How much do YOU pay Wilson? -- (Poll)

[scutterhawk]

He's a good QB. You pay good QB's the going rate. He'll be the top of his pay scale when his contract is renewed and by the end of the contract he'll be a bargain again.

I'm not sure you can say there are many QB's that are as consistent as Wilson year in and year out. Dude is like Rivers. He plays in every game. He consistently plays at a high level with few stinkers no matter the situation. Gotta pay guys like that.

I'm not sure what is wrong with most of you? Do you really think it's ever in a FO best interest to not sign a franchise QB and take a shot on the lottery that is draft day? That's about as sure a way to get fired as any for GM or HC. It's like spending all your retirement savings on lottery tickets. Much smarter to stick with a known quantity.

In the annals of NFL history, how many teams have let a franchise QB walk away in his prime and been better for it?
The Chargers come closest and even they weren't better off, but at least they got a good QB to replace Brees. So it wasn't a total failure.

As for Seahawks history, we let Krieg walk just past his prime and sucked until Warren Moon came to town. We let Hass walk past his prime and sucked until Wilson came.

Precisely ^ , Pete knows that Wilson is the heart & soul of his Offense, he also knows that his Running Game is predicated on having a healthy Wilson to make it function to its optimum.
Without Wilson's threat, the Run game suffers, and to some degree, vice versa. (Wilson has pulled out a lot of wins without having any kind of Run Game), but it didn't happen without Wilson being unnecessarily beat the hell up.
What Pete & the Seahawks need to focus on now, is NOT go on the hunt for a Cheapie version of a Franchise Quarterback, but rather DO go on the hunt for finding a more durable Chris Carson type Running Back to compliment his Franchise Quarterback.
It's pretty simple really, just pay the man what his Market Value is.

That is part of the problem in keeping Wilson here under Carroll too. Each year the RO threat diminishes a bit as he will begin slowing and injury concerns will rise in his 3rd contract. The less he runs (rushing stats way down this year) , the lessor the threat to help with the running game. That is one of the big pluses why in his 2nd contract he was more useful to Carroll. His 3rd contract that parameter will need to have a lower value for sure.

The RO has been diminishing a lot , because without a decent Run Game, there are no Options.
With Solari & Schottenheimer now upgrading Pete's Run Game a bunch, so I can see some daylight in the RO packages again.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

The reason I feel NOT paying Wilson top QB money is because the Carroll offense is run the ball, run the ball and run the ball.

Except when you're at the goaline during the Super Bowl with a legendary RB and the game on the line, then you obviously throw the ball! Duh!!!!!

 

[West TX Hawk]

For QBs particularly, as league revenue greatly increases accompanied by the market exponentially, I predict down the road we'll see attempts at equity for select players in either a share of the team or in the league itself (in case of joining another team). Think of increased incentive players like Wilson would have if they were motivated by team profitability as opposed to pure salary. Perhaps a contract where one's equity in a team would increase the more success the team achieves both through wins and bottom line.

As the QB market skyrockets, these discussions in future CBAs could eventually take place. Yes, maybe some owners would never relinquish even a very small portion of their stake, but all it takes is 1 eventually. An interesting article on the subject:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... y-for/amp/

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

I think he's worth 25-30 and if he wants more let him walk blow it up and start over. Wilson isn't the same player he was his first 4 years. He used to run and was able to make plays with his legs now he's just a pocket passer with issues seeing the middle of the field.

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

You pay whatever top 5 QBs are getting at the time the negotiating starts.

Duh

This.

I find the 'he's a good, not great QB' arguments to be total garbage. Not because they may well be right. I tend to agree to an extent (although I think he is better than good -- but also don't think he's great).

What is garbage is the implied notion that you can simply get a good QB with relative ease. This is absurdly not the case. Even in today's NFL where first round caliber QBs seem to come in twos and threes at least every other year.

The real answer to this question isn't 'Is Wilson worth it?'. It's how will we replace him with that good QB?

Here are the drafts of this past decade. I've eliminated any QB picked in the top 4 overall. One, because this team is not going to be that bad in the foreseeable future. Two because even bad teams can still end up out of the top 4. So here goes:

Day 1 picks:

View attachment 2

Day 2 picks:

View attachment 1

Day 3 picks:




Looking at the QBs, the odds of getting a QB even of Jake Locker's 'goodness' is pitifully bad. Even in the 5th to 32nd overall range, it's pretty bad. And not every draft even has guys worthy of that range to begin with. Which probably accounts for why you get Christian Ponders and Paxton Lynchs being drafted in R1 even though they aren't worthy.

Day 2 QBs is an even worse lot to pull from. Without a doubt, Wilson is the best QB to come from day 2 this entire decade. It's not really that close. And there is essentially Andy Dalton standing alone as a good QB from the 21 players picked in this range for this decade.

Day 3. Well it's just a real mess.


The real question isn't is Wilson worth the cash. The real question is how many draft picks would a team have to expend in order to just get a guy as good as Ryan Tannehill. Even if we never traded up -- just kept drafting QBs every single year until we got lucky on one -- one could be looking at 2-3 first round picks, 3-4 2nd to third round picks and maybe in excess of 10 day 3 picks. Over the course of 5-7 years. Because those are kind of the odds.

Even despite the fact that college seems to be producing higher quality QBs at a better overall rate -- that is far from certain. The last two drafts may have been outliers. This current years' rookies still have time to flame out in classic Rick Mirer fashion.

If a team could just buy a first round pick for 10m in cap space, we'd think that a no brainer. Keeping a very good QB is like getting a first and a third for that 10m (figure a 'good' QB is going to cost 22-23m on the open market). In the scheme of what is the alternative going to look like and what will that cost in terms of draft capital the question seems remarkably absurd.

You can't simply buy a franchise QB. The opportunity is exceptionally rare and almost always very fleeting. You can more often buy QBs who used to be good (Flacco, Bortles etc.) Those will cost about 20m on the open market. Bradford as bad as he is cost that plus multiple 1st round picks.

The ONLY way to part with Wilson, is if you spend years and high draft capital on QBs even when you have Wilson on the roster. And then be fortunate enough to have him hit (Kansas City's exact model duplicated this year by Baltimore). It's why I hoped to high heaven that we drafted Lamar Jackson this draft. How often do you get to draft the most explosive player in the entire draft?

If we're going to replace Wilson, it's going to assuredly be a multi year effort. Spending high draft picks on gooberish looking QB prospects. Hoping one of them pops. Leaving holes left unfilled by design in the process.

I'd give Wilson and Pete one last chance next season to make the playoffs then i'd clean house. I would not extend him before he's played out his contract.

 

[Elemas]

I hope we keep him. Like any player, he's had his ups and downs but...he's a fighter. He doesn't give up. As he ages, I think we'll continue to see just how proficient of a "pocket" passer he can be.

With that said....there are a few teams that aren't breaking the bank on their QBs and have faired well (Philly's not playing great atm). Goff, Mahomes, Wentz...etc. Anomalies? Likely. Will they demand huge contracts when the time comes? If they keep playing like they have been, definitely.

But....it makes me wonder just how much that will come into play when RW's time comes. I don't think those models are the best to follow. Surely not sustainable. But, $$$ wise...

Poorly paraphrasing an article I read not long ago....

 

[Elemas]

I said it in an earlier thread that I think the Chargers will make a hard play for him to replace Philip Rivers. I also think that RW will be receptive to it because:

1. He will be seeking new challenges

2. He already spends much of his off season there training

3. He is established down there with his wife being part of the entertainment industry

I remember reading that. You may be right. I would think that would depend on how much longer Rivers intends on playing. Kind of a no-brainer comment but...if he is performing at...

Currently 13th in passing yards. 3rd in rating. 19 TDs, 3 ints. Makes a little less than RW.

It may be a hard pitch...

 

[bmorepunk]

The problem I am seeing though is they are not built to win championships with this model unless you have a #1 type of defense, but when you think about it, any offensive philosophy can work if you have a #1 defense.

That's why we saw a Vikings/Jaguars Super Bowl last year.

 

[Popeyejones]

I think Scot McCloughan really nailed it with his evaluation of Wilson about a year and a half ago: He's the best QB in the NFL who you don't want throwing the ball 30+ times per game.

All of the top QBs are better with a run game supporting them, but Wilson is kind of a strange duck in that he is, IMO, really only elite in a run first offense, which is a strange thing to wrap your head around.

It makes paying him kind of weird, as even more so than every other really good QB, by paying him you're stealing resources from the places that make him so good to begin with.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Pete Carroll is not capable of winning another Super Bowl with Wilson. Carroll has mismanaged his offenses to a negligent degree while he has been head coach here. His offense just isn't a good fit for the modern day NFL. I'm not talking about the "run first mentality" either -- I'm speaking more about passing concepts, and overall usage of the route trees. Our passing game seems to only work properly when we have a run game installed --- that is because it is predicated on stretching defenses vertically, and banking on teams selling out for the run. Sometimes we go away from that style, but it seems as if we always recommit to that style of passing game. A 30 million dollar plus QB here is a waste of resources and potential.

I think Wilson is good, but I don't think we're ever going to see more from him under Carroll. What we see is what we're going to get. The only difference is the team will become more hamstrung from signing such a deal. I just look at teams like the Packers that always pay out the yin yang for guys like Rodgers, and I see how the team has a tough time being legitimately competitive. They aren't able to retain talent, nor are they able to spend much in the free agency. All of this considering that Rodgers is better than Wilson, in an objectively superior offensive scheme. I'd rather gamble and see if I could catch lightening in a jar again. I don't think that happens with Wilson under Pete Carroll.

I'm thinking that Pete Carroll MAY be thinking the same thing regarding devoting such a large portion of the contract to one player. Lots of criticism directed Wilson's way, more so than in years past by Pete Carroll. Jon Schneider also personally attended the workout of Josh Allen. That is kind of an odd move that prompted questions from Wilson's agent. This, to me doesn't seem normal. Of course, I'm probably off base on the last part here. I just think the way Carroll, and Schneider are doing things here raise a few questions.

 

[Ozzy]

Second highest rated passer of all time with one of the best TD/INT ratios in history playing in a system that isn't conducive to QB's. He's not bad, merely good or anything other than Elite and a top 5 QB in the league. Pay him. Wilson in a friendly system would be unbelievable.

Popeye He's only elite in a run first offense? How about last year with a historically bad run game and a historically bad offensive line? He led the league in TD's in a conservative offense with zero help.

I'm baffled by the Wilson takes in here.

 

[bmorepunk]

There's a disconnect between what people think QBs "should be" worth in the NFL market and what they're actually worth. The demand in the market sets an NFL QBs worth, not what segments of fans would like to pay.

A lot of you guys were flipping out about his current contract a few years ago, which is funny now.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

There's a disconnect between what people think QBs "should be" worth in the NFL market and what they're actually worth. The demand in the market sets an NFL QBs worth, not what segments of fans would like to pay.

A lot of you guys were flipping out about his current contract a few years ago, which is funny now.

Not according to Seymour. He thinks you can just tell a player he's worth less and they'll accept that and sign for that lower amount...........and not the reality of the market setting the player's worth.

"Worth" is a meaningless word. Leverage is the correct word...........and NO ONE has more leverage in the NFL then good QB's. So our choice is to pay Russell 34M+, or franchise him for a year or two and try to find the next dynamic franchise QB in the draft.

 

[Seymour]

I think Scot McCloughan really nailed it with his evaluation of Wilson about a year and a half ago: He's the best QB in the NFL who you don't want throwing the ball 30+ times per game.

All of the top QBs are better with a run game supporting them, but Wilson is kind of a strange duck in that he is, IMO, really only elite in a run first offense, which is a strange thing to wrap your head around.

It makes paying him kind of weird, as even more so than every other really good QB, by paying him you're stealing resources from the places that make him so good to begin with.

It is not all that difficult. Wilson can only get good enough pass protection when the team is running PERIOD. If we get behind and have to throw, the Oline cannot pass protect, not even this year!! Look at games 1 and 2 for evidence of this. Wilson the 1st 2 weeks was the most sacked QB in the NFL. Weeks 3 on he is the least because we started running and Dlines could not T-off on him.
Protection is also improving, but his entire career it's been bottom 10 in the league.
That is why, not on Wilson 100%. He doesn't have the horses to pull it off. Now that Cable is gone it may improve enough to thrive also.

 

[Seymour]

There's a disconnect between what people think QBs "should be" worth in the NFL market and what they're actually worth. The demand in the market sets an NFL QBs worth, not what segments of fans would like to pay.

A lot of you guys were flipping out about his current contract a few years ago, which is funny now.

Not according to Seymour. He thinks you can just tell a player he's worth less and they'll accept that and sign for that lower amount...........and not the reality of the market setting the player's worth.

"Worth" is a meaningless word. Leverage is the correct word...........and NO ONE has more leverage in the NFL then good QB's. So our choice is to pay Russell 34M+, or franchise him for a year or two and try to find the next dynamic franchise QB in the draft.

Who crapped in your breakfast? I've never said anything close to that. That is a flat out lie. :177692: Of course they will not sign for less than they can get. :roll:

It is common sense that if the player doesn't take your max offer, he walks/ moves on. Wise up please.

This thread isn't about what we WILL end up paying Wilson. It's about what people here believe his max value is to THIS team under Pete Carroll.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

There's a disconnect between what people think QBs "should be" worth in the NFL market and what they're actually worth. The demand in the market sets an NFL QBs worth, not what segments of fans would like to pay.

A lot of you guys were flipping out about his current contract a few years ago, which is funny now.

Not according to Seymour. He thinks you can just tell a player he's worth less and they'll accept that and sign for that lower amount...........and not the reality of the market setting the player's worth.

"Worth" is a meaningless word. Leverage is the correct word...........and NO ONE has more leverage in the NFL then good QB's. So our choice is to pay Russell 34M+, or franchise him for a year or two and try to find the next dynamic franchise QB in the draft.

Who crapped in your breakfast? I've never said anything close to that. That is a flat out lie. :177692: Of course they will not sign for less than they can get. :roll:

It is common sense that if the player doesn't take your max offer, he walks/ moves on. Wise up please.

You and I spent an entire page with you arguing over Frank Clark not being "worth" 18-20M a year. You think he's only worth 10-13M. Amnesia?

 

[MD5eahawks]

I'm sure Pete & John already have a plan on how much they're going to offer him and what they'll do if he says no. They've already shown they 've planned ahead with the defense by having those contracts only thru '17.

Me? Pay him what he's worth. It's not an existing number yet. That number will pop up soon enough.

 

[Seymour]

There's a disconnect between what people think QBs "should be" worth in the NFL market and what they're actually worth. The demand in the market sets an NFL QBs worth, not what segments of fans would like to pay.

A lot of you guys were flipping out about his current contract a few years ago, which is funny now.

Not according to Seymour. He thinks you can just tell a player he's worth less and they'll accept that and sign for that lower amount...........and not the reality of the market setting the player's worth.

"Worth" is a meaningless word. Leverage is the correct word...........and NO ONE has more leverage in the NFL then good QB's. So our choice is to pay Russell 34M+, or franchise him for a year or two and try to find the next dynamic franchise QB in the draft.

Who crapped in your breakfast? I've never said anything close to that. That is a flat out lie. :177692: Of course they will not sign for less than they can get. :roll:

It is common sense that if the player doesn't take your max offer, he walks/ moves on. Wise up please.

You and I spent an entire page with you arguing over Frank Clark not being "worth" 18-20M a year. You think he's only worth 10-13M. Amnesia?

So? If he doesn't take it and that's our max offer....he walks. People overpay all the time, doesn't mean we HAVE to :177692:

 

[lukerguy]

Why are the Patriots dominant every year? In part because Brady married a hundred millionaire and the difference between $15MM-$30 MM makes no difference to his quality of life.

Name the last team to win a SB with a QB making in the top 5 for his position? 2008 Eli manning was the 5th highest paid QB.

 

[Seymour]

There's a disconnect between what people think QBs "should be" worth in the NFL market and what they're actually worth. The demand in the market sets an NFL QBs worth, not what segments of fans would like to pay.

A lot of you guys were flipping out about his current contract a few years ago, which is funny now.

Not according to Seymour. He thinks you can just tell a player he's worth less and they'll accept that and sign for that lower amount...........and not the reality of the market setting the player's worth.

"Worth" is a meaningless word. Leverage is the correct word...........and NO ONE has more leverage in the NFL then good QB's. So our choice is to pay Russell 34M+, or franchise him for a year or two and try to find the next dynamic franchise QB in the draft.

Who crapped in your breakfast? I've never said anything close to that. That is a flat out lie. :177692: Of course they will not sign for less than they can get. :roll:

It is common sense that if the player doesn't take your max offer, he walks/ moves on. Wise up please.

You and I spent an entire page with you arguing over Frank Clark not being "worth" 18-20M a year. You think he's only worth 10-13M. Amnesia?

You seem to be saddled with the misconception that whatever someone pays is the real value of something. WRONG, not to everyone. Was Joeckel worth $8 million? People will overpay, and do all the time. Most of those teams are playing in the .500 bowl at the years end. Clark is not a top 5 DE and if you pay him like 1 then you just overpaid.....period.