Vikings Message Board.Com

Jordysghost wrote:The problem with your logic is that not all teams are made equal, you are essentially saying that even though Wilson's production himself doesn't warrant his contract, his teammates production does in his stead.

And to answer your question, they are payed to do there job as well as possible, just as every other player on the roster.

Mothman wrote: No, I'm saying there's more to playing QB, and getting paid, than statistical production. Wilson's production has been good and it seems to be improving but he also provides leadership, a great fit for the team, and more. They're winning with him. They're contenders that have been to back-to-back Super Bowls and are currently playing like they could fight their way back to a third. He fits what they're doing and keeping him provides continuity and stability at the most important position in the game. When a team finds a player like that, they can pay him market value, make him happy and maintain that continuity or they can worry too much about the numbers, decide to let someone else pay him and go off in search of another QB.
... and above all, to win. That involves more than just statistical production, although the latter is obviously important.

On top of all that, in terms of guaranteed money (which is what really matters), he's not in the top 3 anyway and he doesn't even have one of the top 10 highest QB salaries this season so what are we arguing about here?

Jordysghost wrote:What top QB wouldn't fit the Seahawks?

When the deal was signed, Wilson had the second highest average per year, at 21.9 mil right behind what was at the time the top deal in football, Aaron Rodger's 22 mil, so yea, I still feel comfortable stating that Wilson is overpayed.

Mothman wrote: They didn't have their choice of the field so that's really not relevant. Wilson's the QB they had and could retain. It's not like they had the option to just go shopping and choose the top NFL QB they found most preferable.
... and you obviously have no interest in reconsidering that position so I'd say we've reached an impasse.

Jordysghost wrote: I don't think that is a fair assessment, your links did nothing but assert my notion that he is being payed as a top 3 player at his position, which his on field production clearly doesn't bear out.

Jordysghost wrote: I don't think that is a fair assessment, your links did nothing but assert my notion that he is being payed as a top 3 player at his position, which his on field production clearly doesn't bear out.

Rodgers     $22.0 mil year
Wilson      $21.9 mil year
Big Ben     $21.85 mil year
E. Manning  $21.0 mil year. 

Jordysghost wrote:Are you breaking up with me?

Mothman wrote:

Purple bruise wrote: Now I understand

Jordysghost wrote:Its not that the SuperBowl is entirely irrelevant, I didn't mean that, but it can only mean so much in the ultimate team game.

And your point? Eli is overpaid too, so was Flacco. But I can understand making such a mistake with the mystical enigma that is Eli, a little bit more then Wilson who rode a great D and running game, albeit effectively to a SB win. All this really proves is that QBs often use SB wins as an opportunity to cash in on negotiations.

Raptorman wrote: Why is it that when Wilson wins a Super Bowl with a great Defense, it's all on the Defense. But when other QB's do it, it's all on them?