The thing is, per John Clayton, Russell only takes up about 15% of the cap.
And analysts love to beat a horse to death, and this "theory" all started when Russell Wilson was still on his rookie contract. It was their way to explain how the Seahawks were winning. They're bias wouldn't let them see it any other way.
I was reading a mock by Chad Reuter, and he had Seattle trading out of 21 to 31 with the Rams for a 3rd round pick and change. That is how they look at Seattle.
But to stick with that rookie contract argument is to ignore every other process in the NFL. Coaching, the GM, Scouts and drafting, trades and Free Agent signings (such as waiting out the initial rush to get the good deals), and talent development.
And how is it that they ignore the New England Patriots? Oh yeah, they throw out the lame caveat "can't win when your QB is the highest paid in the NFL." As if there's a giant difference between the Elite QBs pay scale. Pundits will try to tell you Brady is only making $15 million per year, while ignoring signing bonuses and guarantees.
" In 2019, Brady will earn a base salary of $14,000,000 and a roster bonus of $1,000,000, while carrying a cap hit of $27,000,000 and a dead cap value of $12,000,000." Admittedly, Tom Brady is grossly underpaid, but he has the luxury of doing so at his age and as many years as he has been in the NFL.
Superbowl QBs from 2009 on, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, Rodgers, Rapistberger, Eli, Brady, Kaep, Flacco, Wilson, Peyton, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Nick Foles, Goff.
Except for Goff and Wilson, I don't see any cheap QBs in there.
To say that you can't win a Superbowl with a highly paid QB, is to say that the QB isn't that important in the scheme of things. Invalid Argument right there.