mannc Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 You're speaking more to positional importance, not necessarily which specific player represents the foundation of the offensive attack. I mean, the drop off from Teddy Bridgewater to Shaun Hill is pretty significant, and would most likely move the betting line more than the drop off from Adrian Peterson to Jerrick McKinnon; that says nothing of who opposing DCs are spending more time preparing for...know what I mean? Positional importance has a lot to do with it, of course, which is why I laugh when I hear people tout a running back as an MVP candidate. But if Wilson is not the "foundation of the offensive attack" (and just a game manager) then why would it matter so much to the betting line if he's out? Conversely, if Marshawn were the linchpin (sorry) of the Seattle attack, then wouldn't you expect a major impact on the betting line from his absence? If, as you say, the dropoff from Lynch to the second string running back is not that significant, then how can Lynch be considered the focal point of the attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Positional importance has a lot to do with it, of course, which is why I laugh when I hear people tout a running back as an MVP candidate. But if Wilson is not the "foundation of the offensive attack" (and just a game manager) then why would it matter so much to the betting line if he's out? Conversely, if Marshawn were the linchpin (sorry) of the Seattle attack, then wouldn't you expect a major impact on the betting line from his absence? If, as you say, the dropoff from Lynch to the second string running back is not that significant, then how can Lynch be considered the focal point of the attack? I understand why you're asking. I think it's important to note that I never said that Wilson was just a game manager; only that he wasn't the focal point of opposing DCs. More directly: the reason Lynch is the focal point is that Seattle runs the ball as much as any team in football, and he's typically the guy doing the running. It's really hard to gauge what the dropoff would be to a guy like Turbin or Michael, because backup RBs typically have higher YPCs than the starters (i.e. Joe Randle vs. Demarco Murray). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) its the CBA their union negotiated. True, and that is why the NFLPA is widely regarded as historically the most incompetent union in professional sports. But even within the bounds of the CBA, players like Chancellor have the right to threaten to withhold their services if they are unhappy with what they are being paid. I have never understood the average fan's tendency to side with billionaires over millionaires. I understand why you're asking. I think it's important to note that I never said that Wilson was just a game manager; only that he wasn't the focal point of opposing DCs. More directly: the reason Lynch is the focal point is that Seattle runs the ball as much as any team in football, and he's typically the guy doing the running. It's really hard to gauge what the dropoff would be to a guy like Turbin or Michael, because backup RBs typically have higher YPCs than the starters (i.e. Joe Randle vs. Demarco Murray). Don't forget that Wilson is an important part of Seattle's running attack too. Edited July 29, 2015 by mannc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I understand why you're asking. I think it's important to note that I never said that Wilson was just a game manager; only that he wasn't the focal point of opposing DCs. More directly: the reason Lynch is the focal point is that Seattle runs the ball as much as any team in football, and he's typically the guy doing the running. It's really hard to gauge what the dropoff would be to a guy like Turbin or Michael, because backup RBs typically have higher YPCs than the starters (i.e. Joe Randle vs. Demarco Murray). its a variety of things. as i mentioned, the dropoff to a backup is likely less for nearly any team at RB. There are a lot of capable RBs, very few good qbs though and almost none are backups. that alone is likely the biggest explanation. and that likewise not meant as a knock on wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 @SI_PeterKing: Russell Wilson and the Seahawks have agreed to a 4-year, $87.6-million extension, per source. @SI_PeterKing: The deal averages $21.9-miilion a year, a smidge less than top deal in football, Aaron Rodgers $22-million per. @ChrisTrapasso: Perspective on Russell Wilson having "approximately $60M guaranteed" in his new deal -- Aaron Rodgers has most gtd $ among QBs: $54 million @SI_PeterKing: The new Wilson deal includes a $31-million signing bonus, with approximately $60-million guaranteed. Rap sheet is saying it is a 21 mill SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Easiest decision. That's what it costs and they have been getting him a ta severe discount until now. Carroll is a smart guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 @ChrisTrapasso: More perspective on Wilson's contract: $60M guaranteed is 68.4% of his deal. Enormous. Rodgers deal longer but gtd $ only 49.1% of contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLFan Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Good deal for both parties. They lock in Wilson for four more years at a fair rate in my opinion. Wilson gets his guaranteed money, and another kick at the can while he is still in his prime. The Seahawks do not have to commit for so long that they are hamstrung of something goes wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 The bonus is a thank you for the past two years. Now he can actually live like the star he has become. And rarely do I say that without sarcasm. He deserves it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Got done like everyone thought. It will be interesting to see if the Seattle will be last in attempts again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Good deal for both parties. They lock in Wilson for four more years at a fair rate in my opinion. Wilson gets his guaranteed money, and another kick at the can while he is still in his prime. The Seahawks do not have to commit for so long that they are hamstrung of something goes wrong.yep, he didn't get the 25m per or highest paid label, but he gets another chomp at the apple at age 30. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Just a shade under $22M. Not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 great deal for Wilson, because at 30 (when the contract ends) he could sign another big deal. But Seattle must continue its formula of dominant defense with smash-mouth rushing to continue its success. Getting FA players will be difficult with Wilson's contract, so they must draft well. Just a shade under $22M. Not bad. 1 million less than A. Rodgers. Rodgers seems like a steal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 great deal for Wilson, because at 30 (when the contract ends) he could sign another big deal. But Seattle must continue its formula of dominant defense with smash-mouth rushing to continue its success. Getting FA players will be difficult with Wilson's contract, so they must draft well. 1 million less than A. Rodgers. Rodgers seems like a steal. Isn't that what they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) so 4 year extension at $84m -- thats 4 years tacked on at that 21m average, but 5 years 85m is the real existing deal now, or did they tear up this year? if the 5 years, great deal for seattle (would be 17m a year), if the 4 still could have been worse! Edited July 31, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Isn't that what they do? Yep and they must continue to. They have basically decided they are going to focus on a small group of cornerstone players. They are going to need to find even more cheap, solid contributors to continue to field a competitive roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Yep and they must continue to. They have basically decided they are going to focus on a small group of cornerstone players. They are going to need to find even more cheap, solid contributors to continue to field a competitive roster. yup - the right 3 or 4 cornerstones with a good coach can typically keep a team in the playoffs most years, and the ones that hit on draft picks and discount free agents end up being the super bowl contenders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 so 4 year extension at $84m -- thats 4 years tacked on at that 21m average, but 5 years 85m is the real existing deal now, or did they tear up this year? if the 5 years, great deal for seattle (would be 17m a year), if the 4 still could have been worse! Florio has just tweeted that it's a 4 year extension: ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk Per source, Russell Wilson deal is indeed a four-year extension; he's under contract for five years, at $89.1 million. So, the Seahawks made out big. He's not even close to Rogers in terms of $$/year. So basically Russell Wilson's deal is: 5 years, $89.1m at $17.8m per year. That puts him 11th, just ahead of Matthew Stafford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Bobby Wagner @Bwagz54 14m14 minutes ago Can't keep everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Bobby Wagner @Bwagz54 14m14 minutes ago Can't keep everyone thats an embarassing tweet to have sent out Florio has just tweeted that it's a 4 year extension: ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk Per source, Russell Wilson deal is indeed a four-year extension; he's under contract for five years, at $89.1 million. So, the Seahawks made out big. He's not even close to Rogers in terms of $$/year. So basically Russell Wilson's deal is: 5 years, $89.1m at $17.8m per year. That puts him 11th, just ahead of Matthew Stafford. thats what i was figuring based on the wording, but you never know for sure on the breaking reports. lower half of the top 10 qb, getting fringe top 10 pay (maybe a little discount for getting it a year early). seems really practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts