Pete Carroll the only holdout left during Super Bowl years

RiverDog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
92
Location
Kennewick, WA
This year, Lamar Jackson's rookie contract hits the 5th year option and his cap hit goes from about 3 million to 23 million (11% of cap). Next year would be franchise tag if not extended earlier. Harbaugh's window of cheap QB play is closing this year and they'll have to make a similar decision in Baltimore (similar to Seattle's this off-season).

LJ was drafted as the last pick of the 1st round in 2018. He won the Heisman in college (Louisville Cardinals), and the NFL League MVP in 2019. 3 ProBowl seasons and 1 All Pro season. 1 playoff win and 3 losses. A DeShaun Watson or Aaron Rogers contract would put the Ravens well above the QB cap of 20%.

This may seem off-topic to a PC thread, but it's so similar to Seattle. From 2014 to 2015, RW's average salary went from 700K to about 22Million or 15% of salary cap. His individual play improved until extended to his current contract at roughly 30 million or about 16% cap in 2021. He now wants 50 million/yr or about 25% of total Cap.

Harbaugh will face the same choices as Pete (unless LJ somehow loses his mojo and makes the decision easy). Baltimore is practically guaranteed to reach the playoffs the majority of the upcoming years but also practically guaranteed to fail to win the Superbowl. (No team has ever won the Superbowl with a QB cap hit above 12.6%).

So hypothetical question: For a period of the next 10 years, would you prefer a situation where you're guaranteed to make the playoffs 9 times, but also guaranteed to not win the SuperBowl or alternatively you're team will be embarrassingly bad for some years, but leave the chance open to win the big one over that timeframe?
IMO this is a more appropriate topic than what is posed in the OP. Barring some unusual circumstance, Pete is our coach for the 2022 season, so there's not much point in debating the merits of him continuing in that job.

To answer the question, I would rather have a situation where we are paying our QB less than 12% of the cap as it would give us more flexibility to rebuild our team into a genuine SB contender. It wouldn't have made much sense to pay Russell $50M+ if we can't protect him, give him a decent running attack, or a top 10 defense to keep games winnable.

Looking into my crystal ball, I saw no future SB's with Russell on our team. What I saw was perpetual mediocrity, a series of .500ish seasons, an occasional wild card playoff win, and no serious threat to go to the SB. I'd rather jettison him as we did, use the draft choices and cap space to rebuild the team, and take our chances going forward, knowing full well that there is the possibility that we could end up like the Lions or Jets.
 

chrispy

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
420
Reaction score
45
Except you don't know how much he wants. no place have you seen him or his agent say anything, You may be right but you might be wrong. As to your hypothetical, that is a strawman argument. For one we won an Sb in those 10 years. for 2 you cant guarantee we will not win an Sb nor can you guarantee if we went with the embarrassing we would.

You are basically setting your hypothetical up with uneven conditions to elicit a specific response.

The reality is you have to get into the playoffs to have a chance. Once you get in anything can happen.
Lamar Jackson wants more than 12.6% of cap (26 million), or it would already be done.
Although it's hypothetical, it's still fact based. No team has ever won a SB with a QB over 12.6% of cap. There's no guarantee without an expensive QB. There is a guarantee with one: no Lombardi.

There's no exception. 56 out of 56 Superbowls, 27 out of 27 seasons with a formal Cap. 100% "Anything can happen" is just not true. Lots of things cannot happen. It's easier to get into the playoffs with a franchise QB, but paying more than the position can impact ensures you won't win a SB. I'm happy to compromise and agree that sometime, at some point in the future there may be one or two exceptions to 12.6%, but it'll be 12.7% or 12.75%. 15% of Cap in 2022 is 30million. RW's last contract was an average salary of 35 million/yr and he now wants 15 more: 50 million/yr. Keeping him basically guarantees the team playoff appearances regularly without another SB; expecting anything different is just fantasy. Moving on gives the team a chance above 0%.

I agree with the move. I think Pete deserves a chance to build another contender. Additionally, I don't have anything negative to say to anyone that would rather RW would have stayed. However, that decision has to acknowledge they're now hoping to make it deep into the playoffs without a chance of winning the SB.

Failure to acknowledge something that happens 100% of the time doesn't change it.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
8,163
Reaction score
281
All the players during those memorable Super Bowl years are gone but hes still here. There should be a new head coach that should take the remade and retool Seahawks into the promised land.
NOPE.
The Master Architect of the MOST SUCCESSFUL TEAM IN SEAHAWKS HISTORY deserves another shot, and apparently Jody Allen feels the same way.........."I'm in"
 

John63

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
95
Lamar Jackson wants more than 12.6% of cap (26 million), or it would already be done.
Although it's hypothetical, it's still fact based. No team has ever won a SB with a QB over 12.6% of cap. There's no guarantee without an expensive QB. There is a guarantee with one: no Lombardi.

There's no exception. 56 out of 56 Superbowls, 27 out of 27 seasons with a formal Cap. 100% "Anything can happen" is just not true. Lots of things cannot happen. It's easier to get into the playoffs with a franchise QB, but paying more than the position can impact ensures you won't win a SB. I'm happy to compromise and agree that sometime, at some point in the future there may be one or two exceptions to 12.6%, but it'll be 12.7% or 12.75%. 15% of Cap in 2022 is 30million. RW's last contract was an average salary of 35 million/yr and he now wants 15 more: 50 million/yr. Keeping him basically guarantees the team playoff appearances regularly without another SB; expecting anything different is just fantasy. Moving on gives the team a chance above 0%.

I agree with the move. I think Pete deserves a chance to build another contender. Additionally, I don't have anything negative to say to anyone that would rather RW would have stayed. However, that decision has to acknowledge they're now hoping to make it deep into the playoffs without a chance of winning the SB.

Failure to acknowledge something that happens 100% of the time doesn't change it.
First, we do not know what Wilson wants. None does as neither he nor the Broncos have said., this is all speculation. Now as to the other thing. This is the great conundrum in the NFL. Only 2 times in the history of the NFL did a team win an NFl without what was considered at the times a top QB. Here is another 0 the number of times a team won an SB without making the playoffs. And alos just making the playoffs is no guarantee of winning an SB. And you need a great QB to continually make the playoffs. The more you make the better the odds of getting to and winning an SB.


So what you are saying is you would rather give PC a chance to remake his team and then hope he can catch lightning in a bottle again or can buck history than Keep a top QB knowing you will always have a chance. Got it your a gambler. I am too but I like the best odds which we no longer have.
 

chrispy

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
420
Reaction score
45
First, we do not know what Wilson wants. None does as neither he nor the Broncos have said., this is all speculation. Now as to the other thing. This is the great conundrum in the NFL. Only 2 times in the history of the NFL did a team win an NFl without what was considered at the times a top QB. Here is another 0 the number of times a team won an SB without making the playoffs. And alos just making the playoffs is no guarantee of winning an SB. And you need a great QB to continually make the playoffs. The more you make the better the odds of getting to and winning an SB.


So what you are saying is you would rather give PC a chance to remake his team and then hope he can catch lightning in a bottle again or can buck history than Keep a top QB knowing you will always have a chance. Got it your a gambler. I am too but I like the best odds which we no longer have.
Mike Sando reported that the Seahawks wouldn't pay him 50million/yr and that's why they moved him.

I don't know NFI, but Nick Foles, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer have won the SuperBowl off the top of my head. Of course it's better to have a better QB. No one's arguing that they'd rather have Ryan Fitzpatrick than Payton Manning if they were paid the same. I'm just saying a FO hamstrings the team when they pay too much to one player. "Too much" is arguable, but historically it's calculable at 12.6% of Cap for the QB position.

RE: playoff appearances, "The more you make the better the odds of getting to and winning an SB" seems intuitive, but it has been proven false. Your intuition is misleading you. Try winning this argument in Buffalo. Jim Kelley was the highest paid player in the NFL and he carried the Bills to 17 playoff games in his 11 year career, but never won the SB. Marino is also a good example-highest paid player, no SB. In the Cap era, never has the highest paid player in the NFL won a SuperBowl, yet they frequently appear in the playoffs.

In 2022, a team has $206million to buy as much talent as they can. Assume talent roughly equates to salary for experienced players. (in general, a better player earns more than a bad player) It makes sense to pay the QB more than everyone else because they have more impact. As you pay that one player more, you're subtracting talent (dollars) from the rest of the team. At some point, that one player can't compensate for the lack of talent surrounding them. This is not in question. One can only argue the point at which it's unable to be overcome. Again, that's easy to show historically at about 10% but with a margin of error to take it to 12.6% of Cap to QB. Outside of 13% is impossible unless something in the game itself changes that makes the QB position more able to compensate.

I don't gamble. The expectation to win SB/s with a QB taking too much cap space is invalid. One can only assume that PC/JS are tired of playoff appearances without another SB win.

The overlap where we can both agree is the Seahawks should get the best QB possible for 25million/yr. Of course we also agree that if RW3 or LamarJackson would sign that contract, it's a path to success.
 

flv2

Active member
Joined
Mar 20, 2022
Messages
101
Reaction score
38
In 2007 the QB franchise tag was 11.57% of the salary cap.
In 2012 the QB franchise tag was 11.97% of the salary cap.
In 2017 the QB franchise tag was 12.74% of the salary cap.
In 2022 the QB franchise tag is 14.27% of the salary cap.
 

John63

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
95
Mike Sando reported that the Seahawks wouldn't pay him 50million/yr and that's why they moved him.

I don't know NFI, but Nick Foles, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Trent Dilfer have won the SuperBowl off the top of my head. Of course it's better to have a better QB. No one's arguing that they'd rather have Ryan Fitzpatrick than Payton Manning if they were paid the same. I'm just saying a FO hamstrings the team when they pay too much to one player. "Too much" is arguable, but historically it's calculable at 12.6% of Cap for the QB position.

RE: playoff appearances, "The more you make the better the odds of getting to and winning an SB" seems intuitive, but it has been proven false. Your intuition is misleading you. Try winning this argument in Buffalo. Jim Kelley was the highest paid player in the NFL and he carried the Bills to 17 playoff games in his 11 year career, but never won the SB. Marino is also a good example-highest paid player, no SB. In the Cap era, never has the highest paid player in the NFL won a SuperBowl, yet they frequently appear in the playoffs.

In 2022, a team has $206million to buy as much talent as they can. Assume talent roughly equates to salary for experienced players. (in general, a better player earns more than a bad player) It makes sense to pay the QB more than everyone else because they have more impact. As you pay that one player more, you're subtracting talent (dollars) from the rest of the team. At some point, that one player can't compensate for the lack of talent surrounding them. This is not in question. One can only argue the point at which it's unable to be overcome. Again, that's easy to show historically at about 10% but with a margin of error to take it to 12.6% of Cap to QB. Outside of 13% is impossible unless something in the game itself changes that makes the QB position more able to compensate.

I don't gamble. The expectation to win SB/s with a QB taking too much cap space is invalid. One can only assume that PC/JS are tired of playoff appearances without another SB win.

The overlap where we can both agree is the Seahawks should get the best QB possible for 25million/yr. Of course we also agree that if RW3 or LamarJackson would sign that contract, it's a path to success.
They may be what HE reported but there has been no real evidence to support it. SO he too is speculating or going off what he was told by some unknown resource.

As to the rest well, we will see if we don't get to the playoffs or SB in the 2 years PC has left then it was a faulure for PC. Not to say a new HC might not come in a reap some rewards for PC work, but that will not be PC. If 5 years from now still no Sb win then a failure period. Worse if Wilson wins on with the Bronco's failure. So the odds are against the Hawks.
 

Maelstrom787

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
6,869
Reaction score
444
Location
Delaware
They may be what HE reported but there has been no real evidence to support it. SO he too is speculating or going off what he was told by some unknown resource.

As to the rest well, we will see if we don't get to the playoffs or SB in the 2 years PC has left then it was a faulure for PC. Not to say a new HC might not come in a reap some rewards for PC work, but that will not be PC. If 5 years from now still no Sb win then a failure period. Worse if Wilson wins on with the Bronco's failure. So the odds are against the Hawks.
Then don't post, or use, any reports in your future posts as they're all completely invalid when not convenient for you.
 

AgentDib

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
111
Location
Seattle
In 2022, a team has $206million to buy as much talent as they can. Assume talent roughly equates to salary for experienced players. (in general, a better player earns more than a bad player) It makes sense to pay the QB more than everyone else because they have more impact. As you pay that one player more, you're subtracting talent (dollars) from the rest of the team. At some point, that one player can't compensate for the lack of talent surrounding them. This is not in question. One can only argue the point at which it's unable to be overcome. Again, that's easy to show historically at about 10% but with a margin of error to take it to 12.6% of Cap to QB. Outside of 13% is impossible unless something in the game itself changes that makes the QB position more able to compensate.
I agree with your overall point. Under a fixed salary cap, a player's value to a team can be defined as the benefit they provide divided by their salary cap hit. Overlooking how much a player makes is every bit as short sighted as overlooking their contributions on the football field. However, there are two recent changes that make me think we'll see a QB cap hit of 15%+ end up with the Super Bowl in the next few years.

First, the rookie wage scale post 2012 has significantly changed the financial landscape. A team that drafts well these days can load up on talent at a cheap price. It's not easy, but it's possible to afford everything if you're filling the bulk of your roster with artificially low contracts. Our 2013 team would still look stacked if we were spending 15% of the cap on Russ at the time.

It's also easy to look at our teams in '19 and '20 and say that they were limited without Super Bowl potential, but a couple more hits in the draft could have changed things. Better RB injury luck alone could have made a major difference if a healthy Penny and Carson were playing up to the potential they've shown at times.

Secondly, the door has been opened for good QBs to change teams as a result of the first point. Relatively unheard of until recently, but Brady's move was a blueprint that every other QB took note of. A team that has struggled at QB but drafted well has the high value rookie talent available to enable them to overpay for a QB.

They may be what HE reported but there has been no real evidence to support it. SO he too is speculating or going off what he was told by some unknown resource.

As to the rest well, we will see if we don't get to the playoffs or SB in the 2 years PC has left then it was a faulure for PC. Not to say a new HC might not come in a reap some rewards for PC work, but that will not be PC. If 5 years from now still no Sb win then a failure period. Worse if Wilson wins on with the Bronco's failure. So the odds are against the Hawks.
Are you still denying that Russ was pushing for a trade? It doesn't matter what happens in the next two years because trading Russ was the only possible move if he refused to sign an extension here. The only comparison you should be making is between what we got for Russ and the compensatory third round pick we would have gotten after he left in free agency.
 

John63

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
95
I agree with your overall point. Under a fixed salary cap, a player's value to a team can be defined as the benefit they provide divided by their salary cap hit. Overlooking how much a player makes is every bit as short sighted as overlooking their contributions on the football field. However, there are two recent changes that make me think we'll see a QB cap hit of 15%+ end up with the Super Bowl in the next few years.

First, the rookie wage scale post 2012 has significantly changed the financial landscape. A team that drafts well these days can load up on talent at a cheap price. It's not easy, but it's possible to afford everything if you're filling the bulk of your roster with artificially low contracts. Our 2013 team would still look stacked if we were spending 15% of the cap on Russ at the time.

It's also easy to look at our teams in '19 and '20 and say that they were limited without Super Bowl potential, but a couple more hits in the draft could have changed things. Better RB injury luck alone could have made a major difference if a healthy Penny and Carson were playing up to the potential they've shown at times.

Secondly, the door has been opened for good QBs to change teams as a result of the first point. Relatively unheard of until recently, but Brady's move was a blueprint that every other QB took note of. A team that has struggled at QB but drafted well has the high value rookie talent available to enable them to overpay for a QB.


Are you still denying that Russ was pushing for a trade? It doesn't matter what happens in the next two years because trading Russ was the only possible move if he refused to sign an extension here. The only comparison you should be making is between what we got for Russ and the compensatory third round pick we would have gotten after he left in free agency.
That's your opinion. I don't agree. Please show me were he refused to sign an extension? In fact it is not the Hawks MO to offer a contract with 2 years left. As to wanting to be traded no I don't. PC said they are not rebuilding but plan on competing so then making the playoffs should be no problem. Also since as you said the SB can't be won paying a top QB the going rate and since ee don't have one the SB should be no problem. Now if PC is lying, would not be the first time. Then we'll that's another thing. As to what you think I should be comparing okay problem isnits not up to you how I comparing anything. When healthy Seattle has made the playoffs 90% of the time with Wilson in the PC years. Without Wilson 50%. So since PC says they Re not rebuilding anything less than the playoffs is a failure period. Especially if Denver makes the playoffs. That's how I will measure the trade.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
8,163
Reaction score
281
Russ WAS NOT HAPPY, wanted Tom Brady type CONTROL= "Go to a City That Want's to Win".
Pete or no Pete, EXPENSIVE Russ, BY HIMSELF was not enough to put & keep us in contention...Last 7 years Track Record = hanging onto FALSE HOPE.
90% of ALMOST is not GROWTH.
Pre-Wilson, Pete was BUILDING, & PROGRAMING the entire >T-E-A-M<.
Anyone believing that Russ didn't need Marshawn Lynch & that PETERBUILT All World Defense / LOB, to help put him over the top IS LYING TO THEMSELVES.
AND 50% in the beginning of a Reload? As long as we see GROWTH, I'm a happy camper.
 
Last edited:

olyfan63

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
4,292
Reaction score
34
Pete's model for getting to and winning the SB...

NO: Paying a glorified game manager QB elite QB money and relying on that QB to make up the difference for a lower-cost, less-talented roster.

YES: A cheap but effective game manager QB (rookie contract or rejuvenated vet), with a young, cheap, athletic roster, a few key veteran free agents on D, a smashmouth running game, and a TON of players OUTPLAYING their contracts.

Pete & Co are all-in on getting back to the formula that was successful for them before. Pete tried the pay-the-QB-big-bucks money and it didn't work for him. Russell wasn't good enough to carry a team in the playoffs. It was always the D and Lynch that carried the team in the playoffs, during the playoff runs of 2013-2014. In Russell's big "defining his legacy" moment he choked and threw a pick. Yes, blame Bevell for the call, but Bevell didn't throw the pick.

Carroll's original model still works. Tampa Bay won the SB a couple years ago with Tom Brady, using essentially Carroll's model. Elite D, smashmouth running game (Fournette in the Lynch role), and a QB who minimizes turnovers and is always a threat to connect on deep throws.

Our odds of getting back to a SB are better with Pete than any of the flavor-of-the-month coaches out there.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
8,163
Reaction score
281
Pete's model for getting to and winning the SB...

NO: Paying a glorified game manager QB elite QB money and relying on that QB to make up the difference for a lower-cost, less-talented roster.

YES: A cheap but effective game manager QB (rookie contract or rejuvenated vet), with a young, cheap, athletic roster, a few key veteran free agents on D, a smashmouth running game, and a TON of players OUTPLAYING their contracts.

Pete & Co are all-in on getting back to the formula that was successful for them before. Pete tried the pay-the-QB-big-bucks money and it didn't work for him. Russell wasn't good enough to carry a team in the playoffs. It was always the D and Lynch that carried the team in the playoffs, during the playoff runs of 2013-2014. In Russell's big "defining his legacy" moment he choked and threw a pick. Yes, blame Bevell for the call, but Bevell didn't throw the pick.

Carroll's original model still works. Tampa Bay won the SB a couple years ago with Tom Brady, using essentially Carroll's model. Elite D, smashmouth running game (Fournette in the Lynch role), and a QB who minimizes turnovers and is always a threat to connect on deep throws.

Our odds of getting back to a SB are better with Pete than any of the flavor-of-the-month coaches out there.
I'm right there with ya Oly^^^
Once Beast-Mode & the LOB were gone, Wilson, >>ALL BY HIS LONESOME<< COULD NOT re-establish the "Identity" the Seahawks needed to go back into contention....Almost just ain't good enough in today's NFL.
Wilson wasn't interested in EXPANDING or even TRYING to overcome his weaknesses on his short game, or using Pete's Running Attack to set up for his E-P-I-C >> D-E-E-P B-A-L-L-S.....I got tired of the ABNORMAL # OF 3 & OUTS from our supposedly >>>>"TOP 5 QUARTERBACK"<<<<, and I ESPECIALLY got tired of the blame going to >>>>E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y B-U-T M-E<<<< RUSSELL WILSON.
This is NOT a hate on Russ, as I have stated time & time again, I ACTUALLY LOVE what he brought to MY Seattle Seahawks, B-U-T > He is NOT without his FAULTS or SHORT-COMMINGS, P-E-R-I-O-D!!!
 
Top