The irony of the rookie contract argument

SpokaneHawks · Apr 19, 2019

I hear the argument very often that now that Seattle has to pay Russ, we wont win. They argue that Seattle only won the SuperBowl because the stars weren't yet paid. I always shake my head when I hear this because I'm pretty sure all the "stars" from that era were found through drafting and or trading. I guess people dont realize that the team still drafts and trades! And, the same scouts and JS, and PC are still hear. They can still find great players! Exactly what made that Championship team can do it again!

HawkGA · Apr 19, 2019

I think the argument, though, is that if you're superstars are on rookie contracts, you can afford to pay for quality pieces in between. For example, the Hawks had the highest paid offensive line. Once you start paying stars, you can't fill in with quality pieces. 53 players is a lot to field, especially when just a couple are taking up a big chunk of the salary cap. Even if the Seahawks knock it out of the park with their four picks this year and they are all Pro Bowlers in their first year, that's 5 players (the four drafted plus Russ) that they have. There are 48 other players they need to fill and the less money they have, the lower quality those 48 will be.

So I get what you're saying, but there is no way around there being some degradation somewhere when you have star salary contracts.

knownone · Apr 19, 2019

Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril, Zach Miller, and Sidney Rice were all signed in free agency and on our roster during our 2013 season.

ivotuk · Apr 19, 2019

The thing is, per John Clayton, Russell only takes up about 15% of the cap.

And analysts love to beat a horse to death, and this "theory" all started when Russell Wilson was still on his rookie contract. It was their way to explain how the Seahawks were winning. They're bias wouldn't let them see it any other way.
I was reading a mock by Chad Reuter, and he had Seattle trading out of 21 to 31 with the Rams for a 3rd round pick and change. That is how they look at Seattle.

But to stick with that rookie contract argument is to ignore every other process in the NFL. Coaching, the GM, Scouts and drafting, trades and Free Agent signings (such as waiting out the initial rush to get the good deals), and talent development.

And how is it that they ignore the New England Patriots? Oh yeah, they throw out the lame caveat "can't win when your QB is the highest paid in the NFL." As if there's a giant difference between the Elite QBs pay scale. Pundits will try to tell you Brady is only making $15 million per year, while ignoring signing bonuses and guarantees.

" In 2019, Brady will earn a base salary of $14,000,000 and a roster bonus of $1,000,000, while carrying a cap hit of $27,000,000 and a dead cap value of $12,000,000." Admittedly, Tom Brady is grossly underpaid, but he has the luxury of doing so at his age and as many years as he has been in the NFL.

Superbowl QBs from 2009 on, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, Rodgers, Rapistberger, Eli, Brady, Kaep, Flacco, Wilson, Peyton, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Nick Foles, Goff.

Except for Goff and Wilson, I don't see any cheap QBs in there.

To say that you can't win a Superbowl with a highly paid QB, is to say that the QB isn't that important in the scheme of things. Invalid Argument right there.

mrt144 · Apr 19, 2019

ivotuk":3f39wl3g said:
The thing is, per John Clayton, Russell only takes up about 15% of the cap.

And analysts love to beat a horse to death, and this "theory" all started when Russell Wilson was still on his rookie contract. It was their way to explain how the Seahawks were winning. They're bias wouldn't let them see it any other way.
I was reading a mock by Chad Reuter, and he had Seattle trading out of 21 to 31 with the Rams for a 3rd round pick and change. That is how they look at Seattle.

But to stick with that rookie contract argument is to ignore every other process in the NFL. Coaching, the GM, Scouts and drafting, trades and Free Agent signings (such as waiting out the initial rush to get the good deals), and talent development.

And how is it that they ignore the New England Patriots? Oh yeah, they throw out the lame caveat "can't win when your QB is the highest paid in the NFL." As if there's a giant difference between the Elite QBs pay scale. Pundits will try to tell you Brady is only making $15 million per year, while ignoring signing bonuses and guarantees.

" In 2019, Brady will earn a base salary of $14,000,000 and a roster bonus of $1,000,000, while carrying a cap hit of $27,000,000 and a dead cap value of $12,000,000." Admittedly, Tom Brady is grossly underpaid, but he has the luxury of doing so at his age and as many years as he has been in the NFL.

Superbowl QBs from 2009 on, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, Rodgers, Rapistberger, Eli, Brady, Kaep, Flacco, Wilson, Peyton, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Nick Foles, Goff.

Except for Goff and Wilson, I don't see any cheap QBs in there.

To say that you can't win a Superbowl with a highly paid QB, is to say that the QB isn't that important in the scheme of things. Invalid Argument right there.

And to an extent the alternative approaches such as the Broncos and Panthers dont seem to have any staying power. Yes, we are in a similar boat in not tasting playoff success but we are not in nearly the tough spots they are in.

knownone · Apr 19, 2019

ivotuk":2jxwc8i2 said:
The thing is, per John Clayton, Russell only takes up about 15% of the cap.

And analysts love to beat a horse to death, and this "theory" all started when Russell Wilson was still on his rookie contract. It was their way to explain how the Seahawks were winning. They're bias wouldn't let them see it any other way.
I was reading a mock by Chad Reuter, and he had Seattle trading out of 21 to 31 with the Rams for a 3rd round pick and change. That is how they look at Seattle.

But to stick with that rookie contract argument is to ignore every other process in the NFL. Coaching, the GM, Scouts and drafting, trades and Free Agent signings (such as waiting out the initial rush to get the good deals), and talent development.

And how is it that they ignore the New England Patriots? Oh yeah, they throw out the lame caveat "can't win when your QB is the highest paid in the NFL." As if there's a giant difference between the Elite QBs pay scale. Pundits will try to tell you Brady is only making $15 million per year, while ignoring signing bonuses and guarantees.

" In 2019, Brady will earn a base salary of $14,000,000 and a roster bonus of $1,000,000, while carrying a cap hit of $27,000,000 and a dead cap value of $12,000,000." Admittedly, Tom Brady is grossly underpaid, but he has the luxury of doing so at his age and as many years as he has been in the NFL.

Superbowl QBs from 2009 on, Kurt Warner, Drew Brees, Rodgers, Rapistberger, Eli, Brady, Kaep, Flacco, Wilson, Peyton, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Nick Foles, Goff.

Except for Goff and Wilson, I don't see any cheap QBs in there.

To say that you can't win a Superbowl with a highly paid QB, is to say that the QB isn't that important in the scheme of things. Invalid Argument right there.

Brady's cap hit is only high this season because of the structured of his contract. His contract was back loaded, so this is literally the only season in the last 5 years that his cap hit is in the top 10 for QBs.

Warner, Kaep, Flacco, and Foles were all on cheap deal when they made the Super Bowl. Newton was relatively cheap in the first year of his extension. Brady has been cheap relative to his position since 2007. Matt Ryan was underpaid the year he went to the Superbowl.

I agree with the core argument that QB pay isn't the sole determiner in what it takes to make the Super Bowl. It is very important though, so important that Pete even acknowledged it in Russell's press conference. The question shouldn't be about pay though. The question should be whether Russell is on a level where he can overcome the financial impact his contract has on the surrounding team. Because ultimately of the names you've listed, only Peyton Manning has been able to have an elite level of success while consistently being amoung the highest paid QBs in the league year. Brady probably could do it, but we haven't seen it. Roethlisberger and Brees have been close but their contention has had many peaks and valleys.

I think Russell is close to that level. Only time will tell if he gets there or not.

chris98251 · Apr 19, 2019

knownone":2b5una2g said:
Michael Bennett, Cliff Avril, Zach Miller, and Sidney Rice were all signed in free agency and on our roster during our 2013 season.

Yeah I brought that up also but it gets conveniently ignored, much easier to argue the whole roster was rookies now it's vets.

Elemas · Apr 20, 2019

Not that anyone here mentioned this but, the whole "hometown discount" thing w/ Brady...

His WIFE is estimated to be worth $400M.

Not sure if they have any type of prenup in-place, but TB get's no credit imo for taking a "hometown discount" nor do the Patriots get any credit for being able to sign him for less.

RWs net worth is less than 25% of Bradys...w/o factoring in the wives. Obviously, that gap will decrease with the new contract and all.

Jeez...obvious rant. Likely in the wrong thread. Dislike the Pats and Brady's butt-chin. The End.

The irony of the rookie contract argument

SpokaneHawks

New member

HawkGA

New member

knownone

Well-known member

ivotuk

Well-known member

mrt144

New member

knownone

Well-known member

chris98251

Well-known member

Elemas

New member

Similar threads

Latest posts