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

[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.

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.....

All I know is that I have seen what a good team looks like without a QB. Who cares how good the rest of the team is when it is being held back 3-4 wins because of the QB position. Same in the playoffs. Teams are good in the playoffs and if your QB sucks you more often than not lose the game.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Here's another theory, why not pay Wilson the big bucks and let go of some of our defensive guys that will demand a larger contract later on. Looking at the DVOA below, you don't have to be an elite defense to make it to the playoffs, heck New England was ranked #12 and won the Superbowl of course they had a tainted season, but then let's look at Green Bay who went pretty far and if it wasn't for Bostick they would of been in the Super Bowl. It helps to have a really good defense but you can't do much if you don't have a clutch QB, and that's why you pay top dollar to keep a QB that's been there.

Yes we have an elite defense but Buffalo was right around our DVOA stats and couldn't get into the playoffs. San Francisco had a top 5 defense but Kaep couldn't get them there and he also had a large contract (performance based), but it was his performance that didn't get them there. Houston, no QB but great defense, running game.

Why can't we have Wilson and a top 15 defense, Sherm/Earl/Kam will all demand bigger contracts after their contract is up. If we let Wilson go I see 5 teams on here that would love to have a QB, 6 if Kaep is cut from the 49ers.

Defense DVOA stats for 2014

#1 Seattle **Superbowl
#2 Buffalo - no
#3 Detroit (lost playoff)
#4 Denver (lost playoff)
#5 San Francisco - no
#6 Houston - no
#7 Arizona (lost playoff)
#8 Baltimore (lost playoff)
#9 St. Louis - no
#10 Philadelphia - no
#11 Cleveland - no
#12 New England **Superbowl
#13 Indianapolis (lost playoff)
#14 Cincinnati (lost playoff)
#15 Carolina (lost playoff)
#16 Green Bay (lost playoff)

Do you know which teams were both top 5 in offensive DVOA and defensive DVOA in 2014? Broncos and Seahawks

 

[BadgerVid]

If RW's frame of mind is anything close to what Softy said, it's all the more reason for him to play out his contract. Could backfire if he gets a season-ending injury. Not trying to jinx him, but I think that should always be a in a player's thought process. Strike when the iron is hot.

Playing out his contract is stupid on RW's part. Any contract signed this year will have a significant signing bonus, so even though his cap hit will be smaller, he'd get that cash NOW. If he waits a year he's not going to recoup that cash in the future.

I expect this to get done Late MAY, early JUNE.

As presented in your post that is not correct.

If he signs a four year extension now with $10 million signing bonus he gets that now
if he signs a new contract after this season for four years with a $10million signing bonus he gets that next year. So either way he got $10million

The only difference in that scenario is that the cash is deferred so he loses the interest. If he invested in the market it could go up or down in that time period. He would fully recover the cash and if he got more then he would make more because of this.

What he will not have an opportunity for is any cash in the overall deal that is considered compensation for this coming year. So if he signs a four year extension and then team was going to give him $20 million per year but "throws in" an extra million to compensate for this year then he may not get that extra million / year next year.

Would you rather make 10 million now and 20 million next year? Or 1.5 million now, and 20 million next year? Don't you see your missing out in cashing in NOW, you won't make that money back simply because this year is the exception.

Except that "$10M" (or whatever signing bonus is included) is part of the $80M....so that amount will come off the "$20M per year for 4 years", making them less and lowering the average for the 5 yrs to $16.3M. Otherwise, he plays out his deal and sees what the best offer he gets is...probably substantially OVER the $20M and certainly well over the $16.3M...from another team.

 

[Marlin Man]

What a bunch of absolute horseshit. Do any of YOU really think they won't give him the money- why all this BS

PAY THE MAN, move on.

M.M.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Hawkpower your questioned disappeared for some reason about me wanting to end the #1 Safety and #1 CB contract to keep Wilson. It was just a theory that they would likely take big money somewhere else when their contract ends because just like the QB's contract it will get inflated in the next 4 years, which at that time Wilson's contract will probably be considered cheap.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Did anyone in this thread consider Joe Flacco to be the best QB in the NFL when he got paid the most?

Did anyone think Baltimore was making a mistake paying a sub-top NFL QB as THE top NFL QB?

Does anyone here think Wilson is THE top QB in the NFL?

On that basis should be the highest-paid QB in the NFL?

 

[KiwiHawk]

Here's another theory, why not pay Wilson the big bucks and let go of some of our defensive guys that will demand a larger contract later on. Looking at the DVOA below, you don't have to be an elite defense to make it to the playoffs, heck New England was ranked #12 and won the Superbowl of course they had a tainted season, but then let's look at Green Bay who went pretty far and if it wasn't for Bostick they would of been in the Super Bowl. It helps to have a really good defense but you can't do much if you don't have a clutch QB, and that's why you pay top dollar to keep a QB that's been there.

Yes we have an elite defense but Buffalo was right around our DVOA stats and couldn't get into the playoffs. San Francisco had a top 5 defense but Kaep couldn't get them there and he also had a large contract (performance based), but it was his performance that didn't get them there. Houston, no QB but great defense, running game.

Why can't we have Wilson and a top 15 defense, Sherm/Earl/Kam will all demand bigger contracts after their contract is up. If we let Wilson go I see 5 teams on here that would love to have a QB, 6 if Kaep is cut from the 49ers.

Defense DVOA stats for 2014

#1 Seattle **Superbowl
#2 Buffalo - no
#3 Detroit (lost playoff)
#4 Denver (lost playoff)
#5 San Francisco - no
#6 Houston - no
#7 Arizona (lost playoff)
#8 Baltimore (lost playoff)
#9 St. Louis - no
#10 Philadelphia - no
#11 Cleveland - no
#12 New England **Superbowl
#13 Indianapolis (lost playoff)
#14 Cincinnati (lost playoff)
#15 Carolina (lost playoff)
#16 Green Bay (lost playoff)

Do you know which teams were both top 5 in offensive DVOA and defensive DVOA in 2014? Broncos and Seahawks

Let me get this straight...

Pete Carroll came into Seattle with a different agenda to the rest of the NFL and built a team based on power running and one of the best defenses the NFL has ever seen, and you believe that because other teams who didn't build that way didn't go to the Super Bowl we should abandon that philosophy for a potent passing offense?

Do I have that correct?

Because unless I am mistaken, New England at #5 highest passing efficiency team to make the Super Bowl last year (Seattle was #10).

If the #1 and #12 defensive DVOA teams were in the Super Bowl, but on the offensive side they were #5 and #10 passing, doesn't that in fact lean toward defense being king, not passing? Using places-from-the-top as a yardstick, Defense wins 11 to 13. And since we already have the #1 DVOA defense, should we not, oh I don't know, keep it?

 

[Anthony!]

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.

I think most experts would say there are only 3

 

[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.

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?

I never said Elite the point was avg. Flacco is not avg.

 

[Anthony!]

Here's another theory, why not pay Wilson the big bucks and let go of some of our defensive guys that will demand a larger contract later on. Looking at the DVOA below, you don't have to be an elite defense to make it to the playoffs, heck New England was ranked #12 and won the Superbowl of course they had a tainted season, but then let's look at Green Bay who went pretty far and if it wasn't for Bostick they would of been in the Super Bowl. It helps to have a really good defense but you can't do much if you don't have a clutch QB, and that's why you pay top dollar to keep a QB that's been there.

Yes we have an elite defense but Buffalo was right around our DVOA stats and couldn't get into the playoffs. San Francisco had a top 5 defense but Kaep couldn't get them there and he also had a large contract (performance based), but it was his performance that didn't get them there. Houston, no QB but great defense, running game.

Why can't we have Wilson and a top 15 defense, Sherm/Earl/Kam will all demand bigger contracts after their contract is up. If we let Wilson go I see 5 teams on here that would love to have a QB, 6 if Kaep is cut from the 49ers.

Defense DVOA stats for 2014

#1 Seattle **Superbowl
#2 Buffalo - no
#3 Detroit (lost playoff)
#4 Denver (lost playoff)
#5 San Francisco - no
#6 Houston - no
#7 Arizona (lost playoff)
#8 Baltimore (lost playoff)
#9 St. Louis - no
#10 Philadelphia - no
#11 Cleveland - no
#12 New England **Superbowl
#13 Indianapolis (lost playoff)
#14 Cincinnati (lost playoff)
#15 Carolina (lost playoff)
#16 Green Bay (lost playoff)

Do you know which teams were both top 5 in offensive DVOA and defensive DVOA in 2014? Broncos and Seahawks

Let me get this straight...

Pete Carroll came into Seattle with a different agenda to the rest of the NFL and built a team based on power running and one of the best defenses the NFL has ever seen, and you believe that because other teams who didn't build that way didn't go to the Super Bowl we should abandon that philosophy for a potent passing offense?

Do I have that correct?

Because unless I am mistaken, New England at #5 highest passing efficiency team to make the Super Bowl last year (Seattle was #10).

If the #1 and #12 defensive DVOA teams were in the Super Bowl, but on the offensive side they were #5 and #10 passing, doesn't that in fact lean toward defense being king, not passing? Using places-from-the-top as a yardstick, Defense wins 11 to 13. And since we already have the #1 DVOA defense, should we not, oh I don't know, keep it?

NO lead tells you you need both

 

[theincrediblesok]

Here's another theory, why not pay Wilson the big bucks and let go of some of our defensive guys that will demand a larger contract later on. Looking at the DVOA below, you don't have to be an elite defense to make it to the playoffs, heck New England was ranked #12 and won the Superbowl of course they had a tainted season, but then let's look at Green Bay who went pretty far and if it wasn't for Bostick they would of been in the Super Bowl. It helps to have a really good defense but you can't do much if you don't have a clutch QB, and that's why you pay top dollar to keep a QB that's been there.

Yes we have an elite defense but Buffalo was right around our DVOA stats and couldn't get into the playoffs. San Francisco had a top 5 defense but Kaep couldn't get them there and he also had a large contract (performance based), but it was his performance that didn't get them there. Houston, no QB but great defense, running game.

Why can't we have Wilson and a top 15 defense, Sherm/Earl/Kam will all demand bigger contracts after their contract is up. If we let Wilson go I see 5 teams on here that would love to have a QB, 6 if Kaep is cut from the 49ers.

Defense DVOA stats for 2014

#1 Seattle **Superbowl
#2 Buffalo - no
#3 Detroit (lost playoff)
#4 Denver (lost playoff)
#5 San Francisco - no
#6 Houston - no
#7 Arizona (lost playoff)
#8 Baltimore (lost playoff)
#9 St. Louis - no
#10 Philadelphia - no
#11 Cleveland - no
#12 New England **Superbowl
#13 Indianapolis (lost playoff)
#14 Cincinnati (lost playoff)
#15 Carolina (lost playoff)
#16 Green Bay (lost playoff)

Do you know which teams were both top 5 in offensive DVOA and defensive DVOA in 2014? Broncos and Seahawks

Let me get this straight...

Pete Carroll came into Seattle with a different agenda to the rest of the NFL and built a team based on power running and one of the best defenses the NFL has ever seen, and you believe that because other teams who didn't build that way didn't go to the Super Bowl we should abandon that philosophy for a potent passing offense?

Do I have that correct?

Because unless I am mistaken, New England at #5 highest passing efficiency team to make the Super Bowl last year (Seattle was #10).

If the #1 and #12 defensive DVOA teams were in the Super Bowl, but on the offensive side they were #5 and #10 passing, doesn't that in fact lean toward defense being king, not passing? Using places-from-the-top as a yardstick, Defense wins 11 to 13. And since we already have the #1 DVOA defense, should we not, oh I don't know, keep it?

Nope I wouldn't trade our system as long as its still working. I was just stating that you can have a top 15 defense and Wilson and still be able to get to the playoffs.

I wouldn't count the passing efficiency of the Patriots during last year when deflate was going on.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Did anyone in this thread consider Joe Flacco to be the best QB in the NFL when he got paid the most?

Did anyone think Baltimore was making a mistake paying a sub-top NFL QB as THE top NFL QB?

Does anyone here think Wilson is THE top QB in the NFL?

On that basis should be the highest-paid QB in the NFL?

I thought it was a mistake..but then again Flacco cant even touch Wilson when talking about performance for most of their careers.

Flaccos BEST season QB rating is 93.6 his 3rd year in the league. In 7 years he only has 2 seasons that were above a 90 QB rating and the year after he got paid he was god awful with a 73 QB rating with 22 INT and only 19 TD.

Ill admit the year he won the superbowl he was lights out in the playoffs and this year he was pretty good in the playoffs as well BUT outside of that he has been no more than an average QB through and through.

 

[bigtrain21]

 

[Rob12]

I expect it will be right after June 1st ...that's when Mebane and Okung can be cut to save an additional 10 million on this year's cap.

Mebane, I can buy but you don't just dump top tier LT's even with injury history. Unless you love Kansas City's attempt at it?

You better have a backup plan and what we currently have as replacement options doesn't cut it. And I don't see us drafting in the top half of the first round anytime soon. Which is where these guys are found.

I can actually see PC/JS cutting Okung after June 1. It makes sense, even if I don't like it.

They have to do something. Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner need extensions. This team can weather the storms without their best offensive linemen. It may not be pretty, but they do it. When Wagner was hurt last year, the drop off that the defense experienced was as clear as day.

This money has to come from somewhere. There are going to be some very good players that are going to be jettisoned out of town. For as wishy washy as I have been over the RW contract situation, there's simply no way that he's going anywhere. The Seahawks and Paul Allen make a ridiculous amount of money because of him. I agree with kearly that he's worth three or four wins.

Then there's Wagner, who is firmly planted in the discussion of the best young linebackers in the game. He, too, is not going anywhere.

That's just a lot of money and cutting guys like Okung, Mebane, and McDaniel will free up that much needed money. It's not at all pleasant to think about. There will probably be another player in there that no one sees coming.

This is the price of being stacked. This is the cost of drafting insanely well and seeing that come to fruition on Sunday's.

I think Okung could be a very possible target. And Pete got really excited about Bailey on Brock and Salk. Personally, I think that's our LT for the 2015 season.

Buckle up, because our depth is about to take a significant hit in the next few months.

 

[KiwiHawk]

I never said Elite the point was avg. Flacco is not avg.

But Baltimore made him the highest-paid QB, even though I think we all agree he's not the best QB in the NFL. And we all pretty much saw that as a mistake - after all, why pay top money unless you're getting a top guy?

But now that shoe is on our foot. Do we pay a guy who is, I think we can all agree, not the best QB in the NFL, as if he was the best?

That's the crux of this entire thread.

Wilson's amazing. He does things I have never seen before. He's exciting - he sells tickets and endorsements. He's involved in the community. He's clean, he's pro-God like a good American. When he speaks it's about humility, hard work, and team effort. He's everything you could possibly ask for in a franchise QB.

Except let's face it in some games he doesn't come out until after halftime. He plays football like Maverick from Top Gun. He does the wrong things but he does them so brilliantly that he succeeds in spite of himself more than because of himself.

But he's not Iceman. That's probably Aaron Rodgers or Andrew Luck, and when all is said and done Luck will probably take the Top Paid trophy after Wilson gets his due.

So he's not the best, but to keep him we have to pay him like the best. Fortunately, that benchmark will change and he'll be highest-paid for only a short while longer than Sherman was. And maybe 3 years down the track it will look like an average QB salary.

But for here and now, our management has to choose to pay a guy who is clearly not the best QB in the league more money than any other QB in the league.

And that's why this is so interesting.

 

[Tical21]

It looks like I made a mistake. I don't think Eli was top-5 in terms of salary when he won, but I think Peyton was. I found a better website. Peyton had a 1 million base salary but was still in the top-5 in 2007 when he won. As far as I can tell, he is the only one since Elway in 99. I'm assuming Elway's 3 million contract was top-5 in 1999. Fun fact, Elway actuallly took a paycut that year to help the Broncos get more players. I thought that was interesting.

 

[Rob12]

Paul Allen.

Those are two words that signify, at least to me, that Russell Wilson is not going anywhere. I mean sure, our owner does not need to keep making money hand over fist, but I have to believe that he would rather demand that his organization retains the services of the best quarterback that this franchise has ever had, and quite possibly the most beloved athlete in the history of this city.

Wilson will always generate more revenue than he is paid. I can't see how that is not fact. I'd be curious just to see the sheer numbers of his jersey sales, and just how fat that makes Mr. Allen's wallet.

He's becoming the face of the entire league. I'm seeing him on more and more commercials. He is an absolute superstar in every way imaginable. And I'm honestly a bit embarrassed that I actually entertained the idea of letting him walk, because not only do I believe that I'm one of the biggest RW fans on this site, but those simple financial tidbits I talked about earlier make that idea a near impossibility. It's not feasible on any level. That pesky thing called the salary cap might make things difficult on us as fans, but when it comes to the Seahawks, the powers that be will make it work - as they should, no matter how painful that may be.

Letting RW walk would send tremors of panic and anger across the entire city. Hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue would immediately be lost. Would it effect ticket sales? That's doubtful considering the current wait list, but it could if the product on the field severely deteriorated due to No. 3's absence.

On the field, it makes zero sense to let him walk. Finding an elite NFL QB is probably as difficult as me trying to hit a change up off of King Felix. Then you add in the financial impact and the odds of the team going in a different direction become as likely as me hitting that change up from the King... With a garden hose.

This thread is actually great -it's the offseason, and it's provided some great reading material. But for perhaps the first time, I just had an epiphany of sorts.

RW is going nowhere. He will be the highest paid player ever, and rightfully so. When you factor in revenues generated, it will be more than well deserved. People who say he isn't worth that type of money are missing the entire picture of what RW collectively means to this team, its fans, this state, and our owner.

Time to pan the lens out much further than what happens between the sidelines at the Clink and eight other NFL stadiums every year. It's much deeper than that.

For the first time, I can relax. RW isn't going anywhere, and I won't let the media toy with my emotions anymore.

In PC/JS I trust... Go Hawks.

 

[Rob12]

I never said Elite the point was avg. Flacco is not avg.

But Baltimore made him the highest-paid QB, even though I think we all agree he's not the best QB in the NFL. And we all pretty much saw that as a mistake - after all, why pay top money unless you're getting a top guy?

But now that shoe is on our foot. Do we pay a guy who is, I think we can all agree, not the best QB in the NFL, as if he was the best?

That's the crux of this entire thread.

Wilson's amazing. He does things I have never seen before. He's exciting - he sells tickets and endorsements. He's involved in the community. He's clean, he's pro-God like a good American. When he speaks it's about humility, hard work, and team effort. He's everything you could possibly ask for in a franchise QB.

Except let's face it in some games he doesn't come out until after halftime. He plays football like Maverick from Top Gun. He does the wrong things but he does them so brilliantly that he succeeds in spite of himself more than because of himself.

But he's not Iceman. That's probably Aaron Rodgers or Andrew Luck, and when all is said and done Luck will probably take the Top Paid trophy after Wilson gets his due.

So he's not the best, but to keep him we have to pay him like the best. Fortunately, that benchmark will change and he'll be highest-paid for only a short while longer than Sherman was. And maybe 3 years down the track it will look like an average QB salary.

But for here and now, our management has to choose to pay a guy who is clearly not the best QB in the league more money than any other QB in the league.

And that's why this is so interesting.

He has the ability to be the best. The records he shattered through his first three years in the league throwing to UDFA's in a system that doesn't exactly promote gaudy QB stats. But he's done more with less (strictly speaking passing game here - a line that can effectively pass protect, good, proven receivers, and a playbook that calls on him to shoulder the load) than any other QB I can remember.

Personally, I think that his passing numbers will take a significant leap forward this year, and if we don't get the ink done on his contract, his price will go through the roof - even more than it has already.

Here's what it comes down to for me. Am I confident that there is another QB in the NFL that would have led this same team to two consecutive SB's? The answer is no.

For THIS team, he IS the best QB in the NFL. If you put him in a vacuum and just statistically compare him to teams that throw 55-60% of the time, he doesn't. But I think that's a very dangerous way of viewing things.

 

[volsunghawk]

I never said Elite the point was avg. Flacco is not avg.

But Baltimore made him the highest-paid QB, even though I think we all agree he's not the best QB in the NFL. And we all pretty much saw that as a mistake - after all, why pay top money unless you're getting a top guy?

But now that shoe is on our foot. Do we pay a guy who is, I think we can all agree, not the best QB in the NFL, as if he was the best?

That's the crux of this entire thread.

Completely disagree. There is a fatal flaw in this line of thinking.

Just because a guy is the top QB in the league, that doesn't mean he is or should be making the most money. That might work in an idealized fantasy, but it's not reality.

The value of new contracts increases each year. A guy considered a top-tier CB who is in line for a new contract this year is going to get paid more than comparable top-tier guys did 2 years ago. Even if it's debatable whether he's better than those other guys or not, he's going to set the new mark just due to the nature of NFL contracts.

This plays out at all positions. Teams don't pay a guy the most money at his position because they think he's the absolute best in the league at his position. They pay because they feel he's among that top tier with the potential to help the team win a championship.

When the Seahawks make Wilson the top-paid QB in the league, they won't be doing it because they think he's clearly better than Aaron Rodgers (for example). They'll be doing it because they believe he's a franchise QB who is among the best at his position and who is crucial to the team's hopes of winning more championships in the coming years. And the price to lock a guy like that down in the NFL is simply "more than the last top guy got." And that speaks volumes about how Cincinnati and SF see their QBs.

In the end, it's insanity to let a franchise QB with a proven track record of success walk away over money. It would be one thing if Wilson was in his late 30s, but with his potential and at his age and with what he's done for this team so far, there's zero reason to let him walk. Play hardball all you want during contract negotiations, because a QB deal is so huge, but get something done in the end.

And for all of the people worried about what it means for Wilson to be the top-paid QB in the league, don't worry too much. He'll be 3rd once Newton and Luck get their new deals.

 

[Rob12]

This "top QB in the league" stuff bothers me.

Would Tom Brady be the best QB in the league playing for the Seattle Seahawks in the NFC West? Andrew Luck? Phillip Rivers? Drew Brees?

Isn't it all subjective? The bottom line is that I look at RW and I see the best QB for the Seahawks.

Can't that be good enough?