Manning if 55 TDs eased the pain of his second SB loss.) and that should be the focus of the forward thinking FO. Not what you're trying to justify - which is why you continue to argue Wilson isn't worth 22 million plus to Seattle. You've missed the forest for the trees.

 

[Popeyejones]

Not what you're trying to justify - which is why you continue to argue Wilson isn't worth 22 million plus to Seattle. You've missed the forest for the trees.

Just to clarify (again, again, again :lol: ), I've NEVER argued that Wilson isn't worth 22 million plus to Seattle. I've said:

1) I think it's a more interesting question for teams like the Hawks, 9ers, and Chiefs than it is for many other teams

and

2) To give that much coin to one position impacts what you're able to do, the consistency you can have, and how much you can focus your strategy for winning on other positions.

Likewise, I'm not just making a simple argument about stats. I'm making an argument about the cap, salary allocation, and its relationship to strategy.

The idea that you can one day spend over 20 million dollars MORE per year at a position without changing anything else you're doing is simply ludicrous.

That's not contentious. When the Hawks are spending 4,300% more per year on Wilson's salary, in the short or long term they're going to have to lean on him more. What exactly is objectionable about this?

I feel like I'm getting a load of grief for stating the obvious. :lol:

 

[Rainger]

Pay the man. I don't care how much just pay the man. Get creative and give him shares in Vulcan entertainment so that the numbers of the contract can be whatever they need to be.

 

[rideaducati]

I'm going to get killed for it, but I wouldn't pay it. With all of the pieces we have and the defense we have, there are a lot of quarterbacks out there that we can win Super Bowls with.

Tarvaris Jackson proves your point. I'm sure Seahawk fans all over the world would sign up for watching Russell Wilson win Super Bowls for another team. GTFOH.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Not what you're trying to justify - which is why you continue to argue Wilson isn't worth 22 million plus to Seattle. You've missed the forest for the trees.

Just to clarify (again, again, again :lol: ), I've NEVER argued that Wilson isn't worth 22 million plus to Seattle. I've said:

1) I think it's a more interesting question for teams like the Hawks, 9ers, and Chiefs than it is for many other teams

and

2) To give that much coin to one position impacts what you're able to do, the consistency you can have, and how much you can focus your strategy for winning on other positions.

Likewise, I'm not just making a simple argument about stats. I'm making an argument about the cap, salary allocation, and its relationship to strategy.

The idea that you can one day spend over 20 million dollars MORE per year at a position without changing anything else you're doing is simply ludicrous.

That's not contentious. When the Hawks are spending 4,300% more per year on Wilson's salary, in the short or long term they're going to have to lean on him more. What exactly is objectionable about this?

I feel like I'm getting a load of grief for stating the obvious. :lol:

Because stating the obvious does not mean you're right. Change of thinking after a pay raise has had negative effects on the teams which commited to it. Change for the sake of change doesn't win Super Bowls. Look at your own team for further proof.

 

[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.

First of all the 9ers would never, ever do that, but to take the question seriously:

1) I think Wilson is absolutely a better QB at this point than Kap.

2) That said, as a fan I'd seriously question this move. I'd love to root for Wilson as my favorite team's QB, but given the style of play the 9ers use, I simply don't think the extra 8-12 million dollars a year in salary cap space to upgrade from Kap to Wilson is worth it. If we were talking about the Packers, Patriots, or Saints it would be a different story, but for the style of ball the 9ers play, 8-12 million bucks just isn't worth it to make that jump.

3) FWIW it's the same story with Alex Smith to Kaepernick. Kaepernick is immensely more talented than Alex Smith. He keeps defenses honest with his legs, and he can, like, complete passes to wide receivers and stuff. That said, given the style of ball the 9ers play, I think Smith at 9 million opens up a lot more possibilities for the team as a whole than Kaepernick at 14 million. That's just five million bucks per, but it matters. Given how the 9ers play, that Kap is a better QB than Alex doesn't matter nearly as much as it would on another team, because neither of them are throwing as much as other teams, and the offense (and team) doesn't lean on the QB as much as other teams. The most damning stat to the "importance" of QB play for the 9ers org is that even though Kap allows the 9ers to do so much more, Alex and Kap had virtually identical winning %s under the same regime.

Hypothetical for sure, but if Harbaugh leaves and say Holmgren comes into S.F. I know as a Seahawk fan that Holmgren has a certain idea of what he wants at QB, Brains over Brawn first. Kaep isn't a stupid kid by any means, but Football IQ and processing information quickly to action is another skill set altogether.

Just saying New Coach is sometimes a New QB situation, if Wilson was available on the Market this is a situation I could see happening. S.F. or Oakland as well just to throw it out there.

 

[HansGruber]

Tical, your theory is verifiable nonsense that is easily disproven. Forget the Mannings and Roethlisberger (even though they also disprove that nonsense). Tom Brady blows it out of the water.

I challenge you to name one franchise in NFL history that has ever had greater regular and postseason success over the career of a QB than the Patriots with Tom Brady. EVER. Before the salary cap or after it. Before the Superbowl or after it.

Patriots with Tom Brady:
Regular Season - 163 wins, 52 losses = 75.8% winning percentage over 13+ seasons
Postseason - 17 wins, 7 losses, 5 Superbowl appearances, 3 Superbowl wins = 70.8% winning percentage and tied for second in history for most Superbowl wins by a single QB