View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:55 am



Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson 
Author Message
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23084
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Probably just contract posturing but it's still interesting.

Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk? GM hints that it's possible

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... s-possible

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:51 pm
Profile
Strong Safety
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Posts: 11328
Location: California
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
I doubt it ...

They will have to drain a lot of their cap to keep him.. I'm sure he is 17 million a year min .. 5 year deal with huge bonus

_________________
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:29 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7956
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
I do believe they'll let him walk if he demands too much, yes.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:59 am
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:46 am
Posts: 2799
Location: Missouri
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
I can't imagine them letting him walk, but maybe they're convinced he's a product of how good the rest of the team is. It's interesting at the very least.

_________________
Image


Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:27 am
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
This is an interesting scenario because I think letting him walk or signing him to a mega contract are both arguably the right decision.

On one hand, you have his upcoming contract dude is going to get PAYED, problem is, he is going to be paid as a top 3 QB when in reality he is a game manager (Albeit the best game manager in the league, probably.)

When Russel Wilson is payed as a top QB, you can say goodbye to that absolutely fantastic roster over in Seattle, they would need Wilson to continue to develop and improve and eventually be the top 3 QB that his contract pays him as, if they would want to continue to be the one of the NFLs best teams.

If they don't think that Wilson is going to eventually be deserving of the money he will command, then they should let him walk, IMO. I know letting your franchise QB is risky business, but I don't think Wilson is a guy that is going to carry his team on his back to the SB, and after his upcoming contract he is going to have to.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Last edited by Jordysghost on Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:47 pm
Profile
Commissioner

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:24 pm
Posts: 23761
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
Didn't we already go through this with Lynch? :wallbang:


Fri Apr 17, 2015 4:01 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 am
Posts: 2229
Location: Seattle, Wa
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
No way.

My first impression of the article is that it's craftily written. I speed read most of it, but it just sounds like snippets of quotes that are pieced together to look like it's a possibility, which, I suppose it's possible, as anything is. I just don't know buy it.

I think the talks are ongoing though. Seattle's FO is really good with handling contracts -- even though a lot of it has to do with hitting on a lot of their later round draft picks and undrafted rookie signings -- and there are a few rumors out there too that say this upcoming contract for Russell is "the most unique" there is. Probably takes more time to iron out? No way they let him walk though. You don't play with potential alternatives when you can with the guy you got that's won like Russell and carries himself and leads the way RW does.


Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:13 pm
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23084
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
Quote:
@SI_PeterKing Russell Wilson and the Seahawks have agreed to a 4-year, $87.6-million extension, per source. The new Wilson deal includes a $31-million signing bonus, with approximately $60-million guaranteed. The deal averages $21.9-miilion a year, a smidge less than top deal in football, Aaron Rodgers’ $22-million per.

Quote:
@SharpFootball Russell Wilson is now the second-highest paid QB per yr (avg) in te NFL at $21.9M ($87.6M over 4 yrs) via @SI_PeterKing

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:49 am
Profile
Strong Safety
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Posts: 11328
Location: California
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
I respected Wilson for how long he waited to get paid.. Just did his job for peanuts
and earned his money.. The rest of his teammates not so much ..

_________________
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:09 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23084
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
jackal wrote:
I respected Wilson for how long he waited to get paid.. Just did his job for peanuts
and earned his money.. The rest of his teammates not so much ..


Smart to have it only a four-year contract. Can get another big payday at age 31, still in his prime. He's going to make a lot of money in his career.

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:15 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7956
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
dead_poet wrote:
jackal wrote:
I respected Wilson for how long he waited to get paid.. Just did his job for peanuts
and earned his money.. The rest of his teammates not so much ..


Smart to have it only a four-year contract. Can get another big payday at age 31, still in his prime. He's going to make a lot of money in his career.


The Seahwaks could have also franchised him, couldn't they? Would that have cost them more? I suppose it could have also damaged the relationship between him and the front office.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:43 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23084
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Would Seahawks let Russell Wilson walk?
Cliff wrote:
dead_poet wrote:
jackal wrote:
I respected Wilson for how long he waited to get paid.. Just did his job for peanuts
and earned his money.. The rest of his teammates not so much ..


Smart to have it only a four-year contract. Can get another big payday at age 31, still in his prime. He's going to make a lot of money in his career.


The Seahwaks could have also franchised him, couldn't they? Would that have cost them more? I suppose it could have also damaged the relationship between him and the front office.


They could've franchised him but I think they wanted to get this deal done so they could have the tag available for Wagner, if needed. The tag for QBs would be between $20 and $25 million for 2016. If they did it again it'd be 20-percent raise for 2017 and a 44-percent raise for 2018. I don't think a lot of franchises like their QBs playing on franchise tags (nor do players like to be on it, either).

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:01 am
Profile
Strong Safety
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Posts: 11328
Location: California
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Seattle is now facing trying to keep 43 quality guys on 50 million a year.

They are paying 100 plus to 8-10 guys ... So basically every player on the team that hasn't gotten
paid is not going to get paid. They have to hit with every draft pick and get 25-30 guys to play for
peanuts. Based on the players off season reactions a lot of guys want money, there not going to get.

personally i think the Seahawks players are more about ego and money than being part of a team.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid;however, guys that got paid two years ago and wan't to restructure

or get new contracts every time another player set the bar higher. The NFL does not work that way.

_________________
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Mon Aug 03, 2015 11:59 am
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Night night 'Hawks, hope you enjoyed your 15 minutes.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:13 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Can't help but wonder what it would take to pry Chancellor loose. Zimmer would be able to put his talents to good use on his Defense.


Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:23 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Sebastian, FL
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Folks, you really need to get over the idea that the Seahawks are going to be in some kind of cap hell. Will some players not get paid? Yes. Just like on every team. Some players are left to walk to greener pastures. But think of it like this. The Seahawks are in no worse shape than the Packers.
Code:
Top 20 players in cap space.      2015                2016
Seahawks.                      109,054,951       117,568,424
Packers.                       108,285,764       111,427,820
Vikings                        103,924,268       109,227,308


The biggest difference is that the Seahawks have 11 of their top 15 players signed through 2017 while the Packers have only 7 signed.

_________________
This space for rent.


Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:47 am
Profile
Strong Safety
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Posts: 11328
Location: California
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Quote:
The biggest difference is that the Seahawks have 11 of their top 15 players signed through 2017 while the Packers have only 7 signed.


and two of three of those twenty already want new deals and are holding out or thinking about it. I don't think the Seahawks are
going to the bottom of the NFL. I do think this is going to be a big distraction and they will lose more players than they have in a long
time; in addition, they will not be able draw any Veterans, that want top pay.

_________________
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:27 am
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Raptorman wrote:
Folks, you really need to get over the idea that the Seahawks are going to be in some kind of cap hell. Will some players not get paid? Yes. Just like on every team. Some players are left to walk to greener pastures. But think of it like this. The Seahawks are in no worse shape than the Packers.
Code:
Top 20 players in cap space.      2015                2016
Seahawks.                      109,054,951       117,568,424
Packers.                       108,285,764       111,427,820
Vikings                        103,924,268       109,227,308


The biggest difference is that the Seahawks have 11 of their top 15 players signed through 2017 while the Packers have only 7 signed.


Difference being that Aaron Rodgers is more then worth his contract, and Wilson is not.

Its not that they will be in cap hell, its just that they are going to lose that fantastic roster that they have built, with several guys wanting new contracts. The only way they will remain at their recent stellar level of play is if Wilson starts playing like the second highest paid QB in the league would play, and, to this point he hasnt.

Dont get me wrong though, I think this upcoming year they at the very least get back to the NFCCG, or god forbid, the SB. But I really dont see how they maintain being a top 3 team in the league on a consistant basis after that. Wilson is simply being payed FAR too much money. Good for him though.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:52 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Sebastian, FL
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Jordysghost wrote:

Difference being that Aaron Rodgers is more then worth his contract, and Wilson is not.

Its not that they will be in cap hell, its just that they are going to lose that fantastic roster that they have built, with several guys wanting new contracts. The only way they will remain at their recent stellar level of play is if Wilson starts playing like the second highest paid QB in the league would play, and, to this point he hasnt.

Dont get me wrong though, I think this upcoming year they at the very least get back to the NFCCG, or god forbid, the SB. But I really dont see how they maintain being a top 3 team in the league on a consistant basis after that. Wilson is simply being payed FAR too much money. Good for him though.

He hasn't played well? Really? In what manner? Oh I know, he hasn't thrown 37 times a game for 4,500 yards. Wilson's regular season numbers over the last three years compared to career stats of other "top" QB's.

Code:
            Cmp     Att    Cmp%     Yds     TD     TD%    Int    Int%    Rate
Rodgers    2286    3475    65.8    28578    226    6.5     57    1.6   106.0
Wilson      794    1252    63.4     9950     72    5.8     26    2.1    98.6
Romo       2743    4210    65.2    33270    242    5.7    110    2.6    97.6
Manning    5927    9049    65.5    69691    530    5.9    234    2.6    97.5
Brady      4551    7168    63.5    53258    392    5.5    143    2.0    95.9
Brees      4937    7458    66.2    56033    396    5.3    194    2.6    95.4
Luck       1062    1813    58.6    12957     86    4.7     43    2.4    86.6

Of course we all know stats don't make the QB right. But, Wilson can't stay in the pocket and throw. No, I know, it's the defense. Which does help. Keeping teams to under 16 ppg helps any QB win.

Do this, name the elite QB's that won the Super Bowl the last 20 years without a top 10 defense in scoring.

Brady had defense's ranked 6, 1, 2 and 8.
Rodgers, Packers were ranked 2nd.
Wilson 1.
Big Ben, 1 and 3.
Elway, 6 and 8.
Favre, 1
Ravens were 1 and 12.
Eli, well Eli had 17 and 25, but no one consider's him elite. But during his SB runs the Giants defense held other teams to under 17ppg
Brees defense was 20. During his SB run defense held other team to under 20ppg
Payton Manning his was 23. During his SB run defense held other team to under 17ppg

So having a good QB is good, but it won't necessarily win you the big game. Do you know why the Patriots have double digit wins every year? It's not Brady alone. The Patriots defense has averaged out to be the 8th ranked defense in scoring since Brady became the QB. The Patriots Defense since 2001 has held their opponents to an average score of 18.7 point per game. With that score, the NFL average of any team winning is about 80%. Which is why people look down on Wilson. Because his team has been holding teams to and even lower score, 16.6 ppg. See people will claim Wilson isn't a top QB because his defense does so well, but when was the last time you heard anyone even mention the Patriots defense?

_________________
This space for rent.


Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:27 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Jordysghost wrote:
Raptorman wrote:
Folks, you really need to get over the idea that the Seahawks are going to be in some kind of cap hell. Will some players not get paid? Yes. Just like on every team. Some players are left to walk to greener pastures. But think of it like this. The Seahawks are in no worse shape than the Packers.
Code:
Top 20 players in cap space.      2015                2016
Seahawks.                      109,054,951       117,568,424
Packers.                       108,285,764       111,427,820
Vikings                        103,924,268       109,227,308


The biggest difference is that the Seahawks have 11 of their top 15 players signed through 2017 while the Packers have only 7 signed.


Difference being that Aaron Rodgers is more then worth his contract, and Wilson is not.

Its not that they will be in cap hell, its just that they are going to lose that fantastic roster that they have built, with several guys wanting new contracts. The only way they will remain at their recent stellar level of play is if Wilson starts playing like the second highest paid QB in the league would play, and, to this point he hasnt.

Dont get me wrong though, I think this upcoming year they at the very least get back to the NFCCG, or god forbid, the SB. But I really dont see how they maintain being a top 3 team in the league on a consistant basis after that. Wilson is simply being payed FAR too much money. Good for him though.


It seems to me that sometimes teams are too risk averse. The seahawks could probably have signed Wilson for 8 -10 mil a year after year two for a contract that kept him on the team until he was 31. Share the risk with the player and keep the cap number lower. Wilson's been playing carrying ALL the risk on that podunk rookie deal.

The Vikings could well be in the same spot after this year. If Bridgewater does well this year I think they should give him some of the money they would give him AFTER his rookie deal, 2-3 years early and keep the annual salary down, so they can remain competitive for a good 7-8 year window. Put the guaranteed money during the first couple years of the contract. Even if he flames out you are not likely to cut bait with him after 2 more years as a promising first round pick.

Afterall, A'aron is a great QB but the Packers haven't been able to put much of a team around him with his salary and its only resulted in 1 superbowl. Here's hoping that will be the last Packer's superbowl for the next 150 years.


Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:00 am
Profile
Commissioner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Posts: 23084
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
fiestavike wrote:
It seems to me that sometimes teams are too risk averse. The seahawks could probably have signed Wilson for 8 -10 mil a year after year two for a contract that kept him on the team until he was 31. Share the risk with the player and keep the cap number lower. Wilson's been playing carrying ALL the risk on that podunk rookie deal.

The Vikings could well be in the same spot after this year. If Bridgewater does well this year I think they should give him some of the money they would give him AFTER his rookie deal, 2-3 years early and keep the annual salary down, so they can remain competitive for a good 7-8 year window. Put the guaranteed money during the first couple years of the contract. Even if he flames out you are not likely to cut bait with him after 2 more years as a promising first round pick.


That's an interesting thought and it's a wonder that hasn't been done more. I can only think of New England and I believe their extensions with either Gronk, Hernandez or both that were thought of as perhaps a year or so premature (forget the Hernandez fiasco as that wasn't happening at the time). Though it does "take two to tango" and if Teddy puts up, say, top-15 QB numbers and wins a playoff game or two (here's hoping!) he could just as soon "bet on himself" and not sign a contract extension until later, understanding that he may be costing himself a few million now for the potential for a much bigger payday down the line. Though there is the "fifth-year option" that really is a win from a team ownership standpoint. There's also the possibility that, after doing this, Teddy greatly exceeds expectations and ends up being, say, the #18 highest-paid QB with top-five stats and has two years left on his second deal and becomes quite unhappy with that and "holds out" (not that he seems like that type of guy).

I know this is a lot of hypotheticals. That said, I think what you're suggesting has potential to be a win-win move as teams continue to get more comfortable with the rookie wage scale and second contracts, particularly with quarterbacks, and players wanting a raise and additional security early in their careers.

_________________
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly


Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:16 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
dead_poet wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
It seems to me that sometimes teams are too risk averse. The seahawks could probably have signed Wilson for 8 -10 mil a year after year two for a contract that kept him on the team until he was 31. Share the risk with the player and keep the cap number lower. Wilson's been playing carrying ALL the risk on that podunk rookie deal.

The Vikings could well be in the same spot after this year. If Bridgewater does well this year I think they should give him some of the money they would give him AFTER his rookie deal, 2-3 years early and keep the annual salary down, so they can remain competitive for a good 7-8 year window. Put the guaranteed money during the first couple years of the contract. Even if he flames out you are not likely to cut bait with him after 2 more years as a promising first round pick.


That's an interesting thought and it's a wonder that hasn't been done more. I can only think of New England and I believe their extensions with either Gronk, Hernandez or both that were thought of as perhaps a year or so premature (forget the Hernandez fiasco as that wasn't happening at the time). Though it does "take two to tango" and if Teddy puts up, say, top-15 QB numbers and wins a playoff game or two (here's hoping!) he could just as soon "bet on himself" and not sign a contract extension until later, understanding that he may be costing himself a few million now for the potential for a much bigger payday down the line. Though there is the "fifth-year option" that really is a win from a team ownership standpoint. There's also the possibility that, after doing this, Teddy greatly exceeds expectations and ends up being, say, the #18 highest-paid QB with top-five stats and has two years left on his second deal and becomes quite unhappy with that and "holds out" (not that he seems like that type of guy).

I know this is a lot of hypotheticals. That said, I think what you're suggesting has potential to be a win-win move as teams continue to get more comfortable with the rookie wage scale and second contracts, particularly with quarterbacks, and players wanting a raise and additional security early in their careers.


Thanks DP. there are certainly a lot of hypothetical aspects to the idea, but it seems like a reasonable compromise to say to a guy, over the next 7 years you take a little less but over the next two-three years you get a lot more, most of it guaranteed. It strikes me as a potential win/win.


Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:10 am
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Raptorman wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:

Difference being that Aaron Rodgers is more then worth his contract, and Wilson is not.

Its not that they will be in cap hell, its just that they are going to lose that fantastic roster that they have built, with several guys wanting new contracts. The only way they will remain at their recent stellar level of play is if Wilson starts playing like the second highest paid QB in the league would play, and, to this point he hasnt.

Dont get me wrong though, I think this upcoming year they at the very least get back to the NFCCG, or god forbid, the SB. But I really dont see how they maintain being a top 3 team in the league on a consistant basis after that. Wilson is simply being payed FAR too much money. Good for him though.

He hasn't played well? Really? In what manner? Oh I know, he hasn't thrown 37 times a game for 4,500 yards. Wilson's regular season numbers over the last three years compared to career stats of other "top" QB's.

Code:
            Cmp     Att    Cmp%     Yds     TD     TD%    Int    Int%    Rate
Rodgers    2286    3475    65.8    28578    226    6.5     57    1.6   106.0
Wilson      794    1252    63.4     9950     72    5.8     26    2.1    98.6
Romo       2743    4210    65.2    33270    242    5.7    110    2.6    97.6
Manning    5927    9049    65.5    69691    530    5.9    234    2.6    97.5
Brady      4551    7168    63.5    53258    392    5.5    143    2.0    95.9
Brees      4937    7458    66.2    56033    396    5.3    194    2.6    95.4
Luck       1062    1813    58.6    12957     86    4.7     43    2.4    86.6

Of course we all know stats don't make the QB right. But, Wilson can't stay in the pocket and throw. No, I know, it's the defense. Which does help. Keeping teams to under 16 ppg helps any QB win.

Do this, name the elite QB's that won the Super Bowl the last 20 years without a top 10 defense in scoring.

Brady had defense's ranked 6, 1, 2 and 8.
Rodgers, Packers were ranked 2nd.
Wilson 1.
Big Ben, 1 and 3.
Elway, 6 and 8.
Favre, 1
Ravens were 1 and 12.
Eli, well Eli had 17 and 25, but no one consider's him elite. But during his SB runs the Giants defense held other teams to under 17ppg
Brees defense was 20. During his SB run defense held other team to under 20ppg
Payton Manning his was 23. During his SB run defense held other team to under 17ppg

So having a good QB is good, but it won't necessarily win you the big game. Do you know why the Patriots have double digit wins every year? It's not Brady alone. The Patriots defense has averaged out to be the 8th ranked defense in scoring since Brady became the QB. The Patriots Defense since 2001 has held their opponents to an average score of 18.7 point per game. With that score, the NFL average of any team winning is about 80%. Which is why people look down on Wilson. Because his team has been holding teams to and even lower score, 16.6 ppg. See people will claim Wilson isn't a top QB because his defense does so well, but when was the last time you heard anyone even mention the Patriots defense?



You are missing the point entirely. Wilson has been good, but not even close to as good as his payday.

People dont "Look down on Wilson", but if they did it would be because game managers shouldnt be getting paid just slightly below the top QB in the game. A top QB isnt all it takes for a SB win, your right. So how are the Seahawks going to fare now that they are paying a QB like a top 5 QB when he quite obviously isnt one? Defense was their biggest catalyst towards their SB victory, and Wilson cashed in.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Last edited by Jordysghost on Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:39 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
fiestavike wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:

Difference being that Aaron Rodgers is more then worth his contract, and Wilson is not.

Its not that they will be in cap hell, its just that they are going to lose that fantastic roster that they have built, with several guys wanting new contracts. The only way they will remain at their recent stellar level of play is if Wilson starts playing like the second highest paid QB in the league would play, and, to this point he hasnt.

Dont get me wrong though, I think this upcoming year they at the very least get back to the NFCCG, or god forbid, the SB. But I really dont see how they maintain being a top 3 team in the league on a consistant basis after that. Wilson is simply being payed FAR too much money. Good for him though.


It seems to me that sometimes teams are too risk averse. The seahawks could probably have signed Wilson for 8 -10 mil a year after year two for a contract that kept him on the team until he was 31. Share the risk with the player and keep the cap number lower. Wilson's been playing carrying ALL the risk on that podunk rookie deal.

The Vikings could well be in the same spot after this year. If Bridgewater does well this year I think they should give him some of the money they would give him AFTER his rookie deal, 2-3 years early and keep the annual salary down, so they can remain competitive for a good 7-8 year window. Put the guaranteed money during the first couple years of the contract. Even if he flames out you are not likely to cut bait with him after 2 more years as a promising first round pick.

Afterall, A'aron is a great QB but the Packers haven't been able to put much of a team around him with his salary and its only resulted in 1 superbowl. Here's hoping that will be the last Packer's superbowl for the next 150 years.


While the Packers only have one SB thus far in Rodgers tenure, saying they havent put a good team around him is sketchy at best. The defense was top 5 in 2009, 2010, 12th ranked in 2012, and 15th last year. Leaving 2011 and 2013 as the outlier.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:45 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Sebastian, FL
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Jordysghost wrote:

You are missing the point entirely. Wilson has been good, but not even close to as good as his payday.

People dont "Look down on Wilson", but if they did it would be because game managers shouldnt be getting paid just slightly below the top QB in the game. A top QB isnt all it takes for a SB win, your right. So how are the Seahawks going to fare now that they are paying a QB like a top 5 QB when he quite obviously isnt one? Defense was their biggest catalyst towards their SB victory, and Wilson cashed in.


Hasn't been close to as good as he pay day. In what way? How is he not good? Be specific.
Game manager who completes 63% of his passes, has a 7.9 yards per attempt average, Which is equal to Romo's, less than Rodgers but greater than Brees, Brady, Luck and P. Manning. Has a TD% that is currently third among active QB's at 5.8%, an interception rate of 2.1% which is third behind Rodgers and Brady. Has helped his team go from scoring 18 ppg before he got there,(remember, Lynch was already there) to scoring 26 ppg the last 3 years. Has 15 game winning drives or 4th quarter comebacks the last 3 years. More if I am not mistaken than any other QB in that time period. Helped his team to two Super Bowl games back to back, losing one on the one yard line.

So tell me. What exactly is he not doing? What is he supposed to be doing to "earn" his money that he's not doing now?
Throwing the ball 37 times a game? (if he had, over three years he would have 14,000+ yards and over 105 TD's)
Passing for 4,000 yards a year?

Don't worry, I don't expect a real answer because so far no one can come with anything other than, "Well he has a good defense, which helps him win." Not one person can name one thing he should be doing better.

And since it's "obvious" to you he is not top 5 QB. Please list your requirements for what it takes to be a top 5 QB.

BTW, while he has $22 million a year in new money, I was warned by a Packer fan to be careful using that figure(I used the new money in Rodgers contract and got blasted for it). Since he signed and extension it comes out to about $18 million a year. He does not hit the top 5 QB's in cap figures until 2018. Of Course by that time Eli Manning will have new contract and so will Luck, Griffin Rivers, Brees and Bradford. Which should keep him down at 10th.

_________________
This space for rent.


Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:19 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Raptorman wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:

You are missing the point entirely. Wilson has been good, but not even close to as good as his payday.

People dont "Look down on Wilson", but if they did it would be because game managers shouldnt be getting paid just slightly below the top QB in the game. A top QB isnt all it takes for a SB win, your right. So how are the Seahawks going to fare now that they are paying a QB like a top 5 QB when he quite obviously isnt one? Defense was their biggest catalyst towards their SB victory, and Wilson cashed in.


Hasn't been close to as good as he pay day. In what way? How is he not good? Be specific.
Game manager who completes 63% of his passes, has a 7.9 yards per attempt average, Which is equal to Romo's, less than Rodgers but greater than Brees, Brady, Luck and P. Manning. Has a TD% that is currently third among active QB's at 5.8%, an interception rate of 2.1% which is third behind Rodgers and Brady. Has helped his team go from scoring 18 ppg before he got there,(remember, Lynch was already there) to scoring 26 ppg the last 3 years. Has 15 game winning drives or 4th quarter comebacks the last 3 years. More if I am not mistaken than any other QB in that time period. Helped his team to two Super Bowl games back to back, losing one on the one yard line.

So tell me. What exactly is he not doing? What is he supposed to be doing to "earn" his money that he's not doing now?
Throwing the ball 37 times a game? (if he had, over three years he would have 14,000+ yards and over 105 TD's)
Passing for 4,000 yards a year?

Don't worry, I don't expect a real answer because so far no one can come with anything other than, "Well he has a good defense, which helps him win." Not one person can name one thing he should be doing better.

And since it's "obvious" to you he is not top 5 QB. Please list your requirements for what it takes to be a top 5 QB.

BTW, while he has $22 million a year in new money, I was warned by a Packer fan to be careful using that figure(I used the new money in Rodgers contract and got blasted for it). Since he signed and extension it comes out to about $18 million a year. He does not hit the top 5 QB's in cap figures until 2018. Of Course by that time Eli Manning will have new contract and so will Luck, Griffin Rivers, Brees and Bradford. Which should keep him down at 10th.


Well, for one, to be a top 5 QB, there cannot be at least 5 other QBs in the league that are undisputably statistically superior to you, especially when you play on a loaded team like the Seahawks. This really shouldnt be such a foreign concept, if you get payed like a Rodgers, Manning, you should produce like one, not like a 20 td game manager. (Excellent game manager though he may be.) Wilson is being payed as an elite QB, when at least up until this point he hasnt been one, in fact, Wilson has never thrown for 30 tds in a season.

Dude, you really think 3 QBs in their late 30s are going to get contracts equal to or greater than the one Wilson just signed? Really? Oh and you completely lost me at RG3 and Bradford, as while it possible, there is nothing to suggest they will ever come anywhere close to the contract Wilson just signed. Luck was the only player on your list that will likely ever sign another contract higher the Wilsons.

Again, Wilson, has been very good, but not elite, on one damn fine roster that was afforded the luxury of having their QB on his rookie contract at a value far lower then he deserved. That is no longer the case, and unless Wilson turns into some elite level gamebreaking playmaker (Like his contract pays him as.) the Hawks will likely have trouble replacing the talent they will lose as a result of it.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:36 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Sebastian, FL
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
So, I have been told that Russell Wilson is not an elite QB or does not deserve the contract he received due to the fact that at least 5 other QB's "are undisputedly statistically superior" to him. So I just had to check on this since he sounded so absolute. This is what I came up with. I took the top 20 QB's in the league for the last 3 years. Now, this information came from NFL.com stats. I sorted the players, added up their numbers, calculated their QB rating. Now, I am only showing the top 10 in QB rating. The lower 10 just are not even close. So somewhere in this list are 5 QB's that are " are undisputedly statistically superior" to Russell Wilson. Only problem is, I don't know which 5.

I would like to point out that Wilson has the same rate as Romo, however, Wilson's Yards per attempt and TD percentage is higher while his Interception percentage is lower.
Code:
                  Comp   Attmpt    %    PAPG     Yards     YPA    TD   TD %   INT   INT%    Rate
Aaron Rodgers      905    1362   66.4%   33.1    11,212    8.2    94   6.9%   19   1.4%   108.9
Peyton Manning    1245    1839   67.7%   38.3    14,863    8.1   131   7.1%   36   2.0%   107.7
Ben Roeth.        1067    1641   65.0%   36.3    12,478    7.6    86   5.2%   31   1.9%   100.1
Drew Brees        1324    1979   66.9%   41.2    15,291    7.7   115   5.8%   48   2.4%    99.2
Russell Wilson     794    1252   63.4%   26.1     9,950    7.9    72   5.8%   26   2.1%    98.6
Tony Romo         1071    1618   66.2%   35.1    12,436    7.7    93   5.7%   38   2.3%    98.6
Philip Rivers     1095    1641   66.7%   34.2    12,370    7.5    89   5.4%   44   2.7%    96.0
Tom Brady         1154    1847   62.5%   38.5    13,279    7.2    92   5.0%   28   1.5%    94.4
Matt Ryan         1276    1894   67.4%   39.4    13,928    7.4    86   4.5%   45   2.4%    94.1
Alex Smith         764    1190   64.2%   28.9     8,315    7.0    54   4.5%   18   1.5%    93.5


BTW, if you take the number of attempts and average them out for these 10 your get 1626. If Wilson had attempted that many passes with his current percentages his numbers would look like this.
Comp 1031, Attp 1626 12,848 yards, 94 TD's and 34 interceptions.

But then his team is loaded with offensive weapons. Lynch, who is good, a 5th round TE 2013 draft, a 2nd round WR from the 2014 draft and 2 un-drafted free agent WR's, Baldwin and Kearse. But he does have that number 1 defense. And we all know a top defense make a QB better.

Now, I also want to discuss the fact that several QB's have contracts coming up that I have been told will not come close to Wilson's. Eli Manning(age 34) Philip Rivers(age 33), Sam Bradford (age 27) and Drew Brees (age 36) all have contracts coming due in 2016 or 2017. Now, Brees might just retire. His is due in 2017 and he will be 38. But the other, well I am sure they will all see a contract that is at least equivalent or higher than Wilson's. If Bradford plays as well as the Eagles think he can he will easily make $100 on his next contract. And Rivers and E. Manning? I would say their teams wrap them up for the next 4-5 years for $90 million to $110.

_________________
This space for rent.


Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:01 am
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:46 am
Posts: 2799
Location: Missouri
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
I really don't know why we're not even bringing up Russell Wilson's athletic ability like he wasn't 16th in the league in rushing yardage last season.

_________________
Image


Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:41 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Sebastian, FL
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
DK Sweets wrote:
I really don't know why we're not even bringing up Russell Wilson's athletic ability like he wasn't 16th in the league in rushing yardage last season.

Well, elite QB's don't rush. It's not something people want to talk about. He is good at what he does. He is on the right team at the right time. His rushing abilities put him in the category of "game Manager" for most people. After all, an elite QB stays in the pocket and passes the ball, runs only when he has to.

I have been told that Luck is more elite than Wilson. I don't see it. His stats aren't on par with Wilson's. Sure he has more yardage and more TD's, (after this past year). And I am sure he will make it to the Super Bowl when the Colts put together a good defense. Until then Luck will continue to throw 40 times a game and put up massive yardage numbers that mean nothing unless you can win in the playoffs. And you can't win there without a defense.

But most people don't know is this, Luck has 12 rushing TD's to Wilson 11. Luck is elite, Wilson is a game manager. That is based on two things, Wilson's rushing and the Seahawks defense.

_________________
This space for rent.


Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:50 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Seahawks re-sign Russel Wilson
Jordysghost wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:

Difference being that Aaron Rodgers is more then worth his contract, and Wilson is not.

Its not that they will be in cap hell, its just that they are going to lose that fantastic roster that they have built, with several guys wanting new contracts. The only way they will remain at their recent stellar level of play is if Wilson starts playing like the second highest paid QB in the league would play, and, to this point he hasnt.

Dont get me wrong though, I think this upcoming year they at the very least get back to the NFCCG, or god forbid, the SB. But I really dont see how they maintain being a top 3 team in the league on a consistant basis after that. Wilson is simply being payed FAR too much money. Good for him though.


It seems to me that sometimes teams are too risk averse. The seahawks could probably have signed Wilson for 8 -10 mil a year after year two for a contract that kept him on the team until he was 31. Share the risk with the player and keep the cap number lower. Wilson's been playing carrying ALL the risk on that podunk rookie deal.

The Vikings could well be in the same spot after this year. If Bridgewater does well this year I think they should give him some of the money they would give him AFTER his rookie deal, 2-3 years early and keep the annual salary down, so they can remain competitive for a good 7-8 year window. Put the guaranteed money during the first couple years of the contract. Even if he flames out you are not likely to cut bait with him after 2 more years as a promising first round pick.

Afterall, A'aron is a great QB but the Packers haven't been able to put much of a team around him with his salary and its only resulted in 1 superbowl. Here's hoping that will be the last Packer's superbowl for the next 150 years.


While the Packers only have one SB thus far in Rodgers tenure, saying they havent put a good team around him is sketchy at best. The defense was top 5 in 2009, 2010, 12th ranked in 2012, and 15th last year. Leaving 2011 and 2013 as the outlier.


Numbers that were clearly skewed by playing with the lead. They are a defense that has been mediocre at best for years.


Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:57 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.