Will Russell Wilson want $18-plus million? Kaepernick does.

[razor150]

Answer: No, Russell Wilson will not be asking $18 million! Because he knows that it will not allow the FO to gather a decent team around him. The key to success in the NFL is to have a "balanced team".....just like we have now. While it is true the our OL does not have the success that our LOB has, our strengths are in relative balance. No NFL team can have "All-Pro" players at every position......not with a salary cap.

You are assuming a lot that most likely isn't even close to true. There are a lot of players with great character like Wilson who aren't willing to give the discount you think Wilson will.

Just my opinion but neither Kaep or Wilson at this point in there careers are worth 18 million a season. Renegotiating a contract isn't about as of yet unrealized potential. There records as starting QBs are as much to do with the teams they inherited as there own ability. Kaep can't even claim to have elevated the team like Wilson since the 49ers were just as good with Alex Smith. On any any other team I doubt there would be talk about them getting 18 million a year since there win records wouldn't be inflated by the team they are surrounded by and likely no Super Bowl appearances.

OR Rw numbers would be even higher as he would get to throw more, and since out o-line was last in pass protection, he would have a better o-line. Which is what scares me most, in our offense he will never realize his true potential, that may cost us Rw as well.

Possibly, it is more possible that Carroll is one of the few coaches even willing to hand a team over to a undersized QB. Anywhere else Wilson probably would have been thought as little more then a career back up.

I would like to see Wilson operate with a competent online as well.

 

[Escamillo]

Hass was not a franchise QB at all, and no expert would say that. Also yes you pay your franchise QB, because without one you have no chance, with one you have a chance. You can count on 1 hand the number of teams who won an SB without a franchise QB.

Trent Dilfer says, "Hi!" :mrgreen:

As I said earlier, I don't begrudge Wilson getting as much as he can, but I don't agree with you that having a $20mil dollar per year QB rather than a more balanced salary distribution is necessarily better to a team's chances of winning a Super Bowl, and certainly don't agree that teams without $20mil per year QBs have "no chance".

Now, you say one can count on one hand the number of SBs won by non-franchise-QBs, as you define the term (and you define the term to mean a QB so elite that not even multi-ProBowler Matt Hasselbeck qualifies). Well off the top of my head:
Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Doug Williams
Jim McMahon
Flacco
Russell Wilson (no, I don't think he yet qualifies as a franchise-QB as you define it, such that he would qualify but Hasselbeck would not)
Bradshaw (he was a gamer, but 212 career TDs vs 210 career interceptions)
Namath (173 career TDs vs 220 career ints)
Stabler
Plunkett
Theismann
Simms
Rypien

And since Bradshaw won 4 and Plunkett won 2, add 4 to the above total when it comes to number of SBs won without an elite QB as you define it.

 

[DavidSeven]

Hass was not a franchise QB at all, and no expert would say that. Also yes you pay your franchise QB, because without one you have no chance, with one you have a chance. You can count on 1 hand the number of teams who won an SB without a franchise QB.

Trent Dilfer says, "Hi!" :mrgreen:

As I said earlier, I don't begrudge Wilson getting as much as he can, but I don't agree with you that having a $20mil dollar per year QB rather than a more balanced salary distribution is necessarily better to a team's chances of winning a Super Bowl, and certainly don't agree that teams without $20mil per year QBs have "no chance".

The contending teams who aren't paying $15-$20M/yr to their QB struck gold by finding great QBs under the new CBA. Those teams are on borrowed time. How many contenders are paying <$10M for a vet QB? Zero. Unless you draft an elite rookie or are paying big bucks for a vet QB, you aren't in the mix.

Trent Dilfer is an aberration, not the rule. Even the Ravens thought it was smarter to dump him after winning the SB.

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

For those of you arguing on the side of not paying a QB craploads of money and using the money to spread around for benefits of the team-what exactly do you propose we do?!

 

[Escamillo]

For those of you arguing on the side of not paying a QB craploads of money and using the money to spread around for benefits of the team-what exactly do you propose we do?!

I'm not a GM, but I want to do whatever gives us the greatest advantage to win Super Bowls. Yeah, I got a taste, and now am greedy for more. :mrgreen:
I'm just not yet convinced that giving one player 1/5th of your total salary is what does give teams greatest advantage to win Super Bowls. As for what I propose we do, I'm not making any proposals. I trust the Seahawks front office to make the call, they know a lot more about this stuff, both football-wise and salary cap-wise, than I.

I'll add one more thing: Lots of those here demanding paying 18-25 million per year for Russell Wilson say that Wilson would never take a discount, that he'll be hardnosed and demand as much as he can get. And that's great, that's fine. But you guys act like Wilson will be hardnosed but the Seahawks will be soft-nosed and just roll over for whatever Wilson demands. Both sides will be hardnosed, both will make decisions as they see benefits them. If the Seahawks decide that paying one guy 20 million per year is detrimental to their chances of success, and Wilson demands such a salary as an ultimatum, then they'll let him walk and move on. Why am I writing this? Because above we see multiple people lecturing others saying, "You guys are naïve and are going to be disillusioned when Wilson demands 20 million rather than being a nice guy and settling for less". Well, by the same token, others on the other side might very well be disillusioned if the Seahawks make the hardnosed decision to refuse to pay him 20 million. The chances for disillusionment that one of the negotiating parties won't be a "nice guy" goes both ways.

 

[Anthony!]

Haha, I love RW to death. But if you can't see that the reason we stayed competing was because of our vastly superior team and not just him, your crazy. Our DLine was finally a superior unit (after years of complaints) that we wouldn't have been able to field if we were paying RW $20 mil. If that unit isn't available, we don't win the division. We don't win the division, we lose HFA.

Listen, I love RW. He is great, but I have noticed that this board seems to completely under value the remaining players on this team that were just as much, if not more of the reason we got to where we did.

We had one of the best starting field positions this year. That wasnt RW. That's ST and a solid defense. We had the best turnover margin which gave us the ball back more then any other team. That's not RW. RW's rookie salary is what made a lot of that possible.

And once again, Hasselbeck set multiple franchise records. I cant understand how he is not considered a franchise QB in your eyes. Can I please have your definition of a franchise QB?

Dude if you cannot see how important Rw was to us winning through all those injuries than you are kidding yourself. It is not that we under value other people, however the QB is the most important person on the field, he has the ball in his hands 50% of a game, no other player has as much impact on the game. I find it interesting how you under value him or any QB. We also had one of the best int/td ratio that was not the defense or ST, we also had one of the best completion % that was not the defense or ST, We also had one of the best yds/a passing that was not the defense or ST, we were amongst the leaders in fewest turnovers that was not the defense or ST, we also had the 6th best rushing attack that was not the defense or S and Rw was a huge part of that, and here is one that did help the defense the offense held the ball an avg of 29:57 minutes, with our ST on the field an avg of 1:50 minutes that means our defense did not even have to play half a game. we were top 10 in yards per play that was not the defense or ST, and the offense was top 10 in scoring (note offense not counting the defense scoring) I can go on and on.

Now you can argue that Rw rookie salary made all that possible, or we could argue Shermans contract made all that possible, or Ets, or anyone of a number of players. So what, the point still stands you do not win SB without a franchise QB and you do not get them without paying. Again the Qb has his hands on the ball more than any other player and impacts the game more than any other player.

 

[Anthony!]

Hass was not a franchise QB at all, and no expert would say that. Also yes you pay your franchise QB, because without one you have no chance, with one you have a chance. You can count on 1 hand the number of teams who won an SB without a franchise QB.

Trent Dilfer says, "Hi!" :mrgreen:

As I said earlier, I don't begrudge Wilson getting as much as he can, but I don't agree with you that having a $20mil dollar per year QB rather than a more balanced salary distribution is necessarily better to a team's chances of winning a Super Bowl, and certainly don't agree that teams without $20mil per year QBs have "no chance".

Now, you say one can count on one hand the number of SBs won by non-franchise-QBs, as you define the term (and you define the term to mean a QB so elite that not even multi-ProBowler Matt Hasselbeck qualifies). Well off the top of my head:
Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Doug Williams
Jim McMahon
Flacco
Russell Wilson (no, I don't think he yet qualifies as a franchise-QB as you define it, such that he would qualify but Hasselbeck would not)
Bradshaw (he was a gamer, but 212 career TDs vs 210 career interceptions)
Namath (173 career TDs vs 220 career ints)
Stabler
Plunkett
Theismann
Simms
Rypien

And since Bradshaw won 4 and Plunkett won 2, add 4 to the above total when it comes to number of SBs won without an elite QB as you define it.

First I think he will get 16-18 mil not 20

2nd in the last 20 years only 2 teams won a SB without a franchise QB. Oh by the way a lot of those QBs are HOF that makes them franchise.

 

[Anthony!]

For those of you arguing on the side of not paying a QB craploads of money and using the money to spread around for benefits of the team-what exactly do you propose we do?!

I'm not a GM, but I want to do whatever gives us the greatest advantage to win Super Bowls. Yeah, I got a taste, and now am greedy for more. :mrgreen:
I'm just not yet convinced that giving one player 1/5th of your total salary is what does give teams greatest advantage to win Super Bowls.

I'll add one more thing: Lots of those here demanding paying 18-25 million per year for Russell Wilson say that Wilson would never take a discount, that he'll be hardnosed and demand as much as he can get. And that's great, that's fine. But you guys act like Wilson will be hardnosed but the Seahawks will be soft-nosed and just roll over for whatever Wilson demands. Both sides will be hardnosed, both will make decisions as they see benefits them. If the Seahawks decide that paying one guy 20 million per year is detrimental to their chances of success, and Wilson demands such a salary as an ultimatum, then they'll let him walk and move on. Why am I writing this? Because above we see multiple people lecturing others saying, "You guys are naïve and are going to be disillusioned when Wilson demands 20 million rather than being a nice guy and settling for less". Well, by the same token, others on the other side might very well be disillusioned if the Seahawks make the hardnosed decision to refuse to pay him 20 million. The chances for disillusionment that one of the negotiating parties won't be a "nice guy" goes both ways.

were did 25 mil come from, most of what I have seen is 16-18 mil not 25. If the FO does not want to pay to keep Rw, then they and others on this board will see what it is like not having a franchise QB again, something they already should know, its called loosing. That's why the FO will not let him go. All the experts say it will be 16-20 and according to several the Hawks are willing to pay.

 

[Escamillo]

Hass was not a franchise QB at all, and no expert would say that. Also yes you pay your franchise QB, because without one you have no chance, with one you have a chance. You can count on 1 hand the number of teams who won an SB without a franchise QB.

Trent Dilfer says, "Hi!" :mrgreen:

As I said earlier, I don't begrudge Wilson getting as much as he can, but I don't agree with you that having a $20mil dollar per year QB rather than a more balanced salary distribution is necessarily better to a team's chances of winning a Super Bowl, and certainly don't agree that teams without $20mil per year QBs have "no chance".

Now, you say one can count on one hand the number of SBs won by non-franchise-QBs, as you define the term (and you define the term to mean a QB so elite that not even multi-ProBowler Matt Hasselbeck qualifies). Well off the top of my head:
Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Doug Williams
Jim McMahon
Flacco
Russell Wilson (no, I don't think he yet qualifies as a franchise-QB as you define it, such that he would qualify but Hasselbeck would not)
Bradshaw (he was a gamer, but 212 career TDs vs 210 career interceptions)
Namath (173 career TDs vs 220 career ints)
Stabler
Plunkett
Theismann
Simms
Rypien

And since Bradshaw won 4 and Plunkett won 2, add 4 to the above total when it comes to number of SBs won without an elite QB as you define it.

First I think he will get 16-18 mil not 20

2nd in the last 20 years only 2 teams won a SB without a franchise QB. Oh by the way a lot of those QBs are HOF that makes them franchise.

I know that I listed some HOFs. But their career stats, like Bradshaw and Namath, don't spell "elite". They're in the HOF because they won SBs (or, in Namath's case, because he was also a larger-than-life personality). Take the exact same stats but subtract the SBs, and they're not HOFs. Oh, and they didn't consume 1/5th of their team's salary, not even close.

 

[Anthony!]

Hass was not a franchise QB at all, and no expert would say that. Also yes you pay your franchise QB, because without one you have no chance, with one you have a chance. You can count on 1 hand the number of teams who won an SB without a franchise QB.

Trent Dilfer says, "Hi!" :mrgreen:

As I said earlier, I don't begrudge Wilson getting as much as he can, but I don't agree with you that having a $20mil dollar per year QB rather than a more balanced salary distribution is necessarily better to a team's chances of winning a Super Bowl, and certainly don't agree that teams without $20mil per year QBs have "no chance".

Now, you say one can count on one hand the number of SBs won by non-franchise-QBs, as you define the term (and you define the term to mean a QB so elite that not even multi-ProBowler Matt Hasselbeck qualifies). Well off the top of my head:
Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Doug Williams
Jim McMahon
Flacco
Russell Wilson (no, I don't think he yet qualifies as a franchise-QB as you define it, such that he would qualify but Hasselbeck would not)
Bradshaw (he was a gamer, but 212 career TDs vs 210 career interceptions)
Namath (173 career TDs vs 220 career ints)
Stabler
Plunkett
Theismann
Simms
Rypien

And since Bradshaw won 4 and Plunkett won 2, add 4 to the above total when it comes to number of SBs won without an elite QB as you define it.

First I think he will get 16-18 mil not 20

2nd in the last 20 years only 2 teams won a SB without a franchise QB. Oh by the way a lot of those QBs are HOF that makes them franchise.

I know that I listed some HOFs. But their career stats, like Bradshaw and Namath, don't spell "elite". They're in the HOF because they won SBs (or, in Namath's case, because he was also a larger-than-life personality). Take the exact same stats but subtract the SBs, and they're not HOFs. Oh, and they didn't consume 1/5th of their team's salary, not even close.

yes they did not come at 1.5th of their teams salary, that is why I stayed within the last 20 years as things have obviously changed. So that is why talking about most of them is irrelevant, apples to oranges. Also if they are in the HOF they are elite, Hass will never sniff the HOF. However back to the here and now, only 2 teams have won a SB in the last 20 years without a franchise QB. As I said QBs are the most important position on the field, and that is why they get paid the most and why Rw will get 16+ mil it is the going rate for a franchise QB.

 

[hieroglyphics]

Being in Washington State though is an advantage for RW with no state income taxes. Theres like 5 states in the US that are like that and I think only Texas is the other state which has NFL teams.

Kaepernick plays in a state with 14% state income tax for over $1 million a year in salary. And there are many more states with similar tax brackets. Have to think player agents inflate to compensate but really RW ends up netting the same if he takes $15.5 in Washington as he would $18 in Cali or New York State.

 

[Anthony!]

Being in Washington State though is an advantage for RW with no state income taxes. Theres like 5 states in the US that are like that and I think only Texas is the other state which has NFL teams.

Kaepernick plays in a state with 14% state income tax for over $1 million a year in salary. And there are many more states with similar tax brackets. Have to think player agents inflate to compensate but really RW ends up netting the same if he takes $15.5 in Washington as he would $18 in Cali or New York State.

Good points, it will be interesting if that plays a part of it or not. As I said I am thinking between 16-18 based on everything I hear so that could be right on the low side.

 

[Cartire]

Haha, I love RW to death. But if you can't see that the reason we stayed competing was because of our vastly superior team and not just him, your crazy. Our DLine was finally a superior unit (after years of complaints) that we wouldn't have been able to field if we were paying RW $20 mil. If that unit isn't available, we don't win the division. We don't win the division, we lose HFA.

Listen, I love RW. He is great, but I have noticed that this board seems to completely under value the remaining players on this team that were just as much, if not more of the reason we got to where we did.

We had one of the best starting field positions this year. That wasnt RW. That's ST and a solid defense. We had the best turnover margin which gave us the ball back more then any other team. That's not RW. RW's rookie salary is what made a lot of that possible.

And once again, Hasselbeck set multiple franchise records. I cant understand how he is not considered a franchise QB in your eyes. Can I please have your definition of a franchise QB?

Dude if you cannot see how important Rw was to us winning through all those injuries than you are kidding yourself. It is not that we under value other people, however the QB is the most important person on the field, he has the ball in his hands 50% of a game, no other player has as much impact on the game. I find it interesting how you under value him or any QB. We also had one of the best int/td ratio that was not the defense or ST, we also had one of the best completion % that was not the defense or ST, We also had one of the best yds/a passing that was not the defense or ST, we were amongst the leaders in fewest turnovers that was not the defense or ST, we also had the 6th best rushing attack that was not the defense or S and Rw was a huge part of that, and here is one that did help the defense the offense held the ball an avg of 29:57 minutes, with our ST on the field an avg of 1:50 minutes that means our defense did not even have to play half a game. we were top 10 in yards per play that was not the defense or ST, and the offense was top 10 in scoring (note offense not counting the defense scoring) I can go on and on.

Now you can argue that Rw rookie salary made all that possible, or we could argue Shermans contract made all that possible, or Ets, or anyone of a number of players. So what, the point still stands you do not win SB without a franchise QB and you do not get them without paying. Again the Qb has his hands on the ball more than any other player and impacts the game more than any other player.

You might want to double check how much ET is making. He's not making post CBA rookie money.

And also, I'm not dismissing RWs accomplishment, nor do I think he shouldn't be the highest paid on the team. But being the highest paid doesn't mean so high that you can't field an elite unit around him.
If you want to give him even close to $20 mil, then you have to accept that we won't be able to keep a lot of what makes are defense great. You have to concede that we will still struggle to shore up a solid oline. Something everyone would like rectified.

In the end, could we keep getting lucky with 5th-7th rounders and stay competitive, yes. Is it a gauruntee. Not likely. We had some good drafts, but it's still a luck of the draw when you get to later rounds.

I'll bring up Curry because hindsight allows it, but there isn't a single person out there that could have predicted the bust he would be. As good as an evaluator as our front office is, part of it is luck based that the later round players end up being AP/pro bowlers on their rookie contracts.

Sooner or later you have to keep the talent that has proven itself or else you enter the gambling stages of the draft again.

 

[Escamillo]

yes they did not come at 1.5th of their teams salary, that is why I stayed within the last 20 years as things have obviously changed. So that is why talking about most of them is irrelevant, apples to oranges. Also if they are in the HOF they are elite, Hass will never sniff the HOF. However back to the here and now, only 2 teams have won a SB in the last 20 years without a franchise QB. As I said QBs are the most important position on the field, and that is why they get paid the most and why Rw will get 16+ mil it is the going rate for a franchise QB.

Um, in case you didn't notice, most of the QBs I listed are not in the HOF (I think only Bradshaw and Namath are), nor were they better than Hasselbeck.

And I realize that you're focusing on the last 20 years since that's the era of "You must have an elite QB to win a SB", but I submit that the salaries of those "elite" QBs have become so disproportionate relative to the rest of the team, that the teams paying those disproportionate salaries are actually worse off, and so that era may be coming to an end. The last two SBs weren't won by QBs making 1/5th their team's salary. And one of those winning teams then went ahead and decided to pay their QB as if he IS in the elite category of Brady and Rodgers, and gutted their team in the process. Does anyone here really think that the Ravens are going to win another SB with Flacco and a gutted team anytime in the near future? If not, then the Ravens made the wrong decision to gut their team to pay him 20 million per year, end of story. I don't want the Seahawks to make a mistake in gutting their team to pay one player. I'm hoping they'll be able to pay Wilson well without gutting the team. It's the only way to win; you simply cannot win a SB with a gutted team, I don't care who the QB is. But that may mean that they offer him an amount that's less than 1/5th the total salary, and if he wants more, then they'll part ways. I'm not predicting that, but it's possible.

Now that I think of it, how many QBs have been repeat SB winners since the year 2000, the height of the "you must have an elite QB" era? Just Brady, Big Ben, and Eli? And only two of those (at best) are considered elite, and one of those two played lousy in his first SB, meaning he wasn't even an "elite" QB yet when he won that SB. Seems that the pattern is, "Win a SB, then pay the QB 1/5th the team salary, then never win another SB with that QB because we gutted his supporting cast". Is that the road we want to go down?

 

[Tical21]

Some team would offer him 25 million. Therefore, we have to come with 20+.

 

[hieroglyphics]

Being in Washington State though is an advantage for RW with no state income taxes. Theres like 5 states in the US that are like that and I think only Texas is the other state which has NFL teams.

Kaepernick plays in a state with 14% state income tax for over $1 million a year in salary. And there are many more states with similar tax brackets. Have to think player agents inflate to compensate but really RW ends up netting the same if he takes $15.5 in Washington as he would $18 in Cali or New York State.

Looked it up, Florida & Tennessee also have no state income tax (I remember this being a point in the whole Lebron fiasco).

If you think about it, we have an unbelievable advantage being in a non-income tax paying state.

Say the average tax for high income brackets across the country is 10% income tax.

We can pitch players on these savings every offseason, we essentially have $13 million advantage (under the assumption players understood they'd be netting the same by taking less coming to Seattle) on everyone who isn't the Texans, Cowboys, Jaguars, Bucs, Titans or Dolphins. Every other team in the league has to compensate for higher state income taxes. Seriously fantastic advantage we have especially as the cap grows in the near future.

 

[Cartire]

I would also add Escamillo that Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a large contract. All three of his came on his lower earning days. Eli was being paid #1 overall preCBA money on his first victory, and it think he only got around $9.6 mil during his second. In fact, I would have to look it up, but I would wager that not a single QB making $16 mil or more that year has won a Super Bowl. Ever. Even Rodgers and Brees won theirs before their pay days.

Edit: hell, it looks like Big Ben might have been the highest paid QB to win a Super Bowl during that year at 12.5 mil.

 

[Escamillo]

Some team would offer him 25 million. Therefore, we have to come with 20+.

I don't think anyone will offer that, except maybe as a trap, to get the Seahawks to gut their own team to match it. If someone actually did offer that, then the Seahawks and Wilson will part ways.

But I'm not certain about that by any means. I'm more certain that nobody will offer Kaep 18mil.

 

[Escamillo]

I would also add Escamillo that Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a large contract. All three of his came on his lower earning days. Eli was being paid #1 overall preCBA money on his first victory, and it think he only got around $9.6 mil during his second. In fact, I would have to look it up, but I would wager that not a single QB making $16 mil or more that year has won a Super Bowl. Ever. Even Rodgers and Brees won theirs before their pay days.

Edit: hell, it looks like Big Ben might have been the highest paid QB to win a Super Bowl during that year at 12.5 mil.

Exactly. If the goal of a team is to win Super Bowls, then history shows that paying a QB 16+ million per year is not the way to do it.

 

[Anthony!]

yes they did not come at 1.5th of their teams salary, that is why I stayed within the last 20 years as things have obviously changed. So that is why talking about most of them is irrelevant, apples to oranges. Also if they are in the HOF they are elite, Hass will never sniff the HOF. However back to the here and now, only 2 teams have won a SB in the last 20 years without a franchise QB. As I said QBs are the most important position on the field, and that is why they get paid the most and why Rw will get 16+ mil it is the going rate for a franchise QB.

Um, in case you didn't notice, most of the QBs I listed are not in the HOF (I think only Bradshaw and Namath are), nor were they better than Hasselbeck.

And I realize that you're focusing on the last 20 years since that's the era of "You must have an elite QB to win a SB", but I submit that the salaries of those "elite" QBs have become so disproportionate relative to the rest of the team, that the teams paying those disproportionate salaries are actually worse off, and so that era may be coming to an end. The last two SBs weren't won by QBs making 1/5th their team's salary. And one of those winning teams then went ahead and decided to pay their QB as if he IS in the elite category of Brady and Rodgers, and gutted their team in the process. Does anyone here really think that the Ravens are going to win another SB with Flacco and a gutted team anytime in the near future? If not, then the Ravens made the wrong decision to gut their team to pay him 20 million per year, end of story. I don't want the Seahawks to make a mistake in gutting their team to pay one player. I'm hoping they'll be able to pay Wilson well without gutting the team. It's the only way to win; you simply cannot win a SB with a gutted team, I don't care who the QB is. But that may mean that they offer him an amount that's less than 1/5th the total salary, and if he wants more, then they'll part ways. I'm not predicting that, but it's possible.

Now that I think of it, how many QBs have been repeat SB winners since the year 2000, the height of the "you must have an elite QB" era? Just Brady, Big Ben, and Eli? And only two of those (at best) are considered elite, and one of those two played lousy in his first SB, meaning he wasn't even an "elite" QB yet when he won that SB. Seems that the pattern is, "Win a SB, then pay the QB 1/5th the team salary, then never win another SB with that QB because we gutted his supporting cast". Is that the road we want to go down?

Well since there have been QBs who got paid and won, but only 2 in the last 20 years who did it without a franchise QB not sure you have a choice. Its either do it and have a chance or not do it and have no chance.