Seahawks reportedly make huge contract offer to Russell

[ptisme]

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 will respond by saying: Green Bay would be an also ran if Rodgers were traded straight up for Russell Wilson.

 

[ptisme]

Why is it that the Seahawks front office "offers", and the RW camp "demands". It's a complicated negotiation of terms with no current firm deadline, that's why it's taking so long. It'll all work out in the end w/o character bashing the player that has played 3 years for less salary than the long snapper. Any $$ RW receives in his contract will be "fair" IMO.
Come on pre-season, we need something else to discuss.

It sucks but the reason is this:
Wilson has other options. The Seahawks do not....

 

[ptisme]

Rodgers had the #2 defense in 2009 and 2010, he beat the #1 defense by DVOA the Pittsburgh Steelers to win his first SB. Rodgers had a good defense to win him a ring. Rodgers even stated that he doesn't even call his own plays, he even said that even Peyton Manning doesn't, so the perception of these elite QBs calling their own plays is false, and Wilson have been ridiculed because he doesn't.

"Well, Peyton doesn't do that," Rodgers said during a recent interview. "Nobody does that."

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packe ... er-will-he

Rodgers doesn't call his own plays. But he often changes the play at the line of scrimmage. It's staggering the difference between GB when it's at home vs away an that's the difference. When Rodgers can walk up to the LOS and change the play and use his hard counts it's not even fair to the defense.

 

[ptisme]

One part of me thinks that he has by far exceeded his rookie contract, but at the same time isn't in the top 5 QB's in the league. So I think the 21 Million a year, not knowing the true details of the deal, is probably a good deal.

You, me and everyone but Wilson and his agent believes this to be true....

 

[Narniaman]

The only thing that we as fans know is what the Seahawks feel is an appropriate, fair amount to pay for Russell Wilson's services. . . and that's no more than about $1.5 million dollars a year.

The reason we know that is that is the amount Wilson is due this coming year, which is the final year of his present contract. If the Seahawks thought that Wilson deserved more than $1.5 million dollars. . . they could quite easily tear up the final year of the contract and double his salary, tying him with Matt Hasselbeck for 34th highest qb salary.

Or they could be quite outrageous and triple his salary, putting him in 27th place right behind Jameis Winston.

So have the Seahawks offered Russell $21 million a year for playing after this year??

First of all. . . where is that information coming from? Has some sports writer consulted a psychic and got the information that way?

Or has that sports writer got inside information from either the Seahawks. . . or from Russell Wilson's agent? Hmmm. . . .let's see, who would be more likely to offer information of this sort that tends to make the Seahawks look like they are extremely generous to a fault. . . .the Seahawks, or Wilson's agent???

So. . . unless I'm missing something here, it sure looks like this is a PR leak by the Seahawks. . . in an attempt to make Russell Wilson and his agent look greedy and pressure him into signing a contract that. . . might have a few hitches in it.

You know. . . hitches like Colin Kapernick's contract, which while advertised as being for seven years and $126 million dollars, is actually more like seven years and $25 million dollars. . .with bonuses depending upon the 49ers going to the Superbowl and Kapernick being named All-Pro.

Seeing how much the Seahawks really thinks Wilson deserves this year -- $1.5 million dollars -- I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when leaks obviously from the Seahawk's front office are sent out to sports writers. . . .

 

[hawknation2015]

This thread came after the other one (now locked) but contains the same old info.

 

[ptisme]

Wilson will be re-signed... Trust me. These things take time but I think both parties realize they are better together than apart.

 

[drdiags]

If Ian's report about the guaranteed money is correct, Wilson and his agent will be getting bashed if they accept the current offer. The problem is that the NFL believes and cherishes its blue-blood hierarchy. Newton was the #1 overall pick in his draft class, Wilson was a 3rd rounder. In time none of that will matter if Wilson can keep his career arch ascending and become a Brady-like draft fairy tale.

I feel for those that feel conflicted by the current state of things with the QB and the club. I think some may have hoped that our guy was above the fray but idealism and reality don't always converge.

There is a lot of angst among folks on this issue. I wonder if the start of pre-season reduces the noise or is this something to look forward to until the end of the season? This is like waiting for the Mariners season to end. So much promise, so little delivery. That is for another day.

 

[Sac]

This thread came after the other one (now locked) but contains the same old info.

Yeah, but that one had 18 posts, and this one had way more. I didn't want to kill the larger thread. Back to the topic at hand.

 

[cacksman]

The fact that fans are literally stressing over this is sad to me. The likelihood that Wilson won't be a Seahawk for many years is slim. The likelihood that Wilson will sign for an amount that is ridiculous, for many reasons, is slim. Tons of negotiations have gotten played out in the media and it always works out. Look at what happened last week with Dez threatening to miss games via Twitter.

This negotiation is unique because Wilson is set to make relative peanuts on the final year of his contract. Cap wise, it would actually be better for the Seahawks if Wilson didn't sign before the season.

 

[drdiags]

This thread came after the other one (now locked) but contains the same old info.

Yeah, but that one had 18 posts, and this one had way more. I didn't want to kill the larger thread. Back to the topic at hand.

Personally I think this is wrong. You should never reward the guy who missed the prior post. It is discouraging to take the time to formulate a discussion only to lose out to some guy who either didn't care or missed the prior discussion. Sometimes the topic causes this but I doubt it was the case in this instance. Just my opinion. And I am not part of the modership.

EDIT: Spohawk's title looks like the reason most opted to post in this one. He can only blame himself.

 

[DavidSeven]

If Seattle is really offering less in guarantees than Newton got, then Russell is right to decline. However, I have a hard time believing Schneider could be that stupid.

Rodgers could've planted the story knowing Russ has no intention of signing this offseason and that there is no way anyone could prove the story was wrong. Or maybe Schneider really is that dumb. Gonna be a wild 5 days.

 

[SuperMan28]

Makes me wonder if it was an incentive laden deal based on production and that's not what he's after. In a run heavy offense I understand. That's my only guess as to why he'd turn down that much money.

 

[hawknation2015]

If Seattle is really offering less in guarantees than Newton got, then Russell is right to decline. However, I have a hard time believing Schneider could be that stupid.

Rodgers could've planted the story knowing Russ has no intention of signing this offseason and that there is no way anyone could prove the story was wrong. Or maybe Schneider really is that dumb. Gonna be a wild 5 days.

It depends on whether the deal is for four or five years. If the deal is four years, allowing Wilson to reach his next contract sooner, then of course there would be less overall guaranteed. The only question that matters is the percentage guaranteed.

 

[DavidSeven]

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.

 

[erik2690]

If Seattle is really offering less in guarantees than Newton got, then Russell is right to decline. However, I have a hard time believing Schneider could be that stupid.

Rodgers could've planted the story knowing Russ has no intention of signing this offseason and that there is no way anyone could prove the story was wrong. Or maybe Schneider really is that dumb. Gonna be a wild 5 days.

Florio article was SEA's side, Rapoport was RW/Agent side, but they could both be true:

The Florio article focused on APY and ~21 mil and talked about how good that was: true. They only mention 'significant g'tees' in that article. The Rapoport tweets/article digs more into g'tees, bonus and up-front money in general. Both articles paint the picture from different angles and focuses, but are both likely at least mostly true. I have heard several sources say for weeks that g'tees was the bigger hurdle, this looked at in total supports that maybe. I then saw something from someone who knows RW say the signing bonus was low, this now seems to maybe be true. Hsu suggests they are trying to go low on the bonus to try to get Wags done this offseason too or avoid a DT cut.

 

[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.

 

[DavidSeven]

I think you have it backwards. All that matters is total guaranteed. Percentages are kind of meaningless. If someone signs a $200M deal, but has 10% guaranteed ($20M), he is not necessarily better or worse off then someone who signs a $40M deal with 50% guaranteed ($20M). Percentages are meaningless because they factor in non-guaranteed money which can be manipulated in a million different ways. All that matters is what you're actually guaranteed to put in your bank account.

The fifth-year is essentially just a team-option. Some players like it because it forces the team into a decision if they want to cut/re-negotiate. Other players like the flexibility of hitting free agency a year earlier, so they opt for a shorter deal. It isn't necessary good or bad for either side and shouldn't impact how much a player is guaranteed since all that money is paid out in the first 3-4 years.

 

[Hasselbeck]

This.... The Seahawks would be looking to Four-peat next year if Rodgers was their signal caller.. Would probably go down as the greatest dynasty in NFL history.

Yeah, if only Wilson had been in the league since 2005. Because we all know Rodgers first 3 years in the league were much more impressive than Russell's first 3 years, right?

I don't get posts like this. Yeah and the Hawks would also be looking at a 4peat if they had Gronkowski at TE and Julio Jones at WR along with Dallas' OL. Plus I'd like to add Suh and JJ Watt to the DL. Think about how good this team could be if we had those guys!

Not to derail the thread, but Wilson had to beat out Rodgers backup for the job

Rodgers would have had to beat out Brett Favre. Which wasn't happening.

Compare Rodgers first three years as a STARTER and his passing numbers blow Wilson's out of the water.

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

 

[hawknation2015]

I think you have it backwards. All that matters is total guaranteed. Percentages are kind of meaningless. If someone signs a $200M deal, but has 10% guaranteed ($20M), he is not worse off then someone who signs a $40M deal with 50% guaranteed ($20M). Percentages are kind of meaningless because they factor in useless non-guaranteed money.

All that matters is the actually sum that is guaranteed.

If both contracts are for the exact same amount per year, then the person who signed the $200 million deal with just 10% guaranteed is in a MUCH WORSE position than the person would signed the $40 million deal with 50% guaranteed. If you are stuck playing multiple season with no guaranteed money, then that hurts your level of security and your leverage.

It's stupid to pretend that someone on a four-year deal should have the same amount of guaranteed money as someone on a five-year deal.