Russell Wilson to Giants? - NBC Sports comentary

[mrt144]

Also to flesh out success a bit more, we all want to see the Hawks enjoy success (unless we have some ulterior desire that requires failure to facilitate deferred success). But I am reminded of how god awful the actual guts of games were in 2017. So absent ultimate success, absent incremental improvement, the baseline is provide an entertaining experience win or lose. We all define that entertaining experience differently so it might not be worth it to explore that line but according to this framework, signing RW would at least satisfy that base criteria even if it isn't easy with incremental success and might undermine that ultimate success.

 

[DomeHawk]

They interviewed the originator of this story on KJR today. He didn't have any sources for the story, was merely speculating that Russ and Ciara are a power couple and it seems inevitable in the future, not now. He seems to think that it would make sense for RW to play out his contract, one year franchised and then go.

But, like I said, pure speculation but it wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[getnasty]

It's 25 for me and I don't even like that..
I stated a long while back that it's time to cap all the positions
especially the QB one,it's beyond stupid how it's going.

Owners and GM's don't have to pay 35M, they are in total control of how they spend their salary cap.

Belichick trades his stars away before they get expensive, and he probably would have traded Brady away a long time ago if he demanded to be the highest paid QB at any one of his prior extension contracts.

Same with Gruden, he just traded away most of his stars because he think paying a pass rusher 23M a year is insane.

The market is going to be what the market's going to be, because the salary cap keeps going up 10-12M per year. IMO the focus shouldn't be on capping positions, it should be on doing a better job of scheme and player acquisition.

Why haven't John and Pete drafted another QB that could step in and play the position well in the past SEVEN drafts? Or traded for one to develop?

If we're being angry about Russell's situation, then lets be mad about that.........and not being mad at Russell wanting as much money as he can get.

I agree with most of your post and I'm not mad at RW..
It is the owners and GM's who cannot get out of their own way
when it comes to paying average to mediocre players what they
are really worth.
They overpay and keep overpaying good/bad players a cycle that
never ends.
Instead the answer is (raise the cap) so we can pay the next player
more than the one before at the position.
The reason I came up with capped positions is that it will force
change to the status quo which is getting out of hand.
Why should the fans watch players bitch like Earl or see holes
all over because that is what happens whe you get 2-3 stars
taking a huge chunk of the pie?
I want to enjoy the team with a chance at SB's not just focus
on a couple players and hope to get to the playoffs.
I am sure many fans feel the same .
I do want RW @ QB but I don't at the expense of not having
a shot at SB's.
The way it is ..Is just not working.

Okay so you would prefer not singing Wilson to 35 mil, take a few draft picks and HOPE they work out, get a few FA (not likely as not signing Wilson makes us a rebuilding team) and HOPE we get a good enough QB to win an SB.

Rather than signing Wilson, knowing we will always have a chance every year.

We really havent even been close since Russell got paid. For ever highly paid quarterback the gets to a Superbowl there's a Nick Foles, Jared Goff, Colin Kapernick and a game manging Russell Wilson. If not for the Patriots and Tom Brady i'm willing to bet the number of guys on rookie deals winning titles would be more then guys that get paid big money. Now way they trade Russ but it's not crazy to think about.

 

[DomeHawk]

Owners and GM's don't have to pay 35M, they are in total control of how they spend their salary cap.

Belichick trades his stars away before they get expensive, and he probably would have traded Brady away a long time ago if he demanded to be the highest paid QB at any one of his prior extension contracts.

Same with Gruden, he just traded away most of his stars because he think paying a pass rusher 23M a year is insane.

The market is going to be what the market's going to be, because the salary cap keeps going up 10-12M per year. IMO the focus shouldn't be on capping positions, it should be on doing a better job of scheme and player acquisition.

Why haven't John and Pete drafted another QB that could step in and play the position well in the past SEVEN drafts? Or traded for one to develop?

If we're being angry about Russell's situation, then lets be mad about that.........and not being mad at Russell wanting as much money as he can get.

I agree with most of your post and I'm not mad at RW..
It is the owners and GM's who cannot get out of their own way
when it comes to paying average to mediocre players what they
are really worth.
They overpay and keep overpaying good/bad players a cycle that
never ends.
Instead the answer is (raise the cap) so we can pay the next player
more than the one before at the position.
The reason I came up with capped positions is that it will force
change to the status quo which is getting out of hand.
Why should the fans watch players bitch like Earl or see holes
all over because that is what happens whe you get 2-3 stars
taking a huge chunk of the pie?
I want to enjoy the team with a chance at SB's not just focus
on a couple players and hope to get to the playoffs.
I am sure many fans feel the same .
I do want RW @ QB but I don't at the expense of not having
a shot at SB's.
The way it is ..Is just not working.

Okay so you would prefer not singing Wilson to 35 mil, take a few draft picks and HOPE they work out, get a few FA (not likely as not signing Wilson makes us a rebuilding team) and HOPE we get a good enough QB to win an SB.

Rather than signing Wilson, knowing we will always have a chance every year.

We really havent even been close since Russell got paid. For ever highly paid quarterback the gets to a Superbowl there's a Nick Foles, Jared Goff, Colin Kapernick and a game manging Russell Wilson. If not for the Patriots and Tom Brady i'm willing to bet the number of guys on rookie deals winning titles would be more then guys that get paid big money. Now way they trade Russ but it's not crazy to think about.

They also said on the radio today that the six highest paid QB's didn't make it to the playoffs this year.

Is that true? I didn't fact check it.

 

[Jville]

^^^
It does indeed hold up to a fact check for 2018.

Drew Brees owned the highest per year contract to make the 2018 playoffs at #7. His pay plan came in at 16.6% of cap at time of signing. By comparison, Russell Wilson's contract represented 15.3% of cap at time of his most recent signing. There seems to be a lot of popular speculation about if and where a percent of cap threshold might be for various positions.

 

[Scorpion05]

Owners and GM's don't have to pay 35M, they are in total control of how they spend their salary cap.

Belichick trades his stars away before they get expensive, and he probably would have traded Brady away a long time ago if he demanded to be the highest paid QB at any one of his prior extension contracts.

Same with Gruden, he just traded away most of his stars because he think paying a pass rusher 23M a year is insane.

The market is going to be what the market's going to be, because the salary cap keeps going up 10-12M per year. IMO the focus shouldn't be on capping positions, it should be on doing a better job of scheme and player acquisition.

Why haven't John and Pete drafted another QB that could step in and play the position well in the past SEVEN drafts? Or traded for one to develop?

If we're being angry about Russell's situation, then lets be mad about that.........and not being mad at Russell wanting as much money as he can get.

I agree with most of your post and I'm not mad at RW..
It is the owners and GM's who cannot get out of their own way
when it comes to paying average to mediocre players what they
are really worth.
They overpay and keep overpaying good/bad players a cycle that
never ends.
Instead the answer is (raise the cap) so we can pay the next player
more than the one before at the position.
The reason I came up with capped positions is that it will force
change to the status quo which is getting out of hand.
Why should the fans watch players bitch like Earl or see holes
all over because that is what happens whe you get 2-3 stars
taking a huge chunk of the pie?
I want to enjoy the team with a chance at SB's not just focus
on a couple players and hope to get to the playoffs.
I am sure many fans feel the same .
I do want RW @ QB but I don't at the expense of not having
a shot at SB's.
The way it is ..Is just not working.

Okay so you would prefer not singing Wilson to 35 mil, take a few draft picks and HOPE they work out, get a few FA (not likely as not signing Wilson makes us a rebuilding team) and HOPE we get a good enough QB to win an SB.

Rather than signing Wilson, knowing we will always have a chance every year.

We really havent even been close since Russell got paid. For ever highly paid quarterback the gets to a Superbowl there's a Nick Foles, Jared Goff, Colin Kapernick and a game manging Russell Wilson. If not for the Patriots and Tom Brady i'm willing to bet the number of guys on rookie deals winning titles would be more then guys that get paid big money. Now way they trade Russ but it's not crazy to think about.

To believe that you'd have to completely ignore context. You can make another argument, how many Super Bowls haven't included at least one elite QB?

Nick Foles was perfect for Doug Pederson. And he played like an elite QB. Jared Goff, Kaepernick doesn't give you that SB performance. "Game managing Russell Wilson" converted 3rd downs and had an efficient game, allowing the game to not get out of hand. Are you sure a Matt Ryan, Jared Goff, Matthew Stafford, Cam Newton, or Kaepernick doesn't throw an interception or make a mistake? You're attempting to guess something not rooted in fact. We haven't been close in recent years but you can't necessarily argue it was due to lack of cap space. Poor draft picks, poor trades(Jimmy Graham), injuries. THAT is why we didn't make it. In the grand scheme of things the Patriots are an anomaly. What other team has had consistent SB and playoff success?

 

[IndyHawk]

It's 25 for me and I don't even like that..
I stated a long while back that it's time to cap all the positions
especially the QB one,it's beyond stupid how it's going.

Owners and GM's don't have to pay 35M, they are in total control of how they spend their salary cap.

Belichick trades his stars away before they get expensive, and he probably would have traded Brady away a long time ago if he demanded to be the highest paid QB at any one of his prior extension contracts.

Same with Gruden, he just traded away most of his stars because he think paying a pass rusher 23M a year is insane.

The market is going to be what the market's going to be, because the salary cap keeps going up 10-12M per year. IMO the focus shouldn't be on capping positions, it should be on doing a better job of scheme and player acquisition.

Why haven't John and Pete drafted another QB that could step in and play the position well in the past SEVEN drafts? Or traded for one to develop?

If we're being angry about Russell's situation, then lets be mad about that.........and not being mad at Russell wanting as much money as he can get.

I agree with most of your post and I'm not mad at RW..
It is the owners and GM's who cannot get out of their own way
when it comes to paying average to mediocre players what they
are really worth.
They overpay and keep overpaying good/bad players a cycle that
never ends.
Instead the answer is (raise the cap) so we can pay the next player
more than the one before at the position.
The reason I came up with capped positions is that it will force
change to the status quo which is getting out of hand.
Why should the fans watch players bitch like Earl or see holes
all over because that is what happens whe you get 2-3 stars
taking a huge chunk of the pie?
I want to enjoy the team with a chance at SB's not just focus
on a couple players and hope to get to the playoffs.
I am sure many fans feel the same .
I do want RW @ QB but I don't at the expense of not having
a shot at SB's.
The way it is ..Is just not working.

Okay so you would prefer not singing Wilson to 35 mil, take a few draft picks and HOPE they work out, get a few FA (not likely as not signing Wilson makes us a rebuilding team) and HOPE we get a good enough QB to win an SB.

Rather than signing Wilson, knowing we will always have a chance every year.

@$35 million...No I don't and I'm sorry people don't want to hear that
but we haven't been close to anything since he signed for big money.
I'm not blaming him but it makes everything harder to do than easier.
The game on offense has never been easier so with us being a run
heavy team anyway,I cannot see why not take the picks and 2-3 good
FA's to fill key holes and go with that..

 

[Sgt. Largent]

@$35 million...No I don't and I'm sorry people don't want to hear that
but we haven't been close to anything since he signed for big money.
I'm not blaming him but it makes everything harder to do than easier.
The game on offense has never been easier so with us being a run
heavy team anyway,I cannot see why not take the picks and 2-3 good
FA's to fill key holes and go with that..

Don't you think it's extremely unrealistic to think we can go to SB's every year if we didn't have to pay Russell, and more importantly DON'T HAVE RUSSELL AT ALL because you decided he was too expensive?

Sorry man, but Russell Wilson's don't just fall off of trees. If you don't believe me just look at our own history of revolving door of stiffs we trotted out at QB for the better part of 40 years..............and look at the rest of the league that's desperately overpaying right and left for mediocre QB's (Smith, Cousins, Garappolo, Stafford, Carr, Flacco).

So sure, don't pay Russell and use that money elsewhere and hope whatever less than Russell QB you decide to sign or worse play a rookie QB that's more than likely going to be a MUCH lesser version of Russell's experience, accuracy and playmaking ability.

And you think THAT'S the formula for going back to SB's?

Sorry, if you want me and most of the fanbase to buy into your "Russell's too expensive to win again" theory, then you better already have his replacement on the roster and ready to roll, like Lamar Jackson or Mahomes.

If not, I can't go there, because then we just become another of the desperate 25 teams out there making terrible QB decisions based on false hope.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

@$35 million...No I don't and I'm sorry people don't want to hear that
but we haven't been close to anything since he signed for big money.

We really havent even been close since Russell got paid.

It's a sad day when repeated playoff appearances don't qualify as "close to anything".

This fan base truly is spoiled.

I don't believe Wilson is enough to get to the Super Bowl (see 2017), but then again, we probably don't sniff the playoffs without him, either. It's going to be a difficult conundrum for Pete and John to solve.

 

[Uncle Si]

@$35 million...No I don't and I'm sorry people don't want to hear that
but we haven't been close to anything since he signed for big money.

We really havent even been close since Russell got paid.

It's a sad day when repeated playoff appearances don't qualify as "close to anything".

This fan base truly is spoiled.

I don't believe Wilson is enough to get to the Super Bowl (see 2017), but then again, we probably don't sniff the playoffs without him, either. It's going to be a difficult conundrum for Pete and John to solve.

Thats the rub... only 1 team has sniffed more than just regular playoff appearances and they pay their qb pennies.

Not sure spoiled is the right word. More unrealistic. Rodgers has been to how many super bowls? Brees? Manning?

Its not easy, and certainly not a foregone conclusion

 

[MontanaHawk05]

@$35 million...No I don't and I'm sorry people don't want to hear that
but we haven't been close to anything since he signed for big money.

We really havent even been close since Russell got paid.

It's a sad day when repeated playoff appearances don't qualify as "close to anything".

This fan base truly is spoiled.

I don't believe Wilson is enough to get to the Super Bowl (see 2017), but then again, we probably don't sniff the playoffs without him, either. It's going to be a difficult conundrum for Pete and John to solve.

Thats the rub... only 1 team has sniffed more than just regular playoff appearances and they pay their qb pennies.

Not sure spoiled is the right word. More unrealistic. Rodgers has been to how many super bowls? Brees? Manning?

Its not easy, and certainly not a foregone conclusion

Unrealistic is a good word as well. There are 8-10 different fanbases complaining that their QB's are being wasted because they're not getting Super Bowls repeatedly. By definition, 7-9 of them will walk away unsatisfied forever.

 

[lukerguy]

One thing I can promise you is that the Pats would not have championships in 2015, 2017 and 2019 save for Brady making half of what the market would pay him.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

One thing I can promise you is that the Pats would not have championships in 2015, 2017 and 2019 save for Brady making half of what the market would pay him.

You're probably right, but it's naive to think;

1. Russell will do the same as Brady.
2. We can win SB's without him, or without an equal QB to him.

 

[lukerguy]

I didn't make the point to suggest Russell could, should, would do the same as Brady. I made the point to suggest the correlation between what you pay your QB, the level you receive from that player, and the high end winning probability.

It's a fundamental philosophical question we are discussing. Can you pay your elite QB $30 Million a year and win a SB in years 1-3? I would say no. You give yourself a window.. The window is at the tail end of the contract when it (hopefully ) equalizes down with inflation and cap increases.

If you sign Wilson, you likely make the playoffs for the next 3-4 years while losing in the first or second round. Hey, playoffs are good. I'm not complaining.

Then you give yourself a window (if all other things align.. aka pete doesn't retire, defense still progresses...etc... that the 30 Million becomes the 15th lowest contract in 8 years and gives you an opportunity to win with a relatively lower figure.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I didn't make the point to suggest Russell could, should, would do the same as Brady. I made the point to suggest the correlation between what you pay your QB, the level you receive from that player, and the high end winning probability.

It's a fundamental philosophical question we are discussing. Can you pay your elite QB $30 Million a year and win a SB in years 1-3? I would say no. You give yourself a window.. The window is at the tail end of the contract when it (hopefully ) equalizes down with inflation and cap increases.

If you sign Wilson, you likely make the playoffs for the next 3-4 years while losing in the first or second round. Hey, playoffs are good. I'm not complaining.

Then you give yourself a window (if all other things align.. aka pete doesn't retire, defense still progresses...etc... that the 30 Million becomes the 15th lowest contract in 8 years and gives you an opportunity to win with a relatively lower figure.

Then I'd ask you what's the more likely probability if we're dealing in hypothetical percentages of success.

1. Paying Russell and hoping Pete can build another great young inexpensive defense to go with his offensive style in a small window of 2-3 years before having to pay the next group of young stars.

2. Trading Russell and having 15-20M more to spend elsewhere, but having an inferior QB that may hinder your ability to win in the playoffs, or even get to the playoffs if that extra money isn't spent wisely to make up for that shortfall in QB ability.

IMO it's scenario #1. I think Pete and John have a nice long track record of knowing how to draft and develop the core defense and add depth through free agency.

Far more than their average to below average ability to spend offensive free agent money wisely and effectively, of which you'd need to do VERY well if you now need to make up for no Russell Wilson.

 

[getnasty]

@$35 million...No I don't and I'm sorry people don't want to hear that
but we haven't been close to anything since he signed for big money.

We really havent even been close since Russell got paid.

It's a sad day when repeated playoff appearances don't qualify as "close to anything".

This fan base truly is spoiled.

I don't believe Wilson is enough to get to the Super Bowl (see 2017), but then again, we probably don't sniff the playoffs without him, either. It's going to be a difficult conundrum for Pete and John to solve.

Not spoiled but at the end of the day anything short of a Superbowl Championship sucks and if we havent even been to a NFC Championship game then were really not that close. Personally i'd rather win 1 championship and miss the playoffs for 9 years then make the playoffs 10 years straight and not win a Superbowl.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Largent,

In both those approaches you outlined, you are probably going to get close to the same result either way.

In the approach without Wilson, pretty confident that Carroll could get an 7-8 win season with his approach and even an average QB.

In the other approach with Wilson, you are probably looking at 9-10 wins.

Neither case projects to achieving anything in the playoffs.

Bear in mind that WITH Wilson and WITHOUT the massive impact of his salary yet - we have done nothing of worth in the playoffs since the last SB. If anything, we have been massively outclassed and borderline embarrassed in anything outside of a wildcard game.

How would that change with less money to spend, creating holes in the team, because we have to pay Wilson so much more?

What about if we removed Wilson? How does the team produce better outcomes when our existing results could not even leverage a QB as talented as Wilson is?

The problem is that Carroll's approach creates a floor but also puts a massive ceiling on the results his team can accomplish. This approach might work with a HOF run game and HOF defense COMBINED with your stellar QB. But it won't work with the combinations outlined and that does not even consider all the gaping holes in the roster that will be created by shifting that much more of our salary cap spend to QB.

 

[knownone]

I didn't make the point to suggest Russell could, should, would do the same as Brady. I made the point to suggest the correlation between what you pay your QB, the level you receive from that player, and the high end winning probability.

It's a fundamental philosophical question we are discussing. Can you pay your elite QB $30 Million a year and win a SB in years 1-3? I would say no. You give yourself a window.. The window is at the tail end of the contract when it (hopefully ) equalizes down with inflation and cap increases.

If you sign Wilson, you likely make the playoffs for the next 3-4 years while losing in the first or second round. Hey, playoffs are good. I'm not complaining.

Then you give yourself a window (if all other things align.. aka pete doesn't retire, defense still progresses...etc... that the 30 Million becomes the 15th lowest contract in 8 years and gives you an opportunity to win with a relatively lower figure.

A fundamental philosophical question that ends in a binary conclusion is more than likely just an opinion. I don't think anyone disagrees with you for saying the Seahawks are less likely to win a Superbowl paying Russ 30m+ than if they paid him 20m. But is it reasonable to assume that Russell would make a Brady level concession to help the Seahawks compete; no. So what's the alternative of discussing that hypothetical? In some peoples eyes, it lends it'self to the implication of moving on from Russ, which obviously will lead to a polarizing reaction, whether intended or not.

In my personal opinion, there are far too many variables to ascribe a probability of winning a Superbowl to the amount a QB makes. It definitely plays a role, but Brady is the outlier and not indicative of a viable model of long term success in the NFL.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Personally i'd rather win 1 championship and miss the playoffs for 9 years then make the playoffs 10 years straight and not win a Superbowl.

So would I. But those aren't our only two options.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Not spoiled but at the end of the day anything short of a Superbowl Championship sucks and if we havent even been to a NFC Championship game then were really not that close. Personally i'd rather win 1 championship and miss the playoffs for 9 years then make the playoffs 10 years straight and not win a Superbowl.

These are not the only two likely outcomes of discussing keeping Russell or not.

If you don't extend Russell, there's a very good possibility that you miss the playoffs in perpetuity AND never get a championship. Because you literally just removed the best player on your team at the most important position, and failed to replace his productivity and leadership and also failed to build another elite defense to make up for that lack of productivity at the QB position.