lukerguy
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,320
- Reaction score
- 20
Tical21":dlw6sq6d said:
We can discuss this ad nauseam but it cannot be summarized more clearly than this.
Russ thinks he can play 10-15 more years..
- Thread starter IndyHawk
- Start date
We can discuss this ad nauseam but it cannot be summarized more clearly than this.
John63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,651
- Reaction score
- 149
lukerguy":24r13fn1 said:
Well there is also the odds someone has to pay a Qb over 14.7 and win a SB. Of course, those saying gamble will be the first ones complaining after a couple of missed playoffs or worse or complaining even more if Wilson goes someplace else and wins an SB. Also, keep in mind if he signs this year yeah okay 18-19% but in 2 years or so it will be 14% or less, but we will have our Qb, while other taking that gamble will still be looking.
RolandDeschain
Well-known member
As long as he drinks the right kind of water, I don't see why he can't play for another 30-35 years.
Palmegranite
Well-known member
Brady, playing at age 41, wins another Super Bowl. Russell Wilson, still 11 years to go to reach that age.
He'll make a point of playing at least 1 year longer than Brady.
So yes, somewhere in the 12 to 15 years still left in the RW tank.
He'll make a point of playing at least 1 year longer than Brady.
So yes, somewhere in the 12 to 15 years still left in the RW tank.
ImTheScientist
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 63
Russ needs to get in shape if he wants to play for 10 more years. He's slow these days due to the extra weight he is packing. He could stand to lose 15lbs.
lukerguy
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,320
- Reaction score
- 20
John63":3r1q05l4 said:
The hawks were 7-9 after a complete turnover of the previous roster and Tavaris freaking Jackson at QB. THey also made the playoffs (at 7-9) and won a playoff game. If you don't think PC could trade Russ for 3 1sts rounders, draft or sign a qb, run the ball 35 times a game, use extra cap space to add better defense, and still make the playoffs, you're crazy.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
lukerguy":11g4ui8k said:
I thought our goals were higher than just going 7-9 and maybe making the playoffs.
Yes you can have an average QB and attempt to use the extra cap space and picks to build a better defense. But that's even less guaranteed than what's going on now having a top 5-10 QB and paying him.
Look around the league, it's full of above average teams that have average QB's, who btw you STILL have to pay them a lot of money. Garrapolo, Cousins, Smith, Stafford..........the leagues full of middle of the road QB teams that get into the playoffs, but then lose.
My point is neither way is a guarantee of anything. So if we trust Pete and John to draft well and use cap space wisely on free agency, then I'd rather do it with Russell at QB, because he's a KNOWN commodity, and not an unknown commodity.
If he wasn't a difference maker in winning games year in and year out, I'd agree with you. But he is.
John63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,651
- Reaction score
- 149
ImTheScientist":29se22lt said:
Lol yeah I mean those 15 pounds don't help him absorb the hits at all :sarcasm_off:
John63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,651
- Reaction score
- 149
lukerguy":2u3n9wh0 said:
Or maybe you are for thinking he can.
Tical21
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,541
- Reaction score
- 82
There is a lot value in having a great qb lead your franchise to winning season after winning season. It makes most games interesting and seasons enjoyable, even if it makes the odds of winning the Super Bowl a little longer. It is even more enjoyable if the qb is a fan favorite.
Russell is going to be here at least as long as John Schneider, so we might as well just move past these debates.
Russell is going to be here at least as long as John Schneider, so we might as well just move past these debates.
chris98251
Well-known member
Tical21":1jrxg0cd said:
Well as soon as he can throw from the pocket were going to lose him, pity really because then he would be a top 5 guy
Scorpion05
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 10
lukerguy":1kvn1sd2 said:
Oh, you're serious? This isn't a sarcastic post?
Are you really, honestly, truly giving Pete Carroll credit for making the playoffs at 7-9? LMAO. Really?
Seriously?
So, because Pete made the playoffs at 7-9, your argument is...that he could do it again? Do you know how many coaches get fired because they can't get a good QB?? I hope you run an NFL franchise someday with that mindset. See how long it takes a mob of fans to protest in front of your house :lol:
John63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,651
- Reaction score
- 149
chris98251":289zfzt1 said:Tical21":289zfzt1 said:
Well as soon as he can throw from the pocket were going to lose him, pity really because then he would be a top 5 guy
You forgot sarcasm off
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
Tical21":3qm3dow8 said:
I still don't understand this logic. How does having a great QB LESSEN your odds of winning a SB?
The NFL is all about windows, and nothing gives you a better chance of winning SB's then having a great QB for a decade or longer. It allows the necessary stability and excellence at the most vital position on a football roster in order to have the longest period of time possible to hopefully build around him.
Thinking that having an extra 10-15M and draft picks for a much shorter window of time is a fool's errand. That would require a 100% success rate on hitting on those extra draft picks and free agent acquisitions.......of which never happens.
FA's and draft picks are even a bigger unknown, AND you're entrusting a SB run to an average QB (low salaried vet or rookie), of which you're saying you'd like in order to spend cap space elsewhere.
Makes zero sense to me.
Tical21
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,541
- Reaction score
- 82
Talking heads would tell you to always pay your quarterback. But what happens? Every year but 1, for 20 years now (Peyton, 07) these quarterbacks get these big contracts and go lose in the playoffs or Super Bowl to the Pats, or some team with a better roster than them. It isn't just a quarterback that wins Super Bowls. It is a great quarterback WITH a great roster. With the way QB salaries have ballooned over the past 10-15 years, it has made it more and more difficult to do. You might have a tiny window the last few years of a QB's contract before he gets re-upped again where his contract isn't as prohibitive, but then you go right back in the tank.
Even us. We won a Super Bowl with a QB not making much, paid him, and the roster and results went down down down. Now, it is more because of drafting than the weight of Russ' contract, but when you're paying a QB a lot, you don't have any margin for error. I wouldn't say paying Russ was the biggest factor, but it wasn't a coincidence either.
I'm sure there are more reasons. You asked why paying your elite QB lessens your odds of winning a Super Bowl. There's a myriad of answers, but the point is, it really does. 1 out of 20 is a pretty big sample size.
Even us. We won a Super Bowl with a QB not making much, paid him, and the roster and results went down down down. Now, it is more because of drafting than the weight of Russ' contract, but when you're paying a QB a lot, you don't have any margin for error. I wouldn't say paying Russ was the biggest factor, but it wasn't a coincidence either.
I'm sure there are more reasons. You asked why paying your elite QB lessens your odds of winning a Super Bowl. There's a myriad of answers, but the point is, it really does. 1 out of 20 is a pretty big sample size.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
Tical21":2s5rivn9 said:
People usually point to the Patriots and how much Brady makes as the shining example of this theory. "Hey if Russell would just take less like Brady does, then we could be like the Patriots and go to more SB's."
All I'd ask is do you think it's about the cap space, or do you think it's more about Brady himself, and more importantly the scheme and cultures of Belichick?
I'd say it's the latter far more than the former. The Patriots now have a 20 year history of just plugging in anybody into key roles on both sides of the ball, through attrition and injury, it doesn't matter.........and yet they still win. It's not because they have 10M more of cap space due to Brady's salary.
So yes, paying Russell lessens our cap space to sign and retain players. But IMO it's FAR more about entrusting Pete and John to draft well and build another SB roster AROUND Russell, and far less about the numerous issues of trying to win a SB without him.
Either we trust John and Pete, their philosophy, their culture and their schemes........or we don't.
fenderbender123
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2012
- Messages
- 12,334
- Reaction score
- 2,508
He should be able to play well into his 50s.
John63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,651
- Reaction score
- 149
Sgt. Largent":27b46t8u said:
So the reality is, the few saying we should not resign Wilson due to cap, are saying it because it's Wilson. If it was what they call a prototypical QB they would be saying do it. This is about Wilson not being 6 for 2 or better, being to familia in interviews, and other things that don't really matter.
Similar threads
- Locked
