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.
I like Wilson. All he does is win. I prefer pocket QBs, but unlike RGIII for example, Wilson will step out of bounds instead of getting walloped for an extra 2 yards.
But if they just want to cut him, they can do so
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.
Drafting well has been their formula. You can have a ton allocated to a QB like Eli with cheap OBJ, HB, OL and go win too.
Russell Wilson has been to two Superbowls already, and won one.
Who should get paid more?
I think unanimously that would be Luck, right? And I think when you put those two side by side, their respective skillsets and value to the team become clear.
Which is why I think you have to be very careful if you're Seattle, on this one.
Tough spot as that reasoning indicates the Hawks believe they have a "system" and their QB performs better b/c of the system.
On the flip side, how many QB' can run the "system"? Not to mention, whenever anybody mentions "prototypical passer", where are all these guys coming out of college? Slim pickings. So slim team might find themselves looking for a Wilson and running a system.
.
Seattle is trying to avoid that problem. Its nice to have a franchise QB earning a rookie salary.
Seattle is trying to avoid that problem. Its nice to have a franchise QB earning a rookie salary.
The Giants stink b/c they drafted terribly for years.
Seattle is trying to avoid that problem. Its nice to have a franchise QB earning a rookie salary.
Teams do it pretty consistently by drafting well and being frugal in free agency. The Giants did it in 2011 after giving Manning a mega contract (for the time) in '09. The Packers have maintained success after paying Rodgers. Most all of the NFL teams consider this QB tax to just be a fact of life in doing business.
In some ways, what makes Seattle unique is that they were one of only a handful of teams to take an opposite approach from what the rest of the league was doing. San Fran being another one. But now, it's time to pay the piper. Is it a sustainable model? Or did they strike gold with Wilson in the third round, while having the stars align on their team everywhere else?
I'm just saying the two examples of successful teams doing this, Seattle and San Fran, are now both having to settle up. San Fran is falling apart, and Kaepernick doesn't look so hot now, and Russell Wilson and Seattle are at a crossroads because now, as you said, they will no longer have the luxury of a superstar type player on a third round pick rookie contract.
So you have to find balance in there somewhere, I just don't know where it is, which is why I find this particular case fascinating. Luck will be a no brainer, so that's not as intersting.
There are several factors that lend to the idea that you don't need to pay a QB big money to succeed:
- The rules have made passing easier than ever
- The majority of the current generation of players and coaches has been around passing offenses at every level going back to high school
- The new CBA has led to less practice time which will in turn lead to simpler offensive systems that can be picked up more quickly by all offensive players (look at our example with the transition from Gilbride to McAdoo)
- Upcoming generations are going to have come up completely within the passing game. If last year's college football playoffs are any indicator something as basic as taking the snap from center may soon be extinct
I think any team would be better served going forward to treat the QB position as they do every other, and abandon the concept of the franchise quarterback. I would like the Giants to adopt this strategy after Eli retires...I can not be objective when it comes to Eli Manning and his career with the Giants.
There are several factors that lend to the idea that you don't need to pay a QB big money to succeed:
- The rules have made passing easier than ever
- The majority of the current generation of players and coaches has been around passing offenses at every level going back to high school
- The new CBA has led to less practice time which will in turn lead to simpler offensive systems that can be picked up more quickly by all offensive players (look at our example with the transition from Gilbride to McAdoo)
- Upcoming generations are going to have come up completely within the passing game. If last year's college football playoffs are any indicator something as basic as taking the snap from center may soon be extinct
I think any team would be better served going forward to treat the QB position as they do every other, and abandon the concept of the franchise quarterback. I would like the Giants to adopt this strategy after Eli retires...I can not be objective when it comes to Eli Manning and his career with the Giants.
It's possible, Terps. However, I think the interesting thing will be to see what happens with those two teams, now that the three year window is up. Otherwise, that model may represent a very small window to make it all happen for you, and you also have to bank on the fact that you're going to be able to get a guy with the talent level of Kaepernick and Wilson in non premium positions, as well, which may be harder to do if every team begins to adapt that model. There just won't be enough to go around. If both Seattle crash and burn in phase two, then how long does it take to rebuild it again?
(1) In recent years it's been shown that having a starting QB in his rookie deal can be a successful model. Of the 5 quarterbacks to participate in the last 3 Super Bowls, 3 were in their rookie deal (Flacco, Kaepernick, Wilson) and the other two were Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.
(2) The new CBA has led to less practice time which will in turn lead to simpler offensive systems that can be picked up more quickly by all offensive players (look at our example with the transition from Gilbride to McAdoo)
1. You need a real solid offensive line though. All those QB's mentioned had really solid blocking.
2. That's the best point and I've mentioned it often. This lack of practice under the new CBA has resulted in some of the most miserable football I've ever seen during the month of Sept. We're watching preseason football until October the football is so poor. If you can execute simple football, you can win in Sept b/c these teams are a disorganized mess IMO.
The offenses are often simple, however, how many times did we shake our heads watching a QB like Kaep in SF run around in figure eights, alluding a rush and delivering the football for, maybe, a completion while the announcer says "you can't teach that"? Well, maybe if the QB had more practice time he learn to read a defense rather than run around like the NFL is backyard football.
Quote:
In recent years it's been shown that having a starting QB in his rookie deal can be a successful model. Of the 5 quarterbacks to participate in the last 3 Super Bowls, 3 were in their rookie deal (Flacco, Kaepernick, Wilson) and the other two were Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.
There are several factors that lend to the idea that you don't need to pay a QB big money to succeed:
- The rules have made passing easier than ever
- The majority of the current generation of players and coaches has been around passing offenses at every level going back to high school
- The new CBA has led to less practice time which will in turn lead to simpler offensive systems that can be picked up more quickly by all offensive players (look at our example with the transition from Gilbride to McAdoo)
- Upcoming generations are going to have come up completely within the passing game. If last year's college football playoffs are any indicator something as basic as taking the snap from center may soon be extinct
I think any team would be better served going forward to treat the QB position as they do every other, and abandon the concept of the franchise quarterback. I would like the Giants to adopt this strategy after Eli retires...I can not be objective when it comes to Eli Manning and his career with the Giants.
It's possible, Terps. However, I think the interesting thing will be to see what happens with those two teams, now that the three year window is up. Otherwise, that model may represent a very small window to make it all happen for you, and you also have to bank on the fact that you're going to be able to get a guy with the talent level of Kaepernick and Wilson in non premium positions, as well, which may be harder to do if every team begins to adapt that model. There just won't be enough to go around. If both Seattle crash and burn in phase two, then how long does it take to rebuild it again?
The thing is, neither Seattle nor San Francisco is truly following the model, because they are trying to pay those guys big deals.
Were I Seattle, I would have traded Wilson at this past draft and drafted my next starting QB.
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?
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.
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.