Pay Wilson Or Not..

[Fade]

Russell Wilson is a ONCE IN A GENERATION QB.

In the fourth quarter.

When he is allowed to play, and not be a ball warmer for the running backs.

 

[Seymour]

Russell Wilson is a ONCE IN A GENERATION QB.

In the fourth quarter.

Wrong.

Wilson was better in the 2nd quarter than any other this year, you should watch more games. :roll:

 

[TwistedHusky]

Wilson was great, when he was allowed to be.

That has always been the problem.

It was never "Is Wilson worth it?" it was "Is Wilson worth it HERE".

The problem is that we don't know the answer to that question because we don't know how great he can be with an OC that can use a great QB correctly.

 

[bbsplitter]

I honestly think part of the cowboys game-plan and why it appeared to be so stubborn was a lack in confidence in RW's weapons. Locket is good, and got open on a couple big ones, but even a lot of his "great" catches have been absolute dimes from Russ with little to no separation. Baldwin has been banged up and I think saves up his energy for the plays he knows he is involved in, at least that was the impression I got from the All-22 on a couple of games. I think it's solid to say teams have figured out how to cover our #3's in Moore and Brown.

I agree that a little more creative play-calling probably would have had better results. The feeling I get though is that the talent at WR is very boom or bust with each play. RW is very, very careful with the football, and when you have completely covered WR's with tiny windows to throw, that doesn't inspire Russ to force it in there very often. Which usually ends with running around and a sack.

 

[SeahawksCanuck]

This is a valid question going forward. No team passed the football less than the Seahawks this season. If Carroll wants to continue this style of offense, then paying Wilson 30 million dollars per year doesn't make any sense.

I see it slightly differently. One the one hand spending that much (and soon to be more if he's extended) money and then be the least pass-happy team in the league isn't good asset management. On the other hand, the only reason Pete's run first offense ever worked was because Wilson could bail the team out when he was unleashed. Lose that bail-out ability, and no big investment in the run game or defense will matter - we'll be back to the 7 win teams of Pete's first 2 seasons (solid line, great RB, no Wilson). That's even if you ignore what pedestrian QBs cost nowadays (see Keenum and Cousins).

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Pay him

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

Logic says, if you continue to have Carroll incorporate his football strategy and philosophy, you should NOT pay the QB top dollar.

Petes philosophy at its best works only if he has a top tier elite defense and elite run game.

As long as the resources (salary) goes to these necessary pieces, you will not be able to also pay the QB top dollar.

It just does not work.

That is why the offensive line is relatively cheap with a lone piece here.

Something has to give.

You can think of it as a seesaw effect, the defense needs to be stacked and that means there is no equilibrium balancing the other side.

Petes philosophy at its best is also essentially it's own worst enemy. Unsustainable.

It'll work as long as it's defense is cheap and elite.

And it only works with an elite run game.

So the question becomes: Do you want a temporary elite defense with Carrolls philosophy or would you rather have Wilson without sustainable elite talent.

 

[Spin Doctor]

This is a valid question going forward. No team passed the football less than the Seahawks this season. If Carroll wants to continue this style of offense, then paying Wilson 30 million dollars per year doesn't make any sense.

I see it slightly differently. One the one hand spending that much (and soon to be more if he's extended) money and then be the least pass-happy team in the league isn't good asset management. On the other hand, the only reason Pete's run first offense ever worked was because Wilson could bail the team out when he was unleashed. Lose that bail-out ability, and no big investment in the run game or defense will matter - we'll be back to the 7 win teams of Pete's first 2 seasons (solid line, great RB, no Wilson). That's even if you ignore what pedestrian QBs cost nowadays (see Keenum and Cousins).

The problem becomes is who do we have to sacrifice in order to keep that contract? Other areas of the team are going to be affected in order to accommodate that 30 million per year base line. After we signed Wilson the first time the Seahawks compensated by skimping out on the offensive line. We went from having the most expensive line in the league, to lowest paid line. Even when we developed players we let them go.

What area gets sacrificed this time, and is it possible to get to the Super Bowl with that team compromised in those areas? I think the answer is we don't make it with Wilson because of his contract and offensive scheme. Unfortunately it also means facing the prospect of a lot of mediocre football. If you're not going to resign Wilson you probably try trading him for a kings ransom, hire a journeyman QB like Fitzpatrick, or Teddy Bridgewater, and draft a QB to compete.

I just don't think that Pete Carroll is capable of fielding a team that is truly a threat to take the championship with a QB taking up such a massive portion of the salary cap. Offense is not his forte, and he is severely misusing his assets on that side of the ball to a negligent degree. It's like buying a Ferrari and only driving it 50 mph in the slow lane on the freeway. It doesn't make much sense based on what Pete Carroll wants to do.

On the other side of the equation, his job depends on signing Wilson, and we're risking slumping back to a 7-9, 8-8 team without a viable QB if we decide to part ways.

 

[John63]

Logic says, if you continue to have Carroll incorporate his football strategy and philosophy, you should NOT pay the QB top dollar.

Petes philosophy at its best works only if he has a top tier elite defense and elite run game.

As long as the resources (salary) goes to these necessary pieces, you will not be able to also pay the QB top dollar.

It just does not work.

That is why the offensive line is relatively cheap with a lone piece here.

Something has to give.

You can think of it as a seesaw effect, the defense needs to be stacked and that means there is no equilibrium balancing the other side.

Petes philosophy at its best is also essentially it's own worst enemy. Unsustainable.

It'll work as long as it's defense is cheap and elite.

And it only works with an elite run game.

So the question becomes: Do you want a temporary elite defense with Carrolls philosophy or would you rather have Wilson without sustainable elite talent.

Problem is even with that run game, and great defense, there are 40 or so plays that few QBs can do or make required. Even in our SB year. So its either pray you get lightning in a bottle at QB again or keep him and use FA and draft and hope for the LB, DB, oline to help. History says LB, DB, Oline is more likly than a top QB which we need.

 

[QuahHawk]

I pay him, unless it is like the most obvious QB draft class and we are virtually guaranteed to get a good QB.

I still think he would be a great fit for the LA Chargers. Like they should pay him the moon or trade whatever once Rivers retires. They would be the AFC Super Bowl team with Wilson.

I saw someone mentioned would KC be better with Wilson and I say no, but the charger? Yes.

 

[John63]

I pay him, unless it is like the most obvious QB draft class and we are virtually guaranteed to get a good QB.

I still think he would be a great fit for the LA Chargers. Like they should pay him the moon or trade whatever once Rivers retires. They would be the AFC Super Bowl team with Wilson.

I saw someone mentioned would KC be better with Wilson and I say no, but the charger? Yes.

There are many teams that would love to have Wilson. As to KC they would not be worse for having Wilson, maybe better due to experience.

 

[KARAVARUS]

Sign Wilson, no question. When it comes to offense, start calling the first three quarters of the game with a sense of urgency to score. Bail on the scripts and call the plays real time, get creative and let Wilson dictate the game. You don’t need to abandon the run, but you do need to acknowledge when it’s not working. If we just have the same urgency to score as we do in the 4th quarter, we should not be in so many dramatic games. Just hanging around teams until the end, hoping to snag the game before time expires, just means every other aspect of the game has to go perfectly. Don’t put yourself in a situation where your kicker injuring himself means you lose. Or a special teams gaff. Or a complete breakdown on D.

There’s no reason we have to play every game down to the wire. We do this to ourselves and with each loss people say we play down to the level of the team who defeated us—I say we just pace them and end up,on the wrong side of the coin. Pete must change this. Either way, you never let Wilson go.

 

[jammerhawk]

Of course you pay him.

I can’t believe anyone is seriously asking this question. Look at what he has accomplished to date as an NFL QB. He’s as said above a generational QB. With him the team always has a chance.

Now to rebuild a stifling D.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I can't believe this is even a question. But pretty par for the course on here. :stirthepot:

 

[Ozzy]

Seattle will be picking at the top of the draft for a few years if they lose Wilson. This league is really tough to win consistently without an elite QB. You can do it short term but it usually catches up to you. Look at Jacksonville.

 

[mrt144]

I hate to say it so soon after the game but I think there is a lot of overreaction to the game about his role on the team.

He is still our best offensive player, there were several games he won us this year.

The huge problem here is the coaches forgot that he won us the Carolina game when the running game was doing crap and the defense couldn't stop them.

The idea we should let him walk so some other team will let him throw more is silly.

We've seen Russell pass a lot (2016 and 2017) and while he is productive he is often running for his life and taking unnecessary hits.

Running the ball makes him better (opens playaction) and protects him (less hits)

I hope the takeaway from the Cowboys game isn't that we need to stop running, I hope the takeaway is we need to trust our passing game when the run isn't there.

Well said. That issue of trust is being repeated over and over.

If true why wouldn't PC trust Wilson at this point? That seems crazy.

Maybe Pete really is that risk adverse?

 

[Seymour]

I think the thread title is wrong. It should read......" Pay Wilson or Lose?".

 

[SoulfishHawk]

insert mic drop........

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

Would Wilson want to re-sign? I think he knows he has the talent to succeed elsewhere and be given the opportunity.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Why wouldn't he? This is his team, and he knows there is unfinished business. He's also playing with guys who are not throwing him under the bus. And IF for some reason he didn't want to come back, they franchise him and get a big haul in return if a team truly wants him. It was already talked about this morning on 710 that they are starting to work on an extension.