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

[Northwest Seahawk]

I would not pay him more than 24 million a year. 25 million a year is just not going to happen it's not realistic not this year anyway. I'm not sure 24 is realistic this year. Rogers is making around 22 and he's a better QB, Wilson is worth 24 imo but not a penny more and that's for an extension of his existing contract . It does sound like Wilson wants a new contract starting this year but I don't see them doing that. Lynch is a separate issue he is the best at his position and we had to give him a new deal . Zero chance of doing much without an elite back. Our offense just isn't set up right now for a mostly passing attack. Maybe that changes this year with the addition of Graham and Matthews picks up where he left off along with Baldwin and Kearse. We really can't afford to lose Wagner either the FO has some work to do hopefully they can make it work. Can they even give an extension to Wilson and Wagner this year seems doubtful.

I could argue Lynch is not the best a this position, he is amongst the best but not the best.

Really who would you put ahead of him and don't say Peterson because he didn't even play last year.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Quick, show me any evidence that paying your QB helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Quick, show me any evidence that dumping a good QB because you don't want to pay him helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

 

[Anthony!]

Clearly, the way to win championships is to strike while you have a quarterback whose contract is not cumbersome, allowing you to build an awesome team around him. We literally just proved how incredibly successful this theory is. It may well be the BIGGEST reason we won a title and went back the next year. We had the highest bang for the buck at the QB position in the NFL.

Out of all of these teams since 1999 that have won a Super Bowl, we are probably more equipped to go back without paying our quarterback than any other team has been.

Huge risk. There's a chance we're not very good for a while if we let Russell walk. But I also think it greatly improves our chances of winning multiple Super Bowls. IF we can get another top-15 quarterback, we can have our cake and eat it too.

honestly, this has to be top 5 most retarded things I have ever read. If you really think we can get back to the SB with another qb if RW walks.... man you have good drugs... we went to 1 other SB in 35+ years before RW.... we had a few decent teams and QBs over that span..... we cant just plug in another guy with this team and be elite.. RW is the key to that elite team......

Top 5 I might argue #1. I Mean we already showed in 2011 we could not, and a simple top 15 type of QB could not lead the league in 4th qtr/ot game winning drives, without which we would not have even been in the playoffs let alone QB. Then there is the not good for a while, which means we waste ET, Sherman, Kam who will all be long gone by then. TO be honest for him all he cares about is any QB not named Wilson. Example some sites have Foles listed #15. In Philly he had a top 5 RB, a top 10 WR corps, and top 10 Pass blocking oline. All things, other than RB we do not have. In the same time space that Wilson led the league in 4th qtr/OT winning drives with 15 Foles had 5. That is 10 losses or 3 a year. So that means in 2012 our record would have been 8-8 and out of the playoffs. In 2013 we would have been 10-6 and out of the playoffs. In 2014 hat would mean a record of 9-7 and no playoffs. Also lets remember Foles comeback wins was in an easier divisions with way more offensive talent around him. Winning the SB is the ultimate goal but you cannot win it if you do not get into the Playoffs, and to do that consistently you need a franchise QB and to have that you need to pay.

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

Quick, show me any evidence that paying your QB helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Quick, show me any evidence that dumping a good QB because you don't want to pay him helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

This is about hard numbers not weather or not we can win without Wilson . That argument is not the question the question is what number will work and still field a team that can win a Super Bowl and there are numbers Seattle simply can't go over.

 

[Tical21]

Quick, show me any evidence that paying your QB helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Quick, show me any evidence that dumping a good QB because you don't want to pay him helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Drew Bledsoe, doesn't fully count because they won it the year before also. Brett Favre. Joe Montana, and Tom Brady taking a paycut. Once their teams ditched their contracts, they won Super Bowls. Seems much better odds of winning a Super Bowl than paying a QB top-dollar, no?

 

[Anthony!]

I would not pay him more than 24 million a year. 25 million a year is just not going to happen it's not realistic not this year anyway. I'm not sure 24 is realistic this year. Rogers is making around 22 and he's a better QB, Wilson is worth 24 imo but not a penny more and that's for an extension of his existing contract . It does sound like Wilson wants a new contract starting this year but I don't see them doing that. Lynch is a separate issue he is the best at his position and we had to give him a new deal . Zero chance of doing much without an elite back. Our offense just isn't set up right now for a mostly passing attack. Maybe that changes this year with the addition of Graham and Matthews picks up where he left off along with Baldwin and Kearse. We really can't afford to lose Wagner either the FO has some work to do hopefully they can make it work. Can they even give an extension to Wilson and Wagner this year seems doubtful.

I could argue Lynch is not the best a this position, he is amongst the best but not the best.

Really who would you put ahead of him and don't say Peterson because he didn't even play last year.

First off Peterson is a better back period, however besides him McCoy would be another one without even looking. Again Lynch is amongst the best, definitely top 5, Maybe even top 3 although with the lack of carries backs get nowadays it is hard to say. Of course if you look at both rushing and receiving totals there are others.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I would not pay him more than 24 million a year. 25 million a year is just not going to happen it's not realistic not this year anyway. I'm not sure 24 is realistic this year. Rogers is making around 22 and he's a better QB, Wilson is worth 24 imo but not a penny more and that's for an extension of his existing contract . It does sound like Wilson wants a new contract starting this year but I don't see them doing that. Lynch is a separate issue he is the best at his position and we had to give him a new deal . Zero chance of doing much without an elite back. Our offense just isn't set up right now for a mostly passing attack. Maybe that changes this year with the addition of Graham and Matthews picks up where he left off along with Baldwin and Kearse. We really can't afford to lose Wagner either the FO has some work to do hopefully they can make it work. Can they even give an extension to Wilson and Wagner this year seems doubtful.

I could argue Lynch is not the best a this position, he is amongst the best but not the best.

Really who would you put ahead of him and don't say Peterson because he didn't even play last year.

First off Peterson is a better back period, however besides him McCoy would be another one without even looking. Again Lynch is amongst the best, definitely top 5, Maybe even top 3 although with the lack of carries backs get nowadays it is hard to say. Of course if you look at both rushing and receiving totals there are others.

:lol:

Lynch is #2 at worst and you can make a strong argument that he's the best RB in football.

Keep on discrediting him to pump up your obsession with Russ though.

 

[Anthony!]

Quick, show me any evidence that paying your QB helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Quick, show me any evidence that dumping a good QB because you don't want to pay him helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

He cant and once again you have to make the playoffs to even get a chance to win an SB and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence already shown that to continually make the playoffs you need a franchise Qb and that costs.

You know this whole arguement that he is presenting is stupid. The facts show to get to the playoffs consistently you need a franshise QB and they cost. Since you cannot get to or win an SB without being the playoffs, the whole win an SB arguement is irrelevant.

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

I would not pay him more than 24 million a year. 25 million a year is just not going to happen it's not realistic not this year anyway. I'm not sure 24 is realistic this year. Rogers is making around 22 and he's a better QB, Wilson is worth 24 imo but not a penny more and that's for an extension of his existing contract . It does sound like Wilson wants a new contract starting this year but I don't see them doing that. Lynch is a separate issue he is the best at his position and we had to give him a new deal . Zero chance of doing much without an elite back. Our offense just isn't set up right now for a mostly passing attack. Maybe that changes this year with the addition of Graham and Matthews picks up where he left off along with Baldwin and Kearse. We really can't afford to lose Wagner either the FO has some work to do hopefully they can make it work. Can they even give an extension to Wilson and Wagner this year seems doubtful.

I could argue Lynch is not the best a this position, he is amongst the best but not the best.

Really who would you put ahead of him and don't say Peterson because he didn't even play last year.

First off Peterson is a better back period, however besides him McCoy would be another one without even looking. Again Lynch is amongst the best, definitely top 5, Maybe even top 3 although with the lack of carries backs get nowadays it is hard to say. Of course if you look at both rushing and receiving totals there are others.

Lynch led ALL RB's in rushing last year Murray was second look it up . Your just flat wrong on this bro .

 

[Hasselbeck]

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.

lol at comparing Wilson's negotiations to Tate first of all.

The Tate loss was magnified by Percy being a failure.

The FO will not let Wilson walk or even remotely taste free agency. He won't even get to sniff it.

 

[Anthony!]

I could argue Lynch is not the best a this position, he is amongst the best but not the best.

Really who would you put ahead of him and don't say Peterson because he didn't even play last year.

First off Peterson is a better back period, however besides him McCoy would be another one without even looking. Again Lynch is amongst the best, definitely top 5, Maybe even top 3 although with the lack of carries backs get nowadays it is hard to say. Of course if you look at both rushing and receiving totals there are others.

:lol:

Lynch is #2 at worst and you can make a strong argument that he's the best RB in football.

Keep on discrediting him to pump up your obsession with Russ though.

Dude if calling him top 5 out of over 100 backs is discrediting him than you are clueless. nice try though.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Lynch led ALL RB's in rushing last year Murray was second look it up . Your just flat wrong on this bro .

Lynch was 4th.. about 550 yards behind Murray.

Lynch probably gets 1800 ish with the Cowboys offensive line though.

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

Lynch is the gold standard as of today for running backs that's a fact.

 

[Anthony!]

I could argue Lynch is not the best a this position, he is amongst the best but not the best.

Really who would you put ahead of him and don't say Peterson because he didn't even play last year.

First off Peterson is a better back period, however besides him McCoy would be another one without even looking. Again Lynch is amongst the best, definitely top 5, Maybe even top 3 although with the lack of carries backs get nowadays it is hard to say. Of course if you look at both rushing and receiving totals there are others.

Lynch led ALL RB's in rushing last year Murray was second look it up . Your just flat wrong on this bro .

Ahh Lynch was ranked 4th in rushing look it up

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/playe ... asontype/2


Lynch has never ranked #1 in rushing since he has been a Hawk.

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

Lynch led ALL RB's in rushing last year Murray was second look it up . Your just flat wrong on this bro .

Lynch was 4th.. about 550 yards behind Murray.

Lynch probably gets 1800 ish with the Cowboys offensive line though.

Those were post season stats sorry he led all rushers in the post season.

 

[Anthony!]

Lynch was the leading rusher last year in the NFL and is the gold standard as of today for running backs that's a fact.

again no he was ranked 4th last year

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/playe ... asontype/2

and no one is arguing he is not very very good top 5 for sure.

 

[Anthony!]

Lynch led ALL RB's in rushing last year Murray was second look it up . Your just flat wrong on this bro .

Lynch was 4th.. about 550 yards behind Murray.

Lynch probably gets 1800 ish with the Cowboys offensive line though.

Not according to NFL.com Lynch was number 1.

you are looking a the playoffs dude not the regular season

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... 447263-n=1

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

Lynch led ALL RB's in rushing last year Murray was second look it up . Your just flat wrong on this bro .

Lynch was 4th.. about 550 yards behind Murray.

Lynch probably gets 1800 ish with the Cowboys offensive line though.

Not according to NFL.com Lynch was number 1.

you are looking a the playoffs dude not the regular season

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... 447263-n=1

Yes i was he led all rushers in the post season when it mattered most an honest mistake. He's still the best running back in the league though I certainly wouldn't trade him for any other running back right now.

 

[Grahamhawker]

(Just another day in Pete Carroll's office at the VMAC)

Pete Caroll: So Russell wants us to make him the highest paid player... ever?

John Schneider: (Smiles, nods)

Pete Carroll & John Schneider: BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! .... AHAHAHAHAH (finish their margaritas) AHAHAHHAHAH.

Pete Carroll: Well John, you know what must be done.

John Schneider: Don't worry Petey, I once told Favre to piss off too.

MADDEN GM MODE ACTIVATED:

[SEATTLE SEAHAWKS PROPOSE TRADE TO CLEVELAND BROWNS]

SEAHAWKS QB RUSSELL WILSON FOR QB JOHNNY MANZIEL + BROWNS 1ST AND 3RD RD PICKS IN 2016 NFL DRAFT + 2ND RD PICK IN 2017 NFL DRAFT

[TRADE ACCEPTED]

Why do I like this more than I feel like I should...?

 

[bigtrain21]

Quick, show me any evidence that paying your QB helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Quick, show me any evidence that dumping a good QB because you don't want to pay him helps your chances of winning a Super Bowl.

Drew Bledsoe, doesn't fully count because they won it the year before also. Brett Favre. Joe Montana, and Tom Brady taking a paycut. Once their teams ditched their contracts, they won Super Bowls. Seems much better odds of winning a Super Bowl than paying a QB top-dollar, no?

Totally different situations.

Favre retired then came out of retirement after Green Bay had started the process of moving on. They had a successor waiting in the wings in Rodgers.

Joe Montana was getting older and the Niners had Steve Young waiting. It was also before the Salary Cap. He was also traded.

Drew Bledsoe was traded. He was already replaced by Brady and was actually healthy and on the roster when they won their first Super Bowl with Brady so his contract clearly didn't hurt them.

So New England replaced Tom Brady with a cheaper Tom Brady. I am not sure how that answers Roland's question. They didn't let him walk.