Russell Wilson sets deadline for new contract

[WestcoastSteve]

Trade him for 2019 1st, 2nd, and 2020 1st round picks. Russ is good but not that “money” good. Pete’s Seahawks is a running team.

This is a fallacy. They still throw the ball 48% of the time, they still need a QB to make plays in the fourth quarter.

 

[WestcoastSteve]

He relies on the running game to compliment his skill set. Without it Hawks are doomed.

Where were you in 2016 when he carried the team to a division title with no running game at all. Christine Michel was our starting running back.

I don't mind people who don't want to keep Wilson but please don't post drivel and BS to make your point.

 

[WestcoastSteve]

Yes, I get it Tom Brady has mediocre receivers. Tell that to Edelman.

Gronkowski is a bum too

 

[WestcoastSteve]

Why would the giants trade for him if they can sign him next season and use their picks on WR/OT/OH

There's no chance Seattle doesn't franchise him.

 

[WestcoastSteve]

I would also argue that no quarterback has had a better cumulative defense for their first seven years or better cumulative running game for their first seven years.

In 2016 and 2017 we were bottom 5 in the NFL in rushing and he still won 19 games and put up Pro-Bowl numbers so no...

 

[WestcoastSteve]

I'm saying over his seven years, if you average his defensive rating, and rushing rating, including the bad years, i can't think of any quarterback who would have higher. Maybe Elway over some stretch? But I doubt it. .

John Elway had a QB rating under 80. I know it was a different era but for comparison sake Steve Young's was 96.

 

[Uncle Si]

Yeah and the 25 QB's that could have done the same thing Wilson did were getting paid how much? Put the QB's in a list along with their salaries and then lets talk.

Thats the rub, right?

Just use his salary on free agent studs, use the draft capital on the next ET, Sherman and Kam and just draft the next RW.

Easy as

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I would also argue that no quarterback has had a better cumulative defense for their first seven years or better cumulative running game for their first seven years.

Not sure if you've noticed, but our defense hasn't been all that great the past 2-3 seasons, and up until last year our run game was a mess for three straight years.

But you know what was the one consistent factor that kept the ship afloat and headed in the right direction? Russell.

Any lesser QB behind center and we were probably looking at a complete teardown at every position, including the coach and GM..............because without Russell the past 2-3 years we don't even go 9-7 or 10-6 and make the playoffs with this roster.

btw, we're not even getting into the intangibles of what Russell mean to the city of Seattle, and how he's the face of our sports city, both locally and nationally. He's the Griffey of this era.

Some of you guys want to trade him or not pay him? For what, to save maybe 10-15M off a much lesser QB's salary? That's insane.

I want to save 35-40.

I'm saying over his seven years, if you average his defensive rating, and rushing rating, including the bad years, i can't think of any quarterback who would have higher. Maybe Elway over some stretch? But I doubt it.

I think there were conservatively 25 quarterbacks in the league that would have won us one ring over the past seven years with the rosters we have rolled out there.

So lemme get this straight.

You want to go back in time and have our 2012-2015 defense, of which it was one of the top 2-3 all time great defenses.........AND you want a rookie QB in order to save all that money.

Do you think that's a realistic expectation? Because again, if you haven't noticed we don't have that defense anymore, nor IMO will we ever.........and if you think spending 30-40M in free agency, or even 20M will accomplish that then I think you haven't been paying attention to all the teams trying that approach over the past decade, most with epic failure.

i don't like having to pay Russell either, but you're cherry picking an argument that is neither realistic, nor relevant to what's going on with the Hawks right now.

Because the reality is our defense is still rebuilding, and will never be at the level you need it to be in order to not pay Russell to make up for it.

 

[Tical21]

I would also argue that no quarterback has had a better cumulative defense for their first seven years or better cumulative running game for their first seven years.

Not sure if you've noticed, but our defense hasn't been all that great the past 2-3 seasons, and up until last year our run game was a mess for three straight years.

But you know what was the one consistent factor that kept the ship afloat and headed in the right direction? Russell.

Any lesser QB behind center and we were probably looking at a complete teardown at every position, including the coach and GM..............because without Russell the past 2-3 years we don't even go 9-7 or 10-6 and make the playoffs with this roster.

btw, we're not even getting into the intangibles of what Russell mean to the city of Seattle, and how he's the face of our sports city, both locally and nationally. He's the Griffey of this era.

Some of you guys want to trade him or not pay him? For what, to save maybe 10-15M off a much lesser QB's salary? That's insane.

I want to save 35-40.

I'm saying over his seven years, if you average his defensive rating, and rushing rating, including the bad years, i can't think of any quarterback who would have higher. Maybe Elway over some stretch? But I doubt it.

I think there were conservatively 25 quarterbacks in the league that would have won us one ring over the past seven years with the rosters we have rolled out there.

So lemme get this straight.

You want to go back in time and have our 2012-2015 defense, of which it was one of the top 2-3 all time great defenses.........AND you want a rookie QB in order to save all that money.

Do you think that's a realistic expectation? Because again, if you haven't noticed we don't have that defense anymore, nor IMO will we ever.........and if you think spending 30-40M in free agency, or even 20M will accomplish that then I think you haven't been paying attention to all the teams trying that approach over the past decade, most with epic failure.

i don't like having to pay Russell either, but you're cherry picking an argument that is neither realistic, nor relevant to what's going on with the Hawks right now.

Because the reality is our defense is still rebuilding, and will never be at the level you need it to be in order to not pay Russell to make up for it.

How's this for reality? We aren't going to be able to keep both Frank Clark and Jarran Reed.

When we pay Russell his 40 million, anytime any players we draft to surround him with get good, we have to show them the door. It isn't going to work, period. Now, you can say my way probably won't work, but your way definitely won't work. That's the difference.

 

[Hollandhawk]

Not sure if you've noticed, but our defense hasn't been all that great the past 2-3 seasons, and up until last year our run game was a mess for three straight years.

But you know what was the one consistent factor that kept the ship afloat and headed in the right direction? Russell.

Any lesser QB behind center and we were probably looking at a complete teardown at every position, including the coach and GM..............because without Russell the past 2-3 years we don't even go 9-7 or 10-6 and make the playoffs with this roster.

btw, we're not even getting into the intangibles of what Russell mean to the city of Seattle, and how he's the face of our sports city, both locally and nationally. He's the Griffey of this era.

Some of you guys want to trade him or not pay him? For what, to save maybe 10-15M off a much lesser QB's salary? That's insane.

I want to save 35-40.

I'm saying over his seven years, if you average his defensive rating, and rushing rating, including the bad years, i can't think of any quarterback who would have higher. Maybe Elway over some stretch? But I doubt it.

I think there were conservatively 25 quarterbacks in the league that would have won us one ring over the past seven years with the rosters we have rolled out there.

So lemme get this straight.

You want to go back in time and have our 2012-2015 defense, of which it was one of the top 2-3 all time great defenses.........AND you want a rookie QB in order to save all that money.

Do you think that's a realistic expectation? Because again, if you haven't noticed we don't have that defense anymore, nor IMO will we ever.........and if you think spending 30-40M in free agency, or even 20M will accomplish that then I think you haven't been paying attention to all the teams trying that approach over the past decade, most with epic failure.

i don't like having to pay Russell either, but you're cherry picking an argument that is neither realistic, nor relevant to what's going on with the Hawks right now.

Because the reality is our defense is still rebuilding, and will never be at the level you need it to be in order to not pay Russell to make up for it.

How's this for reality? We aren't going to be able to keep both Frank Clark and Jarran Reed.

When we pay Russell his 40 million, anytime any players we draft to surround him with get good, we have to show them the door. It isn't going to work, period. Now, you can say my way probably won't work, but your way definitely won't work. That's the difference.

Yes because after 40 million there's only 148 million left so you can only afford vet minimums and rookie contracts :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :sarcasm_off:

 

[Tical21]

I'm saying over his seven years, if you average his defensive rating, and rushing rating, including the bad years, i can't think of any quarterback who would have higher. Maybe Elway over some stretch? But I doubt it.

That's weasel wording. A team in any particular NFL year doesn't have the average; they have what they have. And after 2015, Wilson's supporting cast dropped off. He still made the playoffs twice, and would have been thrice with a competent kicker. And yes, making the playoffs is a valid measure of quality.

I think there were conservatively 25 quarterbacks in the league that would have won us one ring over the past seven years with the rosters we have rolled out there.

That might be the most hilarious sentence in the history of this board. Wilson has done too much on his own on particular downs, pulled off too many stellar improvisations, shown too much accuracy, and carried too many tough games for this statement to be valid. Our elite defense wasn't saving anyone against the Steelers in 2015, or the Texans in 2017, or the Eagles in 2016. They don't carry every game.

Does anyone even remember 2013? We did not 2007-Patriots our way through that season, blasting forty-burgers left and right, steamrolling teams' will with no question of our dominance. We stumbled through it like a drunk. We almost lost at home to the winless Bucs. Nobody was thinking it was going to be a Super Bowl season until about the Saints game. Wilson's play was a big part of the game - he took a big step forward that day.

You need a complete team. That includes an elite QB.

I'd say there were maybe four QB's who could have done what Russ did. You're badly overestimating the role of the rest of the team, outstanding as they were, AND forgetting what Russ did on his own when only he could do it.

Isn't his QB rating over his first seven years an average?

I never said he wasn't good or other quarterbacks would do as well. I'm saying he won a Super Bowl with one of the greatest rosters ever assembled.

You do not need an elite QB. Was Flacco elite? Was Eli? Was Russ in his second year? Was Foles? Was a 40 year old Manning? Was Ben in his second year? Was Brad Johnson? Was Dilfer? That's 8 in the last 18 years. And how many of the remaining rings were Brady's? You know what every one of them did have? An elite roster. Rosters, and Tom Brady, win championships. And our roster will not be close to that level as long as we are paying Russ 40 million.

Question is...do you want to root for our favorite quarterback who has a really high floor for several more years, or do you want the chance to be a serious contender again?

 

[Tical21]

I want to save 35-40.

I'm saying over his seven years, if you average his defensive rating, and rushing rating, including the bad years, i can't think of any quarterback who would have higher. Maybe Elway over some stretch? But I doubt it.

I think there were conservatively 25 quarterbacks in the league that would have won us one ring over the past seven years with the rosters we have rolled out there.

So lemme get this straight.

You want to go back in time and have our 2012-2015 defense, of which it was one of the top 2-3 all time great defenses.........AND you want a rookie QB in order to save all that money.

Do you think that's a realistic expectation? Because again, if you haven't noticed we don't have that defense anymore, nor IMO will we ever.........and if you think spending 30-40M in free agency, or even 20M will accomplish that then I think you haven't been paying attention to all the teams trying that approach over the past decade, most with epic failure.

i don't like having to pay Russell either, but you're cherry picking an argument that is neither realistic, nor relevant to what's going on with the Hawks right now.

Because the reality is our defense is still rebuilding, and will never be at the level you need it to be in order to not pay Russell to make up for it.

How's this for reality? We aren't going to be able to keep both Frank Clark and Jarran Reed.

When we pay Russell his 40 million, anytime any players we draft to surround him with get good, we have to show them the door. It isn't going to work, period. Now, you can say my way probably won't work, but your way definitely won't work. That's the difference.

Yes because after 40 million there's only 148 million left so you can only afford vet minimums and rookie contracts :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :sarcasm_off:

If we pay any the three of Russ, Wagner, Reed and Clark, we will be paying more for those three players (over 50% of our cap) than any other team pays for four.

 

[knownone]

I get the need for balance, and its a concern with this new ciontract. But its a very short list of teams that have won super bowls in the last 25 years without a top tier QB.

Its a significant risk either way

It depends on how you define top tier. Brady for instance, was statistically a fringe top 10 QB for his first 3 Super Bowls and his last Super Bowl. If you look at the league since 2000, 12 of the 18 Super Bowl winning QBs were outside the top 7 in just about every significant passing category. Brady also skews the financial part of the equation. 15 of those Super Bowl winning QBs weren't even in the top 5 in pay.

I'm struggling with this issue. The data shows that a good QB on a great contract is how you win a Super Bowl. Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Wilson, have all failed to even make a Super Bowl after being paid. However, except for Brees, all of them have consistently elevated the floor of their franchise after signing that contract.

This ties into the Peyton Manning vs Brady debate in some respect. Manning was far and away the best QB for most of their respective careers, but he also got paid near the top of the league in all of those years while Brady hovered in and out of the top 10. Brady has only won 1 Super Bowl in the 6 season where he's being paid in the top 5 at this position, he did however make 3, and one of those seasons his team went undefeated lol...

Ultimately this question comes down to expectations. Trading Wilson gives you the best odds of going on another dynastic run while also attaching a significant risk to the franchise's floor if you miss on his replacement. Paying Wilson top 5 money maintains status quo but limits your ability to be a legitimate threat to win it all every season.

 

[chris98251]

I get the need for balance, and its a concern with this new ciontract. But its a very short list of teams that have won super bowls in the last 25 years without a top tier QB.

Its a significant risk either way

It depends on how you define top tier. Brady for instance, was statistically a fringe top 10 QB for his first 3 Super Bowls and his last Super Bowl. If you look at the league since 2000, 12 of the 18 Super Bowl winning QBs were outside the top 7 in just about every significant passing category. Brady also skews the financial part of the equation. 15 of those Super Bowl winning QBs weren't even in the top 5 in pay.

I'm struggling with this issue. The data shows that a good QB on a great contract is how you win a Super Bowl. Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Wilson, have all failed to even make a Super Bowl after being paid. However, except for Brees, all of them have consistently elevated the floor of their franchise after signing that contract.

This ties into the Peyton Manning vs Brady debate in some respect. Manning was far and away the best QB for most of their respective careers, but he also got paid near the top of the league in all of those years while Brady hovered in and out of the top 10. Brady has only won 1 Super Bowl in the 6 season where he's being paid in the top 5 at this position, he did however make 3, and one of those seasons his team went undefeated lol...

Ultimately this question comes down to expectations. Trading Wilson gives you the best odds of going on another dynastic run while also attaching a significant risk to the franchise's floor if you miss on his replacement. Paying Wilson top 5 money maintains status quo but limits your ability to be a legitimate threat to win it all every season.

40 plus years of watching this team and how many QB's have we had, some good with bad teams, some not so good on bad teams, some good on a decent team but bad philosophy. I say that during the Knox era, great coach but stubborn about being one dimensional with the run and not giving his QB a chance.

You just don't go to Aisle three and grab a QB, hell Hass Whitehurst, TJack, Flynn and countless guys brought in to look at not to mention a few draft picks, if it was so easy we would have let Wilson go after his first contract to keep the position cheap.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

When we pay Russell his 40 million, anytime any players we draft to surround him with get good, we have to show them the door. It isn't going to work, period. Now, you can say my way probably won't work, but your way definitely won't work. That's the difference.

Certainly worked when 14 out of the last 16 SB winning teams were paying their QB's top QB money. Only Foles and Wilson were outliers to this formula, and you gotta go back to 2002 when Brad Johnson wasn't a high priced QB on a SB winning team.

Brady
Roethlessberger
Brees
Rodgers
Flacco
Manning (Eli and Peyton)

So I ask you, what's harder to do...........build an elite defense, run game, WR corp and O-line OR find one elite QB who can win you SB and surround him with good to great players?

You think we can build another all time great defense and run game, and that's why we don't need Russell. Highly doubtful that's ever happening again.

Now if we draft another QB that I think has even 75% of what Russell brings to the table so we don't need him anymore? Like KC did with letting Smith go cause they Mahomes? I'm all ears. But we don't have that yet. Right now we have a 6'11 stiff at backup QB that's failed everywhere he's been.

No thanks, if you're making me choose on April 4th, 2019? I choose Russell over no Russell.

 

[James in PA]

When we pay Russell his 40 million, anytime any players we draft to surround him with get good, we have to show them the door. It isn't going to work, period. Now, you can say my way probably won't work, but your way definitely won't work. That's the difference.

Certainly worked when 14 out of the last 16 SB winning teams were paying their QB's top QB money. Only Foles and Wilson were outliers to this formula, and you gotta go back to 2002 when Brad Johnson wasn't a high priced QB on a SB winning team.

Brady
Roethlessberger
Brees
Rodgers
Flacco
Manning (Eli and Peyton)

So I ask you, what's harder to do...........build an elite defense, run game, WR corp and O-line OR find one elite QB who can win you SB and surround him with good to great players?

You think we can build another all time great defense and run game, and that's why we don't need Russell. Highly doubtful that's ever happening again.

Now if we draft another QB that I think has even 75% of what Russell brings to the table so we don't need him anymore? Like KC did with letting Smith go cause they Mahomes? I'm all ears. But we don't have that yet. Right now we have a 6'11 stiff at backup QB that's failed everywhere he's been.

No thanks, if you're making me choose on April 4th, 2019? I choose Russell over no Russell.

This is one of the more convincing arguments I’ve seen for showing Russ the $. While the Hawks and Philly did it the unconventional way, having a big $ QB is a more proven method for winning the big one. Look, it’s hard as hell to win the Owl either way. But I’ll take the more proven method. Give me a franchise QB any day. We sure as hell have waited long enough to finally get one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John63]

I would also argue that no quarterback has had a better cumulative defense for their first seven years or better cumulative running game for their first seven years.

In 2016 and 2017 we were bottom 5 in the NFL in rushing and he still won 19 games and put up Pro-Bowl numbers so no...

Also, let's remember that our being top in rushing has a lot to do with Wilson. Example in our SB year had we not had Wilsons rushing yards we would have been ranked 11th not 1st. Even this last year lets remember nearly 500 of our yards came from Wilson. Without that, we are not #1 and at that point had only a few more yards rushing than NE.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This is one of the more convincing arguments I’ve seen for showing Russ the $. While the Hawks and Philly did it the unconventional way, having a big $ QB is a more proven method for winning the big one. Look, it’s hard as hell to win the Owl either way. But I’ll take the more proven method. Give me a franchise QB any day. We sure as hell have waited long enough to finally get one.

Right, if Tical wants to show us a long successful track record of QB's on rookie deals winning SB's, we're all ears.

Fact is even Brady makes 20M+, so your savings to spend elsewhere is at most 10-15M. What's that? One impact player in free agency or resigning? That's worth more than a top 10 QB at the most important position on your team?

Nope.

He's using a false pretense based on the stars aligning for us with Pete and John building an all time elite defense and lucking out in acquiring Marshawn...............but for some reason not giving credit to the very important third part of this equation, having Russell running all over the place making plays during that SB run.

 

[Chapow]

I think there were conservatively 25 quarterbacks in the league that would have won us one ring over the past seven years with the rosters we have rolled out there.

 

[knownone]

I get the need for balance, and its a concern with this new ciontract. But its a very short list of teams that have won super bowls in the last 25 years without a top tier QB.

Its a significant risk either way

It depends on how you define top tier. Brady for instance, was statistically a fringe top 10 QB for his first 3 Super Bowls and his last Super Bowl. If you look at the league since 2000, 12 of the 18 Super Bowl winning QBs were outside the top 7 in just about every significant passing category. Brady also skews the financial part of the equation. 15 of those Super Bowl winning QBs weren't even in the top 5 in pay.

I'm struggling with this issue. The data shows that a good QB on a great contract is how you win a Super Bowl. Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Wilson, have all failed to even make a Super Bowl after being paid. However, except for Brees, all of them have consistently elevated the floor of their franchise after signing that contract.

This ties into the Peyton Manning vs Brady debate in some respect. Manning was far and away the best QB for most of their respective careers, but he also got paid near the top of the league in all of those years while Brady hovered in and out of the top 10. Brady has only won 1 Super Bowl in the 6 season where he's being paid in the top 5 at this position, he did however make 3, and one of those seasons his team went undefeated lol...

Ultimately this question comes down to expectations. Trading Wilson gives you the best odds of going on another dynastic run while also attaching a significant risk to the franchise's floor if you miss on his replacement. Paying Wilson top 5 money maintains status quo but limits your ability to be a legitimate threat to win it all every season.

40 plus years of watching this team and how many QB's have we had, some good with bad teams, some not so good on bad teams, some good on a decent team but bad philosophy. I say that during the Knox era, great coach but stubborn about being one dimensional with the run and not giving his QB a chance.

You just don't go to Aisle three and grab a QB, hell Hass Whitehurst, TJack, Flynn and countless guys brought in to look at not to mention a few draft picks, if it was so easy we would have let Wilson go after his first contract to keep the position cheap.

Historically speaking, I agree with you. The NFL has changed in recent years though, and the middle class of QBs is growing. You don't really need an elite QB to make the playoffs every year; you need to surround a good QB with talented players, and it's easier to do that when your QB is cheap. Consider this, since Andy Dalton came into the league he has as many playoff appearances as Drew Brees, as many winning seasons as Aaron Rodgers, and the same amount of Super Bowl appearances as both. Andy Dalton has had 1 season as a top 5 QB.

It's also worth remembering that Seattle was reportedly considering letting Wilson go after his first contract, but kept him because they believed he'd keep getting better. That's the thing, If you look at it from a numbers stand point there is a point where Russell's contract number outweighs the benefit of his ability relative to a replacement level QB.

Now, I am not saying the Seahawks should move on from Russell. I can just see the merit to the other side of the argument. It's a unique philosophical question that diverges right at the heart of what we know of John Schneider. John's at his best when he sticks to his value and doesn't over pay. His draft philosophy involves mitigating risk by spreading his assets out while leveraging his ability to find talent in the later rounds. At a certain point paying Wilson diametrically opposes the philosophy that has made Schneider successful. I doubt the Seahawks would move on from Wilson, but if there is a guy with the balls to do it... it's John Schneider.