Russell Wilson and the 3 year, $45.5 million baseline

[theincrediblesok]

I compiled a list of Teams and QBs that were with the #1 Ranked Defense by DVOA since 1994 of the salary cap era.



The ** is marked for the winners of the Superbowls that had a #1 ranked defense by DVOA. You can see some big names there that as well as some mediocre QBs that couldn't get it to the big dance even with a very good defense.

The other thing I notice is that every 5-6 years the #1 ranked defense by DVOA will win a Superbowl, that's something to keep an eye on for the 2018 and 2019 season. Seeing as that's the time most of our defense's contract will end it almost make sense that we won't get the same production as they will age and a new younger elite defense will be coming up.

So in the end an elite defense can get you within a game to the Superbowl but you still need a QB that is clutch.

 

[Anthony!]

Just because you refuse to admit what Wilson does for the offense does not make him overvalued.

According to this article:
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

If you scroll down to the middle of the page, you'll see the graphic titled: "Added Wins if Offense Contributed Average Passing Efficiency (Total from 2012-2014)"

The Seahawks rank 5th on that list with a rating of -5.73. -A negative number indicates the additional games the team would have lost, had their offense passing efficiency been the league average.

Basically if Wilson had just average efficiency, the Hawks would lose close to 6 games per year more than their current totals. Meaning Wilson's passing efficiency adds close to 6 wins every year.

You're not getting it. Wilson wants to be the highest-paid QB, not the 6th-highest-paid QB. Why link me things showing he's 6th best as proof he should be paid as the best and not the 6th best?

He's good - I get that - but is he THE BEST QB IN THE NFL? That's the question, not how many wins he represents, unless he is in fact #1 on that list, which he isn't.

Let me try to explain...

An Audi R8 is a nice car. It's much better than a Yugo and demonstrably better than a Chevy. It has a lot going for it - looks great, it's fast, handles well - all good. One of the best cars on the road.

So now I'm going to sell you one, but instead of charging you the price of an Audi R8 ($150,000), I'm going to charge you for a Bugatti Veyron ($2,250,000), but give you the Audi R8. Do you feel you have received a good deal? Or do you think you should have paid less for the car that isn't the very best?

Pretend for the sake of argument I linked a graph that showed the R8 would get you 5 more speeding tickets than a Chevy as proof of it's awesomeness.


And for you other people quoting me how many times Russell Wilson has come from behind, do you know what prevents QBs from coming back? BEING AHEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Being behind in the 4th quarter is NOT a indicator of success.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. Such a waste

 

[SeaChase]

Just because you refuse to admit what Wilson does for the offense does not make him overvalued.

According to this article:
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

If you scroll down to the middle of the page, you'll see the graphic titled: "Added Wins if Offense Contributed Average Passing Efficiency (Total from 2012-2014)"

The Seahawks rank 5th on that list with a rating of -5.73. -A negative number indicates the additional games the team would have lost, had their offense passing efficiency been the league average.

Basically if Wilson had just average efficiency, the Hawks would lose close to 6 games per year more than their current totals. Meaning Wilson's passing efficiency adds close to 6 wins every year.

You're not getting it. Wilson wants to be the highest-paid QB, not the 6th-highest-paid QB. Why link me things showing he's 6th best as proof he should be paid as the best and not the 6th best?

He's good - I get that - but is he THE BEST QB IN THE NFL? That's the question, not how many wins he represents, unless he is in fact #1 on that list, which he isn't.

Let me try to explain...

An Audi R8 is a nice car. It's much better than a Yugo and demonstrably better than a Chevy. It has a lot going for it - looks great, it's fast, handles well - all good. One of the best cars on the road.

So now I'm going to sell you one, but instead of charging you the price of an Audi R8 ($150,000), I'm going to charge you for a Bugatti Veyron ($2,250,000), but give you the Audi R8. Do you feel you have received a good deal? Or do you think you should have paid less for the car that isn't the very best?

Pretend for the sake of argument I linked a graph that showed the R8 would get you 5 more speeding tickets than a Chevy as proof of it's awesomeness.


And for you other people quoting me how many times Russell Wilson has come from behind, do you know what prevents QBs from coming back? BEING AHEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Being behind in the 4th quarter is NOT a indicator of success.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. Such a waste

You can lead Russell Wilson to the Goal line, but you can't make him throw a quick slant any slower...

 

[hgwellz12]

/thread

 

[Ad Hawk]

This analogy doesn't work here. It assumes the existance of an open market where any level of QB (car) can be purchased if one desires and has the money. In reality, the Audi is the best car that currently available to us, so we can either pay the dealer's asking price, or walk away and let someone else pay the Veyron price for it, while we're now stuck looking at the Yugo or the Chevy because we felt like we wanted better value. Doesn't change the fact that some other wanker is now driving the R8 that we could have had, and we're looking like a bunch of tossers in a Yugo.

Point well made; the question still is whether we will have the cash.

Like real life, we will be making payments on this purchase for several years, and we have to be able afford them.

Like real life, we can give up other monthly payments (sell house and give up the mortgage) and rent cheaply, but have the over-priced car.

I'll be curious if we can make a deal with the car-dealership and loan originator...

 

[Anthony!]

Just because you refuse to admit what Wilson does for the offense does not make him overvalued.

According to this article:
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

If you scroll down to the middle of the page, you'll see the graphic titled: "Added Wins if Offense Contributed Average Passing Efficiency (Total from 2012-2014)"

The Seahawks rank 5th on that list with a rating of -5.73. -A negative number indicates the additional games the team would have lost, had their offense passing efficiency been the league average.

Basically if Wilson had just average efficiency, the Hawks would lose close to 6 games per year more than their current totals. Meaning Wilson's passing efficiency adds close to 6 wins every year.

You're not getting it. Wilson wants to be the highest-paid QB, not the 6th-highest-paid QB. Why link me things showing he's 6th best as proof he should be paid as the best and not the 6th best?

He's good - I get that - but is he THE BEST QB IN THE NFL? That's the question, not how many wins he represents, unless he is in fact #1 on that list, which he isn't.

Let me try to explain...

An Audi R8 is a nice car. It's much better than a Yugo and demonstrably better than a Chevy. It has a lot going for it - looks great, it's fast, handles well - all good. One of the best cars on the road.

So now I'm going to sell you one, but instead of charging you the price of an Audi R8 ($150,000), I'm going to charge you for a Bugatti Veyron ($2,250,000), but give you the Audi R8. Do you feel you have received a good deal? Or do you think you should have paid less for the car that isn't the very best?

Pretend for the sake of argument I linked a graph that showed the R8 would get you 5 more speeding tickets than a Chevy as proof of it's awesomeness.


And for you other people quoting me how many times Russell Wilson has come from behind, do you know what prevents QBs from coming back? BEING AHEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Being behind in the 4th quarter is NOT a indicator of success.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. Such a waste

You can lead Russell Wilson to the Goal line, but you can't make him throw a quick slant any slower...[/quote}

LOl another county heard from

 

[KiwiHawk]

This analogy doesn't work here. It assumes the existance of an open market where any level of QB (car) can be purchased if one desires and has the money. In reality, the Audi is the best car that currently available to us, so we can either pay the dealer's asking price, or walk away and let someone else pay the Veyron price for it, while we're now stuck looking at the Yugo or the Chevy because we felt like we wanted better value. Doesn't change the fact that some other wanker is now driving the R8 that we could have had, and we're looking like a bunch of tossers in a Yugo.

The big difference is that we currently have rights to that R8 and do have the option of trading it if we want to for something that doesn't come with the cost of a Veyron, but is perhaps good enough to get the job done.

Please don't make it sound as if the only options are paying the Veyron price or driving a Yugo.

 

[KiwiHawk]

I compiled a list of Teams and QBs that were with the #1 Ranked Defense by DVOA since 1994 of the salary cap era.



The ** is marked for the winners of the Superbowls that had a #1 ranked defense by DVOA. You can see some big names there that as well as some mediocre QBs that couldn't get it to the big dance even with a very good defense.

The other thing I notice is that every 5-6 years the #1 ranked defense by DVOA will win a Superbowl, that's something to keep an eye on for the 2018 and 2019 season. Seeing as that's the time most of our defense's contract will end it almost make sense that we won't get the same production as they will age and a new younger elite defense will be coming up.

So in the end an elite defense can get you within a game to the Superbowl but you still need a QB that is clutch.

After this whole thread are we seriously back to square 1 confusing correlation with causation?

Do you know why your chart shows the 2013 Super Bowl being won by a #1 DVOA team? Because that's how the Seahawks were built. It's not because someone in the NFL front office said "Wait everyone, this one is a defensive win, let's make it happen people" and gifted us the Super Bowl. That team won the championship that season because it was the best team in the NFL by a large margin.

We would have won it the year had we got past Atlanta, and we would have won it for the 2014 season had we run the ball or had Wilson seen the pass was not on and chucked it out of the back of the end zone.

It has noting to do with some cyclic trend, and once again for those not understanding it:

Correlation does not prove causation.

 

[Anthony!]

This analogy doesn't work here. It assumes the existance of an open market where any level of QB (car) can be purchased if one desires and has the money. In reality, the Audi is the best car that currently available to us, so we can either pay the dealer's asking price, or walk away and let someone else pay the Veyron price for it, while we're now stuck looking at the Yugo or the Chevy because we felt like we wanted better value. Doesn't change the fact that some other wanker is now driving the R8 that we could have had, and we're looking like a bunch of tossers in a Yugo.

The big difference is that we currently have rights to that R8 and do have the option of trading it if we want to for something that doesn't come with the cost of a Veyron, but is perhaps good enough to get the job done.

Please don't make it sound as if the only options are paying the Veyron price or driving a Yugo.

We have already shown that you cannot get one that may be good enough, We have already shown and proved you need a top flight QB.

 

[theincrediblesok]

I compiled a list of Teams and QBs that were with the #1 Ranked Defense by DVOA since 1994 of the salary cap era.



The ** is marked for the winners of the Superbowls that had a #1 ranked defense by DVOA. You can see some big names there that as well as some mediocre QBs that couldn't get it to the big dance even with a very good defense.

The other thing I notice is that every 5-6 years the #1 ranked defense by DVOA will win a Superbowl, that's something to keep an eye on for the 2018 and 2019 season. Seeing as that's the time most of our defense's contract will end it almost make sense that we won't get the same production as they will age and a new younger elite defense will be coming up.

So in the end an elite defense can get you within a game to the Superbowl but you still need a QB that is clutch.

After this whole thread are we seriously back to square 1 confusing correlation with causation?

Do you know why your chart shows the 2013 Super Bowl being won by a #1 DVOA team? Because that's how the Seahawks were built. It's not because someone in the NFL front office said "Wait everyone, this one is a defensive win, let's make it happen people" and gifted us the Super Bowl. That team won the championship that season because it was the best team in the NFL by a large margin.

We would have won it the year had we got past Atlanta, and we would have won it for the 2014 season had we run the ball or had Wilson seen the pass was not on and chucked it out of the back of the end zone.

It has noting to do with some cyclic trend, and once again for those not understanding it:

Correlation does not prove causation.

That's my bad on wording it wrong, I had put "will win a Superbowl" I don't mean that they are handed the Superbowl win, just seeing it from the chart that the #1 ranked defense of DVOA seems to win every 5-6 years and to keep an eye if a new team comes and win a Superbowl judging by the chart. I mean you can disagree I'm not saying I'm right I'm just seeing what's there in a the chart, could it be wishful thinking, yeah sure.

In 2013 we won by a large margin because it was one of the best defense of all time, but the 2002 Buccanners was actually the best defense also by a large margin against the 2013 Seahawks. The 2014 Seahawks took a huge drop from the 2013 and still became the #1, but guess what they were maybe 5 points off from the Buffalo Bills who was the #2 ranked defense. That Buffalo Bills team should of made the playoffs but nope the difference was the QB, and not winning enough games in the regular season.

It doesn't really matter anyways if Wilson gets signed to a long term extension or not. The team will franchised him if not signed and he will be here til at least 2017. So your just going to have to put up with Wilson being here til then

 

[Hawkfan77]

Just because you refuse to admit what Wilson does for the offense does not make him overvalued.

According to this article:
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

If you scroll down to the middle of the page, you'll see the graphic titled: "Added Wins if Offense Contributed Average Passing Efficiency (Total from 2012-2014)"

The Seahawks rank 5th on that list with a rating of -5.73. -A negative number indicates the additional games the team would have lost, had their offense passing efficiency been the league average.

Basically if Wilson had just average efficiency, the Hawks would lose close to 6 games per year more than their current totals. Meaning Wilson's passing efficiency adds close to 6 wins every year.

You're not getting it. Wilson wants to be the highest-paid QB, not the 6th-highest-paid QB. Why link me things showing he's 6th best as proof he should be paid as the best and not the 6th best?

He's good - I get that - but is he THE BEST QB IN THE NFL? That's the question, not how many wins he represents, unless he is in fact #1 on that list, which he isn't.

Let me try to explain...

An Audi R8 is a nice car. It's much better than a Yugo and demonstrably better than a Chevy. It has a lot going for it - looks great, it's fast, handles well - all good. One of the best cars on the road.

So now I'm going to sell you one, but instead of charging you the price of an Audi R8 ($150,000), I'm going to charge you for a Bugatti Veyron ($2,250,000), but give you the Audi R8. Do you feel you have received a good deal? Or do you think you should have paid less for the car that isn't the very best?

Pretend for the sake of argument I linked a graph that showed the R8 would get you 5 more speeding tickets than a Chevy as proof of it's awesomeness.


And for you other people quoting me how many times Russell Wilson has come from behind, do you know what prevents QBs from coming back? BEING AHEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Being behind in the 4th quarter is NOT a indicator of success.

No, you're not getting it. Being the highest paid (whatever that even means with today's contract loopholes) doesn't equate to being the absolute top player. It's more about timing than anything. It doesn't matter because both Luck and Cam Newton will more than likely get more than Russell once they get their deals done.

Do you think Sherman is the best CB in the league? Because he's not the highest paid...I guess I don't get the obsession with saying he is or isn't the best in the league on his salary. He's the 64th highest paid QB (based on APY) call me crazy but I think he's just a little bit better than 64th

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Just because you refuse to admit what Wilson does for the offense does not make him overvalued.

According to this article:
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

If you scroll down to the middle of the page, you'll see the graphic titled: "Added Wins if Offense Contributed Average Passing Efficiency (Total from 2012-2014)"

The Seahawks rank 5th on that list with a rating of -5.73. -A negative number indicates the additional games the team would have lost, had their offense passing efficiency been the league average.

Basically if Wilson had just average efficiency, the Hawks would lose close to 6 games per year more than their current totals. Meaning Wilson's passing efficiency adds close to 6 wins every year.

You're not getting it. Wilson wants to be the highest-paid QB, not the 6th-highest-paid QB. Why link me things showing he's 6th best as proof he should be paid as the best and not the 6th best?

He's good - I get that - but is he THE BEST QB IN THE NFL? That's the question, not how many wins he represents, unless he is in fact #1 on that list, which he isn't.

Let me try to explain...

An Audi R8 is a nice car. It's much better than a Yugo and demonstrably better than a Chevy. It has a lot going for it - looks great, it's fast, handles well - all good. One of the best cars on the road.

So now I'm going to sell you one, but instead of charging you the price of an Audi R8 ($150,000), I'm going to charge you for a Bugatti Veyron ($2,250,000), but give you the Audi R8. Do you feel you have received a good deal? Or do you think you should have paid less for the car that isn't the very best?

Pretend for the sake of argument I linked a graph that showed the R8 would get you 5 more speeding tickets than a Chevy as proof of it's awesomeness.


And for you other people quoting me how many times Russell Wilson has come from behind, do you know what prevents QBs from coming back? BEING AHEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Being behind in the 4th quarter is NOT a indicator of success.

No, you're not getting it. Being the highest paid (whatever that even means with today's contract loopholes) doesn't equate to being the absolute top player. It's more about timing than anything. It doesn't matter because both Luck and Cam Newton will more than likely get more than Russell once they get their deals done.

Do you think Sherman is the best CB in the league? Because he's not the highest paid...I guess I don't get the obsession with saying he is or isn't the best in the league on his salary. He's the 64th highest paid QB (based on APY) call me crazy but I think he's just a little bit better than 64th

I'm confused, didn't I say virtually the same thing up thread? You guys need to understand trolling both from the outside and from our very own methinks. Just sayin'.

 

[KiwiHawk]

No, you're not getting it. Being the highest paid (whatever that even means with today's contract loopholes) doesn't equate to being the absolute top player. It's more about timing than anything. It doesn't matter because both Luck and Cam Newton will more than likely get more than Russell once they get their deals done.

Do you think Sherman is the best CB in the league? Because he's not the highest paid...I guess I don't get the obsession with saying he is or isn't the best in the league on his salary. He's the 64th highest paid QB (based on APY) call me crazy but I think he's just a little bit better than 64th

Yes, Sherman is the best CB in the league and when he signed his contract he became the highest-paid CB in the NFL. Fine with that. If you want to sell me steak and charge me for steak, I'm cool with that.

Wilson on the other hand isn't the best QB in the NFL. No, he's not the 64th-best, but the Seahawks had no control over that contract. That was the veteran players who ratified the CBA screwing the rookies. Until now, the Seahawks have been prevented by NFL rule from paying Wilson what he's worth.

But that's just it - we should be paying Wilson what he's worth, not what the top QB in the NFL is worth. Selling me a lesser cut and charging me for steak isn't cool certainly not on a fixed budget.

We just picked up Jimmy Graham because the Saints are strapped with Drew Brees' contract. I don't want to see this team dissassembled because someone gets delusions of grandeur.

 

[Scottemojo]

No, you're not getting it. Being the highest paid (whatever that even means with today's contract loopholes) doesn't equate to being the absolute top player. It's more about timing than anything. It doesn't matter because both Luck and Cam Newton will more than likely get more than Russell once they get their deals done.

Do you think Sherman is the best CB in the league? Because he's not the highest paid...I guess I don't get the obsession with saying he is or isn't the best in the league on his salary. He's the 64th highest paid QB (based on APY) call me crazy but I think he's just a little bit better than 64th

Yes, Sherman is the best CB in the league and when he signed his contract he became the highest-paid CB in the NFL. Fine with that. If you want to sell me steak and charge me for steak, I'm cool with that.

Wilson on the other hand isn't the best QB in the NFL. No, he's not the 64th-best, but the Seahawks had no control over that contract. That was the veteran players who ratified the CBA screwing the rookies. Until now, the Seahawks have been prevented by NFL rule from paying Wilson what he's worth.

But that's just it - we should be paying Wilson what he's worth, not what the top QB in the NFL is worth. Selling me a lesser cut and charging me for steak isn't cool certainly not on a fixed budget.

We just picked up Jimmy Graham because the Saints are strapped with Drew Brees' contract. I don't want to see this team dissassembled because someone gets delusions of grandeur.

Delusions of grandeur? Since when did Russell attempting to find out what the market will bear become him having delusions?

I would love it if Russell signed a 6th ranked contract. But I won't chalk it up to a character flaw if he insists on more and gets it.

We picked up Jimmy Graham because the Saints have been living on the wrong side of the cap for years. Blame Drew's contract all you want, The Saints were fiscally irresponsible in a bunch of areas.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/new-orleans-saints-salary-cap/

 

[Hawkfan77]

I'm confused, didn't I say virtually the same thing up thread? You guys need to understand trolling both from the outside and from our very own methinks. Just sayin'.

Who's trolling?

 

[theincrediblesok]

Does anyone here really know if that's what Wilson really said, that he wants to be paid as the highest paid QB in the history of the NFL? Here's an article from February 1st.

http://sea.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-Ru ... y-35255613

"They are expected to make Russell Wilson the highest paid player in NFL history. If you're wondering the ballpark figure, Aaron Rodgers makes about $22 million per year. That is where negotiations will begin for Russell Wilson."

So someone has a quote that says the Seattle Seahawks, not Wilson, was to make Russell Wilson the highest paid player in the NFL history. I think people are jumping to stories and mixing every single story up.

We already heard before the Superbowl that Wilson was going to get paid way different than anyone from JS, then the rumors start popping up suggesting a fully guaranteed contract. In the end no one knows exactly what Wilson wants.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Just because you refuse to admit what Wilson does for the offense does not make him overvalued.

According to this article:
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

If you scroll down to the middle of the page, you'll see the graphic titled: "Added Wins if Offense Contributed Average Passing Efficiency (Total from 2012-2014)"

The Seahawks rank 5th on that list with a rating of -5.73. -A negative number indicates the additional games the team would have lost, had their offense passing efficiency been the league average.

Basically if Wilson had just average efficiency, the Hawks would lose close to 6 games per year more than their current totals. Meaning Wilson's passing efficiency adds close to 6 wins every year.

You're not getting it. Wilson wants to be the highest-paid QB, not the 6th-highest-paid QB. Why link me things showing he's 6th best as proof he should be paid as the best and not the 6th best?

He's good - I get that - but is he THE BEST QB IN THE NFL? That's the question, not how many wins he represents, unless he is in fact #1 on that list, which he isn't.

Let me try to explain...

An Audi R8 is a nice car. It's much better than a Yugo and demonstrably better than a Chevy. It has a lot going for it - looks great, it's fast, handles well - all good. One of the best cars on the road.

So now I'm going to sell you one, but instead of charging you the price of an Audi R8 ($150,000), I'm going to charge you for a Bugatti Veyron ($2,250,000), but give you the Audi R8. Do you feel you have received a good deal? Or do you think you should have paid less for the car that isn't the very best?

Pretend for the sake of argument I linked a graph that showed the R8 would get you 5 more speeding tickets than a Chevy as proof of it's awesomeness.


And for you other people quoting me how many times Russell Wilson has come from behind, do you know what prevents QBs from coming back? BEING AHEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Being behind in the 4th quarter is NOT a indicator of success.

No, you're not getting it. Being the highest paid (whatever that even means with today's contract loopholes) doesn't equate to being the absolute top player. It's more about timing than anything. It doesn't matter because both Luck and Cam Newton will more than likely get more than Russell once they get their deals done.

Do you think Sherman is the best CB in the league? Because he's not the highest paid...I guess I don't get the obsession with saying he is or isn't the best in the league on his salary. He's the 64th highest paid QB (based on APY) call me crazy but I think he's just a little bit better than 64th

Has Kiwihawk just ignored the last decade of QB contracts in the NFL? This is how this goes.. this is how it will always go.

Just like average OL at best making ridiculous money in FA. Teams overpay for premium positions because there is not a lot of easily obtainable talent at these positions. If every team had a great QB, you wouldn't have to pay out the back side to retain them.

Why this is a shock to anyone is beyond me.

 

[Anthony!]

Does anyone here really know if that's what Wilson really said, that he wants to be paid as the highest paid QB in the history of the NFL? Here's an article from February 1st.

http://sea.247sports.com/Bolt/Report-Ru ... y-35255613

"They are expected to make Russell Wilson the highest paid player in NFL history. If you're wondering the ballpark figure, Aaron Rodgers makes about $22 million per year. That is where negotiations will begin for Russell Wilson."

So someone has a quote that says the Seattle Seahawks, not Wilson, was to make Russell Wilson the highest paid player in the NFL history. I think people are jumping to stories and mixing every single story up.

We already heard before the Superbowl that Wilson was going to get paid way different than anyone from JS, then the rumors start popping up suggesting a fully guaranteed contract. In the end no one knows exactly what Wilson wants.

We have nothing from Wilsons camp saying what he is asking for. Only a lot of people guessing.

 

[SnoCoHawk]

Shit costs more today than it did last year. Or the year before. Russ can sign the biggest contract, and in 2 years be the 6th highest deal for a QB, that is the way it works. His contract isn't about what the handful of guys who may be better than him make, it is about what the 25 teams who want one of those guys would pay Russ to play for them

Exactly. If prices for houses were based on previous sale prices, then values would never go up. If salaries for new employees never exceed what's already established, we'd all be making $3.50 an hour. It's supply and demand. Everything is worth exactly what the market is willing to pay for it RIGHT NOW, not what the market already paid for it last year, last month, or last week.

I'm curious as to what other teams would pay to have Russell (he's still short, doesn't have gaudy passing numbers, etc.) but just the impression of competition among buyers is enough to drive prices up on goods and services, even quarterbacks.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Has Kiwihawk just ignored the last decade of QB contracts in the NFL? This is how this goes.. this is how it will always go.

Just like average OL at best making ridiculous money in FA. Teams overpay for premium positions because there is not a lot of easily obtainable talent at these positions. If every team had a great QB, you wouldn't have to pay out the back side to retain them.

Why this is a shock to anyone is beyond me.

The laughable thing is that "This is how it goes... this is always how it will go" applies to so many things:

"Cornerbacks must be fast and quick and therefore small."
"This is the age of passing, not rushing"
"The GM hires the coach, not the other way around"
"You can't be successful without a QB drafted in the first round"

We simply do things differently. Doesn't matter what the correlation is between passing efficiency and Super Bowls, because we do it the way we do it, not the way the rest of the teams do it.

In light of that, it doesn't matter how other teams structure their cap spending; we do it how we do it, not how they do it.

In the Super Bowl era, USC quarterbacks have won six national titles and 22 conference titles. Yet no USC quarterback has ever played in a Super Bowl.

How can this be? They had so much success with Pete Carroll.

Carroll made Carson Palmer look good enough to be drafted #1 overall. USC continued to win with Matt Leinart, who was drafted 10th overall. USC continued to win with Mark Sanchez, who was drafted #5 overall.

Palmer has had a decent career, but not one you would say befitting of a 1st overall selection. The other two are unmitigated busts.

So which is it? Did these guys suck but Carroll won with them anyway, suggesting Carroll's system doesn't rely on a top QB? Did these guys only respond well to Carroll's style and fail when they went elsewhere?

In the end it didn't matter - Carroll played Next Man Up with his QBs just like any other position, and continued his winning ways.

"That can't be done at NFL level" - is this another "This is how it goes... this is always how it will go"?

One thing remains certain: If you overpay for players, there is less money to go around and you cannot retain and acquire the players you could if you paid appropriate salaries. You effectively have a lower salary cap and you disadvantage yourself against the other teams in the league. You risk closing your Super Bowl window. Ask Baltimore. Ask New Orleans whose salary it was that forced them to deal Jimmy Graham.