Another wrinkle from PFT. I wonder why Paul Allen would balk at guaranteed $$$? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... son-talks/. Or maybe as said above don't believe anything?
Poll - Pay Russell #1 QB Money, or Nah?
- Thread starter RockHawk
- Start date
hawknation2015
New member
The concern is not whether Paul Allen can afford to put the guaranteed amount in escrow, rather the concern is the same for every team that is broached with the idea of guaranteeing more money than any player has ever received: that is, the very real potential for devastating injury.
Football is a violent sport, and injuries are part of the game. Wilson does his best to protect himself, but he still opens himself up to taking more violent hits than just about any other QB, because of his running ability and tendency to hold the ball longer than anyone else. Even with a full-proof offensive line, he would still be subjecting himself to significant risk of concussions or other career-imperiling injury, i.e. neck, spine, etc. If this were to happen, and the team was forced to lose $70+ million in dead money over two seasons, our roster would be near decimated.
This is further evidence, in addition to Wilson's agent's own statements, that he is seeking a "non-traditional" contract that not only demands an unsustainable amount of total money (perhaps in the ballpark of $27-30 million per year) by discarding with traditional considerations of new money, but also seeks to saddle the team with an inordinate amount of risk with perhaps more than 70% of the contract guaranteed.
SnoCoHawk
New member
If he's demanding high $20's per year and wants it mostly guaranteed, I hope they let him play out his rookie contract this year and seriously consider letting him walk next year. That's just greedy and selfish, and frankly he's not a good enough quarterback to go to cap hell for. It's a team sport.
Russ Willstrong
New member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 0
If true than this supports Wilson/Rodger's MO which is to play out his contract and force JS to decide which franchise tag he'll use. Mark Rodgers knows Seahawks can't afford 6 yr deal in that amount so why ask for it? Is it that Wilson doesn't want a deal now?ctrcat":1pglb2lc said:
hawk45
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 10,009
- Reaction score
- 16
I think to avoid widespread contract dissatisfaction by legit number ones like Earl, Sherman, and Lynch we are constrained to offering Russ 22 now, letting him play at 1.5 if he declines, and using one of the tags. As much as it might turn out to be cheaper I don't think they can offer him 23 or 24 without more of a fight. They can pay their non number one QB number one money and more, but they have to be perceived as having done all they could to avoid it. Up to this point our superstars haven't squeezed because they are team players. They will be unable to convince themselves to continue that if the FO doesn't make a huge attempt to force Russ to do the same and "settle" for mere number one money instead of number one money plus a significant amount.
Standard caveat that this assumes some part of
what has been reported about Russell's demands is true.
Standard caveat that this assumes some part of
what has been reported about Russell's demands is true.
hawknation2015
New member
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Mark Rodgers is the one people should be mad at in all this. He's acting like a 3 year old. Keep that crap private.
TheRealDTM
New member
It's speculation obviously but if RW thinks the hawks should be greatful to him for the 1 superbowl win and not the other way around he's next level bonkers.
Sac
Active member
Russell Wilson is already the best quarterback this franchise has ever had.TheRealDTM":1zy2lne4 said:
He plays against better, more complex defenses than Krieg, Zorn or Hass ever did, has a higher career passer rating behind a horrible pass blocking line and with mediocre receivers.
And he can run.
We're all lucky he's our QB.
Palmegranite
Well-known member
4-12 and wallowing at the bottom. Without Wilson, more of the same for many, many years to come.Popeyejones":ptu9f4te said:
Sac
Active member
7-9Palmegranite":1h8djhu7 said:
Without RW, we're the Buffalo Bills.
chris98251
Well-known member
If you start making contracts like his agent wants it will snowball into every player wanting a large portion of money guaranteed in escrow saddling teams with less fortunate owners, then league balance becomes an issue and players that don't stay healthy, get into trouble etc want to cash out and the team is left with not only a player void but a cash void.
Look at Baseball.................... We may have a chance to be the Yankees of the NFL, but nothing lasts forever and then what.
Look at Baseball.................... We may have a chance to be the Yankees of the NFL, but nothing lasts forever and then what.
Spin Doctor
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,255
- Reaction score
- 2,226
This is a disingenuous statement. 2011 was the first year starting for Richard Sherman, Brandon Browner and Kam Chancellor. All three of these players were at the genesis of their development. Sherman was a good corner, but not the elite DB he is today, and Chancellor was inconsistent. In 2012 Sherman, Chancellor, and Browner had one year to develop, and learn each others tendencies. Sherman also did not even start a full season in 2011. We also added one of the better MLBs in the game in Bobby Wagner, and Bruce Irvin was also an upgrade over the old Raheem Brock.SacHawk2.0":3f603wfj said:
the NFL is fluid, teams change each year. The Seahawks in 2012 were a different team than they were in 2011. Did Wilson add some wins? Absolutely, was he the only reason why the Seahawks improved from 7-9? No.
HAWKAMANIA
New member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
SacHawk2.0":26czfg4p said:
DavidSeven
New member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2013
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
How his teammates view the deal is a big aspect of this and why I'm a little disappointed that he's (apparently) trying to squeeze every penny out of the F.O. I've always advocated for Russell to get a big deal, but this is turning into something different (based on the length of this negotiation). Earl did his deal early. Sherm did his deal early. Bennett did his deal early. Hell, Doug Baldwin was already extended by this point last year and he was fourth in line. At this point, Seattle's best offer is on the table, and Russell's teammates are going to be none-too-pleased if the team caves and gives him an outlandish contract that compromises the "team" concept they were sold on last year.
If he wants $21-22M, I say fine. Seattle would be foolish to drag it out much longer if that's the number, and the union will be pleased. If he wants substantially more than that, then that's where I have a problem. Now you're digging into the team without influence from the players' union or your own standing among the elite. As Tical alluded to, it also forsakes everything that PC/JS did to help him become an elite talent. Some guys walk into this league as fully formed athletic freaks and would be successful on any roster. That wasn't Russell. He struggled on drop-back/play-action early in his career and only took off when Seattle started carefully tailoring its offense to his skill set.
It is funny that Sherman has this brash and self-involved public image, yet when it came down to doing his deal, he negotiated a deal that was appropriate for the market and worth even less on an APY basis than Revis had signed the year earlier. He got #1 money (deserved) but didn't hamstring the team or hold them hostage. Russell has a much more "charitable" public image, but has been far more cutthroat in the process of negotiation (and that starts with firing his football agent and hiring a baseball agent known for contentious negotiations). Don't blame the agent -- Russell hired him knowing exactly how he would approach this.
If he wants $21-22M, I say fine. Seattle would be foolish to drag it out much longer if that's the number, and the union will be pleased. If he wants substantially more than that, then that's where I have a problem. Now you're digging into the team without influence from the players' union or your own standing among the elite. As Tical alluded to, it also forsakes everything that PC/JS did to help him become an elite talent. Some guys walk into this league as fully formed athletic freaks and would be successful on any roster. That wasn't Russell. He struggled on drop-back/play-action early in his career and only took off when Seattle started carefully tailoring its offense to his skill set.
It is funny that Sherman has this brash and self-involved public image, yet when it came down to doing his deal, he negotiated a deal that was appropriate for the market and worth even less on an APY basis than Revis had signed the year earlier. He got #1 money (deserved) but didn't hamstring the team or hold them hostage. Russell has a much more "charitable" public image, but has been far more cutthroat in the process of negotiation (and that starts with firing his football agent and hiring a baseball agent known for contentious negotiations). Don't blame the agent -- Russell hired him knowing exactly how he would approach this.
scutterhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2010
- Messages
- 9,826
- Reaction score
- 1,797
Spin Doctor":v57wkxvg said:
To the question about whether Wilson added some wins, I agree that the answer is yes, AND in fact, I believe that it's Wilson's near 900 Yards that has put the Marshawn's "Run First Offense" to the top of the heap, and got us into the Playoffs.
There are too many wishy-washy, fickle, and ungrateful fans around here that are trying to downgrade what Wilson has added to the success of the Seahawks, because he wants to get paid.
This old crap about "The Seahawks Made Russell Wilson A Success", is a damned joke.
The Seahawks NEEDED a Quarterback that could HELP Cable's running game and to become one of the best ever, and he did exactly what they needed him to do, NOT the other way around.
Is he asking for way more than he should?, he very well could be, but trying to strip him of his contributions to the success of the team, is crap.
LymonHawk
Well-known member
scutterhawk":5npj3h51 said:
So if I disagree with you I become a "...wishy-washy, fickle, and ungrateful fan..."? LOL!
I'm ungrateful because I don't want to have RW's love child? What can I tell ya.... :roll:
theincrediblesok
New member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,550
- Reaction score
- 0
Without Russell this team can go 9-7 with a competent QB but won't sniff the playoffs just like the Buffalo Bills last year. The Buffalo Bills were the #2 defense DVOA and were close to being number #1 by a few points. You need a good Franchise QB to get to the playoffs.
Ok contract issue aside, don't act like Tom Brady, Big Ben, and Aaron Rodgers never benefited from a top defense to win them a Superbowl. Aaron Rodgers won his Superbowl with a #2 Defense in 2010, he also had the #2 defense in 2009 and lost to the Cardinals in the NFC Championship game, but what all those guys shown is that they started with really good defense and then when their defense plummets they still had a QB that could contend for the Superbowl year after year.
I'm ok with whatever the FO decides because in the end it doesn't affect my life.
Ok contract issue aside, don't act like Tom Brady, Big Ben, and Aaron Rodgers never benefited from a top defense to win them a Superbowl. Aaron Rodgers won his Superbowl with a #2 Defense in 2010, he also had the #2 defense in 2009 and lost to the Cardinals in the NFC Championship game, but what all those guys shown is that they started with really good defense and then when their defense plummets they still had a QB that could contend for the Superbowl year after year.
I'm ok with whatever the FO decides because in the end it doesn't affect my life.
