Seahawks reportedly make huge contract offer to Russell

[Narniaman]

I'm not sure that should affect it much since the extra year is usually tacked on and unguaranteed anyway. For example, if a star player chose to gamble on a one or two year deal, then a huge percentage of it would be guaranteed. Can't just apply the same % you would throw on a five-year deal.

All that matters is the percent guaranteed. If you want a four-year deal, then you can't expect to have as much guaranteed as you would on a five-year deal.

It works just the opposite as you think. Rodgers has 49% guaranteed. Newton has a very high 58% guaranteed. Roethlisberger, on a four-year deal, has just 36% guaranteed.

A favorable deal for Wilson would be about 60% guaranteed . . . on a four-year deal worth $21-22 million per year, that would be about $50-53 million guaranteed. That is less overall than Rodgers and Newton, but a higher percentage of the total guaranteed money. It would also be much more than Roethlisberger received on his four-year extension ($31 million).

This is true guaranteed money. The other money these QBs received is guaranteed for injury only.

What is your source for this information????

 

[erik2690]

And no.. this comparison is not ridiculous, because he's wanting more money than the highest paid QB in football... which is Aaron Rodgers.

To me it's actually looking more and more like highest APY isn't the big issue. I mean I guess he may "want" it, but from looking at all the articles it seems that is not the main conflict. Also, Rodgers signed when the cap was a bit lower, so it's not a completely 1 to 1 money comparison. I'm not sure anyone is making a hard argument that RW is better than Rodgers, no one really thinks Cam is 3-4th best QB either.

 

[DavidSeven]

$200M was just an exaggeration to illustrate a point. Bottom line: there are good reasons for a player to enter into a longer deal. It forces the team to either make a hard decision or pay the player his fifth year salary, which is usually higher than the earlier years of the deals. Some players are very confident in themselves and would prefer to just force free agency a year earlier.

4-year vs. 5-year is not de facto better for a player. It comes down to what actually happens at the end of the deal. If it was always worse, then no player would sign a 5-year extension yet that is the norm among franchise QBs. It should not impact what is actually guaranteed, because, again, all that money is paid out through the first three years whether it's a 4 or 5 year deal.

 

[hawknation2015]

I'm not sure that should affect it much since the extra year is usually tacked on and unguaranteed anyway. For example, if a star player chose to gamble on a one or two year deal, then a huge percentage of it would be guaranteed. Can't just apply the same % you would throw on a five-year deal.

All that matters is the percent guaranteed. If you want a four-year deal, then you can't expect to have as much guaranteed as you would on a five-year deal.

It works just the opposite as you think. Rodgers has 49% guaranteed. Newton has a very high 58% guaranteed. Roethlisberger, on a four-year deal, has just 36% guaranteed.

A favorable deal for Wilson would be about 60% guaranteed . . . on a four-year deal worth $21-22 million per year, that would be about $50-53 million guaranteed. That is less overall than Rodgers and Newton, but a higher percentage of the total guaranteed money. It would also be much more than Roethlisberger received on his four-year extension ($31 million).

This is true guaranteed money. The other money these QBs received is guaranteed for injury only.

What is your source for this information????

All of the usual sources -- over the cap, spotrac, ESPN, NFL.com, etc.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Rushing TD stats for a QB are the basis for Wilson deserving Rodgers money?

They should definitely be part of it. If you have watched many Seahawks games in which Russell Wilson has led the comebacks, you would notice a specific trend - that comeback is often sparked by Wilson's ability to scramble out of the pocket and pickup the required yards, first downs, or scores with his feet. In fact, when I think of Wilson-led comebacks, I often picture his repeated scrambles for first downs in the last minute of the game, keeping an eventual game-winning drive alive.

And yes, as time goes on (Manning getting older) other QB's do take the mantle. Thats how it works. Rodgers being the best QB in the game is pretty unanimous.

Well, until he goes to the playoffs, of course. Or, if he's playing an NFC West defense. Then he turns into garbage statistically, and his team's record shows that.

You think the Seahawks won the NFC Championship game because Wilson was a better QB than Rodgers?

Most definitely. How many times was Rodgers gifted the ball in Seahawks territory? And how often was GB able to convert those drives into points?

Further, last I checked, it was Russell Wilson's ability to lead driving scores late in the game that led to us even having a chance at a comeback. Of course, you'll find some way to discount that.

I love Wilson, but the hawks won that game in spite of him, not because of him. Rodgers has a nice supporting cast, but he would drool to have the same roster that Wilson does.

This is where I question if you're actually a real football fan. You're going to seriously state that GB has a worse offense than Seattle? LOL. That speaks volumes.

In fact, as long as we are using your logic, if Wilson was "elite" or even in the same category as Tom Brady wouldnt he have been able to edge out Brady for the Super Bowl? He couldnt do it.....

In fact, he did what was required to win that game. He doesn't get to choose the play calls.

That logic doesnt work well, does it?

The problem with your "logic" is that anyone who's been watching the Seahawks for a few years immediately realizes how wrong all your points are. I can think of very few QBs in the NFL who have been weaker against the Seahawks and the rest of the NFCW (and weaker in the postseason) than the Packers. I laugh every time the pundits declare they will win the next Superbowl. We hear it every year, and yet, every year they choke it up in the postseason. The Packers, and specifically Aaron Rodgers, are absolute garbage against quality defenses.

But yeah, he got you a ton of fantasy points last season, and me too. I wish he could have done that when it mattered, and against quality teams. It would have netted me a fantasy championship. Luckily, I play in a 2-QB league and Russell Wilson was my other QB. Wilson absolutely crushed it in fantasy last season, picking me up 50 points on the championship game. It was actually Rodgers' poor performance that cost me in the end.

I swear, some fans homerism knows no bounds.

 

[Rocket]

If he forces his way out of Seattle for a few more ducketts, I will burn his jersey.

You and about a million other folks.

 

[hawknation2015]

$200M was just an exaggeration to illustrate a point. Bottom line: there are good reasons for a player to enter into a longer deal. It forces the team to either make a hard decision or pay the player his fifth year salary, which is usually higher than the earlier years of the deals. Some players are very confident in themselves and would prefer to just force free agency a year earlier.

4-year vs. 5-year is not de facto better for a player. It comes down to what actually happens at the end of the deal. If it was always worse, then no player would sign a 5-year extension yet that is the norm among franchise QBs. It should not impact what is actually guaranteed, because, again, all that money is paid out through the first three years whether it's a 4 or 5 year deal.

Most of this is true. You are still wrong to say that a four-year deal should entitle a player to as much guaranteed money as a five-year deal.

If Wilson wants the same guaranteed money that a five-year deal would provide, then he should sign a five-year deal.

 

[haroldseattle]

Russell Wilson has always struck me a as all business type of guy. So no surprise that these negotiations are taking a lot of time and work. Wish he had not hired a baseball agent but IDK, maybe that was a smart business move, we'll see. I've got faith that he'll get sign this offseason, for a lot of money. We'll hear the same stuff we heard when Sherman and Thomas got signed for record breaking deals, the "OMG" remarks, but those deals don't look that bad now, wasn't long before someone got a better contract.
Yeah....we all wish this would get done like yesterday, but not to worry, it will get done.

 

[Narniaman]

I'm not sure that should affect it much since the extra year is usually tacked on and unguaranteed anyway. For example, if a star player chose to gamble on a one or two year deal, then a huge percentage of it would be guaranteed. Can't just apply the same % you would throw on a five-year deal.

All that matters is the percent guaranteed. If you want a four-year deal, then you can't expect to have as much guaranteed as you would on a five-year deal.

It works just the opposite as you think. Rodgers has 49% guaranteed. Newton has a very high 58% guaranteed. Roethlisberger, on a four-year deal, has just 36% guaranteed.

A favorable deal for Wilson would be about 60% guaranteed . . . on a four-year deal worth $21-22 million per year, that would be about $50-53 million guaranteed. That is less overall than Rodgers and Newton, but a higher percentage of the total guaranteed money. It would also be much more than Roethlisberger received on his four-year extension ($31 million).

This is true guaranteed money. The other money these QBs received is guaranteed for injury only.

What is your source for this information????

All of the usual sources -- over the cap, spotrac, ESPN, NFL.com, etc.

Hmm. . . interesting. I 've read all those sources. . . and not a single one mentioned anything about "true guaranteed money" as opposed to injury only guarantees. Of course, I might be missing something. About the only article I found that went into much detail at all about the guarantees was in the Seattle Times about four hours or so ago. . .

As Rapoport notes, there are indications the guarantees are not as high as those Carolina gave to Cam Newton earlier this year. Newton got $30 million upon signing and reportedly gets $23 million by the third day of the 2016 league year in the form of a $10 million bonus and his 2016 base salary of $13 million becoming guaranteed, money he will almost certainly receive. . . . . . Being offered less guaranteed money than Newton would also put Wilson behind the guaranteed money given to Joe Flacco ($52 million) and Matt Ryan $42 million), which also may not wash. . . . .

 

[hawknation2015]

All that matters is the percent guaranteed. If you want a four-year deal, then you can't expect to have as much guaranteed as you would on a five-year deal.

It works just the opposite as you think. Rodgers has 49% guaranteed. Newton has a very high 58% guaranteed. Roethlisberger, on a four-year deal, has just 36% guaranteed.

A favorable deal for Wilson would be about 60% guaranteed . . . on a four-year deal worth $21-22 million per year, that would be about $50-53 million guaranteed. That is less overall than Rodgers and Newton, but a higher percentage of the total guaranteed money. It would also be much more than Roethlisberger received on his four-year extension ($31 million).

This is true guaranteed money. The other money these QBs received is guaranteed for injury only.

What is your source for this information????

All of the usual sources -- over the cap, spotrac, ESPN, NFL.com, etc.

Hmm. . . interesting. I 've read all those sources. . . and not a single one mentioned anything about "true guaranteed money" as opposed to injury only guarantees. Of course, I might be missing something. About the only article I found that went into much detail at all about the guarantees was in the Seattle Times about four hours or so ago. . .

As Rapoport notes, there are indications the guarantees are not as high as those Carolina gave to Cam Newton earlier this year. Newton got $30 million upon signing and reportedly gets $23 million by the third day of the 2016 league year in the form of a $10 million bonus and his 2016 base salary of $13 million becoming guaranteed, money he will almost certainly receive. . . . . . Being offered less guaranteed money than Newton would also put Wilson behind the guaranteed money given to Joe Flacco ($52 million) and Matt Ryan $42 million), which also may not wash. . . . .

Keep researching, you will learn something.

For example, Roethlisberger had only $31 million fully guaranteed, on his four-year deal, but another nearly $30 million guaranteed for injury only.

 

[Narniaman]

What is your source for this information????

All of the usual sources -- over the cap, spotrac, ESPN, NFL.com, etc.

Hmm. . . interesting. I 've read all those sources. . . and not a single one mentioned anything about "true guaranteed money" as opposed to injury only guarantees. Of course, I might be missing something. About the only article I found that went into much detail at all about the guarantees was in the Seattle Times about four hours or so ago. . .

As Rapoport notes, there are indications the guarantees are not as high as those Carolina gave to Cam Newton earlier this year. Newton got $30 million upon signing and reportedly gets $23 million by the third day of the 2016 league year in the form of a $10 million bonus and his 2016 base salary of $13 million becoming guaranteed, money he will almost certainly receive. . . . . . Being offered less guaranteed money than Newton would also put Wilson behind the guaranteed money given to Joe Flacco ($52 million) and Matt Ryan $42 million), which also may not wash. . . . .

Keep researching, you will learn something.

For example, Roethlisberger had only $31 million fully guaranteed, on his four-year deal, but another nearly $30 million guaranteed for injury only.

Oh, I don't doubt you at all about Roethlisberger having those numbers . . . .after all, the details of his contract were made known once he signed off on it. But I'm not particularly interested in his contract.

I'm just wondering how you know about Russell Wilson's offer involving "true guaranteed money" as opposed to "injury only guaranteed money" . . . when no news source I've seen seems to mention that.

That's why I asked you for your source. . . .which for some reason you seem quite reluctant to provide, instead just making a semi-snide comment about "Keep researching, you will learn something." Is it all that much of a challenge to say something like "Oh, Joe Schmoely on Bleacher Report reported that six hours ago", and give a URL???

Or do you have some connection to the Seahawk organization. . .and that's where you came up with this information??

 

[hawknation2015]

All of the usual sources -- over the cap, spotrac, ESPN, NFL.com, etc.

Hmm. . . interesting. I 've read all those sources. . . and not a single one mentioned anything about "true guaranteed money" as opposed to injury only guarantees. Of course, I might be missing something. About the only article I found that went into much detail at all about the guarantees was in the Seattle Times about four hours or so ago. . .

As Rapoport notes, there are indications the guarantees are not as high as those Carolina gave to Cam Newton earlier this year. Newton got $30 million upon signing and reportedly gets $23 million by the third day of the 2016 league year in the form of a $10 million bonus and his 2016 base salary of $13 million becoming guaranteed, money he will almost certainly receive. . . . . . Being offered less guaranteed money than Newton would also put Wilson behind the guaranteed money given to Joe Flacco ($52 million) and Matt Ryan $42 million), which also may not wash. . . . .

Keep researching, you will learn something.

For example, Roethlisberger had only $31 million fully guaranteed, on his four-year deal, but another nearly $30 million guaranteed for injury only.

Oh, I don't doubt you at all about Roethlisberger having those numbers . . . .after all, the details of his contract were made known once he signed off on it. But I'm not particularly interested in his contract.

I'm just wondering how you know about Russell Wilson's offer involving "true guaranteed money" as opposed to "injury only guaranteed money" . . . when no news source I've seen seems to mention that.

That's why I asked you for your source. . . .which for some reason you seem quite reluctant to provide, instead just making a semi-snide comment about "Keep researching, you will learn something." Is it all that much of a challenge to say something like "Oh, Joe Schmoely on Bleacher Report reported that six hours ago", and give a URL???

Or do you have some connection to the Seahawk organization. . .and that's where you came up with this information??

Re-read my initial post very carefully. I am comparing what other franchise QBs have received in fully guaranteed money, using all the commonly available sources.

 

[ctrcat]

And no.. this comparison is not ridiculous, because he's wanting more money than the highest paid QB in football... which is Aaron Rodgers.

To me it's actually looking more and more like highest APY isn't the big issue. I mean I guess he may "want" it, but from looking at all the articles it seems that is not the main conflict. Also, Rodgers signed when the cap was a bit lower, so it's not a completely 1 to 1 money comparison. I'm not sure anyone is making a hard argument that RW is better than Rodgers, no one really thinks Cam is 3-4th best QB either.

No but since his deal is until 2020, many believe he will be in the not too distant future when the 30+ generation fades into the sunset. Cam is actually younger than Russ and still a relative baby football wise after only playing one year of big time college.

 

[hawknation2015]

Even in Ian Rapoport's recent report, in which he is basically once again serving as a mouthpiece for the Wilson camp, he writes at the end "it's an issue of cash up front and guarantees, in addition to the debate over a yearly salary."

He also writes "the Panthers gave Cam Newton $30 million cash up front in his new extension." That is totally misleading. The Panthers gave Newton a $22.5 million signing bonus. He was already due $14.67 million under his existing contract, and agreed to reduce that to $8.5 million. Therefore, Newton received only $15.3 million in new money in 2015 that he would not have received under his existing deal.

Whoever is feeding Rapoport his info is either intentionally being misleading or is deficient in basic math.

 

[Exittium]

So Wilson wants to get paid, thats not the problem I have, the problem I have is everyone else he's being comparing to, has established careers and time in the league. Do i think we should pay him Rogers money? No. But just below? yes.

For 2015 Brees has the Highest Base salary for QB's at 18.75 mil soo now my next question is which angle is he looking to be the highest paid?

 

[Narniaman]

Re-read my initial post very carefully. I am comparing what other franchise QBs have received in fully guaranteed money, using all the commonly available sources.

Okay, here's your original post. . . .

A favorable deal for Wilson would be about 60% guaranteed . . . on a four-year deal worth $21-22 million per year, that would be about $50-53 million guaranteed. That is less overall than Rodgers and Newton, but a higher percentage of the total guaranteed money. It would also be much more than Roethlisberger received on his four-year extension ($31 million).

This is true guaranteed money. The other money these QBs received is guaranteed for injury only.

So. . . you were referring to a hypothetical "favorable deal" in which Wilson's contract "would be about 60% guaranteed". . . . .with "true guaranteed money", and not like "The other money these (other) QBs received" which was "guaranteed for injury only."

In other words. . . .you have no idea under heaven whether the contract presently offered to Russell Wilson is indeed a 60% guaranteed deal, and not limited to injuries. . . . . or perhaps like the seven year $126 million dollar deal that Colin Kaepernick signed that turned out to be only about 20% guaranteed. . . . .correct??

 

[hawknation2015]

Re-read my initial post very carefully. I am comparing what other franchise QBs have received in fully guaranteed money, using all the commonly available sources.

Okay, here's your original post. . . .

A favorable deal for Wilson would be about 60% guaranteed . . . on a four-year deal worth $21-22 million per year, that would be about $50-53 million guaranteed. That is less overall than Rodgers and Newton, but a higher percentage of the total guaranteed money. It would also be much more than Roethlisberger received on his four-year extension ($31 million).

This is true guaranteed money. The other money these QBs received is guaranteed for injury only.

So. . . you were referring to a hypothetical "favorable deal" in which Wilson's contract "would be about 60% guaranteed". . . . .with "true guaranteed money", and not like "The other money these (other) QBs received" which was "guaranteed for injury only."

In other words. . . .you have no idea under heaven whether the contract presently offered to Russell Wilson is indeed a 60% guaranteed deal, and not limited to injuries. . . . . or perhaps like the seven year $126 million dollar deal that Colin Kaepernick signed that turned out to be only about 20% guaranteed. . . . .correct??

Where in that post did I say I knew how much money Wilson was being offered? I am using Netwon's 58% guaranteed as a reference point for what would be a favorable guaranteed-money offer. Rodgers' deal was only 49% fully guaranteed. Roethlisberger's was only 36% fully guaranteed. That is the explanatory part of my post that you not-so-cleverly omitted.

 

[LolaRox]

Even in Ian Rapoport's recent report, in which he is basically once again serving as a mouthpiece for the Wilson camp, he writes at the end "it's an issue of cash up front and guarantees, in addition to the debate over a yearly salary."

He also writes "the Panthers gave Cam Newton $30 million cash up front in his new extension." That is totally misleading. The Panthers gave Newton a $22.5 million signing bonus. He was already due $14.67 million under his existing contract, and agreed to reduce that to $8.5 million. Therefore, Newton received only $15.3 million in new money in 2015 that he would not have received under his existing deal.

Whoever is feeding Rapoport his info is either intentionally being misleading or is deficient in basic math.

+ $7.5 million roster bonus?

http://overthecap.com/player/cam-newton/1147

 

[hawknation2015]

Even in Ian Rapoport's recent report, in which he is basically once again serving as a mouthpiece for the Wilson camp, he writes at the end "it's an issue of cash up front and guarantees, in addition to the debate over a yearly salary."

He also writes "the Panthers gave Cam Newton $30 million cash up front in his new extension." That is totally misleading. The Panthers gave Newton a $22.5 million signing bonus. He was already due $14.67 million under his existing contract, and agreed to reduce that to $8.5 million. Therefore, Newton received only $15.3 million in new money in 2015 that he would not have received under his existing deal.

Whoever is feeding Rapoport his info is either intentionally being misleading or is deficient in basic math.

+ $7.5 million roster bonus?

http://overthecap.com/player/cam-newton/1147

Newton's $7.5 million roster bonus and $1 million in base salary were reduced from his initial $14.67 million that was owed to him in 2015 under the fifth-year option.

 

[HansGruber]

Rushing TD stats for a QB are the basis for Wilson deserving Rodgers money?

They should definitely be part of it. If you have watched many Seahawks games in which Russell Wilson has led the comebacks, you would notice a specific trend - that comeback is often sparked by Wilson's ability to scramble out of the pocket and pickup the required yards, first downs, or scores with his feet. In fact, when I think of Wilson-led comebacks, I often picture his repeated scrambles for first downs in the last minute of the game, keeping an eventual game-winning drive alive.

And yes, as time goes on (Manning getting older) other QB's do take the mantle. Thats how it works. Rodgers being the best QB in the game is pretty unanimous.

Well, until he goes to the playoffs, of course. Or, if he's playing an NFC West defense. Then he turns into garbage statistically, and his team's record shows that.

You think the Seahawks won the NFC Championship game because Wilson was a better QB than Rodgers?

Most definitely. How many times was Rodgers gifted the ball in Seahawks territory? And how often was GB able to convert those drives into points?

Further, last I checked, it was Russell Wilson's ability to lead driving scores late in the game that led to us even having a chance at a comeback. Of course, you'll find some way to discount that.

I love Wilson, but the hawks won that game in spite of him, not because of him. Rodgers has a nice supporting cast, but he would drool to have the same roster that Wilson does.

This is where I question if you're actually a real football fan. You're going to seriously state that GB has a worse offense than Seattle? LOL. That speaks volumes.

In fact, as long as we are using your logic, if Wilson was "elite" or even in the same category as Tom Brady wouldnt he have been able to edge out Brady for the Super Bowl? He couldnt do it.....

In fact, he did what was required to win that game. He doesn't get to choose the play calls.

That logic doesnt work well, does it?

The problem with your "logic" is that anyone who's been watching the Seahawks for a few years immediately realizes how wrong all your points are. I can think of very few QBs in the NFL who have been weaker against the Seahawks and the rest of the NFCW (and weaker in the postseason) than the Packers. I laugh every time the pundits declare they will win the next Superbowl. We hear it every year, and yet, every year they choke it up in the postseason. The Packers, and specifically Aaron Rodgers, are absolute garbage against quality defenses.

But yeah, he got you a ton of fantasy points last season, and me too. I wish he could have done that when it mattered, and against quality teams. It would have netted me a fantasy championship. Luckily, I play in a 2-QB league and Russell Wilson was my other QB. Wilson absolutely crushed it in fantasy last season, picking me up 50 points on the championship game. It was actually Rodgers' poor performance that cost me in the end.

Lol...well you typed alot of stuff there, and some of it probably has good merit. Other parts, not so much.

I do want to clarify though that I stated Seattle has a better ROSTER than GB, which they do. Yes, Rodgers would drool to play on our roster, as would any QB in this league. 2 TD's and field goal gets you a win 90 percent of the time with this defense. Hand it off to one of the top 3 RB's in the league.

Wilson will do well to remember that through this process. I see the narrative here that we cant just plug and play any old QB. Maybe not. But Wilson cant just plug in any old roster around him and be a Super Bowl winning QB either.

Both sides need each other. Which is why I believe rational heads will eventually prevail.

Yeah, who needs facts and stuff. I'm sure Wilson's agent and the rest of the NFL will discount 2 SBs in 3 seasons. That was the defense doing it all. Never mind that out was defense that cost us the losses in both postseasons, after Wilson put us in position to win it all. We only won those games because of defense, right?

Oh and everyone knows it was offense that won GB's only SB appearance with Rodgers. Not that defense.

The reason you can't argue any real points is that you don't have any. Your logic is self-conflicting.

And trust me, no GM in the NFL agrees with you. Every team in the league with a need at QB would gladly pay Wilson more than Rodgers. You don't want to accept that so you've made up these mental acrobatics that are frankly humorous. It doesn't matter. Wilson will get paid more than Rodgers and will retire with more rings. GB folds under pressure and Rodgers is unable to carry that team past the NFCW or any other quality defense.