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

[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

"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.

Well actually all we know is the Hawks offered 4 years 80 mil, We do not know that Wilson wants 100 Mil 4 years.

 

[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.

Well actually all we know is the Hawks offered 4 years 80 mil, We do not know that Wilson wants 100 Mil 4 years.

Of course, the only way you'd verify that is from Russell or his agent, and that's not going to happen.

But all the sources I trust, especially Davis Hsu, who I trust implicitly has said that's what Russell's asking for.

 

[Popeyejones]

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

Ehh, I dunno. Back in 2011 the Hawks also didn't have a top 5 defense or running game, which they've had every year since then too.

I think it's also entirely possible that #2 IS TRUE but that the Hawks think changning their ideal scenario from #2 is a MUCH SMARTER play than holding firm on #2 and letting Wilson walk. To be honest I think this probably pretty likely, and if it is true, I absolutely agree with them if they make that decision.

That said, just to season the pot, for fun, one could also think about it this way--

Passing Stats:

YEAR A
Yards: 3459
TD: 24
INT: 9

YEAR B
Yards: 3357
TD: 26
INT: 9

YEAR C
Yards: 3475
TD: 20
INT: 7


Those are the three years the Seahawks have made it to the Super Bowl. "A" is Hasselbeck in 2005/6, and "B" and "C" are Wilson.

 

[MysterMatt]

I've decided to stop paying close attention to this issue because:

1. There so much rampant speculation
2. I trust both parties to get it sorted out eventually

One little thing to consider, however, is this little nugget I heard on the radio the other week: perhaps the sides aren't so far apart on dollars and years as we think, and instead are hung up on when Russell gets his contract. A few of you are already going down this path, but basically the team wants to keep this last year of low salary in place but will be happy to meet most of Russell's demands next year.

I really can't see Schneider being that hung up on 4 years versus 5 or 6, so it really must all be about Year 1.

 

[Hawkpower]

Seems to me like the real question is this:

Are the Seahawks a better team in the future with RW and a potentially weaker supporting cast or a more cost effective QB with a potentially dominant supporting cast?

Obviously there are so many variables that this in of itself is probably a bit simplistic, but it is a valid line of thinking. If we become weaker in other key areas, is having Russell enough to offset it?

If I was the GM, I know it would be running through my mind. I love Wilson, but whether we admit it or not, it is a RISK either way.......

The Win Win of course would be RW signing an unprecedented type of contract that allows for him to get "paid" and the team to not be handcuffed. If any QB was ever going to do that, you would think Russell, in his position, may have been the one to do so.

Doesnt appear that is in his intentions. And that is his right, I suppose.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^^ Yeah, that's definitely the math they're doing, and the math they should be doing.

I think the issue is that even if they decide that the later is in their better interest long-term, it's just completely unfeasible for them to let Wilson walk.

There's just no way.

If they sign Wilson to a massive deal and the team's performance declines the fans will accept it. If they let Wilson walk and the team's performance declines the fans will mutiny.

 

[Hawkpower]

^^^^ Yeah, that's definitely the math they're doing, and the math they should be doing.

I think the issue is that even if they decide that the later is in their better interest long-term, it's just completely unfeasible for them to let Wilson walk.

There's just no way.

If they sign Wilson to a massive deal and the team's performance declines the fans will accept it. If they let Wilson walk and the team's performance declines the fans will mutiny.

You are likely right.

If any GM was going to do it, I could see it being JS though. They beat to their own drum.

 

[randomation]

What if he wants something like a 10 year 240 million dollar contract. That would still be the highest paid player in history but by the end would be an absolute bargain.

 

[Hawkfan77]

If you think that after 3 years Russell has reached his ceiling, then you're crazy. He will get better, he's only played for 3 years!

 

[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

"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.

Well actually all we know is the Hawks offered 4 years 80 mil, We do not know that Wilson wants 100 Mil 4 years.

Of course, the only way you'd verify that is from Russell or his agent, and that's not going to happen.

But all the sources I trust, especially Davis Hsu, who I trust implicitly has said that's what Russell's asking for.

HMm Well I for one do not trust Hsu so if he says that I totally do not believe it. Not only do we really not know what he is asking we really do not know what is being offered every time I see something the term "it is believed" which means they are guessing.

 

[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?

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.

You quoted wrong. I understand your excitement but you credited me with your buddy Ticals comments. I wouldn't want to take that from him.

 

[Anthony!]

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

Ehh, I dunno. Back in 2011 the Hawks also didn't have a top 5 defense or running game, which they've had every year since then too.

I think it's also entirely possible that #2 IS TRUE but that the Hawks think changning their ideal scenario from #2 is a MUCH SMARTER play than holding firm on #2 and letting Wilson walk. To be honest I think this probably pretty likely, and if it is true, I absolutely agree with them if they make that decision.

That said, just to season the pot, for fun, one could also think about it this way--

Passing Stats:

YEAR A
Yards: 3459
TD: 24
INT: 9

YEAR B
Yards: 3357
TD: 26
INT: 9

YEAR C
Yards: 3475
TD: 20
INT: 7


Those are the three years the Seahawks have made it to the Super Bowl. "A" is Hasselbeck in 2005/6, and "B" and "C" are Wilson.

ahh dude in 2011 the defense was ranked 7th. the run game was not ranked top and it was not until Wilson cam on with his 800+ yards they were. Take that away and again they are not ranked in the top 10. In addition in 2011 the defense was on the filed an avg of 33 minutes. Since Wilson they are on the filed an avg of 27 minutes. That 6 minute difference sure does help the defense and guess who that is thanks to? Wilson. as to A,B,C you are forgetting the 849 yards rushing by Wilson and 6tds for C and the 539 yards and 1 td for B. So really you are looking at the below

A
3583 total yards
25 total tds
9 tos

b
3896 Total Yards
27 total tds
9 Tos

c
4324 total yards
26 total tds
7 Tos

Remember We were #1 in rushing this pas season, Wilson makes up over 30% of that number without him and the NFL avg for a starting QB we are barely top 10

 

[Anthony!]

I've decided to stop paying close attention to this issue because:

1. There so much rampant speculation
2. I trust both parties to get it sorted out eventually

One little thing to consider, however, is this little nugget I heard on the radio the other week: perhaps the sides aren't so far apart on dollars and years as we think, and instead are hung up on when Russell gets his contract. A few of you are already going down this path, but basically the team wants to keep this last year of low salary in place but will be happy to meet most of Russell's demands next year.

I really can't see Schneider being that hung up on 4 years versus 5 or 6, so it really must all be about Year 1.

You could be right and if that is all they should be able to come to a compromise, I mean they did things they said they would not do for Lynch.

 

[Anthony!]

Seems to me like the real question is this:

Are the Seahawks a better team in the future with RW and a potentially weaker supporting cast or a more cost effective QB with a potentially dominant supporting cast?

Obviously there are so many variables that this in of itself is probably a bit simplistic, but it is a valid line of thinking. If we become weaker in other key areas, is having Russell enough to offset it?

If I was the GM, I know it would be running through my mind. I love Wilson, but whether we admit it or not, it is a RISK either way.......

The Win Win of course would be RW signing an unprecedented type of contract that allows for him to get "paid" and the team to not be handcuffed. If any QB was ever going to do that, you would think Russell, in his position, may have been the one to do so.

Doesnt appear that is in his intentions. And that is his right, I suppose.

I think that question has been answered already. In 2011 we had Lynch, we had a top 10 defense. We went 7-9 and no playoffs, Wilson gets here and our defense hits top 3(thanks in part to not being on the field 33 minutes a game anymore), our run game hits top 3(thanks in part to Wilsons large QB rushing numbers, its no wonder Lynchs best years as both a rusher and receiver were with Wilson), and we win and lead the league in 4th qtr/ot game winning drives in those 3 years. Al that was done with a subpar oline and WRs. The core of the defense (minus Wagner) are all resigned already, with the cap increasing every year this should be a very very easy thing to accomplish. All that said the question of better with Wilson or not has been answered already

 

[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.

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.

You quoted wrong. I understand your excitement but you credited me with your buddy Ticals comments. I wouldn't want to take that from him.

Yeah sorry about that

 

[Hawkpower]

Seems to me like the real question is this:

Are the Seahawks a better team in the future with RW and a potentially weaker supporting cast or a more cost effective QB with a potentially dominant supporting cast?

Obviously there are so many variables that this in of itself is probably a bit simplistic, but it is a valid line of thinking. If we become weaker in other key areas, is having Russell enough to offset it?

If I was the GM, I know it would be running through my mind. I love Wilson, but whether we admit it or not, it is a RISK either way.......

The Win Win of course would be RW signing an unprecedented type of contract that allows for him to get "paid" and the team to not be handcuffed. If any QB was ever going to do that, you would think Russell, in his position, may have been the one to do so.

Doesnt appear that is in his intentions. And that is his right, I suppose.

I think that question has been answered already. IN 20911 we had Lynch, we had a top 10 defense. We went 7-9 and no playoffs, Wilson gets here and our defense hits top 3(thanks in part to no being on the filed 33 minutes a game anymore), our run game hits top 3(thanks in part to Wilsons large QB rushing numbers, its no wonder Lynchs best years as both a rusher and receiver were with Wilson), and we win and lead the league in 4th qtr/ot game winning drives in those 3 years. Al that was done with a subpar oline and WRs. The core of the defense (minus Wagner) are all resigned already, with the cap increasing every year this should be a very veryeasy thing to accomplish. All that said the question of better with Wilson or not has been answered already

Perhaps, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you paint it.

That 2011 team had some good young pieces, but was not nearly as good of a team as we could construct going forward using RW's money.

Futrher, it's not entirely fair to compare the 2011 team and pretend they were exactly the same as the 2014 version, minus RW. 2011 did not happen in a vaccum.

I know you won't change your mind as we all know how you feel about our QB (and I dont blame you!) but it at least deserves some thought IMO.

 

[Anthony!]

Seems to me like the real question is this:

Are the Seahawks a better team in the future with RW and a potentially weaker supporting cast or a more cost effective QB with a potentially dominant supporting cast?

Obviously there are so many variables that this in of itself is probably a bit simplistic, but it is a valid line of thinking. If we become weaker in other key areas, is having Russell enough to offset it?

If I was the GM, I know it would be running through my mind. I love Wilson, but whether we admit it or not, it is a RISK either way.......

The Win Win of course would be RW signing an unprecedented type of contract that allows for him to get "paid" and the team to not be handcuffed. If any QB was ever going to do that, you would think Russell, in his position, may have been the one to do so.

Doesnt appear that is in his intentions. And that is his right, I suppose.

I think that question has been answered already. IN 20911 we had Lynch, we had a top 10 defense. We went 7-9 and no playoffs, Wilson gets here and our defense hits top 3(thanks in part to no being on the filed 33 minutes a game anymore), our run game hits top 3(thanks in part to Wilsons large QB rushing numbers, its no wonder Lynchs best years as both a rusher and receiver were with Wilson), and we win and lead the league in 4th qtr/ot game winning drives in those 3 years. Al that was done with a subpar oline and WRs. The core of the defense (minus Wagner) are all resigned already, with the cap increasing every year this should be a very veryeasy thing to accomplish. All that said the question of better with Wilson or not has been answered already

Perhaps, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you paint it.

That 2011 team had some good young pieces, but was not nearly as good of a team as we could construct going forward using RW's money.

Futrher, it's not entirely fair to compare the 2011 team and pretend they were exactly the same as the 2014 version, minus RW. 2011 did not happen in a vaccum.

I know you won't change your mind as we all know how you feel about our QB (and I dont blame you!) but it at least deserves some thought IMO.

Perhaps but to act like we do not have data showing the difference would also be foolish. We also have league historical data, showing the importance of the QB position. There is far more evidence supporting we would be worse without RW and with an avg QB than saying the other way. Also some assumption are that the money we might have could be used to get these better pieces. There is not guarantee these great pieces would want to come here given they will know how important a franchise QB is and we will not have one. There are a few teams now that have a lot of money but cannot get FAs of any real caliber to come there.

 

[KiwiHawk]

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....

The funny thing is that the number of low-cost QBs who have won a Super Bowl is non-zero, while the highest-paid QBs who have been in a Super Bowl is zero.

In recent history there have been two low-cost QBs in the Super Bowl, being Wilson and Kaepernick. In both instances, they were bolstered by a top-flight defense and strong running game. The Seahawks have a top-flight defense and strong running game.

Please don't treat me as if I have a horse in this race. As I said in a previous post, I had a dream that made me consider some of "the other side" which is the letting-Wilson-walk side, and in my exploration I ran across some figures that I found interesting, so I shared them here.

Overall I find it a rather informative exercise to take the opposite of my original position and try to prove it, because it definitely sheds light on the other side of the coin and I often find some validity there.

As of now I do believe there is something to the idea of an expensive QB causing a lack of talent around him. Certainly if you want to take a case-in-point, look at the Saints (and thank them, because without Brees' ridiculously stupid contract we wouldn't get Graham).

I do find it amusing the number of arguments based on "you can't do it that way because other teams don't" when the Seahawks are poster children for tall defensive backs, small quick linemen, a 3rd-round QB, a team based on defense in the age of passing, a team based on rushing in the age of passing... We do EVERYTHING wrong, yet it still turns out right. So I am not very interested in "other teams don't do it that way" as a reason.

I've been a Seahawks fan since 1979 and know very well the difficulty of finding a franchise QB. But having explored the idea of letting Wilson walk, I have to say there is some merit to it.

Consider just for a moment if this is Wilson's ceiling in terms of production does he fall in the top tier of NFL quarterbacks, and if not is it wise to pay him not only like a top-tier QB but THE top QB?.

Of course, this may not be Wilson's ceiling. He may yet evolve into a more effective passer with the addition of some talent around him. Of course we may not be able to afford that talent if we continue to emphasize defense and pay Wilson as the top QB in the league.

A lot of what it boils down to is that if Wilson is not in fact the best QB in the NFL, is it wise to pay his as if he is? Ignore the extortion angle of what we do without him or where we find our next QB considering we don't even have one on the team who has thrown a professional pass. Just consider only where Wilson really ranks among QBs for production, and run the cost/benefit ratio on it and see if it still makes sense.

I can see both sides, because I looked into both sides. I can justify either position. It's an interesting thing to watch unfold.

 

[Hawkpower]

Seems to me like the real question is this:

Are the Seahawks a better team in the future with RW and a potentially weaker supporting cast or a more cost effective QB with a potentially dominant supporting cast?

Obviously there are so many variables that this in of itself is probably a bit simplistic, but it is a valid line of thinking. If we become weaker in other key areas, is having Russell enough to offset it?

If I was the GM, I know it would be running through my mind. I love Wilson, but whether we admit it or not, it is a RISK either way.......

The Win Win of course would be RW signing an unprecedented type of contract that allows for him to get "paid" and the team to not be handcuffed. If any QB was ever going to do that, you would think Russell, in his position, may have been the one to do so.

Doesnt appear that is in his intentions. And that is his right, I suppose.

I think that question has been answered already. IN 20911 we had Lynch, we had a top 10 defense. We went 7-9 and no playoffs, Wilson gets here and our defense hits top 3(thanks in part to no being on the filed 33 minutes a game anymore), our run game hits top 3(thanks in part to Wilsons large QB rushing numbers, its no wonder Lynchs best years as both a rusher and receiver were with Wilson), and we win and lead the league in 4th qtr/ot game winning drives in those 3 years. Al that was done with a subpar oline and WRs. The core of the defense (minus Wagner) are all resigned already, with the cap increasing every year this should be a very veryeasy thing to accomplish. All that said the question of better with Wilson or not has been answered already

Perhaps, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you paint it.

That 2011 team had some good young pieces, but was not nearly as good of a team as we could construct going forward using RW's money.

Futrher, it's not entirely fair to compare the 2011 team and pretend they were exactly the same as the 2014 version, minus RW. 2011 did not happen in a vaccum.

I know you won't change your mind as we all know how you feel about our QB (and I dont blame you!) but it at least deserves some thought IMO.

Perhaps but to act like we do not have data showing the difference would also be foolish. We also have league historical data, showing the importance of the QB position. There is far more evidence supporting we would be worse without RW and with an avg QB than saying the other way. Also some assumption are that the money we might have could be used to get these better pieces. There is not guarantee these great pieces would want to come here given they will know how important a franchise QB is and we will not have one. There are a few teams now that have a lot of money but cannot get FAs of any real caliber to come there.

What is this league historical evidence that proves we would be worse with a dominant supporting team minus RW vs. a potentially average supporting cast with him?

As others have said, we really don't have a lot of case studies to prove it because most GM's get scared and pay their QB's. And as was pointed out, someone, somewhere will be the first to try out the "we won't be held hostage by paying a franchise QB" model.....and it will be copycatted if it works out, that's for sure.

I don't know if that's the route we should follow, but it needs to be thought about. There are always better ways to do things. Its important to keep an open mind.

 

[Anthony!]

I think that question has been answered already. IN 20911 we had Lynch, we had a top 10 defense. We went 7-9 and no playoffs, Wilson gets here and our defense hits top 3(thanks in part to no being on the filed 33 minutes a game anymore), our run game hits top 3(thanks in part to Wilsons large QB rushing numbers, its no wonder Lynchs best years as both a rusher and receiver were with Wilson), and we win and lead the league in 4th qtr/ot game winning drives in those 3 years. Al that was done with a subpar oline and WRs. The core of the defense (minus Wagner) are all resigned already, with the cap increasing every year this should be a very veryeasy thing to accomplish. All that said the question of better with Wilson or not has been answered already

Perhaps, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you paint it.

That 2011 team had some good young pieces, but was not nearly as good of a team as we could construct going forward using RW's money.

Futrher, it's not entirely fair to compare the 2011 team and pretend they were exactly the same as the 2014 version, minus RW. 2011 did not happen in a vaccum.

I know you won't change your mind as we all know how you feel about our QB (and I dont blame you!) but it at least deserves some thought IMO.

Perhaps but to act like we do not have data showing the difference would also be foolish. We also have league historical data, showing the importance of the QB position. There is far more evidence supporting we would be worse without RW and with an avg QB than saying the other way. Also some assumption are that the money we might have could be used to get these better pieces. There is not guarantee these great pieces would want to come here given they will know how important a franchise QB is and we will not have one. There are a few teams now that have a lot of money but cannot get FAs of any real caliber to come there.

What is this league historical evidence that proves we would be worse with a dominant supporting team minus RW vs. a potentially average supporting cast with him?

As others have said, we really don't have a lot of case studies to prove it because most GM's get scared and pay their QB's. And as was pointed out, someone, somewhere will be the first to try out the "we won't be held hostage by paying a franchise QB" model.....and it will be copycatted if it works out, that's for sure.

I don't know if that's the route we should follow, but it needs to be thought about. There are always better ways to do things. Its important to keep an open mind.

simple only 2 times in the last 20 years has a team with an avg QB won the Superbowl.