Lurker Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 demonstrated Who cares about demonstrated? There's no way a 3-year vet can have the same accomplishments as a 10-year player without a time machine. But put both guys on the free market (not the NFL version) and RW would get paid the equivalent, IMO, given that he'll be capable of doing it for another decade vs. 3-4 more years for BB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Also, his team got worse, defense had injuries and wasn't as dominant, and he was forced to carry the team. He couldn't do it. That's what the people who say Wilson isn't elite at this point are trying to say. I think Wilson is a better passer but he benefits so much from that great D and running game. It's so much easier to play and not make mistakes when you have a great D to bail you out. ...and when your team finishes first, second and second in rush attempts during your tenure. Who cares about demonstrated? There's no way a 3-year vet can have the same accomplishments as a 10-year player without a time machine. But put both guys on the free market (not the NFL version) and RW would get paid the equivalent, IMO, given that he'll be capable of doing it for another decade vs. 3-4 more years for BB... Who cares!? How about the people who have to pay him AS WELL as all the guys on the other side of the ball who have made his job a million times easier than you're suggesting it was! The guys who have DEMONSTRATED that they're elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 ...and when your team finishes first, second and second in rush attempts during your tenure. Who cares!? How about the people who have to pay him AS WELL as all the guys on the other side of the ball who have made his job a million times easier than you're suggesting it was! The guys who have DEMONSTRATED that they're elite. A point I'd argue for EJ's rookie year being better than we thought is the blown leads we had against ATL (37 points), Cleveland (34 points I believe), and NE. Is there anyway Sea blows those games? And if EJ "wins" those games, isn't he just a winner too? Situation and team matter. I think Wilson has his best passing season but more turnovers and Seattle isn't as good this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 A point I'd argue for EJ's rookie year being better than we thought is the blown leads we had against ATL (37 points), Cleveland (34 points I believe), and NE. Is there anyway Sea blows those games? And if EJ "wins" those games, isn't he just a winner too? Situation and team matter. I think Wilson has his best passing season but more turnovers and Seattle isn't as good this year. Yeah, I'm with you on Manuel. It's hard to argue just how awful he looked against SD and HOU last year. Frankly, I think there are two sets of fools in the Manuel debate: those who say he's unequivocally hopeless, and those who say his success is inevitable. The former far out number the latter. In fact, I'm not even sure the latter exists. But the guy is so shrouded in mystery, that anyone who thinks his fate is sealed is kidding themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 ...and when your team finishes first, second and second in rush attempts during your tenure. Who cares!? How about the people who have to pay him AS WELL as all the guys on the other side of the ball who have made his job a million times easier than you're suggesting it was! The guys who have DEMONSTRATED that they're elite. Wait, the guys on the other side of the ball made his job "a million times easier"? What's that say about our D? This whole discussion would disappear into the ether if Wilson was in his third year in Buffalo after back to back SB appearances and a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Yeah, I'm with you on Manuel. It's hard to argue just how awful he looked against SD and HOU last year. Frankly, I think there are two sets of fools in the Manuel debate: those who say he's unequivocally hopeless, and those who say his success is inevitable. The former far out number the latter. In fact, I'm not even sure the latter exists. But the guy is so shrouded in mystery, that anyone who thinks his fate is sealed is kidding themselves. Agreed. Wilson can throw 4 ints against Aaron Rodgers and still be in the game. He can throw for under 100 against Brees in a playoff game. That is elite or a product of playing on a great team? Wait, the guys on the other side of the ball made his job "a million times easier"? What's that say about our D? This whole discussion would disappear into the ether if Wilson was in his third year in Buffalo after back to back SB appearances and a win. Our defense was overrated in 2013 and wasn't dominant. Last year, they carried this team. They kept us in games where our offense struggle to score tds (Det, Min, GB) and make those games Ws. Our defense was on par with Seattle last year. They made Mr. Turtle a "winner." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Would you argue the same for Colin kaepernick? A super bowl and a nfccg.... I think many here would've entertained the same argument a year or two ago. Big arm, good runner, played in big games, good record and only going to get better? Kap isn't in the same zipcode as Wilson from a stats perspective: Kaps first three years (2011-13): 32 games, 5,046 yards on 639 attempts, 158 yards per game, 31 TDs, 17-6 record in regular season, 2-1 post-season. Wilson's first three years (2012-14): 48 games, 9,950 yards on 1,252 attempts, 207 yards per game, 72 TDs, 36-12 record in regular season, 6-2 post-season, one SB and one near-miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 ...and when your team finishes first, second and second in rush attempts during your tenure. To be fair, oh largest of felines, Wilson was a huge part of their rushing success in 2014. He had more rushing yards than all but 14 RBs. Not saying that weakens your position; just something to consider is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Kap isn't in the same zipcode as Wilson from a stats perspective: Kaps first three years (2011-13): 32 games, 5,046 yards on 639 attempts, 158 yards per game, 31 TDs, 17-6 record in regular season, 2-1 post-season. Wilson's first three years (2012-14): 48 games, 9,950 yards on 1,252 attempts, 207 yards per game, 72 TDs, 36-12 record in regular season, 6-2 post-season, one SB and one near-miss. Huh? You're using stats from his rookie year (when he didn't play) and his 2nd year when he became a starter halfway through the year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 ...and when your team finishes first, second and second in rush attempts during your tenure. Who cares!? How about the people who have to pay him AS WELL as all the guys on the other side of the ball who have made his job a million times easier than you're suggesting it was! The guys who have DEMONSTRATED that they're elite. I'm not getting through to you, so be it. Paying someone for what they accomplished 3-5-7 years ago is a fools game. Paying someone for what they may accomplish 1-2-3-4-5 years from now is how the real world of supply and demand works. Does it always work out? of course not. But that's the risk the employer takes when there are only a couple dozen individuals in the world capable of doing something unique and valuable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Kap isn't in the same zipcode as Wilson from a stats perspective: Kaps first three years (2011-13): 32 games, 5,046 yards on 639 attempts, 158 yards per game, 31 TDs, 17-6 record in regular season, 2-1 post-season. Wilson's first three years (2012-14): 48 games, 9,950 yards on 1,252 attempts, 207 yards per game, 72 TDs, 36-12 record in regular season, 6-2 post-season, one SB and one near-miss. Nice job including Kaepernicks 2011 season... All 3 games played and 5 pass attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Nice job including Kaepernicks 2011 season... All 3 games played and 5 pass attempts. I looked at their first three years. Should I look at only year 2 and 3? How about games 17-32.5? Edited July 6, 2015 by Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I looked at their first three years. Should I look at only year 2 and 3? How about games 17-32.5? Why stop there, why not look at Aaron Rodgers first 3 years. 7 games, 329 yards on 59 attempts, 47 yards per game, 1 TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 You don't think Wilson has weaknesses? I won't reiterate my entire previous post about that (feel free to look at it for more explanation), but my main point was that Wilson appears to have topped out due to his physical stature/limitations. That's the way I pay him. Well, but not better than QBs that earned their big contracts - like Flacco did carrying his team through the playoffs and to a SuperBowl win. Name one weakness. His physical limitations? Height? That's his only physical limitation and he's proven for every year of his football life that it doesn't affect him. He's built like a rock. He's strong and he's fast. His physicality is one of his major strengths. To be fair, oh largest of felines, Wilson was a huge part of their rushing success in 2014. He had more rushing yards than all but 14 RBs. Not saying that weakens your position; just something to consider is all. It's okay to say it. It completely shoots his ill-conceived, ill-informed theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I am not sure who is supposed to have said Wilson has plateaued and can't get better? Did I miss that? Where I massively disagree with Lurker is he seems to think you project what a guy might be able to do and pay him accordingly. I have never done that in a professional capacity and I don't believe sensible sports teams would either. I'm not willing to pay him as "elite" on a projection. That is not a damning indictment of Wilson... I am saying him being paid somewhere in the Big Ben range would probably be a reasonable and he is a guy who I think has been right on the cusp of eliteness for the past few seasons in my mind (without ever quite getting there) and I am willing to pay Wilson like that after 3 years in the league......... so there is no "hating" of Russell Wilson going on here in fact I'd argue it is a big compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Our defense was overrated in 2013 and wasn't dominant. Last year, they carried this team. They kept us in games where our offense struggle to score tds (Det, Min, GB) and make those games Ws. Our defense was on par with Seattle last year. They made Mr. Turtle a "winner." Yup. And if the Bills had even a semblance of a running game, they'd have made the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I am not sure who is supposed to have said Wilson has plateaued and can't get better? Did I miss that? Where I massively disagree with Lurker is he seems to think you project what a guy might be able to do and pay him accordingly. I have never done that in a professional capacity and I don't believe sensible sports teams would either. I'm not willing to pay him as "elite" on a projection. That is not a damning indictment of Wilson... I am saying him being paid somewhere in the Big Ben range would probably be a reasonable and he is a guy who I think has been right on the cusp of eliteness for the past few seasons in my mind (without ever quite getting there) and I am willing to pay Wilson like that after 3 years in the league......... so there is no "hating" of Russell Wilson going on here in fact I'd argue it is a big compliment. All sports contracts excluding rookie deals are a three part algorithm of past performance, age, and projected performance. While it's natural to assume that past performance is by far the most important it's not. All three are extremely important. If Brady is up for a contract today, age and projected performance are equal to his past performance. You're going to pay him top dollar per season but only for 2-3 seasons, so he would get say, 75m-3, but if he were Russell Wilson's age he would get 175m. His projected performance for six years from now is terrible. It's Brett Favre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 All sports contracts excluding rookie deals are a three part algorithm of past performance, age, and projected performance. While it's natural to assume that past performance is by far the most important it's not. All three are extremely important. If Brady is up for a contract today, age and projected performance are equal to his past performance. You're going to pay him top dollar per season but only for 2-3 seasons, so he would get say, 75m-3, but if he were Russell Wilson's age he would get 175m. His projected performance for six years from now is terrible. It's Brett Favre. Of course age factors in but you can't pay someone money on the basis that he may be able to do something that he hasn't actively demobstrated. It is bad business to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Of course age factors in but you can't pay someone money on the basis that he may be able to do something that he hasn't actively demobstrated. It is bad business to do so.Of course, but reasonable people, including Pete Carroll, John Sheridan and Paul Allen, think that Russell Wilson already has. Besides, that's what projected performance means. Edited July 6, 2015 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Nah, I disagree. Projected performance means believing he will get better at the things he has already demonstrated he can do. It doesn't mean projecting him to take over games when he hasn't really done that. As for Seattle thinking he has already demonstrated that..... do they? If they do I suspect a deal would be done or very close. Listen, he is worth a lot of money as everyone here has said and he will get good money but if he gets anywhere in that $25mill range I think they have overpaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts