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

[McGruff]

this is not a criticism of anyone involved in this discussion but I find it amazing that we can talk for eight pages when there is no new information about Wilson's contract.

Only in América!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

this is not a criticism of anyone involved in this discussion but I find it amazing that we can talk for eight pages when there is no new information about Wilson's contract.

Only in América!

offseason man, offseason.

Also throw in a little anxiety some of us are feeling over arguably the greatest player to ever wear a Hawk's uniform contract situation. We've been waiting a LONG LONG time for a franchise QB like Russell, we don't want to lose him, or even have there be strife and conflict with his deal.

 

[Hawkfan77]

this is not a criticism of anyone involved in this discussion but I find it amazing that we can talk for eight pages when there is no new information about Wilson's contract.

Only in América!

offseason man, offseason.

Also throw in a little anxiety some of us are feeling over arguably the greatest player to ever wear a Hawk's uniform contract situation. We've been waiting a LONG LONG time for a franchise QB like Russell, we don't want to lose him, or even have there be strife and conflict with his deal.

Speak for yourself!

It's obvious some here don't want Russell here because they undervalue the QB position which is...ridiculous

 

[Hawkpower]

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.[/quote]


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.[/quote]


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.[/quote]

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



Interesting.

What was the definition of average?

 

[Tical21]

Besides Fullback, every other single position on the 2014 team is better than the 2011 team. 21 out of 22 positions. Mebane, BMW and Lynch are the only players that could be considered close, but I think each have been improved since then. Conservatively, shouldn't that be good for at least a 3-4 game difference?

 

[Hawkpower]

this is not a criticism of anyone involved in this discussion but I find it amazing that we can talk for eight pages when there is no new information about Wilson's contract.

Only in América!

offseason man, offseason.

Also throw in a little anxiety some of us are feeling over arguably the greatest player to ever wear a Hawk's uniform contract situation. We've been waiting a LONG LONG time for a franchise QB like Russell, we don't want to lose him, or even have there be strife and conflict with his deal.

Speak for yourself!

It's obvious some here don't want Russell here because they undervalue the QB position which is...ridiculous

I'm assuming your last sentence is a joke, or hyperbole to illicit a reaction as I haven't seen anyone say they don't want RW here.

The commentary surrounds whether or not it's wise to pay a QB money that can potentially limit the overall success of the team.

All along we hoped that RW would understand the unique situation he was in and sign a contract that would benefit both the long term health of the team AND his pocketbook.

That was clearly a pipe dream

No one is right or wrong, despite what some may think. Not paying Wilson is a HUGE gamble. So is paying him irresponsibly.

It deserves discussion, its not black and white.

 

[KiwiHawk]

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

Correlation does not prove causation.

Besides, when the average Qbs win the Super Bowl, it's because they bring big defenses. We have a big defense, so does that mean we don't need a top QB?

 

[Anthony!]

this is not a criticism of anyone involved in this discussion but I find it amazing that we can talk for eight pages when there is no new information about Wilson's contract.

Only in América!

offseason man, offseason.

Also throw in a little anxiety some of us are feeling over arguably the greatest player to ever wear a Hawk's uniform contract situation. We've been waiting a LONG LONG time for a franchise QB like Russell, we don't want to lose him, or even have there be strife and conflict with his deal.

Speak for yourself!

It's obvious some here don't want Russell here because they undervalue the QB position which is...ridiculous

Or are still butt hurt Flynn could not cut it.

 

[Anthony!]

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.[/quote]


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.[/quote]

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



Interesting.

What was the definition of average?[/quote]

In this case you are talking about Trent Dilfer.

 

[Anthony!]

this is not a criticism of anyone involved in this discussion but I find it amazing that we can talk for eight pages when there is no new information about Wilson's contract.

Only in América!

offseason man, offseason.

Also throw in a little anxiety some of us are feeling over arguably the greatest player to ever wear a Hawk's uniform contract situation. We've been waiting a LONG LONG time for a franchise QB like Russell, we don't want to lose him, or even have there be strife and conflict with his deal.

Speak for yourself!

It's obvious some here don't want Russell here because they undervalue the QB position which is...ridiculous

I'm assuming your last sentence is a joke, or hyperbole to illicit a reaction as I haven't seen anyone say they don't want RW here.

The commentary surrounds whether or not it's wise to pay a QB money that can potentially limit the overall success of the team.

All along we hoped that RW would understand the unique situation he was in and sign a contract that would benefit both the long term health of the team AND his pocketbook.

That was clearly a pipe dream

No one is right or wrong, despite what some may think. Not paying Wilson is a HUGE gamble. So is paying him irresponsibly.

It deserves discussion, its not black and white.

we really do not know if it is a pipe dream, For all we know Wilson just wants 5-6 years at the 20. There is evidence to support that has Kams, Et, Sherman were all only 4 years deals. The reality is there is evidence to support this FO does to want to make a long term commitment to anyone. A 6 years deal at 120 mil would be a great team friendly deal, with the cap rising every year. However all that has been offered is 4 years. I have seen some articles saying that is what the hold up is, length not dollars. The other reality is they caved into Lynch twice, and now they are holding fact at 4 years.

 

[Anthony!]

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

Correlation does not prove causation.

Besides, when the average Qbs win the Super Bowl, it's because they bring big defenses. We have a big defense, so does that mean we don't need a top QB?

Ahh the old word play, yeah sorry historical data does show proof of a pattern. As to the we have a big defense, which would you rather have a 15% chance or a 85% chance?

Let go back 10 years of SB QBs both winners and losers

Tom Brady X3
Russell Wilson X2
P. Manning X3
Kap
Flacco
E Manning X2
Rothlisburger x3
Rodgers
Brees
Warner
Hass
Grossman

So that is 20 and out of those 20 QBs only 3 are AVG. 15% of the time an AVG gets to the SB. I think I like 85% better. Oh and those 3 avg QBs lost.

 

[Hawkpower]

Not to nitpick, but I see a handful of QB's on that list that could be justifiably labeled "average"

It all depends on what the parameters are.

 

[Tical21]

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

Correlation does not prove causation.

Besides, when the average Qbs win the Super Bowl, it's because they bring big defenses. We have a big defense, so does that mean we don't need a top QB?

Ahh the old word play, yeah sorry historical data does show proof of a pattern. As to the we have a big defense, which would you rather have a 15% chance or a 85% chance?

Let go back 10 years of SB QBs both winners and losers

Tom Brady X3
Russell Wilson X2
P. Manning X3
Kap
Flacco
E Manning X2
Rothlisburger x3
Rodgers
Brees
Warner
Hass
Grossman

So that is 20 and out of those 20 QBs only 3 are AVG. 15% of the time an AVG gets to the SB. I think I like 85% better. Oh and those 3 avg QBs lost.

How many of those won a Super Bowl while being paid near the top of their position? Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[KiwiHawk]

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

Correlation does not prove causation.

Besides, when the average Qbs win the Super Bowl, it's because they bring big defenses. We have a big defense, so does that mean we don't need a top QB?

Ahh the old word play, yeah sorry historical data does show proof of a pattern. As to the we have a big defense, which would you rather have a 15% chance or a 85% chance?

Let go back 10 years of SB QBs both winners and losers

Tom Brady X3
Russell Wilson X2
P. Manning X3
Kap
Flacco
E Manning X2
Rothlisburger x3
Rodgers
Brees
Warner
Hass
Grossman

So that is 20 and out of those 20 QBs only 3 are AVG. 15% of the time an AVG gets to the SB. I think I like 85% better. Oh and those 3 avg QBs lost.

I don't know precisely which ones you are classing as average, and I won't really go into it because it's all stats in a league where sample size and mitigating factors render stats nearly meaningless.

I personally don't consider Flacco to be an elite QB in the NFL - certainly not in the class of Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers - but you do since he didn't lose, so I'll use him as an example. He's a good example of what happens to a team when it pays it's QB top dollars.

Baltimore won a Super Bowl with Flacco at QB, so it stands to reason they were good enough with him to win a Super Bowl. At the time, he was a modestly-paid QB. Baltimore therefore had money to spread around, and had a staunch defense. After the Super Bowl year, they paid Flacco. Since then, Baltimore has gone 8-8 (missed playoffs) and 10-6 (out in the Divisional round). This is their last year of possibly doing anything before Flacco becomes crippling, counting 28.5 million toward their cap next year (and they have to pay him because he's 25 million in dead money if they don't), and 31 million in 2017.

They managed to delay their search for a new QB for a couple of years with nothing to show for it except a massive cap headache coming next year.

Is that where you want us to go?

 

[theincrediblesok]

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

Correlation does not prove causation.

Besides, when the average Qbs win the Super Bowl, it's because they bring big defenses. We have a big defense, so does that mean we don't need a top QB?

Ahh the old word play, yeah sorry historical data does show proof of a pattern. As to the we have a big defense, which would you rather have a 15% chance or a 85% chance?

Let go back 10 years of SB QBs both winners and losers

Tom Brady X3
Russell Wilson X2
P. Manning X3
Kap
Flacco
E Manning X2
Rothlisburger x3
Rodgers
Brees
Warner
Hass
Grossman

So that is 20 and out of those 20 QBs only 3 are AVG. 15% of the time an AVG gets to the SB. I think I like 85% better. Oh and those 3 avg QBs lost.

I don't know precisely which ones you are classing as average, and I won't really go into it because it's all stats in a league where sample size and mitigating factors render stats nearly meaningless.

I personally don't consider Flacco to be an elite QB in the NFL - certainly not in the class of Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers - but you do since he didn't lose, so I'll use him as an example. He's a good example of what happens to a team when it pays it's QB top dollars.

Baltimore won a Super Bowl with Flacco at QB, so it stands to reason they were good enough with him to win a Super Bowl. At the time, he was a modestly-paid QB. Baltimore therefore had money to spread around, and had a staunch defense. After the Super Bowl year, they paid Flacco. Since then, Baltimore has gone 8-8 (missed playoffs) and 10-6 (out in the Divisional round). This is their last year of possibly doing anything before Flacco becomes crippling, counting 28.5 million toward their cap next year (and they have to pay him because he's 25 million in dead money if they don't), and 31 million in 2017.

They managed to delay their search for a new QB for a couple of years with nothing to show for it except a massive cap headache coming next year.

Is that where you want us to go?

Or you can let Wilson go and look like the Texans, great defense, great running game, no QB

 

[WilsonMVP]

If you want to become the vikings in the late 2000s by all means lets not sign wilson. Vikings had almost a complete team as any. Favre came along and they should of went to if not won the superbowl his first year there. That year they went 12-4. The two years prior they went 10-6 and 8-8 with QBs such as Tarvaris Jackson, Kelly Holcomb, Brooks Bollinger, Gus Frerotte

You might be able to routinely get into the playoffs with a elite TEAM and an average or below average QB but I doubt you would get to the superbowl often if at all.

 

[theincrediblesok]

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

Correlation does not prove causation.

Besides, when the average Qbs win the Super Bowl, it's because they bring big defenses. We have a big defense, so does that mean we don't need a top QB?

Ahh the old word play, yeah sorry historical data does show proof of a pattern. As to the we have a big defense, which would you rather have a 15% chance or a 85% chance?

Let go back 10 years of SB QBs both winners and losers

Tom Brady X3
Russell Wilson X2
P. Manning X3
Kap
Flacco
E Manning X2
Rothlisburger x3
Rodgers
Brees
Warner
Hass
Grossman

So that is 20 and out of those 20 QBs only 3 are AVG. 15% of the time an AVG gets to the SB. I think I like 85% better. Oh and those 3 avg QBs lost.

How many of those won a Super Bowl while being paid near the top of their position? Don't worry, I'll wait.

How many get paid top dollars and couldn't get to the Super Bowl if your going to play that game, don't worry I'll wait. 8)

 

[Hawkpower]

Becoming Houston is the only alternative to having RW at QB?

I am quite sure there are many fantastic options in between Aaron Rodgers and Ryan Mallet.

Being wary of becoming Baltimore is intelligent. It doesnt mean we have to let Wilson go, it doesnt even mean we should.

But should it be contemplated if need be? Absolutely.

 

[WilsonMVP]

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

Correlation does not prove causation.

Besides, when the average Qbs win the Super Bowl, it's because they bring big defenses. We have a big defense, so does that mean we don't need a top QB?

Ahh the old word play, yeah sorry historical data does show proof of a pattern. As to the we have a big defense, which would you rather have a 15% chance or a 85% chance?

Let go back 10 years of SB QBs both winners and losers

Tom Brady X3
Russell Wilson X2
P. Manning X3
Kap
Flacco
E Manning X2
Rothlisburger x3
Rodgers
Brees
Warner
Hass
Grossman

So that is 20 and out of those 20 QBs only 3 are AVG. 15% of the time an AVG gets to the SB. I think I like 85% better. Oh and those 3 avg QBs lost.

I don't know precisely which ones you are classing as average, and I won't really go into it because it's all stats in a league where sample size and mitigating factors render stats nearly meaningless.

I personally don't consider Flacco to be an elite QB in the NFL - certainly not in the class of Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers - but you do since he didn't lose, so I'll use him as an example. He's a good example of what happens to a team when it pays it's QB top dollars.

Baltimore won a Super Bowl with Flacco at QB, so it stands to reason they were good enough with him to win a Super Bowl. At the time, he was a modestly-paid QB. Baltimore therefore had money to spread around, and had a staunch defense. After the Super Bowl year, they paid Flacco. Since then, Baltimore has gone 8-8 (missed playoffs) and 10-6 (out in the Divisional round). This is their last year of possibly doing anything before Flacco becomes crippling, counting 28.5 million toward their cap next year (and they have to pay him because he's 25 million in dead money if they don't), and 31 million in 2017.

They managed to delay their search for a new QB for a couple of years with nothing to show for it except a massive cap headache coming next year.

Is that where you want us to go?

Flacco turned it on during the playoffs and THAT is why they won the superbowl. He had arguably the best postseason run by a QB EVER. You think they win the superbowl if he plays like he had in the regular season...NO..big fat NO. That Ravens TEAM wasnt ELITE like the Seahawks of the last 2 years, they were one of the teams that just got hot and had Flacco get super hot and won it all. Also helped that they were able to play Kaepernick in the superbowl...like that was a challenge

I think Flacco is in the Eli Manning, Matt Ryan type category. Average to Above Average with potential to have a few elite moments.

 

[Hawkpower]

If you want to become the vikings in the late 2000s by all means lets not sign wilson. Vikings had almost a complete team as any. Favre came along and they should of went to if not won the superbowl his first year there. That year they went 12-4. The two years prior they went 10-6 and 8-8 with QBs such as Tarvaris Jackson, Kelly Holcomb, Brooks Bollinger, Gus Frerotte

You might be able to routinely get into the playoffs with a elite TEAM and an average or below average QB but I doubt you would get to the superbowl often if at all.

So how do you do both? Have an elite team AND have an elite QB?

We know that elite QB's by themselves don't win SuperBowls.......

So what is best alternative?

Elite team and decent QB OR

Elite QB and decent team?

Guess that is the crux of the question. Sounds like most of us want to keep Wilson and hope he is elite enough to carry us when the rest of our team inevitably falls off a bit.....