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

[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.

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.

Thats my point, he is also up for a new contract, you keep talking about the money they are saving on RW helping the team and it not being there if they paid him the same can be said for ET, and Sherman, when they get paid and they will, that extra money could be used for other guys, and those guys do not touch the ball near as much as the QB

Also I did not say 20 mil I have said 16-18 mil all along.

 

[Anthony!]

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.

Doesn't change the fact you need one to win and you have to pay them to keep them. Or you could keep hoping you get lucky in the draft, which is dumber than paying a guy what he is worth. Also keep in mind some of the highly paid QBs may not win the SB all the time but they are in the playoffs a lot. SO I guess the question you need to ask is, would you prefer to have to wait every 10+ years to have a chance to win, or have a chance every year. That is the difference between having a franchise QB and not.

 

[Anthony!]

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.

And history has shown without won you do not compete for the SB at all. At least with one you have a chance.

 

[plyka]

SF should pay him, but the moment Harbaugh leaves for another team, SF should look to deal Kaepernick immediately, unless the new head honcho is adept at making good use of limited QBs (it is very possible that wherever Harbaugh goes, he might need a QB, so Kaepernick could follow his coach the way Hasselbeck did with Holmgren). Even at $18 million salary, Kaepernick would have some trade value, and they could use the resources towards a goal of finding a QB who fits a new 49ers regime.

Whether Wilson asks for $800k or something crazy like $25 million a year, I will not begrudge him either way. How many QBs in the NFL could win a SB with the league's 31st ranked pass protection? It's not a long list.

This is interesting to me. You understand that he is a limited QB, you understand that the niners would be in DEEP trouble if they pay Kaep $18m for a good number of years and lose Harbaugh. But you still think they would be wise to pay him?

If I were the niners, I'd come in at a $15m figure and hope the fact that he doesn't have to take any risks next year at $900k would force him to sign. Kaep's value is at least 50% based on his running ability. One major knee injury or broken leg or torn achilles (especially), could see his value collapse. It may be wise for him to take the $15m now instead of take this risk, plus make $15m next year instead of $900k.

Otherwise, keep him on $900k then franchise him next year. A franchise tag is at $18m, and that's only a 1 year commitment.

 

[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.

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.

And history has shown without won you do not compete for the SB at all. At least with one you have a chance.

Weird. Because half the teams in the playoffs this year were with rookie contract QBs. And let's be honest, the three teams with the best chance of making the Super Bowl were Us, SF, and CAR (NFC side). All rookie QB contracts. I mean, honestly, the packers struggled all year. NO proved they couldn't handle the road. A last minute victory FG over the eagles didn't disprove this.

 

[Anthony!]

SF should pay him, but the moment Harbaugh leaves for another team, SF should look to deal Kaepernick immediately, unless the new head honcho is adept at making good use of limited QBs (it is very possible that wherever Harbaugh goes, he might need a QB, so Kaepernick could follow his coach the way Hasselbeck did with Holmgren). Even at $18 million salary, Kaepernick would have some trade value, and they could use the resources towards a goal of finding a QB who fits a new 49ers regime.

Whether Wilson asks for $800k or something crazy like $25 million a year, I will not begrudge him either way. How many QBs in the NFL could win a SB with the league's 31st ranked pass protection? It's not a long list.

This is interesting to me. You understand that he is a limited QB, you understand that the niners would be in DEEP trouble if they pay Kaep $18m for a good number of years and lose Harbaugh. But you still think they would be wise to pay him?

If I were the niners, I'd come in at a $15m figure and hope the fact that he doesn't have to take any risks next year at $900k would force him to sign. Kaep's value is at least 50% based on his running ability. One major knee injury or broken leg or torn achilles (especially), could see his value collapse. It may be wise for him to take the $15m now instead of take this risk, plus make $15m next year instead of $900k.

Otherwise, keep him on $900k then franchise him next year. A franchise tag is at $18m, and that's only a 1 year commitment.

I would agree based on Kaps current ability. He is limited, and has proven it.

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

M

 

[Cartire]

M

I agree

 

[DavidSeven]

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.

Lol, if Russell was an FA this year, the Browns would be falling all over themselves to offer him $20M+. Hell, they'd probably offer the same to Kaepernick if they had the chance. They are $50M under the cap and already have Josh Gordon and multiple Pro Bowlers on defense. Why wouldn't they blow their load on a franchise QB? There will always be teams in the NFL that are way under the cap and are just looking for ways to spend it. Last year, it was Tampa Bay. In 2013, they spent $25M on Revis/Goldson alone. You don't think they would've loved to have spent that on Wilson or Kaepernick instead? Russell and Kaepernick will be extended for less than that, but that doesn't mean other teams wouldn't love to blow their whole cap on them.

Some people seem to forget that half the teams in the NFL were begging Peyton Manning to take $18M/year after he BROKE HIS NECK and sat out a year. If we don't pay Russell, someone else will be more than happy to.

 

[plyka]

You guys realize we paid Percy Harvin $14.5M in straight cash last season? You're really going to complain about Russell making $18M+ when his time comes? He's the freakin' franchise QB, and some people here seem to think he should take a lesser deal than our-oft injured slot WR/KR. Some people have been waiting 30+ years for this guy and now others want to nickle and dime him, so he takes up 12% of our cap instead of 15%.

These arguments are just horrendous. They are the direct cousin of: "Cutler gets $18m, Romo gets $18m, <enter next crap QB that makes a lot of money here> makes $18m, so they must pay Wilson $XX million." It is an idiotic argument, because you shouldn't use 1 mistake in order to justify another mistake. Just because the Bears made the idiotic decision to pay Cutler $18m per year doesn't mean that the Hawks need to follow in their stupidity. Just because the Hawks made the idiotic decision to pay Percy XX dollars (your $14.5m is not his yearly salary, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up except to confuse the situation), doesn't mean they now need to add to their mistake.

This is not to say that they should not pay Wilson $20m or whatever, it's just to say that the line of reasoning above makes zero sense yet it is used time after tmie.

 

[DavidSeven]

You guys realize we paid Percy Harvin $14.5M in straight cash last season? You're really going to complain about Russell making $18M+ when his time comes? He's the freakin' franchise QB, and some people here seem to think he should take a lesser deal than our-oft injured slot WR/KR. Some people have been waiting 30+ years for this guy and now others want to nickle and dime him, so he takes up 12% of our cap instead of 15%.

These arguments are just horrendous. They are the direct cousin of: "Cutler gets $18m, Romo gets $18m, <enter next crap QB that makes a lot of money here> makes $18m, so they must pay Wilson $XX million." It is an idiotic argument, because you shouldn't use 1 mistake in order to justify another mistake. Just because the Bears made the idiotic decision to pay Cutler $18m per year doesn't mean that the Hawks need to follow in their stupidity. Just because the Hawks made the idiotic decision to pay Percy XX dollars (your $14.5m is not his yearly salary, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up except to confuse the situation), doesn't mean they now need to add to their mistake.

This is not to say that they should not pay Wilson $20m or whatever, it's just to say that the line of reasoning above makes zero sense yet it is used time after tmie.

Harvin wasn't a mistake. He was worth that contract (based on pure talent), and Russell is worth more. You misunderstood the intent of my statement. If an premiere part-time offensive weapon is worth $13-14M, how can you scoff at the idea of a franchise QB being worth $18M+? It is absurd. If anything, QBs around the NFL are actually taking DISCOUNTS on their true value to NFL teams. Please research swings in betting odds after Rodgers and Romo got injured last year.

$14.5M was what Harvin was paid in cash last year. His cap hits vary, but hover around $13M for the next few years. It ain't really confusing.

If you think paying Russell Wilson $18M/year is a mistake, then sorry my friend, you are the one specializing in idiotic arguments.

 

[plyka]

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.

Thats because you and other teams define "franchise" QB by them winning the superbowl, lol. Like Flacco --he wasn't until he won the SuperBowl, at which time he was "franchise" and the Ravens paid him $20+ million.

The better question to ask is this: how many superbowl champions have there been in the last 20 years that had a QB who at the CURRENT TIME (of them winning the superbowl) was paid top 5 QB money? I don't remember the last one. Rodgers/Brees/Flacco/Brady all won their superbowls BEFORE getting paid top 5 QB money, and never tasted victory again. And that's off the top of my head. I think Peyton Manning was the last superbowl winner while getting paid top 5 QB money, but I haven't actually researched it.

 

[plyka]

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.

And history has shown without won you do not compete for the SB at all. At least with one you have a chance.

You're missing the point. The point is that over the 20 year period you're looking, the teams that end up paying their QB in the top 5 have not won the superbowl. The QBs are being paid AFTER they win. Can you find a team which has won the superbowl in the last 20 years and has a QB that is being paid top 5 QB money? Another poster brought up Rothlesburger who was making $12.5, I can think of Peyton Manning. Other than those 2, there doesn't seem to be any other QBs that are being paid top 5 QB money and have won the superbowl over the preceding 20 years.

 

[DavidSeven]

The notion that "highly paid QBs" don't win the Super Bowl is a stupid one to build an argument around. The NFL is unlike many other sports - the best NFL teams rarely win the Super Bowl due to league parity and the one-and-done formatting. Before this past Super Bowl, it consistently came down to who got lucky and healthy during the playoffs for nearly a decade. The fact that your whole argument is built around Brady losing to the Tyree catch and Manning losing to an onside-kick shows its absurdity. So, if those miraculous things don't happen, we're unanimously on board with paying these guys?

Pete Carroll doesn't define success by Super Bowls won. He never talks that way. He defines success by putting a competitive team on the field every week and putting forth the effort to go 1-0 that week. He would laugh at this results-based approach to analysis. He himself concedes that bounces will affect the outcome of any game, but that he wants his guys to have a shot if those bounces go their way.

Look at the franchises that have been consistently competitive over the last several years. They all have a highly paid QB at the top.

 

[Sterling Archer]

What's the alternative to paying Wilson 20 million? Finding another QB? Good luck with that. QBs have high value in this league because they are few and far between and have all the leverage. There is NO OPTION to pay Wilson 13 million or whatever people are dreaming. He would be stupid to take that contract. If you want a quality QB you're going to have to pay them (after the grace period if you're lucky enough to find a good rookie). It's better than the alternative.

 

[plyka]

The notion that "highly paid QBs" don't win the Super Bowl is a stupid one to build an argument around. The NFL is unlike many other sports - the best NFL teams rarely win the Super Bowl due to league parity and the one-and-done formatting. Before this past Super Bowl, it consistently came down to who got lucky and healthy during the playoffs for nearly a decade. The fact that your whole argument is built around Brady losing to the Tyree catch and Manning losing to an onside-kick shows its absurdity. So, if those miraculous things don't happen, we're unanimously on board with paying these guys?

Pete Carroll doesn't define success by Super Bowls won. He never talks that way. He defines success by putting a competitive team on the field every week and putting forth the effort to go 1-0 that week. He would laugh at this results-based approach to analysis. He himself concedes that bounces will affect the outcome of any game, but that he wants his guys to have a shot if those bounces go their way.

Look at the franchises that have been consistently competitive over the last several years. They all have a highly paid QB at the top.

Who the hell are you talking about? We are talking about a statistic, not an argument. There is no argument built anywhere, as I have repeatedly said I'm not saying you shouldn't pay someone 20m per year. So I think you need to get your concepts straightened out.

Secondly, it's laughable that you're now the Pete Carroll spokesmen. Perhaps you're his conscious here to tell us exactly what he feels and thinks? That is assuming anyone here cares what Pete Carroll thinks on the subject. You're the first to bring it up. The appeal to authority is predictable however.

What's the alternative to paying Wilson 20 million? Finding another QB? Good luck with that. QBs have high value in this league because they are few and far between and have all the leverage. There is NO OPTION to pay Wilson 13 million or whatever people are dreaming. He would be stupid to take that contract. If you want a quality QB you're going to have to pay them (after the grace period if you're lucky enough to find a good rookie). It's better than the alternative.

This team hasn't really been the follower type. Just because other teams are doing it is not a justifiable reason for this team to follow. Secondly, teams should allow empirical evidence to have some effect on their decision making. What has happened to other teams who have fallen down the same path that you MUST pay 1/5 of your salary cap to your QB? Is it a proven strategy? It seems this team's thinking on what is successful, and what has through empirical evidence shown to be successful over the ages is: defense defense defense, running the ball, winning the turnover battle and having strong special teams.

 

[Escamillo]

The notion that "highly paid QBs" don't win the Super Bowl is a stupid one to build an argument around. The NFL is unlike many other sports - the best NFL teams rarely win the Super Bowl due to league parity and the one-and-done formatting. Before this past Super Bowl, it consistently came down to who got lucky and healthy during the playoffs for nearly a decade. The fact that your whole argument is built around Brady losing to the Tyree catch and Manning losing to an onside-kick shows its absurdity. So, if those miraculous things don't happen, we're unanimously on board with paying these guys?

Pete Carroll doesn't define success by Super Bowls won. He never talks that way. He defines success by putting a competitive team on the field every week and putting forth the effort to go 1-0 that week. He would laugh at this results-based approach to analysis. He himself concedes that bounces will affect the outcome of any game, but that he wants his guys to have a shot if those bounces go their way.

Look at the franchises that have been consistently competitive over the last several years. They all have a highly paid QB at the top.

There has yet to be a super bowl winning team that fielded a QB making more than 12.5 mil. That's because those teams that pay their QB 1/5th of the team's total salary don't have a sufficient supporting cast to help the QB. The QB essentially has to win the game on his own.
After the Super Bowl, I listened to some Denver sports radio podcasts, and that included two interviews with Shannon Sharpe. Now, this is from my memory, but it's nearly an exact quote, he lamented, "Peyton Manning must play as 'MVP Peyton' every single game, or the Broncos lose. Russell Wilson, on the other hand, can throw for just 103 yards against New Orleans in the playoffs, and his team still wins. The Broncos don't have a sufficient supporting cast to win when Peyton is having an off-day. They need Peyton to win all on his own. They need to change that."


Not only that, I listened to other Denver sports radio podcasts in which the hosts and/or guests are saying that Elway must sit down with Peyton and convince him to take a salary cut in order for Elway to be able to get free agents to upgrade other positions on the team. So even Denver folks are now disagreeing with the idea that it's worth paying the QB so much money that it's at the expense of the rest of the team.

The Seahawks, as currently constituted, can win when Wilson isn't carrying the team, and can win when Wilson is required to carry the team. They have multiple ways to win. The Broncos and Pats currently don't have multiple ways to win. If their QB isn't performing at an all-world level on any given day, they lose; and if their QB is having a great day, they still can lose due to weak defense. I don't know that those are positions Pete Carroll wants to be in.

 

[Lady Talon]

So let me get this straight, we can churn out a historic defense every year, while riding Lynch to death and/or assuming we can hit on his backups being effective in a ZBS scheme that took Lynch months to run effectively in, behind the OL's we've produced under this regime, BUT we can just plug rookie contract QB's at any point our QB threatens to make more then 500k a year, AND win every Super Bowl for the next decade?

If only every team was as visionary....

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

So let me get this straight, we can churn out a historic defense every year, while riding Lynch to death and/or assuming we can hit on his backups being effective in a ZBS scheme that took Lynch months to run effectively in, behind the OL's we've produced under this regime, BUT we can just plug rookie contract QB's at any point our QB threatens to make more then 500k a year, AND win every Super Bowl for the next decade?

If only every team was as visionary....

Hilarious right? Hint to wise just pay the man.

 

[The Outfield]

Imagine what kind of bicep trainer he could hire