Rumor: RW asking to be the highest paid player in history

[Anthony!]

Remember when Golden Tate left on a lowball offered from the FO, and we sured missed him last year. Don't forget we couldn't keep Red or Clemons, and our pass rush took a dip. You let Wilson walk then it's going to be a bigger impact, game over Seattle.

Yes, we missed all of them but to use a baseball term every last one of the above mentioned players are what's termed a "Civic". In other sports they're known as as midlevel players. You never overpay for "Civics" you pay your Ferrari's and surround them with Honda Civics at market price and not a penny more.

In otherwords you understand exactly what game is being played between the FO and Wilson and it's NEVER fun to watch from front row seats.

True however we have not seen this FO deal with an offensive Ferrari and so far they are playing the same game as they did with the civics and that is not a good game to play.

 

[mikeak]

My only question is where do you find cheap qb's that can win???

You simply don't. Even bad qb's that can lose are expensive.

Final thought - you need a QB that can win. Be it a 20+pt comeback against Atlanta, late TD against Chicago or any of the other GW drives Russel has. You don't get that with a cheap backup. Maybe you get 9-7 but you don't win superbowls that way. Rodgers should have been back in the Super Bowl last year. Baltimore was very competitive as well. I think it is more just so darn hard to repeat and that is the issue.

 

[Tical21]

My only question is where do you find cheap qb's that can win???

You simply don't. Even bad qb's that can lose are expensive.

Final thought - you need a QB that can win. Be it a 20+pt comeback against Atlanta, late TD against Chicago or any of the other GW drives Russel has. You don't get that with a cheap backup. Maybe you get 9-7 but you don't win superbowls that way. Rodgers should have been back in the Super Bowl last year. Baltimore was very competitive as well. I think it is more just so darn hard to repeat and that is the issue.

You find them in the draft, you find them in the Kurt Warner/Brad Johnson bin. You take a guy nobody wanted like Drew Brees. No stone unturned, right?

 

[netskier]

What does the quarterback pipeline look like it will pump into the draft in the next couple of years?

 

[Anthony!]

My only question is where do you find cheap qb's that can win???

You simply don't. Even bad qb's that can lose are expensive.

Final thought - you need a QB that can win. Be it a 20+pt comeback against Atlanta, late TD against Chicago or any of the other GW drives Russel has. You don't get that with a cheap backup. Maybe you get 9-7 but you don't win superbowls that way. Rodgers should have been back in the Super Bowl last year. Baltimore was very competitive as well. I think it is more just so darn hard to repeat and that is the issue.

All true and despite what some people with agendas supposedly know or are sure of We would not have gotten to either SB with an avg QB. Avg Qbs do not lead the league in 4th qtr/OT game winning drives over a 3 year period. Also has he has shown in college Wilson can do it with out a top 5 run game, he has shown it in many games were our Run game was awful that he can do it, and there have been games were he was the run game so anyone who thinks they No or are certain are just trying to push their agenda, because the facts show they are wrong.. In fact our run game would not be top 5 without Wilsons 800+ yards. In fact in 2011 with Lynch but no Wilson we were 21st and Lynch had 285 carries. in 2014 we had the #1 rush game and Lynch had 280 carries. Guess who put us to #1? Wilson and his 849 yards. so the whole run game thing is a huge misdirection.

 

[KiwiHawk]

On the other hand, when is the last time a top-paid QB won a Super Bowl? The last one to have a cap hit in excess of 15 million was Eli Manning in 2008. All of these big-money deals for elite QBs, and not a single one has won a Super Bowl while on a big salary.

Salary Year - Name - Cap Hit (Millions) (Top Player - Cap hit)

2014 Cheater 14.8 (E.Manning 20.4)
2013 Wilson 0.6 (E. Manning 20.9)
2012 Flacco 8 (P. Manning 18)
2011 E. Manning 14.1 (Sanchez 17.2)
2010 Brees 12.3 (P. Manning 19.2)
2009 Rapist 13.4 (P. Manning 21.2)
2008 E.Manning 15.2 (P.Manning 18.7)
2007 P.Manning 10.2 (Palmer 13.8)
2006 Rapist 4.5 (Cheater 13.8)
2005 Cheater 8.4 (Dog Killer 11.9)

QB cap hits currently over 15 million for 2015:

Cutler 16.5
Kaepernick 15.3
Rodgers 18.3
Ryan 19.5
Brees 26.4
E. Manning 19.8
Rivers 17.4
Rapist 17.2
Smith 15.6
Stafford 17.7
P. Manning 17.5

How many of those teams paying 15 million plus stand any chance of going to a Super Bowl this year? I'd say the Packers and Broncos are the only ones with a legitimate shot.

While correlation does not prove causation, there is a pretty clear negative correlation between having the highest-paid QB and wining the Super Bowl. Not a single top-cap QB in the past 10 years has even played in a Super Bowl, and of the top-cap QBs this year only a couple look likely.

 

[mikeak]

Now run the same analysis comparing ALL drafted QB's, ALL low cost QBs over the same time period and tell me the percentage of them that have won. Then compare that to the money spent on the "losers" and you realize finding the right QB through other avenues is like finding the needle in the haystack.

If the options are Cleveland type continuous searching or GB constant playoff appearance and coming close again then I surely elect the GB way and hoping to strike gold once in awhile....

 

[mikeak]

This extension still doesn't offer him the same earning potential that playing out his contract would. We've gone over the numbers and scenarios for franchise quarterbacks.

I agree. That is why I wrote that others may pay more.

My sole argument was don't bring in this current year and drop the average and compare that new number to what other teams will pay. other teams won't have the option to pay for this year so only thing that should be compared is the extra years added. Be that $20M or $25M...

 

[dumbrabbit]

Just a thought, wild speculation here. but Schneider is related to the Packers. If Wilson doesn't re-sign before free agency, you the Packers will be willing to offer Wilson the contract he wants, and let Rodgers go?

 

[Hawkfan77]

Just a thought, wild speculation here. but Schneider is related to the Packers. If Wilson doesn't re-sign before free agency, you the Packers will be willing to offer Wilson the contract he wants, and let Rodgers go?

Why would they get rid of Rodgers for Wilson?

And are you implying that Schneider is purposefully trying to not sign Wilson so the Packers can get him and then what? Schneider leaves for GB? I guess I'm confused as to what you are trying to insinuate.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

My only question is where do you find cheap qb's that can win???

You simply don't. Even bad qb's that can lose are expensive.

Final thought - you need a QB that can win. Be it a 20+pt comeback against Atlanta, late TD against Chicago or any of the other GW drives Russel has. You don't get that with a cheap backup. Maybe you get 9-7 but you don't win superbowls that way. Rodgers should have been back in the Super Bowl last year. Baltimore was very competitive as well. I think it is more just so darn hard to repeat and that is the issue.

You find them in the draft, you find them in the Kurt Warner/Brad Johnson bin. You take a guy nobody wanted like Drew Brees. No stone unturned, right?

So let's say we let Russell walk and hit the jackpot again with a rookie qb. In the few years to follow we are back to this situation but at higher numbers. What then? Let him walk too?

There is no guarantee you can get a franchise qb by merely drafting as one might not even be present.
Without retaining your star qb and the face of your franchise have fewer free agents drawn to your team.
As good as your defense is you still need the talent, leadership, poise and intelligence at this top position to win consistently.

 

[Anthony!]

On the other hand, when is the last time a top-paid QB won a Super Bowl? The last one to have a cap hit in excess of 15 million was Eli Manning in 2008. All of these big-money deals for elite QBs, and not a single one has won a Super Bowl while on a big salary.

Salary Year - Name - Cap Hit (Millions) (Top Player - Cap hit)

2014 Cheater 14.8 (E.Manning 20.4)
2013 Wilson 0.6 (E. Manning 20.9)
2012 Flacco 8 (P. Manning 18)
2011 E. Manning 14.1 (Sanchez 17.2)
2010 Brees 12.3 (P. Manning 19.2)
2009 Rapist 13.4 (P. Manning 21.2)
2008 E.Manning 15.2 (P.Manning 18.7)
2007 P.Manning 10.2 (Palmer 13.8)
2006 Rapist 4.5 (Cheater 13.8)
2005 Cheater 8.4 (Dog Killer 11.9)

QB cap hits currently over 15 million for 2015:

Cutler 16.5
Kaepernick 15.3
Rodgers 18.3
Ryan 19.5
Brees 26.4
E. Manning 19.8
Rivers 17.4
Rapist 17.2
Smith 15.6
Stafford 17.7
P. Manning 17.5

How many of those teams paying 15 million plus stand any chance of going to a Super Bowl this year? I'd say the Packers and Broncos are the only ones with a legitimate shot.

While correlation does not prove causation, there is a pretty clear negative correlation between having the highest-paid QB and wining the Super Bowl. Not a single top-cap QB in the past 10 years has even played in a Super Bowl, and of the top-cap QBs this year only a couple look likely.

As I showed in an earlier post 80% of the time a team with a franchise Qb, meaning paid like one makes the payoffs consistently. So the question is do you want to make the playoffs once every 5-8 years or make it consistently. Once in everyone has the same chance to win the SB. If you want to be consistent SB contenders you need a top Qb which means you need to pay. FYI Brady at 14.8 is close enough dude. I mean look at your list Rodgers was in, Rivers was in, Rapist was in, Stafford was in , Manning was in that means 5 of the top paid made the playoffs.

 

[Anthony!]

Now run the same analysis comparing ALL drafted QB's, ALL low cost QBs over the same time period and tell me the percentage of them that have won. Then compare that to the money spent on the "losers" and you realize finding the right QB through other avenues is like finding the needle in the haystack.

If the options are Cleveland type continuous searching or GB constant playoff appearance and coming close again then I surely elect the GB way and hoping to strike gold once in awhile....

Exactly without a franchise QB who you will pay you will make it once in a blue moon, with one you have a chance every year.

 

[Anthony!]

You find them in the draft, you find them in the Kurt Warner/Brad Johnson bin. You take a guy nobody wanted like Drew Brees. No stone unturned, right?

Okay first really you want to gamble every 3 years that you will find a Franchise Qb and then when it is time to pay them do it again. The is the dumbest thing I have ever head. If it was that easy every team would do it, and yet they do not, Why because it is hard to do. He named 3 and I would argue really 2 out of hundreds times 40+ years of the NFL. Talk about a one in a million chance. Mean while in the years it takes you to find another franchise Qb the rest of your team gets old, and needs to be replaced also. Without a doubt the dumbest post of the century.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Just a thought, wild speculation here. but Schneider is related to the Packers. If Wilson doesn't re-sign before free agency, you the Packers will be willing to offer Wilson the contract he wants, and let Rodgers go?

You caught him, Schneider is part of an elaborate ruse to lure Russell away to a team he doesn't work for out of sheer love and loyalty to replace a better QB.

 

[hawkfannj]

He deserves a great contract . But highest player ever !? You got to be able to throw a quick slant with some consistency I'm thinking . It is the make or break play in this league . He runs a hell of a backyard football type stuff can't take that away.
I think after 3 years we can get the quick slant down ! It's my only problem with his game

 

[Popeyejones]

He deserves a great contract . But highest player ever !? You got to be able to throw a quick slant with some consistency I'm thinking . It is the make or break play in this league . He runs a hell of a backyard football type stuff can't take that away.
I think after 3 years we can get the quick slant down ! It's my only problem with his game

Yeah, I mean I think it really comes down to two things:

1) If one thinks Wilson will grow into a quarterback that is the caliber of Manning, Rodgers, Brady, or Brees.

and (more importantly, IMO)

2) If it is in the Seahawks' long-term vision to lean on the QB position to the same degree it's leaned on by the teams which employ Manning, Rodgers, Brady, and Brees.

It's really only interesting because it's entirely possible for one of those to be true without the other one being true (e.g. if #1 is true but #2 isn't it means that Wilson is deserving of that money to many teams, but the Hawks just aren't one of them).

All just grist for the offseason mill though, as I'll be shocked if this deal doesn't end up getting done.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

He deserves a great contract . But highest player ever !? You got to be able to throw a quick slant with some consistency I'm thinking . It is the make or break play in this league . He runs a hell of a backyard football type stuff can't take that away.
I think after 3 years we can get the quick slant down ! It's my only problem with his game

"Highest paid QB" is just a formality, and is more based on inflation and the cap being bumped up per year. So I wouldn't put a lot of stock in that phrase.

Manning was the highest paid until Brady got his deal, then it was Brees, then it was Romo, then it was Flacco, on and on.

If you're going to hang your hat on something, then hang it on the fact that Russell is asking for 100M over 4 years, and the Hawks are only offering about 80M. That's the sticking point right now between the two sides, not the highest paid semantics of the deal.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^^ While absolutely true, "highest paid", tbf, also falls between those two figures.

 

[Anthony!]

He deserves a great contract . But highest player ever !? You got to be able to throw a quick slant with some consistency I'm thinking . It is the make or break play in this league . He runs a hell of a backyard football type stuff can't take that away.
I think after 3 years we can get the quick slant down ! It's my only problem with his game

Yeah, I mean I think it really comes down to two things:

1) If one thinks Wilson will grow into a quarterback that is the caliber of Manning, Rodgers, Brady, or Brees.

and (more importantly, IMO)

2) If it is in the Seahawks' long-term vision to lean on the QB position to the same degree it's leaned on by the teams which employ Manning, Rodgers, Brady, and Brees.

It's really only interesting because it's entirely possible for one of those to be true without the other one being true (e.g. if #1 is true but #2 isn't it means that Wilson is deserving of that money to many teams, but the Hawks just aren't one of them).

All just grist for the offseason mill though, as I'll be shocked if this deal doesn't end up getting done.

IF #2 is true then we are in for along 10+ seasons, as we saw in 2011 without that franchise QB we are just a 7-9 team