Paying Wilson May Hurt Seahawks Super Bowl Chances-Nemhauser

[erik2690]

$30 million APY

You've cited this several times and I've only seen it in one article from a guy that wasn't really part of the negotiations or seemingly in the know. Every person I have some faith in on Hawks matters seems to believe the totals aren't far apart at all and that guarantees is the main block. But even disregarding that this 30 apy you cite seems fairly flimsy.

(i.e. his agent quibbling with traditional new money distinctions)

This is another pretty flimsy one at the moment, maybe it was true early, but Clayton has pretty directly said this is agreed on and others have implied that isn't the issue. Again anythings possible we don't know, but evidence seems to point one way based on guys fairly in touch.

 

[hawknation2015]

$30 million APY

You've cited this several times and I've only seen it in one article from a guy that wasn't really part of the negotiations or seemingly in the know. Every person I have some faith in on Hawks matters seems to believe the totals aren't far apart at all and that guarantees is the main block. But even disregarding that this 30 apy you cite seems fairly flimsy.

(i.e. his agent quibbling with traditional new money distinctions)

This is another pretty flimsy one at the moment, maybe it was true early, but Clayton has pretty directly said this is agreed on and others have implied that isn't the issue. Again anythings possible we don't know, but evidence seems to point one way based on guys fairly in touch.

Link?

 

[erik2690]

Link?

Unfortunately not the specific link. It was late last week on 710 on I believe Danny Dave Moore, one of the hosts asked about them being stuck on the 4th year and he dismissed that idea and said something to the affect of 'that's settled' as in not a debate. It was very brief, but that along with guys like Hsu saying he's hearing guarantees are the main issue have made me think it isn't the stumbling block. I feel like it was talked about much more early on.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I think paying any player 25+ million dollars severely hamstrings your chances of winning Super Bowls. The numbers, although the sample set only goes back 15 years or so, certainly back this. Nobody pays their QB top-dollar and wins Super Bowls. It just doesn't happen. Could we buck the odds? Sure. Why not? We have been doing just that for the last couple of seasons.

I would contend that the historical trends aren't applicable today due to the new CBA.

Ultimately, the implementation of the rookie cap has had a pretty radical effect on the distribution of salaries in the NFL. It was presumed, that by reducing rookie contracts, it would reallocate cap dollars to veterans. Which it did. But it also had the effect of truncating veteran careers for journeyman talents by allowing teams to get by with incredibly cheap rookie talents that wasn't all that far behind.

The reallocation of salary from top rookies and now journeyman veteran contracts have funnelled to the Alpha contracts (top talents and QBs). This distribution model has only been in place for 4 years. And it's steepening.

QBs simply couldn't take that big of a bite of the cap under the old system, because every year teams had to brace themselves for a huge allocation for draft picks. And the relative costs were so close between rookies and vets, that it made sense from a cap and skill perspective to opt for veteran talent. Now entire draft classes can be signed for what a first rounder and maybe one other draftee would command under the old system. Teams are saving tens of millions every year by not paying their draftees, and also not signing mediocre veterans who are legitimately better than the rookies replacing them but not by a wide enough margin.

Ultimately, the premise of the piece is kind of silly. We've known for a long time that Seattle has benefitted from not having to pay their QB. Everyone familiar with the NFL has understood that. But paying Wilson doesn't hurt our competitive chances anywhere near the alternative which is not to pay him, and have to try to rebuild another franchise QB.

It's penny wise and pound foolish. How many teams are loaded with expensive, talented players but don't have a franchise QB to complete them? Is that smart spending? The windows of opportunity for those teams is just being wasted.

We are a fan base that should just be smarter than this. How many long seasons have we spent pining for a franchise QB. We've been in QB Purgatory for decades at a time. Wasted the HOF careers of many fan favorites. And we're saying 5 million a year isn't worth avoiding another 10 year hiatus from postseason play? We should know better because we've endured the alternative. It's ugly. Look at the teams that are perennially selecting in the top 10 every year. They are mired in QB Purgatory. Why on earth would we WANT to go back there?

 

[Tical21]

I think paying any player 25+ million dollars severely hamstrings your chances of winning Super Bowls. The numbers, although the sample set only goes back 15 years or so, certainly back this. Nobody pays their QB top-dollar and wins Super Bowls. It just doesn't happen. Could we buck the odds? Sure. Why not? We have been doing just that for the last couple of seasons.

I would contend that the historical trends aren't applicable today due to the new CBA.

Ultimately, the implementation of the rookie cap has had a pretty radical effect on the distribution of salaries in the NFL. It was presumed, that by reducing rookie contracts, it would reallocate cap dollars to veterans. Which it did. But it also had the effect of truncating veteran careers for journeyman talents by allowing teams to get by with incredibly cheap rookie talents that wasn't all that far behind.

The reallocation of salary from top rookies and now journeyman veteran contracts have funnelled to the Alpha contracts (top talents and QBs). This distribution model has only been in place for 4 years. And it's steepening.

QBs simply couldn't take that big of a bite of the cap under the old system, because every year teams had to brace themselves for a huge allocation for draft picks. And the relative costs were so close between rookies and vets, that it made sense from a cap and skill perspective to opt for veteran talent. Now entire draft classes can be signed for what a first rounder and maybe one other draftee would command under the old system. Teams are saving tens of millions every year by not paying their draftees, and also not signing mediocre veterans who are legitimately better than the rookies replacing them but not by a wide enough margin.

Ultimately, the premise of the piece is kind of silly. We've known for a long time that Seattle has benefitted from not having to pay their QB. Everyone familiar with the NFL has understood that. But paying Wilson doesn't hurt our competitive chances anywhere near the alternative which is not to pay him, and have to try to rebuild another franchise QB.

It's penny wise and pound foolish. How many teams are loaded with expensive, talented players but don't have a franchise QB to complete them? Is that smart spending? The windows of opportunity for those teams is just being wasted.

We are a fan base that should just be smarter than this. How many long seasons have we spent pining for a franchise QB. We've been in QB Purgatory for decades at a time. Wasted the HOF careers of many fan favorites. And we're saying 5 million a year isn't worth avoiding another 10 year hiatus from postseason play? We should know better because we've endured the alternative. It's ugly. Look at the teams that are perennially selecting in the top 10 every year. They are mired in QB Purgatory. Why on earth would we WANT to go back there?

Only one team since 1999 has won a Super Bowl with a QB ranked within the top-5 QB salaries. Those teams in QB purgatory essentially have a better shot of winning a Super Bowl than a team that makes their QB one of the highest paid QB's in the league. Why would you want to put the gun in your own mouth? I know it is against everything we've been taught for decades, but facts are facts. You're better off gambling in QB purgatory than paying your QB a huge sum, IF your ultimate goal is to win Super Bowls. If you argue that the ultimate goal is to be relevant and make the playoffs often for a decade, to ultimately lose to a team with a less expensive QB, you pay the QB and sacrifice 3-4 other positions.

 

[Tical21]

It also might be a fun exercise to look at the teams that have made the playoffs for the last several years and do a study on QB salaries. Just looking at Super Bowl results, it does look like the team with the less expensive QB typically wins, but that one game is an incredibly limited study.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

but facts are facts. You're better off gambling in QB purgatory than paying your QB a huge sum, IF your ultimate goal is to win Super Bowls.

Facts are facts, and statistics can be made to say anything.

In this case, I think there is plenty of context to understand why this is misleading. While I've had difficulty compiling top average salaries of QBs over that time -- I did find the average salaries of the very first new CBA year.

1. Peyton Manning 17m
2. Tom Brady 15m
3. Eli Manning 15m
4. Matthew Stafford 14.5m
5. Mark Sanchez 14.2m

It highlights pretty well the reality that under the old CBA, where player salaries were driven upwards by the newest rookies -- trying to associate playoff success to QB salaries is a flawed, embellished exercise. The reality is there was NEVER any correlation between the two, because QB salaries weren't predicated on playoff success. Hell, not even on NFL success.

I'd be willing to bet that at least 2 of the five top salaries amongst QBs at any time in this period were bestowed on first or second year draftees. The sample size is just far too small. And the relationship between QB salaries before the current CBA and NFL pedigree largely didn't exist. QB salaries were driven by draft position and often in particular by whomever was in the latter stages of their top 10 draft pick contract where base + bonus monies ballooned.

I get what they're trying to get at. But this sample size is stupidly small. It makes false assumptions about QB salaries based on today's contract model and tries to apply it broadly over more than a decade where salaries were driven by college success and bloated rookie contracts. If you were a top 5 overall pick in any draft in the 1999-2011 range, you were almost guaranteed to be in the top 5 QB salaries within a year.

It also makes the assumption that those that paid QBs had a worse ability to win championships. A more accurate metric would be how the division winners in each conference were represented QB salary wise. Because you'll never convince me that the reason Chris Matthews recovers a misplay on an onside kick in the NFCCG was the result of Rogers being the top paid QB for 2014. Or that David Tyree's helmet catch was the divine result of Brady being paid too handsomely. Winning titles is far too mercurial of an accomplishment to bluntly make that sloppy correlation. Putting yourself in a position to legitimately compete for one is far more likely to produce meaningful insight.

 

[Hawkstorian]

People seem to be worried that one of two things might happen.

1 -- RW signs a huge contract which limits the types of other players the Seahawks can attract and/or retain.
2 -- RW leaves.

What's funny is, one of those two things is going to happen, so why worry at all?

 

[Palmegranite]

People seem to be worried that one of two things might happen.

1 -- RW signs a huge contract which limits the types of other players the Seahawks can attract and/or retain.
2 -- RW leaves.

What's funny is, one of those two things is going to happen, so why worry at all?

Two very different scenarios above, but here's my take on them for what it's worth:
1. RW signs huge contract and continues to win games and get Seahawks into Superbowls for many years, along with a cast of players playing above their abilities, in no small part because of RW and Pete Carroll's presence on the team. Fans (mostly) ecstatic.
2. RW leaves, many years of losing football from Seahawks in spite of "awesome' defence. Fans depressed with years of retread QBs putting up underwhelming results. Team fires coach.

 

[Hawkstorian]

I'll leave the ramifications of either result to you. I don't predict the future -- I just know one of those 2 things is going to happen.

 

[Tical21]

but facts are facts. You're better off gambling in QB purgatory than paying your QB a huge sum, IF your ultimate goal is to win Super Bowls.

Facts are facts, and statistics can be made to say anything.

In this case, I think there is plenty of context to understand why this is misleading. While I've had difficulty compiling top average salaries of QBs over that time -- I did find the average salaries of the very first new CBA year.

1. Peyton Manning 17m
2. Tom Brady 15m
3. Eli Manning 15m
4. Matthew Stafford 14.5m
5. Mark Sanchez 14.2m

It highlights pretty well the reality that under the old CBA, where player salaries were driven upwards by the newest rookies -- trying to associate playoff success to QB salaries is a flawed, embellished exercise. The reality is there was NEVER any correlation between the two, because QB salaries weren't predicated on playoff success. Hell, not even on NFL success.

I'd be willing to bet that at least 2 of the five top salaries amongst QBs at any time in this period were bestowed on first or second year draftees. The sample size is just far too small. And the relationship between QB salaries before the current CBA and NFL pedigree largely didn't exist. QB salaries were driven by draft position and often in particular by whomever was in the latter stages of their top 10 draft pick contract where base + bonus monies ballooned.

I get what they're trying to get at. But this sample size is stupidly small. It makes false assumptions about QB salaries based on today's contract model and tries to apply it broadly over more than a decade where salaries were driven by college success and bloated rookie contracts. If you were a top 5 overall pick in any draft in the 1999-2011 range, you were almost guaranteed to be in the top 5 QB salaries within a year.

It also makes the assumption that those that paid QBs had a worse ability to win championships. A more accurate metric would be how the division winners in each conference were represented QB salary wise. Because you'll never convince me that the reason Chris Matthews recovers a misplay on an onside kick in the NFCCG was the result of Rogers being the top paid QB for 2014. Or that David Tyree's helmet catch was the divine result of Brady being paid too handsomely. Winning titles is far too mercurial of an accomplishment to bluntly make that sloppy correlation. Putting yourself in a position to legitimately compete for one is far more likely to produce meaningful insight.

It turns out there are some, but not nearly as many as you might think. I could only find numbers back to 2000. Since that time, the following QB's were on their rookie contract and within the top-5 QB salaries.
2000-n/a
2001-Couch
2002-Carr, Vick
2003-Palmer
2004-n/a
2005-Roethlisberger
2006-n/a
2007-Leinart, Young
2008-Russell, Smith
2009-n/a
2010-n/a
2011-Bradford, Newton
2012-Luck, RGIII

That's it. 13 guys in 14 years. The other 57 out of 70 were all on their second contracts or later, mostly based on playoff and NFL success. That's a decent sample size. 15 years in the NFL is an era. One of the 5 highest paid QB's per year in the entire era won a Super Bowl. The sample size may be a little small, but stupidly so?

I don't understand how finding division winners would be a more fitting exercise. I'm not worried about division winners. I will fully concede that the Seahawks will have a really good chance of winning their division a lot of times if Russell Wilson is here for the next ten years. However, just as almost all the other high-paid quarterbacks have, we will ultimately lose to a more complete team with a cheaper quarterback. Go back and look. It has happened time after time after time.

Tom Brady is taking less to field a Super Bowl team. Peyton is doing the same thing this year. So did Elway. So did Montana. We all know that the best quarterbacks make the playoffs more often than not. However, most of them also command ridiculous money and therefore end up losing to teams with cheaper, good quarterbacks. You want to compete every year and root for Russell Wilson, fine. I have very little problem cheering for that. But if you want to win Super Bowls, I think you need to take a bigger risk than that.

 

[DavidSeven]

$21.9M APY. Guarantee half the total deal. No gimmicky structure.

Wilson will be a close second behind Rodgers, ahead of Roethlisberger and Newton. Luck will surpass him next year, but no other QB is due for a payday over the next three years. #3 is all but assured Top 3 money for 3-4 years.

As of now, that would be my last offer if I were them.

 

[Tical21]

$21.9M APY. Guarantee half the total deal. No gimmicky structure.

Wilson will be a close second behind Rodgers, ahead of Roethlisberger and Newton. Luck will surpass him next year, but no other QB is due for a payday over the next three years. #3 is all but assured Top 3 money for 3-4 years.

As of now, that would be my last offer if I were them.

You've got to think that they've already offered him that, don't you? I guess the sounds of it is that the "way" that it is guaranteed is the sticking point. Since it seems most GM's have kind of colluded to keep this structure, it may be a bit tougher for Schneider to agree to.

 

[Popeyejones]

As for the example you are looking for, how about the Packers? They won a Super Bowl two years after trading Favre. The Rams traded Trent Green for a First Round pick, making undrafted Kurt Warner their starting QB; they won a Super Bowl that same year. Maybe there is a better example, but it is rare because usually both the franchise QB and the team have a mutual interest in paying the QB a fair market deal that also allows for cap flexibility.

Favre and Wilson aren't the most comparable players, since Favre was almost 40 when he got traded.

Trent Green's trade didn't make Warner the starter. Green's season-ending injury in preseason did, and Warner was magic. Green was traded after the following season after he managed to get some playing time with Warner out.

Exactly. On top of your two points, unless HN believes that Tavaris Jackson is a superior player to Wilson, I don't think either of these comparisons really work.

 

[hawknation2015]

As for the example you are looking for, how about the Packers? They won a Super Bowl two years after trading Favre. The Rams traded Trent Green for a First Round pick, making undrafted Kurt Warner their starting QB; they won a Super Bowl that same year. Maybe there is a better example, but it is rare because usually both the franchise QB and the team have a mutual interest in paying the QB a fair market deal that also allows for cap flexibility.

Favre and Wilson aren't the most comparable players, since Favre was almost 40 when he got traded.

Trent Green's trade didn't make Warner the starter. Green's season-ending injury in preseason did, and Warner was magic. Green was traded after the following season after he managed to get some playing time with Warner out.

Exactly. On top of your two points, unless HN believes that Tavaris Jackson is a superior player to Wilson, I don't think either of these comparisons really work.

No, I don't. I was speaking more generally to your question about teams who have moved on from franchise QBs and gone on to win a Super Bowl. Of course, I hope Wilson agrees to a reasonable extension that allows us to remain a perennial Super Bowl contender with him at the helm.

 

[Palmegranite]

You want to compete every year and root for Russell Wilson, fine. I have very little problem cheering for that. But if you want to win Super Bowls, I think you need to take a bigger risk than that.

......says the guy about the QB that recently helmed his team to back-to-back Superbowls, winning one of them. I think saner heads will prevail in the front office, because they realise that Russell Wilson is an exceptional QB that is really unequalled in this football era.

 

[ptisme]

Nobody said go offer him 27 million per year right?

Bottom line was Wilson's camp wanted 2015 on the table for who knows maybe a $10 million raise? You'd think they might be realistic about a 20 million per year contract extension after that. We definitely could afford that type of money but sadly it seems both sides elected to play hardball now.

First of all, we don't have $10 million in cap space this season just lying around, so that won't work. The rumor now is that Wilson wants around $30 million per year in new money. In your hypothetical: $10 million more this year, in addition to $22 million over the next four years, would be the equivalent of $24.5 million APY in new money. I think that would still be excessively high and a real detriment to our ability to win Super Bowls.

The whole idea of breaking from the accepted norm in the NFL and compensating Wilson for being a 3rd Round pick is a nonstarter. Ultimately, it's simply a tactic to artificially inflate his demands beyond the point that is acceptable.

Won't be long and you will have the highest paid quarterback in the league and you start losing tough defensive players. Won't be long and some snot nosed up and coming team will tell you how soft you are compared to them

 

[Tical21]

You want to compete every year and root for Russell Wilson, fine. I have very little problem cheering for that. But if you want to win Super Bowls, I think you need to take a bigger risk than that.

......says the guy about the QB that recently helmed his team to back-to-back Superbowls, winning one of them. I think saner heads will prevail in the front office, because they realise that Russell Wilson is an exceptional QB that is really unequalled in this football era.

Orrrrr we just went to two Super Bowls with the best roster in the league which was only possible because of our cheap QB.

 

[ptisme]

What the heck? Just honor your damn contract already....
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/repo ... act-063015

 

[erik2690]

What the heck? Just honor your damn contract already....
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/repo ... act-063015

Wait who are you talking about? RW has a contract as of now and he has honored it.