Pay Wilson Or Not..

[mrt144]

Instead of letting him lead with three scores we need him to barely make us win.

So this coaching requires a QB that can win it which is ironic since it lacks the courage to let him lead us to a win for four quarters.

I hate this about Pete and the game planning. Hate IT!!!!

So what you guys are saying is risk turning the ball over more vs. play more conservative and have a +15 turnover differential, which has been proven to contribute greatly to winning.

Because you can't have it both ways. You throw the ball around more, that means more risk and more turnovers.

This is the very heart of how Pete wants the offense to run. Ball control and take it away more than you give it up.

There is little to no difference between a 3 and out with a net 40 punt and an interception 40 yards down field.

We had (6) 3 and outs against the Girls. Some of those ARE turnovers when you consider our coverage unit. :177692:

Let that sink in......

This is a point that really hits home for risk management but might lead one down to a higher than expected risk appetite and drive people wild if it doesn't resonate with their own risk appetite.

For example, if we're on the 2nd series of a drive at our own 30 and it's 3rd and 2...

Failure in this case would lead to a 4th and 2 from our 30. Failure can be achieved (haha) through not gaining that two yards. In this case, what do you draw up to avoid failure and how much reward over the baseline of a first down do you shoot for?

If RW threw an 40 yard arm punt to a safety on 3rd and 2 from our own 30, we'd be livid right? But it's not much different than bumbling a screen pass for 3rd and 2, running for 1 yard, throwing an incomplete anywhere or getting sacked except for the ceiling on potential reward from it. The fail state on this series is not getting the first.

This is mostly academic since we're discussing what OCs and HCs usually do, what's heterodox and orthodox and we don't have the ability to implement our various conversations into football action but...

Avoiding turnovers is a good thing until it is counterproductive towards achieving first downs, in my estimation, but getting it 'just so' is something I'm not paid for, so I'm not going to sweat what I would do too much

 

[Seymour]

I hate this about Pete and the game planning. Hate IT!!!!

So what you guys are saying is risk turning the ball over more vs. play more conservative and have a +15 turnover differential, which has been proven to contribute greatly to winning.

Because you can't have it both ways. You throw the ball around more, that means more risk and more turnovers.

This is the very heart of how Pete wants the offense to run. Ball control and take it away more than you give it up.

There is little to no difference between a 3 and out with a net 40 punt and an interception 40 yards down field.

We had (6) 3 and outs against the Girls. Some of those ARE turnovers when you consider our coverage unit. :177692:

Let that sink in......

This is a point that really hits home for risk management but might lead one down to a higher than expected risk appetite and drive people wild if it doesn't resonate with their own risk appetite.

For example, if we're on the 2nd series of a drive at our own 30 and it's 3rd and 2...

Failure in this case would lead to a 4th and 2 from our 30. Failure can be achieved (haha) through not gaining that two yards. In this case, what do you draw up to avoid failure and how much reward over the baseline of a first down do you shoot for?

If RW threw an 40 yard arm punt to a safety on 3rd and 2 from our own 30, we'd be livid right? But it's not much different than bumbling a screen pass for 3rd and 2, running for 1 yard, throwing an incomplete anywhere or getting sacked except for the ceiling on potential reward from it. The fail state on this series is not getting the first.

This is mostly academic since we're discussing what OCs and HCs usually do, what's heterodox and orthodox and we don't have the ability to implement our various conversations into football action but...

Avoiding turnovers is a good thing until it is counterproductive towards achieving first downs, in my estimation, but getting it 'just so' is something I'm not paid for, so I'm not going to sweat what I would do too much

And this is exactly where this team is all too often. 5 of those 6 3 and outs were run,run,pass and that is counterproductive as it comes IMO.

 

[Tical21]

Quick....last qb to win a Super Bowl making over 13.7% of their team's salary was.....

 

[Maulbert]

Quick....last qb to win a Super Bowl making over 13.7% of their team's salary was.....

None. The highest cap percentage of a Super Bowl winning QB was Steve Young with 13.1% in 1994, the year the cap was implemented. Of note, the 49ers and Carmen Policy were punished by the league for cheating on the salary cap in it's early years.

 

[mrt144]

Quick....last qb to win a Super Bowl making over 13.7% of their team's salary was.....

We get it Tical dearest. No 2nd contracts ever!

BTW, How did Ben's 2008 27 Million dollar cap hit not exceed 13.7% of the Steelers $116,700,000 Salary Cap? They won the SB that year right? 2008 Steelers?

I just tweeted the author for clarification.

Edit: So his signing bonus was evenly spread over 4 years and the hit was far less. The table for career earnings on Sportrac doesn't list cap hit.

Anyway, I do wonder how many QBs won SBs on 2nd contracts with their original teams.

Brady, Roethlesberger, Eli and Peyton Manning, right?

 

[John63]

Quick....last qb to win a Super Bowl making over 13.7% of their team's salary was.....

We get it Tical dearest. No 2nd contracts ever!

BTW, How did Ben's 2008 27 Million dollar cap hit not exceed 13.7% of the Steelers $116,700,000 Salary Cap? They won the SB that year right? 2008 Steelers?

So in other words he is okay getting to an Sb once or twice every 20 years, and maybe winning one, rather than getting to the playoffs 80% of the time knowing once in anyrhing can happen.

 

[iigakusei]

Probably shouldn’t ever draft or start an African American QB either since there has only ever been 2 to win it all.

 

[Scorpion05]

A couple points:

One, there will be a market for KJ. There will always be a market for Pete’s defensive players, and KJ played at a really high level and did this year when healthy. Keyword on health

Second, if Nick Foles becomes a free agent, he’ll command top money. More than Tannehill that’s for damn sure. And you’re absolutely silly if you think Pederson and Schotty are on the same level playcalling wise. Pederson is an elite playcaller, and the Eagles are much better in the trenches than us. It’s a lot more than just getting Foles, you might as well bring over the entire staff and personnel

You CAN build a Super Bowl team around a winning QB. The Patriots go cheap all the time, don’t pay any superstars and still manage to make it. The Falcons manage to pay Julio Jones and Matt Ryan, and they made it. The Steelers and Chargers are extremely talented but Rivers isn’t on a rookie contract. This narrative that a Super Bowl run can only happen with a young QB is media driven, lazy thinking nonsense. It can happen with a well built team and a top tier QB.

Ironically, the whole concept of win a Super Bowl from a great roster and young QB is basically what we did. This is such a copycat league, no one can think for themselves. Also explains the fake McVay hires as well. The problem is, Jackson, Watson, Dak, etc. are nowhere near as clutch and dynamic as young Russell Wilson was. There have been several Top defenses and running games in the league, and they haven’t won a Super Bowl? Why? Because Wilson wasn’t just a game manager when we won it all. If it was that simple, if all it took was a great running game and defense, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, and Mitch Trubisky would have a Super Bowl. Draft well on defense, get a solid WR, get O-line depth and we will win our second Super Bowl

 

[Spin Doctor]

A couple points:

One, there will be a market for KJ. There will always be a market for Pete’s defensive players, and KJ played at a really high level and did this year when healthy. Keyword on health

Second, if Nick Foles becomes a free agent, he’ll command top money. More than Tannehill that’s for damn sure. And you’re absolutely silly if you think Pederson and Schotty are on the same level playcalling wise. Pederson is an elite playcaller, and the Eagles are much better in the trenches than us. It’s a lot more than just getting Foles, you might as well bring over the entire staff and personnel

You CAN build a Super Bowl team around a winning QB. The Patriots go cheap all the time, don’t pay any superstars and still manage to make it. The Falcons manage to pay Julio Jones and Matt Ryan, and they made it. The Steelers and Chargers are extremely talented but Rivers isn’t on a rookie contract. This narrative that a Super Bowl run can only happen with a young QB is media driven, lazy thinking nonsense. It can happen with a well built team and a top tier QB.

Ironically, the whole concept of win a Super Bowl from a great roster and young QB is basically what we did. This is such a copycat league, no one can think for themselves. Also explains the fake McVay hires as well. The problem is, Jackson, Watson, Dak, etc. are nowhere near as clutch and dynamic as young Russell Wilson was. There have been several Top defenses and running games in the league, and they haven’t won a Super Bowl? Why? Because Wilson wasn’t just a game manager when we won it all. If it was that simple, if all it took was a great running game and defense, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, and Mitch Trubisky would have a Super Bowl. Draft well on defense, get a solid WR, get O-line depth and we will win our second Super Bowl

The Patriots have a QB that purposely gives his team a home town discount. In his Super Bowl win in the 2014 season against the Seahawks he had only the 12th largest salary. In 2017 he had the 20th largest salary among active QB's.

The Seahawks won the Super Bowl because they had a good defense, as well as a good QB, and running game. When I say good defense, it was a defense that many say may be the best in NFL history. The 2013 Seahawks are talked about as having one of the best rosters of all time. On offense the weapons were actually very solid. We had Doug Baldwin, and Golden Tate, both 1000 yard receivers in the subsequent years, Kearse who was a fantastic role player, and Zach Miller who was a really good TE. We were absolutely loaded on both sides of the ball. To compare those other teams to the Seahawks just because they had a good running game, and decent QB doesn't do how good the roster was that we had justice. It isn't a straight across comparison.

Wilson played his part there too, but our Super Bowl win, and every other team that wins a Super Bowl does so due to the overall team. The Falcon, and Cowboy teams aren't even in the same stratosphere as the 2013 team. QB's are indeed the single most important player on the team, but they are only one of 52. All of the pieces have to galvanize and come together to win a Super Bowl.

 

[Scorpion05]

^^ It’s easy to give a “hometown” discount when you have a Super Model wife worth 360 million dollars. That always seems to be missing in the narrative

Also, my point was that the Patriots don’t invest heavily in big contracts, and that Belicheck tends to avoid big name talents and superstars. He relies on his coaching and in getting specific players to fit his system. I also made a point about the Chargers having a loaded roster without a rookie QB. If you give average to okay QBs like Matt Ryan, Stafford, and Derek Carr big contracts then your team is screwed. If you give Rodgers, Wilson, Brees, Brady, and even Peyton Manning big contracts, they can still elevate the team enough that you can contend. Even after Wilson’s last contract we still had Sherman, Thomas, Kam, Avril, Bennett, and Jimmy Graham. I just think it’s overblown to suggest a team can’t be loaded if you pay the QB. You just have to be creative. A run 1st philosophy actually allows the team to go cheap in some areas and invest in others

Obviously, our defense was legendary. My point was, perspective wise there have been many super talented teams, running backs, and defenses that don’t win the championship. And that’s largely because, especially in the modern age you need a really good to great Qb and a really good to great coach. Wentz is more talented than Foles, but Foles is a really good QB. Their defense was good, not great. They won the SB overall as a team and they’re making noise in the playoffs again

Baldwin, Kearse, and Tate were at best respectable receivers back then. They were sort of good, and growing. But they worked their way to being the names they are now (And outside of Seattle, their names aren’t seen as much). They relied a lot on Wilson extending plays and obviously Lynch opening things up. Our offense was largely based on the legs of Wilson and Lynch.

 

[hgwellz12]

Great posts @Scorpion! You really do "get it".
And I applaud your tenacity in explaining the nuts & bolts of your perspective on this largely ridiculous 'question'.
The FACT remains that, outside of the few here who simply don't like RW3, (and i have 1 or 2 theories as to WHY) there's absolutely NO REASON for the Seahawks organization to even consider not paying him the money he will end up with in his bank account when the time comes. This is an ENTERTAINMENT business first, and a SPORT second. Letting Russell end up on any other team in this league would literally probably start a REGION WIDE riot. No offense OP, but this entire premise is just damn stupid.

 

[bmorepunk]

A couple points:

One, there will be a market for KJ. There will always be a market for Pete’s defensive players, and KJ played at a really high level and did this year when healthy. Keyword on health

Second, if Nick Foles becomes a free agent, he’ll command top money. More than Tannehill that’s for damn sure. And you’re absolutely silly if you think Pederson and Schotty are on the same level playcalling wise. Pederson is an elite playcaller, and the Eagles are much better in the trenches than us. It’s a lot more than just getting Foles, you might as well bring over the entire staff and personnel

You CAN build a Super Bowl team around a winning QB. The Patriots go cheap all the time, don’t pay any superstars and still manage to make it. The Falcons manage to pay Julio Jones and Matt Ryan, and they made it. The Steelers and Chargers are extremely talented but Rivers isn’t on a rookie contract. This narrative that a Super Bowl run can only happen with a young QB is media driven, lazy thinking nonsense. It can happen with a well built team and a top tier QB.

Ironically, the whole concept of win a Super Bowl from a great roster and young QB is basically what we did. This is such a copycat league, no one can think for themselves. Also explains the fake McVay hires as well. The problem is, Jackson, Watson, Dak, etc. are nowhere near as clutch and dynamic as young Russell Wilson was. There have been several Top defenses and running games in the league, and they haven’t won a Super Bowl? Why? Because Wilson wasn’t just a game manager when we won it all. If it was that simple, if all it took was a great running game and defense, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, and Mitch Trubisky would have a Super Bowl. Draft well on defense, get a solid WR, get O-line depth and we will win our second Super Bowl

The Patriots have a QB that purposely gives his team a home town discount. In his Super Bowl win in the 2014 season against the Seahawks he had only the 12th largest salary. In 2017 he had the 20th largest salary among active QB's.

Brady has the 11th highest cap hit this year (the number that actually matters when we're talking about what teams can afford) at $22.0 million. If we throw out Garoppolo's insanely stupid cap it ($37 million), the next nine guys down to Brady are $23.2 million to $26.5 million cap hits. That means that difference between clearing the second highest guy (Stafford) and Brady is only $4.5 million. So it's not like he's costing a lot less than the top quarterbacks in the league this year, and it's not as if he didn't make great money for years before he took less money than he could have in the market playing for someone else. Dude clearly wanted to win and apparently has left about 25% of his earnings ($60 million total) on the table to keep playing with Belechick, but it's not like he's playing dirt cheap at half price.

And the "Patriots don't pay superstars" statement earlier in the thread is just wrong. Devin McCourty is the second highest cap hit after Berry; more than Earl Thomas. They have the highest costing TE in the league. Dont'a Hightower is the second biggest cap hit in the league at inside linebacker this year. Stephon Gilmore isn't cheap. And they're definitely dropping top 3 kicker money on Gostkowski. Before they let Solder walk this offseason, they had the seventh most expensive offensive lineman. They pay players. They just don't do it stupidly, and generally don't pick up super expensive free agents. But they've done their own bonheaded things like any other team.

 

[misfit]

KJ Wright was on 950 and sounds like he doesn't think they are planning to sign him (contrary to what flim flam Pete speaks). No contract discussions going on with him, and he is planning to look at offers.

They are likely waiting to see the Kendricks verdict and giving him first crack from the sounds of it. Bummer....he is a great dude.

Point being....they are looking to save for something like Wilson, Wagner, Reed, Clark.

The Seahawk Front Office is caught between a rock and a hard place. They will be damned if they "do pay KJ and Wilson" and damned if they don't. Not an enviable position to be in!!! Bottom line....how much of a pay cut will Russ take?

I don't expect Russ to take a paycut at all, especially after this last playoffs at the coaching staff not doing him any favors, I expect Russ and his agent to play hardball in negotiations.

Russ was 20th in attempts and still finished like 3rd in TD passes

 

[Uncle Si]

A couple points:

One, there will be a market for KJ. There will always be a market for Pete’s defensive players, and KJ played at a really high level and did this year when healthy. Keyword on health

Second, if Nick Foles becomes a free agent, he’ll command top money. More than Tannehill that’s for damn sure. And you’re absolutely silly if you think Pederson and Schotty are on the same level playcalling wise. Pederson is an elite playcaller, and the Eagles are much better in the trenches than us. It’s a lot more than just getting Foles, you might as well bring over the entire staff and personnel

You CAN build a Super Bowl team around a winning QB. The Patriots go cheap all the time, don’t pay any superstars and still manage to make it. The Falcons manage to pay Julio Jones and Matt Ryan, and they made it. The Steelers and Chargers are extremely talented but Rivers isn’t on a rookie contract. This narrative that a Super Bowl run can only happen with a young QB is media driven, lazy thinking nonsense. It can happen with a well built team and a top tier QB.

Ironically, the whole concept of win a Super Bowl from a great roster and young QB is basically what we did. This is such a copycat league, no one can think for themselves. Also explains the fake McVay hires as well. The problem is, Jackson, Watson, Dak, etc. are nowhere near as clutch and dynamic as young Russell Wilson was. There have been several Top defenses and running games in the league, and they haven’t won a Super Bowl? Why? Because Wilson wasn’t just a game manager when we won it all. If it was that simple, if all it took was a great running game and defense, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, and Mitch Trubisky would have a Super Bowl. Draft well on defense, get a solid WR, get O-line depth and we will win our second Super Bowl

The Patriots have a QB that purposely gives his team a home town discount. In his Super Bowl win in the 2014 season against the Seahawks he had only the 12th largest salary. In 2017 he had the 20th largest salary among active QB's.

Brady has the 11th highest cap hit this year (the number that actually matters when we're talking about what teams can afford) at $22.0 million. If we throw out Garoppolo's insanely stupid cap it ($37 million), the next nine guys down to Brady are $23.2 million to $26.5 million cap hits. That means that difference between clearing the second highest guy (Stafford) and Brady is only $4.5 million. So it's not like he's costing a lot less than the top quarterbacks in the league this year, and it's not as if he didn't make great money for years before he took less money than he could have in the market playing for someone else. Dude clearly wanted to win and apparently has left about 25% of his earnings ($60 million total) on the table to keep playing with Belechick, but it's not like he's playing dirt cheap at half price.

And the "Patriots don't pay superstars" statement earlier in the thread is just wrong. Devin McCourty is the second highest cap hit after Berry; more than Earl Thomas. They have the highest costing TE in the league. Dont'a Hightower is the second biggest cap hit in the league at inside linebacker this year. Stephon Gilmore isn't cheap. And they're definitely dropping top 3 kicker money on Gostkowski. Before they let Solder walk this offseason, they had the seventh most expensive offensive lineman. They pay players. They just don't do it stupidly, and generally don't pick up super expensive free agents. But they've done their own bonheaded things like any other team.

The Patriots statement misses the fact that they are the one organization that has never had to pay their QB... and the results of that are easy to discern.

If Brady was paid what he was worth, I'm not sure they are the team they are today, or the team they have been this decade.

 

[IndyHawk]

Great posts @Scorpion! You really do "get it".
And I applaud your tenacity in explaining the nuts & bolts of your perspective on this largely ridiculous 'question'.
The FACT remains that, outside of the few here who simply don't like RW3, (and i have 1 or 2 theories as to WHY) there's absolutely NO REASON for the Seahawks organization to even consider not paying him the money he will end up with in his bank account when the time comes. This is an ENTERTAINMENT business first, and a SPORT second. Letting Russell end up on any other team in this league would literally probably start a REGION WIDE riot. No offense OP, but this entire premise is just damn stupid.

I fail to be entertained with the idea of no chance at SB's..
Lucky to make playoffs to be one and done..
If that's how it's going to be because of cap induced
holes,what is the point?
It's not my fault GM's got stupid in overpaying QB's
and others inflated other spots to create the
"Black hole" shall we call it?I mean how does a team
counter these problems besides making moves
that go against popular thinking?You either make
the high paying QB obsolete or you don't pay for
a Defense and hope for the best.
That isn't football ..That is pathetic.

 

[John63]

Great posts @Scorpion! You really do "get it".
And I applaud your tenacity in explaining the nuts & bolts of your perspective on this largely ridiculous 'question'.
The FACT remains that, outside of the few here who simply don't like RW3, (and i have 1 or 2 theories as to WHY) there's absolutely NO REASON for the Seahawks organization to even consider not paying him the money he will end up with in his bank account when the time comes. This is an ENTERTAINMENT business first, and a SPORT second. Letting Russell end up on any other team in this league would literally probably start a REGION WIDE riot. No offense OP, but this entire premise is just damn stupid.

I fail to be entertained with the idea of no chance at SB's..
Lucky to make playoffs to be one and done..
If that's how it's going to be because of cap induced
holes,what is the point?
It's not my fault GM's got stupid in overpaying QB's
and others inflated other spots to create the
"Black hole" shall we call it?I mean how does a team
counter these problems besides making moves
that go against popular thinking?You either make
the high paying QB obsolete or you don't pay for
a Defense and hope for the best.
That isn't football ..That is pathetic.

The issue is the odds of even making the playoffs without a top QB is slim. Now if that top QB is also making little great, but that will change then what? So in your premise we should not pay that great QB and hope we find another cheap and keep playing that game, knowing that means a gap of 5+ years of doing nothing, as opposed to keeping that great QB and knowing every year you have a chance and will probably make the playoffs most years. Also, that Great QB lets you go cheap in other places allowing you to use that money on other things. So again we can gamble and hope we get a QB who can do what is needed, knowing there may be gaps of nothing. Or we can keep that Elite QB we got and know we have a chance every year. Let me remind you 2005 we went to the SB then it was not again till 2012. Prior to 2005 we never got there and that is what you want to go back to until we find that QB again which for the 2005 season took 25+ years, and then another 7 forms 2005 to 2012. It's actually simple, you keep your QB, do a better job in FA, and in the draft and your good.

 

[chris98251]

Great posts @Scorpion! You really do "get it".
And I applaud your tenacity in explaining the nuts & bolts of your perspective on this largely ridiculous 'question'.
The FACT remains that, outside of the few here who simply don't like RW3, (and i have 1 or 2 theories as to WHY) there's absolutely NO REASON for the Seahawks organization to even consider not paying him the money he will end up with in his bank account when the time comes. This is an ENTERTAINMENT business first, and a SPORT second. Letting Russell end up on any other team in this league would literally probably start a REGION WIDE riot. No offense OP, but this entire premise is just damn stupid.

I fail to be entertained with the idea of no chance at SB's..
Lucky to make playoffs to be one and done..
If that's how it's going to be because of cap induced
holes,what is the point?
It's not my fault GM's got stupid in overpaying QB's
and others inflated other spots to create the
"Black hole" shall we call it?I mean how does a team
counter these problems besides making moves
that go against popular thinking?You either make
the high paying QB obsolete or you don't pay for
a Defense and hope for the best.
That isn't football ..That is pathetic.

The issue is the odds of even making the playoffs without a top QB is slim. Now if that top QB is also making little great, but that will change then what? So in your premise we should not pay that great QB and hope we find another cheap and keep playing that game, knowing that means a gap of 5+ years of doing nothing, as opposed to keeping that great QB and knowing every year you have a chance and will probably make the playoffs most years. Also, that Great QB lets you go cheap in other places allowing you to use that money on other things. So again we can gamble and hope we get a QB who can do what is needed, knowing there may be gaps of nothing. Or we can keep that Elite QB we got and know we have a chance every year. Let me remind you 2005 we went to the SB then it was not again till 2012. Prior to 2005 we never got there and that is what you want to go back to until we find that QB again which for the 2005 season took 25+ years, and then another 7 forms 2005 to 2012. It's actually simple, you keep your QB, do a better job in FA, and in the draft and your good.

Prior to 2005 we were the most successful expansion team ever, we were trending up and were in the toughest division in football for many years the AFC west, we had won the division and been in the playoffs. Then we had the Behring years, much like the Redskins a medeling owner that was playing GM and had no clue about the game and what it took to operate and manage a NFL team. 1988 till 1996 were years of degradation from what was a playoff contender with Knox as Coach to a laughing stock as every year we made worse decisions with personal and coaches.


1996 Paul saved us, but that began a era of rebuilding the whole organazation and team and took a while then 1999 we got Holmgren and things went up steadliy from there, until Ruskell who messed up the chemistry, a year of Mora and then Pete, we have been trending up and in the so called upper echelon of the league ever since.


We have not been in a division as soft as the Patriots year after year, trying to compare to them ever until the rest of that division gets smart is really impossible. In fact the records they acheive are and should be labeled with a asterisk saying played in worst division in football.

 

[Jerhawk]

Yes, pay Wilson whatever he's asking for.

 

[John63]

Great posts @Scorpion! You really do "get it".
And I applaud your tenacity in explaining the nuts & bolts of your perspective on this largely ridiculous 'question'.
The FACT remains that, outside of the few here who simply don't like RW3, (and i have 1 or 2 theories as to WHY) there's absolutely NO REASON for the Seahawks organization to even consider not paying him the money he will end up with in his bank account when the time comes. This is an ENTERTAINMENT business first, and a SPORT second. Letting Russell end up on any other team in this league would literally probably start a REGION WIDE riot. No offense OP, but this entire premise is just damn stupid.

I fail to be entertained with the idea of no chance at SB's..
Lucky to make playoffs to be one and done..
If that's how it's going to be because of cap induced
holes,what is the point?
It's not my fault GM's got stupid in overpaying QB's
and others inflated other spots to create the
"Black hole" shall we call it?I mean how does a team
counter these problems besides making moves
that go against popular thinking?You either make
the high paying QB obsolete or you don't pay for
a Defense and hope for the best.
That isn't football ..That is pathetic.

The issue is the odds of even making the playoffs without a top QB is slim. Now if that top QB is also making little great, but that will change then what? So in your premise we should not pay that great QB and hope we find another cheap and keep playing that game, knowing that means a gap of 5+ years of doing nothing, as opposed to keeping that great QB and knowing every year you have a chance and will probably make the playoffs most years. Also, that Great QB lets you go cheap in other places allowing you to use that money on other things. So again we can gamble and hope we get a QB who can do what is needed, knowing there may be gaps of nothing. Or we can keep that Elite QB we got and know we have a chance every year. Let me remind you 2005 we went to the SB then it was not again till 2012. Prior to 2005 we never got there and that is what you want to go back to until we find that QB again which for the 2005 season took 25+ years, and then another 7 forms 2005 to 2012. It's actually simple, you keep your QB, do a better job in FA, and in the draft and your good.

Prior to 2005 we were the most successful expansion team ever, we were trending up and were in the toughest division in football for many years the AFC west, we had won the division and been in the playoffs. Then we had the Behring years, much like the Redskins a medeling owner that was playing GM and had no clue about the game and what it took to operate and manage a NFL team. 1988 till 1996 were years of degradation from what was a playoff contender with Knox as Coach to a laughing stock as every year we made worse decisions with personal and coaches.


1996 Paul saved us, but that began a era of rebuilding the whole organazation and team and took a while then 1999 we got Holmgren and things went up steadliy from there, until Ruskell who messed up the chemistry, a year of Mora and then Pete, we have been trending up and in the so called upper echelon of the league ever since.


We have not been in a division as soft as the Patriots year after year, trying to compare to them ever until the rest of that division gets smart is really impossible. In fact the records they acheive are and should be labeled with a asterisk saying played in worst division in football.

None of that changes the fact that with a Great/Elite Qb you are always in it without you are always hoping, and maybe getting lucky once or twice every other decade.

 

[chris98251]

I fail to be entertained with the idea of no chance at SB's..
Lucky to make playoffs to be one and done..
If that's how it's going to be because of cap induced
holes,what is the point?
It's not my fault GM's got stupid in overpaying QB's
and others inflated other spots to create the
"Black hole" shall we call it?I mean how does a team
counter these problems besides making moves
that go against popular thinking?You either make
the high paying QB obsolete or you don't pay for
a Defense and hope for the best.
That isn't football ..That is pathetic.

The issue is the odds of even making the playoffs without a top QB is slim. Now if that top QB is also making little great, but that will change then what? So in your premise we should not pay that great QB and hope we find another cheap and keep playing that game, knowing that means a gap of 5+ years of doing nothing, as opposed to keeping that great QB and knowing every year you have a chance and will probably make the playoffs most years. Also, that Great QB lets you go cheap in other places allowing you to use that money on other things. So again we can gamble and hope we get a QB who can do what is needed, knowing there may be gaps of nothing. Or we can keep that Elite QB we got and know we have a chance every year. Let me remind you 2005 we went to the SB then it was not again till 2012. Prior to 2005 we never got there and that is what you want to go back to until we find that QB again which for the 2005 season took 25+ years, and then another 7 forms 2005 to 2012. It's actually simple, you keep your QB, do a better job in FA, and in the draft and your good.

Prior to 2005 we were the most successful expansion team ever, we were trending up and were in the toughest division in football for many years the AFC west, we had won the division and been in the playoffs. Then we had the Behring years, much like the Redskins a medeling owner that was playing GM and had no clue about the game and what it took to operate and manage a NFL team. 1988 till 1996 were years of degradation from what was a playoff contender with Knox as Coach to a laughing stock as every year we made worse decisions with personal and coaches.


1996 Paul saved us, but that began a era of rebuilding the whole organazation and team and took a while then 1999 we got Holmgren and things went up steadliy from there, until Ruskell who messed up the chemistry, a year of Mora and then Pete, we have been trending up and in the so called upper echelon of the league ever since.


We have not been in a division as soft as the Patriots year after year, trying to compare to them ever until the rest of that division gets smart is really impossible. In fact the records they acheive are and should be labeled with a asterisk saying played in worst division in football.

None of that changes the fact that with a Great/Elite Qb you are always in it without you are always hoping, and maybe getting lucky once or twice every other decade.

Looks at the Lions, The Packers, The Colts, The Ravens, Flacco was given the title most don't think he earned it but they are in the conversation, The Giants, The Falcons, teams that have so called elite QB's that have had problems getting into the dance year in and year out that have so called Elite QB's. Not everyone would agree but based on what the Mediots think.


I think a great Coach and staff keeps you competeing year in and year out, even with a serviceable QB. We are too enamored with the star power of a QB these days and negate a lot of the other aspects of the game. A Elite QB sure makes it easier but we were in the Hunt year in and year out with Hass as a QB due to Holmgren, same thing with Kreig under Knox.


I say serviceable, not a guy that can't rise up to the level of the game, mentally guys lacking something can acheive great results, Alex Smith and Nick Foles being two of them presently.