I find the Russell Wilson contract situation to be intriguing...
On one hand, I feel like you have to pay him. He's delivered everything you've asked, including a Superbowl victory in only his second year, and another appearance in his third. If I were a fan of Seattle and he walked, I think I'd revolt.
On the other hand, I don't think he has the skillset of the prototypical quarterback that gets paid market value for his services. I'm not sure he's the pure passer that all of the other guys are that get paid that money. I'd put him more into the RG3, Kaepernick (obviously with better success, but similar skillset is my point) territory. When used correctly, a very powerful offensive weapon.
But I do feel like that makes him somewhat of a limited value. For instance, a prototypical passer like Rodgers, Brady, the Mannings, Brees, Stafford, Flacco, Ryan, Romo, etc... Can go to any team and be successful. I don't know whether Russell Wilson can play in a more traditional passing offense.
He supposedly turned down a deal worth 21 million a year, which is on par with what Roethlisberger just signed. The devil is in the details, though, as the guaranteed money is supposedly sub par. However, there is supposedly significantly more guaranteed money in injury clauses. Meaning, as long as he doesn't get hurt, he gets the money. Is that their way of protecting themselves from the style of offense they're running? WHen you ask your QB to be a runner/ball carrier, you're obviously opening up the possibilty of injury to him.
Russell wants 25 million per, which would make him the NFL's highest paid player (until the next QB contract is due, obviously). Does he deserve that contract? If you were a fan of the Seahawks, would you want them to pay it?
Just curious about this one, because I do find it's an interesting case where I truly can see both sides.
Quote:
As far as Wilson/Seattle, my point still remains. Phase two is still a question mark. Could they strike gold again with a mid round, low salaried QB?
My point is I'm not sure they even struck gold in the first place with Wilson. I think they struck gold with Lynch and all their wonderful defensive players...my approach would be to keep them (they'd be expensive relative to their position peers, but still cheap compared to Wilson) and start anew at QB. And my guess would be we'd see Seattle competing for the title again next year.
Hard to argue two Superbowls, one championship, in three years with Wilson at QB.
Now I get him being just a "part" of it, but nobody touches the ball on offense more than he does. He was very good, if not outstanding, in his role.
And I say this while acknowledging the limitations of his skillset.
Quote:
Were I Seattle, I would have traded Wilson at this past draft and drafted my next starting QB.
For who? What QB did you want in this draft? I could see next year but who did you want in this past draft?
It's not about who I'd want, it's about who their scouts would identify as the best college QB available.
Or maybe it wouldn't have to be through the draft. I'm sure there are quality guys that are backups elsewhere that they could get for a small fraction of what Wilson's contract would cost.
My basic point is that when a team is built as Seattle is, the QB position is far more fungible than it is in Denver, or New England, or here, where the whole thing is built around the QB.
"Can we trade player X (Or just move on from him, if the situation dictates)and take our chances at acquiring an OK Qb and loading up at complementary play-making positions?"
And yes, as an Eli-apologist, same applies for him. But I still give him the 2-time Super Bowl-winning MVP, benefit of the doubt!
In their Super Bowl win over Denver they could have lined Pete Carroll up at QB and still won the game. That is not an exaggeration.
In their Super Bowl win over Denver they could have lined Pete Carroll up at QB and still won the game. That is not an exaggeration.
I think you and I are almost in agreement. I agree that Wilson is more of a system QB (or at least all we've seen of him so far indicates that), which is in line with the premise of my thread.
Where we get a little hazy, though, is how sustainable that model is over the course of more than one reshuffle.
A very interesting team a couple years back was Washington. The year they drafted RG3 they also drafted Cousins. What if they had drafted Wilson (similar skillset to RG3) instead? They would now be on the verge of letting RG3 (even if he had never gotten hurt and had retained his rookie year form) walk with Wilson waiting in the wings.
It's about creating a pipeline, just like we try to do at every other position.
Some of those guys are worth it more than others, but I think those numbers are reasonably consistent with their value to the team. If you can get a rookie-contract guy who can play like a solid veteran, that's an enormous boon, but gambling for that when you don't have to is the sort of thing that fans hate and that gets GMs fired. I'd argue that playing that lotto is a better bet than paying the kind of money (and trade value) that the Chiefs did for known mediocrity in Alex Smith, but it's hard to fault a team for paying the "going rate" to keep a Cam Newton-type.
Some of those guys are worth it more than others, but I think those numbers are reasonably consistent with their value to the team. If you can get a rookie-contract guy who can play like a solid veteran, that's an enormous boon, but gambling for that when you don't have to is the sort of thing that fans hate and that gets GMs fired. I'd argue that playing that lotto is a better bet than paying the kind of money (and trade value) that the Chiefs did for known mediocrity in Alex Smith, but it's hard to fault a team for paying the "going rate" to keep a Cam Newton-type.
Right, and I think this also illustrates that it in some ways it's a level playing field across the league, because it's not like only one team is paying this QB tax. Everybody pays it. So it's almost like you have to consider a QB's salary to be seperate from the rest of your team's salary cap. If you've got a good to great QB, you allocate that money for him. Then what you do with the rest of the team and remaining salary cap is what seperates the good teams from the great teams.
But if coaches committed to the system (that means abandoning the franchise QB), it wouldn't be as big a risk to expose the quarterback to potential injury because you'd have two more on the roster with similar capability.
Eli vs. Brady
Rodgers vs. Ben
Brees vs. Peyton
Ben vs. Warner
Eli vs. Brady
That's ten straight SB teams led by star QBs, though Eli hadn't really established himself before SB XLII so you could put his first SB appearance in the same category as Flacco's.
In short, it might be a bit early to declare a paradigm shift. Besides, it's not that easy to draft a Wilson. On Day 2, you're much more likely to get a Geno Smith.
Quote:
In comment 12388609 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Were I Seattle, I would have traded Wilson at this past draft and drafted my next starting QB.
For who? What QB did you want in this draft? I could see next year but who did you want in this past draft?
It's not about who I'd want, it's about who their scouts would identify as the best college QB available.
Yeah, well, that's not exactly pick and choose among many talented system QBs just b/c they're not prototypical passing QBs. There are hundreds more QB's worse than Geno Smith yet that guy was drafted b/c was among the better. It's not that easy to identify that system QB which works.
Look at the starting QB's in the last 15 superbowls:
Brady, Wilson
P. Manning, Wilson
Flacco, Kaepernick
Brady, Eli
Rodgers, Ben
Brees, P. Manning
Ben, Warner
Brady, Eli
P. Manning, Grossman
Ben, Hasselback
Brady, McNabb
Delhomme, Brady
Gannon, B. Johnson
Warner, Brady
Collins, Dilfer
Out of all of those QB's, there are about 8 that weren't in their top 10 of their position at the time. Wilson, Grossman, Kaepernick, Hasselback, Delhomme, Collins, B. Johnson and Dilfer. Even the year Flacco won, he was amazing. The others all had one thing in common, an elite defense. You can also make a case Wilson, Kaepernick, Delhomme and Collins played at an elite level for alot of those campaigns.
Wilson is an interesting case though. Gun to my head, he has alot more to do with Seattle's success than what he gets credit for. He has such a knack for running at the right time, pulling back a run and throwing when he should and not making mistakes. I think he's a very good QB. And i'm not sure Seattle can rely on hitting the jackpot on drafting defense they way they have the past few years.
Eli vs. Brady
Rodgers vs. Ben
Brees vs. Peyton
Ben vs. Warner
Eli vs. Brady
That's ten straight SB teams led by star QBs, though Eli hadn't really established himself before SB XLII so you could put his first SB appearance in the same category as Flacco's.
In short, it might be a bit early to declare a paradigm shift. Besides, it's not that easy to draft a Wilson. On Day 2, you're much more likely to get a Geno Smith.
Part of my point is that Seattle CAN draft Geno Smith and still succeed. That's what would make such an approach sustainable.
I also wouldn't declare a paradigm shift at all. I think we did get a look at a model that would be successful.
I'd hate to be Seattle and have to make this choice but you can't let him walk and hope for a replacement.
As far as this cap, it's a QB league and so long as you draft well the CBA allows control of talented players at a lower cost for prolonged period of time. It also floods the market with proven vets who are forced to accept lower dollars or be unemployed as the supply of available vets supersedes the job vacancies.
The kiss of death is winning a Super Bowl, having young players facing free agency and drafting poorly. That's what happened to the Giants.
ohh, don't agree with that at all. Geno Smith on Seattle and they don't make the playoffs IMO. Wilson is accurate and reads a defense well while Geno Smith is inaccurate and doesn't appear able to read a defense at all.
That all goes away if they pay Wilson.
Swap him for a Geno Smith type and the opponent stacks the box b/c the passing game is severely limited.
We saw a similar thing with Tebow (obviously a much lesser thrower than Smith or Wilson). Coaches appear to want to shoehorn a running QB into a typical passing offense and it never works.
Tailored to him or not, those are solid numbers that I guess I'm not so sure are so easily replaceable.
We saw a similar thing with Tebow (obviously a much lesser thrower than Smith or Wilson). Coaches appear to want to shoehorn a running QB into a typical passing offense and it never works.
You seem to be dismissing Wilson's accuracy. Whether he throws a dart or a rainbow the ball is almost perfectly placed. The Geno Smith's and Tebow's aren't accurate nor were they accurate in college.
Trade Russell Wilson and possibly get a Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Alex Smith, etc.
The lack of respect for this guy, who has helped a team get to two straight SB's is amazing....
How do his numbers compare to Eli, in his first 3 seasons?
It's very rare, that a star qb is replaced immediately, by another...the exceptions of course are Favre/Rodgers, Manning/Luck, Montana/Young, etc......after Simms, how long did it take the Giants to right the ship?
I can't imagine Seattle trading him and coming up short in the QB department.....however, it's a fact of life in the NFL.....players you draft and develop, sometimes you can't afford them after their rookie contract, and you lose them...how many DT's have the Giants given up on....yes, they have found "replacements" in the draft, but if kept, for a few dollars more, maybe those draft picks used on DT's could have been used on the OL, instead of wasting draft picks in the later rounds on projects for an OL, that has been a shambles, and has hurt Eli's career....
These things go in cycles.....sometimes you get QB's that are can't miss as rookies, but for the most part they don't rise to the occasion....for all his lofty stats, Luck has not reached the big game...
Seattle will face the same situation all teams that have franchise qb's face.....pay the big bucks.....even Indy will....all teams do.....and then they will have less cap for the rest of the team...it's a fact of life in the NFL....
I'm not knocking him. My point is that someone else can come in and do the job if the team continues to be built the way it is. Pay him that 15% of the cap and quality of the running game, OL, defense...all will degrade and his job will become significantly more difficult. I'd expect his accuracy to degrade as well.
Trade Russell Wilson and possibly get a Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Alex Smith, etc.
The lack of respect for this guy, who has helped a team get to two straight SB's is amazing....
How do his numbers compare to Eli, in his first 3 seasons?
It's very rare, that a star qb is replaced immediately, by another...the exceptions of course are Favre/Rodgers, Manning/Luck, Montana/Young, etc......after Simms, how long did it take the Giants to right the ship?
I can't imagine Seattle trading him and coming up short in the QB department.....however, it's a fact of life in the NFL.....players you draft and develop, sometimes you can't afford them after their rookie contract, and you lose them...how many DT's have the Giants given up on....yes, they have found "replacements" in the draft, but if kept, for a few dollars more, maybe those draft picks used on DT's could have been used on the OL, instead of wasting draft picks in the later rounds on projects for an OL, that has been a shambles, and has hurt Eli's career....
These things go in cycles.....sometimes you get QB's that are can't miss as rookies, but for the most part they don't rise to the occasion....for all his lofty stats, Luck has not reached the big game...
Seattle will face the same situation all teams that have franchise qb's face.....pay the big bucks.....even Indy will....all teams do.....and then they will have less cap for the rest of the team...it's a fact of life in the NFL....
+1
I like Terps a lot but I don't think he watches a lot of college football when he says something like "I would rely on my scouts to find the next QB". Respectfully, where? There are none. Even Mariotta; did he have to throw an NFL pass or were receivers just wide open all over the field?
Just b/c a guy isn't a prototypical passer doesn't mean there is a plethora of college system QB's which would successful at the NFL level.
And now we've come full circle back to the threadstart.
Balancing Market Value against Team Worth.
Andrew Luck is a no brainer. Wilson, well, I think you could make the argument either way. And a good one either way, at that.
Rushing: 118 att, 849 yds. 7.2 per carry. 6 TD's. 8 20+ carries.
Not for nothing, but that is a pretty insane statistical season for a QB.
(1) I'm not knocking Wilson. I'm saying that because of the way the team is built around him he probably has the easiest QB job in the NFL. T
(2) heir running game is violent and generally awesome...the play action fake is incredibly effective and often afford Wilson acres of space and time
(3) My point is that someone else can come in and do the job if the team continues to be built the way it is.
1. He does have it easier but his play also makes it easier for the whole team.
2. It's Wilson's play action and ability to read a defense quickly which makes the offense go. Get a less deceptive QB who can't read a defense as well as see what happens to Seattle.
3. Who? Where is the next Wilson? You make it sound easy and if that was the case, approx. 16 teams would be in a better QB position. They can't find QB's.
It's a great discussion.
No trade proposals but would a Nassib work in Seattle?
They can sure draft a QB and invite other QBs with that similar skill set to camp and go that route. They can then use the money to upgrade any other position.
In theory it's a good plan, but is it sustainable? I am really curious if that model can work long term, if they decide to move on from Wilson.
Seattle number of passes attempted (rank/no. of passes):
2012: 32/405
2013: 31/420
2014: 32/454
Number of rushes:
2012: 1/536
2013: 2/509
2014: 2/525
They've also been number 1 in defense in each of those three seasons. It can't be more stark: the success of the Seahawks since Wilson arrived is built upon defense and the running game.
Is he a part of that dynamic? Absolutely. He's an excellent running quarterback and smart enough to rarely get hit. He's the perfect QB for the team they've been.
But once you pay him they become a different team, and the demands placed on him will be very different. That situation will be as much an unknown as if you bring in a cheaper replacement, but it will be much more expensive.
Quote:
As far as Wilson/Seattle, my point still remains. Phase two is still a question mark. Could they strike gold again with a mid round, low salaried QB?
They can sure draft a QB and invite other QBs with that similar skill set to camp and go that route. They can then use the money to upgrade any other position.
In theory it's a good plan, but is it sustainable? I am really curious if that model can work long term, if they decide to move on from Wilson.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying.
For QB's, if they're any good (aka they don't suck), you pay big bucks for their services in the second contract. It's the way it's always been. I'm guessing it's the way it's going to be. the only way around it is to be able to draft QB's at will and let the 'old' one go. good luck with that.
Terps - great points
Personally, as far as worth goes, you are worth whatever somebody is willing to pay you. I think they'll get a deal done, but not for another year. Probably be between 14-15% of cap, with more guaranteed. Again, jmho.
Danny Kannell - I think Wilson had half his rushing yards last year against us. (At least it sure seemed that way. :-) )
That team is built to win now and win multiple of rings. By letting Wilson go, Seattle will be setting their future back multiple seasons, no matter how dominant their defense is.
They do have a good GM. Can he keep hitting home runs like that though? I don't follow them or their front office to know if the GM and Director of College Scouting can sustain good to great drafts like that.
It also could be just a right situation or perfect timing, where you created a system, with a good coach, and you're draft picks all produced and you weren't paying a shit load of money to your QB. The niners had a similar situation where Colin K. wasn't bad a lot either.
Now guys get paid and leave, so could their so called model be nothing more than just a lucky set or circumstances all lining up like that?
Quote:
...as long as you find another Wilson AND keep drafting guys like Sherman, Chancellor, Maxwell and Thurmond on Day 3.
They do have a good GM. Can he keep hitting home runs like that though? I don't follow them or their front office to know if the GM and Director of College Scouting can sustain good to great drafts like that.
It also could be just a right situation or perfect timing, where you created a system, with a good coach, and you're draft picks all produced and you weren't paying a shit load of money to your QB. The niners had a similar situation where Colin K. wasn't bad a lot either.
Now guys get paid and leave, so could their so called model be nothing more than just a lucky set or circumstances all lining up like that?
I believe it was Scott McCloughhan who is credited for building that Seattle team, now with the Redskins.
But you echo another one of my points from earlier in the thread. Is it truly a "model", or a case of the stars aligning?
The Seahawks are NOT a QB centered team. They (through a combination of luck and design) have had great success with their current style of resource allocation.
I really believe they don't need to find another Wilson.
The Seahawks are NOT a QB centered team. They (through a combination of luck and design) have had great success with their current style of resource allocation.
I really believe they don't need to find another Wilson.
If they are not a QB centered team then should they break the bank and pay Wilson?
I realize that is the unlikely scenario. The Seattle front office will also be thinking about jersey sales, face of the franchise, etc. But on the field, it's what I would do.
I realize that is the unlikely scenario. The Seattle front office will also be thinking about jersey sales, face of the franchise, etc. But on the field, it's what I would do.
Yeah, if they believe in that system then sure that would be good. If they happen to believe right place, right time, and everything worked together perfectly, then they may not want to risk that.
Also, by doing that you really put a shit load of pressure on yourself as the GM and everyone else in the front office to find a QB that run that offense.
That's what makes this interesting. If you trade for picks and go that route, and have years like we did drafting, then you're in trouble. No new players coming in, and god forbid you swing and miss on evaluating QBs.
Quote:
also screws up their formula for success: having a really good, cheap QB allowing them to allocate $$$ to the rest of the roster. party's over
Their formula for success has been drafting really well and developing that talent.
If not having to pay an elite QB was a model for roster building, the Jets would have won a SB in my lifetime.
The one problem Seattle is running into now is all of that "cheap talent" from "great drafting" is now starting to catch up, cap wise:
Kam Chancellor - 5th round
Richard Sherman - 5th round
Wilson - 3rd round
And while 1st round players, you had guys like Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Russell Okung on rookie deals that are set to/have expire(d).
Very soon, every single one of these guys will be paid (the secondary already are...just waiting on these last 3).
The Seahawks hit on the 2010, 2011, and 2012 drafts. Their last three have not been so remarkable, trading away 1st rounders and getting nothing in return for them (Percy Harvin), and then doing little in the later rounds.
Jimmy Graham could be considered their major draft get if you look at it that way.
That's the beauty of the salary cap........it does not matter what your pedigree is (#1 overall or UFA), if you become all pro caliber you will demand $$$ eventually.
The Seahawks I think will be a good team no matter what happens to Wilson's salary, Wagner's too. I just feel that this perceived unstoppable force will fade a bit and they will become mortal again like many other teams.