Russell Wilson and the Seahawks negotiations (update:signed)

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

He has proven he can win. He deserves a big pay day.... but $25million a year? No, I'm sorry he hasn't demonstrated he is worth that.

 

I think Rogers has the biggest contract now at 22 million a year. Would you pay Wilson 23 million a year? Isn't it really what the replacement cost is, rather than "what he has demonstrated"? On that team, for at least the next few years, they are a perennial favorite to win the NFCC. This is their window to win SBs. What its their alternative? Let him walk and then what? Draft someone and expect the same result? That would make little sense--to save a few bucks (relatively) in an era of ever expanding revenue (and cap).

 

 

The discussion is whether hes worth the richest contract in NFL history, a point which you never address.

 

 

See above. The opportunity cost of letting go a proven key element in your SB machine is immeasurable. So what if he doesn't have Rodgers's numbers--he has already QB'd his team to more SBs than Rodgers. On THAT team, that is what he is worth. Why would they end this incredible run over a couple million a year---for spite?

Edited July 14, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[#34fan]

Maybe they question Wilson's health and longevity... -Even though he's never missed a start... Coin toss wouldn't be the same without Tavaris, I admit, but I doubt that team wins seven games with him at the helm... I wish the naysayers would Itemize why Wilson is so undeserving...

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe they question Wilson's health and longevity... -Even though he's never missed a start... Coin toss wouldn't be the same without Tavaris, I admit, but I doubt that team wins seven games with him at the helm... I wish the naysayers would Itemize why Wilson is so undeserving...

Because he doesn't pass enough, even though the stats show he actually performs better the more he throws.

[mannc]

 

I think Rogers has the biggest contract now at 22 million a year. Would you pay Wilson 23 million a year? Isn't it really what the replacement cost is, rather than "what he has demonstrated"? On that team, for at least the next few years, they are a perennial favorite to win the NFCC. This is their window to win SBs. What its their alternative? Let him walk and then what? Draft someone and expect the same result? That would make little sense--to save a few bucks (relatively) in an era of ever expanding revenue (and cap).

 

 

 

 

See above. The opportunity cost of letting go a proven key element in your SB machine is immeasurable. So what if he doesn't have Rodgers's numbers--he has already QB'd his team to more SBs than Rodgers. On THAT team, that is what he is worth. Why would they end this incredible run over a couple million a year---for spite?

This really is the main point. Regardless whether Wilson is the 2d best QB in the league or the 12th, and regardless whether he could lead a different team to the same level of success, he is a proven winner with the Seahawks and there is no one available to replace him who could come close to achieving the same results.

[#34fan]

Because he doesn't pass enough, even though the stats show he actually performs better the more he throws.

 

Doesn't pass enough? -Wilson is the 6th most sacked QB in the league.... 7th in yardage lost per sack... Every other down the guy is running for his life... Yet he finds ways to finish...#1 player in the league in yards per rushing attempt at 7.2 (2014)... More than Justin Forsett and DeMarco Murray! 106 first downs on foot since entering the leaugue!..... #1 in game-winning drives (3-way tie 2014)

 

These are work-horse numbers, people.. This guy is out there giving all he's got, and getting big-time results... If you aren't willing to pay top $ for that, you probably don't deserve to have it.

Edited July 14, 2015 by #34fan

[#34fan]

 

I think Rogers has the biggest contract now at 22 million a year. Would you pay Wilson 23 million a year? Isn't it really what the replacement cost is, rather than "what he has demonstrated"? On that team, for at least the next few years, they are a perennial favorite to win the NFCC. This is their window to win SBs. What its their alternative? Let him walk and then what? Draft someone and expect the same result? That would make little sense--to save a few bucks (relatively) in an era of ever expanding revenue (and cap).

 

 

 

 

See above. The opportunity cost of letting go a proven key element in your SB machine is immeasurable. So what if he doesn't have Rodgers's numbers--he has already QB'd his team to more SBs than Rodgers. On THAT team, that is what he is worth. Why would they end this incredible run over a couple million a year---for spite?

 

I wish there was a "mic-drop" emoticon.

Edited July 14, 2015 by #34fan

[GunnerBill]

BOTH of these are detractions, my freind... Semantic ones, but detractions nonetheless... You fundamentally don't understand the value of a QB that can lead you deep into the playoffs. -Never mind one who can win you a couple of superbowls... I wonder how many years you've been watching this sport from over the pond? Your opinion sounds very unqualified.

 

They are only detractions if you have already decided that he is the best player in the league and worth $25million and are unwilling to hear any arguments to the contrary. I absolutely understand the value of a QB who can lead you deep in the play-offs, there are a few of those around.... none of them are paid $25million a year and those other guys often have had to take over games and win them on their own when their defences can't stop the opposition.

 

As for a dig at me not being American.... oldest and least effective trick in the book. Once your straw man argument against points that were never made is shot to bits you start playing man not ball.... classy move. Frankly you might be the poster on this forum with whom there is least point arguing, because even when you are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be wrong you won't admit it and try to convince yourself it is everyone else who is wrong and you were right all along.

[RealityCheck]

To say that Wilson doesn't deserve to be the highest paid player in the NFL completely misses the point of any contract negotiation. Perception is reality, and clearly the Seahawks understand the value of the QB position and getting to Super Bowls. Without Wilson, my perception of the Seahawks playoff chances diminishes considerably while saving only some money. I say some money because other players, new and old, will eat up the saving within a few seasons, while possibly settling for mere playoff appearances rather than making deep runs. Wilson has well earned leverage right now, like it or not.

[ALF]

Seahawks have little choice but to pay him , trade or franchise tag when time. The problem is guaranteed big money for more then 1 or 2 years is risky. At the very least he earned a big bonus for past performance.

 

A good contract based on incentives would be the safest bet.

[GunnerBill]

 

I think Rogers has the biggest contract now at 22 million a year. Would you pay Wilson 23 million a year? Isn't it really what the replacement cost is, rather than "what he has demonstrated"? On that team, for at least the next few years, they are a perennial favorite to win the NFCC. This is their window to win SBs. What its their alternative? Let him walk and then what? Draft someone and expect the same result? That would make little sense--to save a few bucks (relatively) in an era of ever expanding revenue (and cap).

 

 

 

See above. The opportunity cost of letting go a proven key element in your SB machine is immeasurable. So what if he doesn't have Rodgers's numbers--he has already QB'd his team to more SBs than Rodgers. On THAT team, that is what he is worth. Why would they end this incredible run over a couple million a year---for spite?

 

I really am not convinced I agree with your premise that keeping Wilson automatically makes them a perennial favourite for the NFC. The Seahawks currently have 14 guys with a cap hit this year of over $3,500,000. That is many of their best players on defense and the likes of Wagner and Irvin also have pay days due. If the Seahawks do not keep that defense intact or continue to draft stud defensive guys in the middle rounds of the draft year in and year out I do not believe they are a perennial Superbowl contender. They can't keep those 14 guys plus pay Wagner and Irvin if they give Wilson $20million a year. If they give him $25million a year that is a difference of at least one more of those top players and probably at least one cheaper role player too - how many can they afford to lose and still be Superbowl contenders? I don't see Wilson yet having demonstrated he can overcome that. For that reason I think the question you pose around "what are their options?" is not set in its proper context.

 

They are going to come to an agreement with Wilson, that agreement will lead to them losing some of their difference makers and then I think we will get a clearer answer to this question. Maybe he will do a Big Ben and as the talent around him diminished he took on much more and did it successfully... but even doing it successfully I wouldn't say Pittsburgh have been perennial Superbowl contenders during the course of his last contract.

[Mr. WEO]

 

I really am not convinced I agree with your premise that keeping Wilson automatically makes them a perennial favourite for the NFC. The Seahawks currently have 14 guys with a cap hit this year of over $3,500,000. That is many of their best players on defense and the likes of Wagner and Irvin also have pay days due. If the Seahawks do not keep that defense intact or continue to draft stud defensive guys in the middle rounds of the draft year in and year out I do not believe they are a perennial Superbowl contender. They can't keep those 14 guys plus pay Wagner and Irvin if they give Wilson $20million a year. If they give him $25million a year that is a difference of at least one more of those top players and probably at least one cheaper role player too - how many can they afford to lose and still be Superbowl contenders? I don't see Wilson yet having demonstrated he can overcome that. For that reason I think the question you pose around "what are their options?" is not set in its proper context.

 

They are going to come to an agreement with Wilson, that agreement will lead to them losing some of their difference makers and then I think we will get a clearer answer to this question. Maybe he will do a Big Ben and as the talent around him diminished he took on much more and did it successfully... but even doing it successfully I wouldn't say Pittsburgh have been perennial Superbowl contenders during the course of his last contract.

 

 

The bolded is demonstrably false.

 

Yes, they may lose a few top defenders--every successful team does. But losing your franchise QB is a completely different proposition. Take Wilson off the roster and keep that D intact (what, for another 2 years maybe?) and they aren't competing for the NFCC. Keep Wilson and take away their best defender and they are still a favorite to win the Conference.

 

Put it another way, make Wilson a Bill and lose Dareus (or Mario) and we are instant favorites to win the Conference.

[GunnerBill]

 

 

The bolded is demonstrably false.

 

Yes, they may lose a few top defenders--every successful team does. But losing your franchise QB is a completely different proposition. Take Wilson off the roster and keep that D intact (what, for another 2 years maybe?) and they aren't competing for the NFCC. Keep Wilson and take away their best defender and they are still a favorite to win the Conference.

 

Put it another way, make Wilson a Bill and lose Dareus (or Mario) and we are instant favorites to win the Conference.

 

I don't agree. I think the Rothlisberger example actually demonstrates my point very well. Won early with a stellar run game, a great defense and making clutch plays. In his first 5 years before his big payday the Steelers had 4 winning seasons and one 8-8, went a combined 56-24 in the regular season, 8-2 in the play-offs and won 2 Superbowls.

 

Then Big Ben got paid (he actually signed his new deal before the 2008 Superbowl season but the cap hit remained low through 2008 and it was only into 2009 it started to bite on the Steelers roster). Since then their record is good, they have not had a losing season, they have even been back to the Superbowl, losing to the Packers but they have missed the play-offs 3 out of 6 years and have been 2-3 in the play-offs not winning a play-off game since beating Rex's Jets in the AFC Title game after the 2010 season.

 

That is kind of where I think Seattle ends up too. As a team that a has a shot of the play-offs every year... but every extra $1million they spend on Wilson's contract is a step further away from being a perennial Superbowl contending team. I have been clear throughout I think Seattle should pay Wilson and I think they will do a deal.... I just don't think it will be or should be in the $25million. I would think the $20million mark is more appropriate and every $ I go above I am reducing my chances of having an elongated Superbowl window. Seattle clearly feels something similar because if they were convinced they had a $25million Quarterback they'd have paid him like one by now and it wouldn't have become as much of a talking point.

Edited July 14, 2015 by GunnerBill

[#34fan]

Russel Wilson is going to get paid like Rodgers, Brady, Manning and I don't think he's even remotely in the same class. Part of the Squawks success has been their ability to build a dominant defense and incredible running game since they weren't burdened with the type of salary an elite QB commands. I think backing up the truck for Wilson will be the beginning of their descent back to the middle of the pack as less resources are available to sustain that D.

 

 

I can't believe anyone would seriously compare a young up and coming QB to a first ballot HoF QB in rapid decline and then fail to conclude that poor comparison with a point.

 

Unless you're suggesting that neither Manning or Wilson are elite at this point in their careers and for very different reasons. I can agree with that.

 

 

 

You think he is better than Rivers? Really? Wow. I don't see that I am sorry. Better than Eli, yes I'd go along with and I wouldn't pick an argument over better than Flacco either (Although I rate Flacco very highly - probably higher than most) but Philip Rivers is a top 6 Quarterback in this league and has been for a long time IMO. I just cannot put Wilson there. The kid is a special player, but put in Rivers' situation in recent years with no real defense and no run game of any note I can't believe that Wilson would put up Rivers like numbers.

 

As for the improvement from 7-9 in 2011 to 11-5 in 2012..... Well they went from having bottom 5 in the league Quarterback play to having top 12 Quarterback play....I'd say that added at least a couple of wins to the win total (without Wilson needing to be elite to do so) and they drafted two fellas by the names of Irvin and Wagner in the first two rounds who made a contribution too.

 

 

I am not sure what people are considering elite if they think Russell Wilson is already there.

 

 

 

I don't agree elite is top 10. I don't think it is a simple numbers game. For most of the last 5 years there have only been 4 elite Quarterbacks in the NFL to my mind - Brady, Manning, Brees and Rodgers with Big Ben and Rivers just behind.

 

 

 

But you never sad any of that, right....

 

 

They are only detractions if you have already decided that he is the best player in the league and worth $25million and are unwilling to hear any arguments to the contrary. I absolutely understand the value of a QB who can lead you deep in the play-offs, there are a few of those around.... none of them are paid $25million a year and those other guys often have had to take over games and win them on their own when their defences can't stop the opposition.

 

As for a dig at me not being American.... oldest and least effective trick in the book. Once your straw man argument against points that were never made is shot to bits you start playing man not ball.... classy move. Frankly you might be the poster on this forum with whom there is least point arguing, because even when you are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be wrong you won't admit it and try to convince yourself it is everyone else who is wrong and you were right all along.

 

 

The quoted comments above represent the crux of you guy's bulls#!$ argument... Summarized, it's that 'other wildly successful QB's are doing things that Wilson can't, or won't'... Fine! -We get that... However, you tread in murky water by suggestiing that BECAUSE he doesn't do these things, he shouldn't be paid like them (or more than them) for equal or better results... It's a point neither of you EVER make to anyone's satisfaction.

 

As far as the defense is concerned, it's a chicken and egg argument... Would that D. be as effective without the staggering amount of 3rd down conversions Wilson grabs with his feet??? -Would that team be the same in ANY capacity without his stellar work ethic and leadership? -Most reasonable people would doubt both.

 

The only valid question you've raised is whether or not that defense remains top-notch if they let key players walk... It's the only thing worth discussing. The more you dispute Wilson's worth to that team, the more you validate my suspicions of 'not getting it'.

Edited July 14, 2015 by #34fan

[Jauronimo]

But you never sad any of that, right....

 

 

 

The quoted comments above represent the crux of you guy's bulls#!$ argument... Summarized, it's that 'other wildly successful QB's are doing things that Wilson can't, or won't'... Fine! -We get that... However, you tread in murky water by suggestiing that BECAUSE he doesn't do these things, he shouldn't be paid like them (or more than them) for equal or better results... It's a point neither of you EVER make to anyone's satisfaction.

 

As far as the defense is concerned, it's a chicken and egg argument... Would that D. be as effective without the staggering amount of 3rd down conversions Wilson grabs with his feet??? -Would that team be the same in ANY capacity without his stellar work ethic and leadership? -Most reasonable people would doubt both.

 

The only valid question you've raised is whether or not that defense remains top-notch if they let key players walk... It's the only thing worth discussing. The more you dispute Wilson's worth to that team, the more you validate my suspicions of 'not getting it'.

Citing my posts in mass, without context, accusing me of backtracking somehow, and then failing to make any sort of coherent and relevant point regarding what you've quoted is an interesting way to argue.

 

Which unit benefits more from the other isn't chicken and egg. Most reasonable people might realize that one of the 2 units is historically outstanding and in the conversation for best ever while the other unit is the offense. Since "most reasonable people" is not inclusive of you, its probably worth pointing out that Russel's leadership and work ethic means !@#$ all in the defensive huddle. Hanging that much weight on intangibles while suggesting that Bill has entered murky waters might have been the height of irony in this thread until you doubled down and declared that I or he or both have yet to prove "to anyone's satisfaction" that RW shouldn't be paid like Rodgers, blissfully unaware that the case you've laid out for why he should receive the richest contract in NFL history is thin at best and non-existent at worst, and I'm being kind in my word choice. The only thing you've demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction is that you're still incapable of forming and supporting a logical argument.

 

This thread is all about quantifying and questioning RW's worth. The fact that 26 pages in and you can't even comprehend the topic speaks volumes. You're not what the guidance counselor would refer to as "Mizzou material".

[GunnerBill]

I said Wilson wasn't elite - YES. Where did I say I didn't say it? I don't think Wilson is an elite Quarterback.

 

As for not wanting to pay Wilson the same despite him achieving equal or better results..... do we only pay Quarterbacks by win-loss records? Is that honestly your argument? That we should pay him because the Seahawks win? Tim Tebow had a winning record let's give him $25million too.... all he does is win don't you know.

 

Football is the ultimate team game - is Quarterback the most important position on the field? Yes. Can you win without a good one? No. Is Russell Wilson a good one? Sure. Is he good enough that I'd make him the best paid player in the league? No.

 

As for you continually saying "would the defense be so great without Wilson converting 3rd downs with his legs?" I am going to answer with a resounding - yes. That defense is an all time great defense. It is certainly the best the NFL has seen since the Ravens and Buccs won Superbowls on defense in the early 00s. Whilst it isn't an entirely scientific measure - Seattle's offense was only 14th in 1st downs in 2014 and only 11th in 3rd down conversion so it is not like Wilson is consistently keeping his defense off the field. He is doing just above average in that regard and yet they faced fewer downs on defense than any team in the league by a distance. Why? Because they are exceptional. If I go back to Seattle's Superbowl season... Seattle were just 20th in offensive downs and 17th in 3rd down conversion and yet the defense was still 4th in facing the fewest downs on that side of the ball and 1st in total defense. I think that in itself is enough evidence to suggest that it really isn't "chicken and egg"... more like "egg and omelette."

 

You have already decided Wilson is the best player in the league and you are not engaging in anything like reasonable argument. But that shouldn't be a surprise... you decided years ago Brad Smith was a play-off calibre Quarterback and you aren't willing to give up on that bone yet either.....

Edited July 14, 2015 by GunnerBill

[Mr. WEO]

 

I don't agree. I think the Rothlisberger example actually demonstrates my point very well. Won early with a stellar run game, a great defense and making clutch plays. In his first 5 years before his big payday the Steelers had 4 winning seasons and one 8-8, went a combined 56-24 in the regular season, 8-2 in the play-offs and won 2 Superbowls.

 

Then Big Ben got paid (he actually signed his new deal before the 2008 Superbowl season but the cap hit remained low through 2008 and it was only into 2009 it started to bite on the Steelers roster). Since then their record is good, they have not had a losing season, they have even been back to the Superbowl, losing to the Packers but they have missed the play-offs 3 out of 6 years and have been 2-3 in the play-offs not winning a play-off game since beating Rex's Jets in the AFC Title game after the 2010 season.

 

That is kind of where I think Seattle ends up too. As a team that a has a shot of the play-offs every year... but every extra $1million they spend on Wilson's contract is a step further away from being a perennial Superbowl contending team. I have been clear throughout I think Seattle should pay Wilson and I think they will do a deal.... I just don't think it will be or should be in the $25million. I would think the $20million mark is more appropriate and every $ I go above I am reducing my chances of having an elongated Superbowl window. Seattle clearly feels something similar because if they were convinced they had a $25million Quarterback they'd have paid him like one by now and it wouldn't have become as much of a talking point.

 

I don't think the Steelers ever considered not keeping Big Ben over money.

 

I think losing Wilson for a dollar over 20 million just to keep a few defensive stars a few more years makes no sense at all. Again, dump Dareus or Mario and take Wilson on the Bills and we are a far better team immediately. Same is obviously true for Seattle. He as no replacement there.

 

The Bills would drop far more than a dollar over 20 million to get Wilson right now--and all would cheer this move, because it would make sense.

[NoSaint]

 

I don't think the Steelers ever considered not keeping Big Ben over money.

 

I think losing Wilson for a dollar over 20 million just to keep a few defensive stars a few more years makes no sense at all. Again, dump Dareus or Mario and take Wilson on the Bills and we are a far better team immediately. Same is obviously true for Seattle. He as no replacement there.

 

The Bills would drop far more than a dollar over 20 million to get Wilson right now--and all would cheer this move, because it would make sense.

At 25m would you start weighing a large trade? What is the $$ that gives you pause?

[Mr. WEO]

At 25m would you start weighing a large trade? What is the $$ that gives you pause?

 

 

There is room between 20 and 25 million. I doubt Wilson will hold out for 25. Is there any proof that's his firm number other than an offhand comment he made in an interview (where he also said he would play for a lot less)?

 

What do you think Seattle's plan B is if they won't sign Wilson for whatever? If they lose him, they are the Bills.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

There is room between 20 and 25 million. I doubt Wilson will hold out for 25. Is there any proof that's his firm number other than an offhand comment he made in an interview (where he also said he would play for a lot less)?

 

What do you think Seattle's plan B is if they won't sign Wilson for whatever? If they lose him, they are the Bills.

Yeah the 25 mil was just his offhand comment to set a ceiling. Although, now that he has God as his agent, who knows what he will ask for.

 

He could actually ask for the moon. And get it.

 

This whole thing is dumb. He's great. His team knows it. His owner is Paul Allen. He will sign for a shitton of millions and be the Seahags QB for a decade. End of story.

[NoSaint]

 

 

There is room between 20 and 25 million. I doubt Wilson will hold out for 25. Is there any proof that's his firm number other than an offhand comment he made in an interview (where he also said he would play for a lot less)?

 

What do you think Seattle's plan B is if they won't sign Wilson for whatever? If they lose him, they are the Bills.

There is room there. But it doesn't change what I asked, which is what is your ceiling?

 

Plan B would seemingly be trade for everything they can - and either get a qb back or use the picks towards one. Ideal? Obviously not. Likely? No. For the sake of discussion though, that's plan B I assume, just like the bills but with more ammo to get their guy to take a shot with.