Is Russell Wilson worth extending?

[Tical21]

How will we be able to judge whether or not extending him was a wise decision?

 

[seahawk Dan]

Why is this even a question? :thfight7:

I agree he is the most dynamic QB the Seahawks have ever had , wins a super bowl , won at least 2-3 of the 5 wins this year by himself when the OL fell apart . I am not even going there.

 

[volsunghawk]

How will we be able to judge whether or not extending him was a wise decision?

How do you judge whether the Pats extending Tom Brady was a good decision, or the Broncos signing Manning was a good decision? Not sure what you're trying to set up with this question.

 

[pehawk]

I cant define "it" but know "it" when I see "it". Russell Wilson has "it" in spades.

Wilson's white, downs syndrome, "it" doppleganger is Eli. Even if Wilson's career ends up similar to Eli's, its worth it.

 

[kpak76]

This is a question that would be a lot more legitimate to ponder about withoutcentury onv the upcoming salary cap increase. I'm all for making RW one of the top paid QB's and a Seahawk for life. The kid is damn special.

I didn't scoff at the question itself though; we ARE a team built around strong defense and a strong run game. It's totally fine to wonder whether 20+ million against the cap per season could be spread out in another way and offer more to the table than one player.

We are thatplus a team with a dynamic qb leading the offense. We've seen what the team looks like built as only a team with a strong defense and run game and that is a 7-9 team. Wilson is what puts us over the top.

 

[twisted_steel2]

---Andrew Luck played with a mediocre O-Line, yes he did have a decent set of receivers in Wayne, and Hilton but he also had no line. It is fair to say that he faced adversity since day one, and yes he definitely had his fair share of growing pains but through it all you could see that he was going to be a great NFL Quarterback. He was, afterall his offenses only sort of production.

---In Wilson's case I do not know where he stands.

So Luck gets a pass because of his poor o-line, and you "could see he was going to be great".

But Wilson doesn't get a pass because of his poor o-line, and you "don't know where he stands".

Got it. Makes sense.

 

[Tical21]

How will we be able to judge whether or not extending him was a wise decision?

How do you judge whether the Pats extending Tom Brady was a good decision, or the Broncos signing Manning was a good decision? Not sure what you're trying to set up with this question.

I'm not trying to set anything up, I am genuinely asking the question. Considering the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since signing Brady to big money, can you then reasonably argue that signing him to big money for all of these years was ultimately a bad decision for the franchise? I'm not saying it was necessarily, and I probably would have done the same thing, but are we all maybe looking at this a little wrong? It at least gives me a bit of pause.

If we pay Russ big money for the next ten years and never win a Super Bowl, is it fair to say that it wasn't the right move? If we win one more over his career does it then justify it? I think it would, but just looking for opinions on how we judge whether or not it was the right move. By jersey and ticket sales? TV contracts? Super Bowls? Winning percentage? Playoff appearances? Anything tangible.

 

[firebee]

Top 5 QB Rating for Starting QBs in his first three years in the league. This doesn't even take his rushing yards and rushing TDs into consideration. What were we discussing? Should he be paid like a top 5 QB? See the first sentence of this post. We can muddle things by looking at Passing yards and TDs, but a QB that can score and limit mistakes wins games. The passing yards and passing TDs will come when we get better play from the O-Line and consistent receiving. Our defense isn't bad. They're 4th against the run, 6th against the pass and 4th overall. They're just not getting the turnovers like they were last year.

 

[Yoonhawk]

I congratulate the OP for having the balls to start such a thread. It's a legitimate topic for discussion. This is only Russell's 3rd year, and Year 3 ain't looking so great. There is the possibility that Russell has peaked, that teams have "figured him out", and that his lack of height is affecting his ability to adjust from the things defenses are taking away from him. It's not something a lot of us 12's want to admit, but it is a possibility, however remote.

If it were any other position, I'd be very hesitant, but franchise quarterbacks are in such a demand that you don't let one go even if there's a good possibility that they'll fail. It could be ten years before we acquire a quarterback that shows us what Russell has in his first two seasons. It's a risk we have to take.

It's funny how year three isn't looking great given I remember him having 2 game winning drives, setting an NFL record as the first player with over 300 yards passing and 100 yards rushing in a single game and tossing 11 TDs to 3 INTS (while rushing for 3 more).

He's done this while taking snaps from 3 different centers, playing behind a rookie LT and two different LTs, missing his number 1 TE through injury, watching his number 1 target from 2013 go in FA and his number target through games 1-6 get traded away. His #1 and #2 receivers are UDFAs, his number 1 TE is a 4th round pick that can't catch the ball, his starting fullback was signed just last week.

He's not playing as well as he has in the past - he's in a bigger shitstorm right now than he's ever been in the past - and likely to ever be again in the future. Put it this way, he's in a worse situation right now than Brady was last year when he was throwing to a bunch of no-names... but he's playing a lot better (let's not forget Brady had games like we did against the Raiders against the Jets and Dolphins last year, as well as an awful game against the Bengals... but at least they were half decent at the time). Even Manning had an awful game at the Patriots last year where he tossed for 150 yards, 53% completion and 4.2 YPA - and that was in a record setting offense.

Set your expectations lower.

EXACTLY. Thank you.

 

[DavidSeven]

Considering the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since signing Brady to big money, can you then reasonably argue that signing him to big money for all of these years was ultimately a bad decision for the franchise?

Personally, I think there is value in being consistently competitive and relevant for a decade, even if you don't win a championship. That's a lot of Sundays that the fans and New England's ownership got to watch a quality football product. Maybe an alternative solution would've gotten them a title, but more than likely, an alternative could've turned them into Cleveland for a decade or longer (or, at best, the Bears). While titles are obviously the ultimate prize, for me, it isn't necessarily the only measure of success, entertainment, community galvanization, etc.

Even with hindsight and no titles, I think Brady was worth even more than what they've paid him this past decade. That team has continued to have a great run, and I think their fans are probably among the luckiest in the league.

 

[JesterHawk]

Absolutely not. There are like 100 QBs every year in the draft and they don't even all get picked! We can just get another one when this one's contract runs out. It we pick them up as UDFAs we can get them sooooooooper cheap. Then we'll be able to afford 100 million bucks for Albert Haynesworth.

 

[northseahawk]

I'm sorry, but this topic kinda ticks me off. We have a quarterback who is setting records left and right, and people want talk about not keeping him? We got so lucky to get RW, we hit the freaking lottery. Quit looking a gift horse in the mouth. That's about as nice as I can possibly be on this topic.

Yea he has been great in the role he has been given with so much talent around him, but what has he shown to us on a consistent level that assures us he can lead this team to victories without beast mode and a world class defense when he is eating up 25-30% of the payroll??

I don't know why some of you can't just take the last 2 years and the superbowl out of your minds and actually think about the future when this team will not be able to afford any talent around wilson. His conservative/game managing role won't win games for us at that time.

 

[byau]

How will we be able to judge whether or not extending him was a wise decision?

How do you judge whether the Pats extending Tom Brady was a good decision, or the Broncos signing Manning was a good decision? Not sure what you're trying to set up with this question.

All right, here's my lengthy explanation, tell me what you think here:

Okay, first - how to judge what is a good decision?

I think a lot of people think about "decisions" in the wrong way. Decisions are what you "decide upon" at the time after you've analyzed info you have AVAILABLE and risk and rewards. Then you make the best decision you can with the best available data. You can't analyze the thing to death, there is always risk involved, and then you make the decision. And keep in mind, it's with whatever data is AVAILABLE.

If you talk to any entrepreneurs, they'll tell you often times they need to take that next step to see what steps are available after that. So decision making means you sometimes can't see all the way down the road, you're making the decision to see what's next after that.

And then take into account, well, what is the risk and reward of NOT making that decision?

An example: The Percy Harvin Decision

I still think Percy Harvin was a great decision. It happened to not pan out. Does that mean it was a bad decision?

In other words: if you were in near the exact same circumstances again would you make the same decision? Analyzing the risks, what's the worst that will happen, what's the best that will happen, is it a good decision?

I would say so and I'm guessing giving the similar circumstances the Seahawks would make the decision again.

It's still said now we wish we had a playmaking receiver with physical gifts that would let the offense be creative. That's Percy Harvin. The risk was (if rumors are to be believed) he might be a head case. The risk was tolerable because Pete is a player's coach, we were able to resurrect Marshawn Lynch into what he is today. So the thought was we could do the same with Harvin. It didn't work out, but for how I see decisions, it was not a bad decision given what you knew at the time and what the risk was and what the potential payoff was.

And what was the option of NOT taking Harvin? Did we have access to another similarly physically gifted server? Percy is really almost one-of-a-kind and there are few in that mold.

That being said, if you know it's not going to work out, and it is now addition by subtraction, releasing him quickly was the right decision as well given all risks and analysis at the time.

Let's now talk about Russell:

What's the best that could happen? What's the worst that could happen? For QBs, what are the physical risks? What are the mental risks?

Physically: While he is short and is a running quarterback, risks are mitigated because he has proven to be discretionary when it comes to scrambling to extend plays, scrambling to pass, and scrambling to run. The physical risks can also be mitigated with better pass protection (a factor external to Russell) and maybe better receivers and play calling (again a factor external to Russell).

Mentally: the biggest mental problems would be 1) off-the-field antics, 2) not evolving as a player, 3) leadership.

For 1) I think we can agree off-the-field he is what you would want in a role model, and having that kind of big picture role model mentality does a lot of good on the field.

For 2) if you see Cam Newton, RG3, and Kaepernick currently, they are not evolving. These guys are physically gifted too, but they haven't been able to evolve this season (out of the three, I fully expect Kapernick to be the one who evolves). That being said, look at Russell and his mindset, always talking about how to improve. I mean, in his press conference in 2012/2013 season after losing to the Falcons, talking about how he was initially disappointed but later saw it as a fantastic opportunity to learn and grow. IF the Seahawks do not win the Super Bowl this year, I would expect Russell to say this was a great learning opportunity for how things change after you win a Super Bowl, how he understands the difficulty now of being a repeat champion, and how it can only improve them later down the line to win more Super Bowls.

Do we forget that after the Seahawks got knocked out (in his rookie year), he traveled to the Super Bowl ON HIS OWN to get a sense of the rhythm of the game with the longer half time, the commercial breaks, etc... to help prepare him mentally for when he was going to be playing in the Super Bowl later in his career (who knew it would be the very next year?)

For 3) A lot of people pointed to Cam Newton not lighting a fire under the troops in the 4th quarter, as opposed to Russell firing up the troops. I could stop right there, but to continue: just leading by example of hard work and preparation as well as civic duty and keeping your nose clean.


To make a short answer long:

What is the best and worst that will happen by keeping him? What is the best and worst that will happen by not keeping him?

So my vote: Keep Russell!

He has already proven it by winning a Super Bowl. He has proven he can hold his own against the Mt Rushmore of Quarterbacks going undefeated against them. He has proven his knack to win games. He has proven he is still human and needs to learn AND HE KNOWS THAT.

Seeing the risks and rewards and what's available and data available, etc.etc..

Absolutely NO QUESTION we need to keep Russell.

 

[brimsalabim]

But the only real tallent that we do have around him is Lynch and he is still winning!

 

[scutterhawk]

Scutterhog last weeks line wasn't even polished. We had guys on the line playing possitions they hadn't even practiced at. We had to shift guys around to run certain plays because some guys didn't know their responsibilities. We were drawing plays up in the sand. Russell did a heck of a job holding it together through that mess and you guys want to get rid of him? If we can't get our line fixed I doubt we get the oppurtunity to extend or re sign Russell and I wouldn't blame him for leaving.

Where the hell are you getting the idea that I was for getting rid of RW?? :roll:
You need to work on your reading skills dude SMH
Don't EVEN lump me into the get rid of Wilson group of dumb shits.

 

[volsunghawk]

How will we be able to judge whether or not extending him was a wise decision?

How do you judge whether the Pats extending Tom Brady was a good decision, or the Broncos signing Manning was a good decision? Not sure what you're trying to set up with this question.

I'm not trying to set anything up, I am genuinely asking the question. Considering the Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since signing Brady to big money, can you then reasonably argue that signing him to big money for all of these years was ultimately a bad decision for the franchise? I'm not saying it was necessarily, and I probably would have done the same thing, but are we all maybe looking at this a little wrong? It at least gives me a bit of pause.

If we pay Russ big money for the next ten years and never win a Super Bowl, is it fair to say that it wasn't the right move? If we win one more over his career does it then justify it? I think it would, but just looking for opinions on how we judge whether or not it was the right move. By jersey and ticket sales? TV contracts? Super Bowls? Winning percentage? Playoff appearances? Anything tangible.

Okay, sorry for being suspicious.

Honestly, I'd probably gauge it by whether Wilson continues to play well and lead the team to playoff contention on a regular basis. I think that while the Super Bowl is the ultimate goal for the team every year, there's also a great deal of value in being a contender year in and year out (e.g., the Pats, whoever Manning plays for). To gain that status as a team almost always requires a great QB. if you think about the teams that were consistent contenders, they always had good-to-great QB play in conjunction with solid D or a solid run offense. While I think the D is what elevates teams to championships, it can only WIN a championship with an average QB on rare occasions (like the 2002 Bucs, 2000 Ravens). And those teams often fall off and lose that contender status shortly thereafter.

 

[scutterhawk]

Spin doctor's post above gives him away as pure troll.

E X A C T L Y !!!!
This is without equal, the dumbest post I've read in, in, in, hell, since I don't know when.

 

[scutterhawk]

How will we be able to judge whether or not extending him was a wise decision?

Is your motor even running?
Extending him is the ONLY decision, as anything less would be UN-wise.

 

[FargoHawk]

Good lord

 

[Spin Doctor]

---Andrew Luck played with a mediocre O-Line, yes he did have a decent set of receivers in Wayne, and Hilton but he also had no line. It is fair to say that he faced adversity since day one, and yes he definitely had his fair share of growing pains but through it all you could see that he was going to be a great NFL Quarterback. He was, afterall his offenses only sort of production.

---In Wilson's case I do not know where he stands.

So Luck gets a pass because of his poor o-line, and you "could see he was going to be great".

But Wilson doesn't get a pass because of his poor o-line, and you "don't know where he stands".

Got it. Makes sense.

Luck looked like your prototypical pocket passer with mobility, and he was very adept at audibling and recognizing coverages, and protections. Now, as a decision maker he has lapses, he'll make risky throws all day, too many if you ask me.

This thread is about his full body of work. Wilson has never utilized the middle of the field very much, he does not know how to manage the pocket, and his field vision is mediocre. I'm also worried because I haven't seen very many timing passes from him, rather than throw a 10 yard out from the pocket, he runs out the pocket and then throws the ball. Audibles? Where are they, he has always struggled against the blitz and I have not seen much in the way of audibles to correct it. As a passer I'm left underwhelmed by the way he plays the game, as a thrower he's great though (two different things).

I'm not convinced he could ever run a conventional NFL style offense very well.