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

[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....

Hilarious right? Hint to wise just pay the man.

But wait I want to see the next 10 years of picking the right year to draft superior mobile QBs with NFL arms and touch, with superior ball security skills that can turn the next Golden Tate into a special player and display superior leadership for our T-Rex armed offense to win the next 9 Lombardis with. You must not deny us.

The next Brandon Weeden could do it, but personally I'm hoping for the next Geno Smith.

 

[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.

But wait I want to see the next 10 years of picking the right year to draft superior mobile QBs with NFL arms and touch, with superior ball security skills that can turn the next Golden Tate into a special player and display superior leadership for our T-Rex armed offense to win the next 9 Lombardis with. You must not deny us.

The next Brandon Weeden could do it, but personally I'm hoping for the next Geno Smith.

Some days you literally make my day Lady T and tonight is one of them.

 

[Penman96]

I see Romo's cap hit went from 22 million to 11 million today. Honestly we hear about all these mega contracts but these guys never see the money. Give Wilson a 7 year / 150 million deal - who cares. It's not like it's going to get paid to him or count against our cap limit.

I'd reckon no matter what huge number Russ signs for it will be cap friendly, and if he agrees an extension end of next season then happy days. He's smart if he does it. Looking at it from a cap hit perspective I could see him averaging 10 - 12 million / year for the first three years of the deal. Guaranteed money about $40 million? That's about what I'd guess.

Maybe Kaep could get close to that if he signed this year, but he's probably too stupid. He'll play next season making less than a million and then who knows. Bad injury and it's all over, and another half season of play that sucks won't help him either. It's crazy that he could just be reasonable and set for life, but for the sake of greed he's setting himself up for potentially a huge fall. Good luck with that Kaep - you deserve everything you get.

 

[Escamillo]

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....

Wilson already makes more than 500k, first of all.
Second, nobody is saying not to pay him well above that. People are questinong whether paying one player 1/5th your total salary is a smart thing to do. Nobody has won a super bowl by doing that.

I think that if you plot a curve with QB salary on the x-axis and SB chances on the y-axis, you'd get a bell curve. As the QB salary increases (assuming the QB is worth it), your SB chances rise, until you get to a point where continuing to increase the QB salary causes the SB chances to fall. Lots of teams foolishly are on the far end of that curve, where their QB is making huge money and so their SB chances are close to zero. I mean really, Cutler? Stafford? Bradford? Flacco? Are any of them so great that it was smart to pay them 20mil and gut the team? No. None of them are so great that they can win a SB with a gutted supporting cast. Heck, so far not even Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers have won SBs with a diminished supporting cast, let alone way overpaid journeyman QBs like the ones I listed.

Now, maybe Wilson is the exception. Maybe he, unlike Brady, Manning, Brees, or Rodgers, is good enough to win a SB with a diminished supporting cast such that we can pay him 20mil even if it means gutting the rest of the team. But we have no proof of that at this point.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

20 million isn't the same as what it even last year and with the cap going up at least another 7 million by the time we open negotiations with Wilson it will border on irrelevant. 20% of next year's cap will be low end 28 million. I don't think Wilson will be asking for that silliness I figure if everything is the same he will get 18-21 but more likely 15-18 (million).

 

[Lady Talon]

Your bell curve gets thrown for a loop when you consider we likely will not repeat a historic level defense for next year, much less beyond. And our Beast has hit the point at which RBs decline and can't be depended on much more.

Then what? Back to the 2 years of 7-9 (if that) while simultaneously trying to reload the defense, RB, OL, and QB with high producing late picks, or high cost, under performing FA's?

If the defense and running offense could stay perfect over the next five years, then you might have a point in saying we can pick up whatever garbage is available for QBs instead of literally getting the bargain of the 2012 draft. Unfortunately, they will not, and boy will PC and JS get crucified for such shortsightedness.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Not happening because Lynch is done after this year and if Michael finally learned how to pass black that is when we flip the offense 55/45 pass/run.

 

[Escamillo]

Your bell curve gets thrown for a loop when you consider we likely will not repeat a historic level defense for next year, much less beyond. And our Beast has hit the point at which RBs decline and can't be depended on much more.

Then what? Back to the 2 years of 7-9 (if that) while simultaneously trying to reload the defense, RB, OL, and QB with high producing late picks, or high cost, under performing FA's?

If the defense and running offense could stay perfect over the next five years, then you might have a point in saying we can pick up whatever garbage is available for QBs instead of literally getting the bargain of the 2012 draft. Unfortunately, they will not, and boy will PC and JS get crucified for such shortsightedness.

That's all well and good, but nobody has yet been able to argue against the fact that no team has won a super bowl with a QB making 1/5th the team's salary. And others are recognizing that. For example, as I said above, in Denver the sports writers and radio hosts are saying Elway needs to convince Peyton to take a pay cut so that they can upgrade rest of the team.

But at the end of the day, I don't think you need worry about Russell Wilson. I listened to an interview Doug Williams did after the super bowl (it's at 790TheZone.com, an Atlanta sports radio website), and he said (this is a direct quote):

Doug Williams: First of all, he [Russell Wilson] is gonna make enough money off the field to compensate for what he probably ought to be making at this time as a player. And there ain't no doubt in my mind, just watching the Seattle Seahawks organization - Pete Carroll, John Schneider, and the owner Paul Allen - you almost know that they're gonna do what it takes to make sure that they take care of Russell Wilson. :th2thumbs:

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Your bell curve gets thrown for a loop when you consider we likely will not repeat a historic level defense for next year, much less beyond. And our Beast has hit the point at which RBs decline and can't be depended on much more.

Then what? Back to the 2 years of 7-9 (if that) while simultaneously trying to reload the defense, RB, OL, and QB with high producing late picks, or high cost, under performing FA's?

If the defense and running offense could stay perfect over the next five years, then you might have a point in saying we can pick up whatever garbage is available for QBs instead of literally getting the bargain of the 2012 draft. Unfortunately, they will not, and boy will PC and JS get crucified for such shortsightedness.

That's all well and good, but nobody has yet been able to argue against the fact that no team has won a super bowl with a QB making 1/5th the team's salary. And others are recognizing that. For example, as I said above, in Denver the sports writers and radio hosts are saying Elway needs to convince Peyton to take a pay cut so that they can upgrade rest of the team.

But at the end of the day, I don't think you need worry about Russell Wilson. I listened to an interview Doug Williams did after the super bowl (it's at 790TheZone.com, an Atlanta sports radio website), and he said (this is a direct quote):

Doug Williams: First of all, he [Russell Wilson] is gonna make enough money off the field to compensate for what he probably ought to be making at this time as a player. And there ain't no doubt in my mind, just watching the Seattle Seahawks organization - Pete Carroll, John Schneider, and the owner Paul Allen - you almost know that they're gonna do what it takes to make sure that they take care of Russell Wilson. :th2thumbs:

Dude, he made...wait for it...17.5 in 2013 and will make 20

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

20 million in 2014. Tom Brady makes 13 million.. 13 you follow? Maybe just maybe their team sucked because of injury? No way!!! Every team you listed was wait for it..decimated by injury in ALL THREE phases of the game.

 

[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.

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.

Uhh actually wrong I do not define a franchise QB by winning the SB, Dilfer was no franchise QB. I define franchise much differently than just SB wins. You keep talking about winning a SB, but what you keep forgetting is Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, all those franchise QBs who got paid are always in the hunt, and if your in the hunt all it takes is getting hot at the right time to Win. Without a franchise QB you are not in the hunt. That is the way you should be thinking about it, you have to be in the hunt before you can win, no franchise QB no hunt, no hunt no SB win.

 

[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.

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.

no your missing the point without a franchise QB you are not in the hunt and without being in the hunt you cannot win a SB. Once your in the playoffs its all about who is hot, but to get there you need a franchise QB. You can talk about top 5 money all you want but if you look at the teams who are getting into the playoffs year they all have franchise QBs. Oh and last I have been saying 16-18 mil for RW which is not top 5 money it would be top 10.

 

[Anthony!]

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.

DING DING DING we have a winner best post of the thread

 

[Anthony!]

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.

A lot continually make the playoffs and have chances to win a SB. What happens to those who do not? Answer they loose.

 

[Lady Talon]

Your bell curve gets thrown for a loop when you consider we likely will not repeat a historic level defense for next year, much less beyond. And our Beast has hit the point at which RBs decline and can't be depended on much more.

Then what? Back to the 2 years of 7-9 (if that) while simultaneously trying to reload the defense, RB, OL, and QB with high producing late picks, or high cost, under performing FA's?

If the defense and running offense could stay perfect over the next five years, then you might have a point in saying we can pick up whatever garbage is available for QBs instead of literally getting the bargain of the 2012 draft. Unfortunately, they will not, and boy will PC and JS get crucified for such shortsightedness.

That's all well and good, but nobody has yet been able to argue against the fact that no team has won a super bowl with a QB making 1/5th the team's salary. And others are recognizing that. For example, as I said above, in Denver the sports writers and radio hosts are saying Elway needs to convince Peyton to take a pay cut so that they can upgrade rest of the team.

But at the end of the day, I don't think you need worry about Russell Wilson. I listened to an interview Doug Williams did after the super bowl (it's at 790TheZone.com, an Atlanta sports radio website), and he said (this is a direct quote):

Doug Williams: First of all, he [Russell Wilson] is gonna make enough money off the field to compensate for what he probably ought to be making at this time as a player. And there ain't no doubt in my mind, just watching the Seattle Seahawks organization - Pete Carroll, John Schneider, and the owner Paul Allen - you almost know that they're gonna do what it takes to make sure that they take care of Russell Wilson. :th2thumbs:

1. The number given was 18+ per year.
2. Contracts are habitually back loaded and renegotiated or terminated before their contracts hit high salary cap points, few see the . If the Bears, Lions, Donkeys and Falcons or whoever yanks your chain are dumb enough to let them see it, then they are, what does their situation have to do with what's standard in the NFL? Just cause Flacco got 6/120 whatever meaningless number, doesn't mean he's making it anymore then Romo or that the team structured it to hit them for 20m each year.
3. 20m is not 1/5th of 133m either. So I don't feel bad about being flippant about RW's salary in an obviously sarcastic reply.
4. Who cares if no one has argued a top 5 paid QB has won a Super Bowl, they've been to a few, and been damned close to winning more often than not. Argue for me how the '00 Ravens and '02 Bucs wowed us in subsequent years with that no-name QB, historic defense approach over the years. Didn't hold up did it? Rather be in contention for awhile then drop into obscurity for 12 years or more.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

20 million in 2014.

 

[Anthony!]

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.

And yet teams without a franchise QB loose. Bad news dude if we lost Rw day 1 game 1 play 1 we do not make the playoffs. oh and by the way the Pats beat the dolphins with Brady have a horrible day QB rating 69 and only 116 passing yards. You can say what you want but it is a fact teams do not win consistently without a franchise QB and franchise QBs cost.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

If you can't ante up you're not even allowed at the table (Cleveland, Buffalo, Jets... so on). Every last one good to elite defenses. What are they missing? I assume you don't need a hint?

 

[Anthony!]

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.

But wait I want to see the next 10 years of picking the right year to draft superior mobile QBs with NFL arms and touch, with superior ball security skills that can turn the next Golden Tate into a special player and display superior leadership for our T-Rex armed offense to win the next 9 Lombardis with. You must not deny us.

The next Brandon Weeden could do it, but personally I'm hoping for the next Geno Smith.

Some days you literally make my day Lady T and tonight is one of them.

It is funny, I mean if it were that simple it would have been done already and it has not.

 

[Anthony!]

I see Romo's cap hit went from 22 million to 11 million today. Honestly we hear about all these mega contracts but these guys never see the money. Give Wilson a 7 year / 150 million deal - who cares. It's not like it's going to get paid to him or count against our cap limit.

I'd reckon no matter what huge number Russ signs for it will be cap friendly, and if he agrees an extension end of next season then happy days. He's smart if he does it. Looking at it from a cap hit perspective I could see him averaging 10 - 12 million / year for the first three years of the deal. Guaranteed money about $40 million? That's about what I'd guess.

Maybe Kaep could get close to that if he signed this year, but he's probably too stupid. He'll play next season making less than a million and then who knows. Bad injury and it's all over, and another half season of play that sucks won't help him either. It's crazy that he could just be reasonable and set for life, but for the sake of greed he's setting himself up for potentially a huge fall. Good luck with that Kaep - you deserve everything you get.

I presume the plan would be a renegotiation after year 3? Other wise based on 12 mila year for first 3 we would owe him 114 mil and would only have 4 years to pay and that is 28.5 mil a year and is way to high.