Seahawk Sailor":2it5jko4 said:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BrodyLogan/status/1079541315061403649[/tweet]
But I thought Russell Wilson was one of the highest paid quarterbacks in the league. I'm certain I've heard that around here a bunch.
That isn't the correct takeaway from this. I don't think anybody has said he is paid at that level as of right now, heck, I don't think he was ever really top-5 highest paid. But he most likely will be soon. And now there is zero doubt that paying your qb that highly obviously effects the quality of your roster.
What this does, is exposes the flaw in the quarterback economy. It's a broken model. "He's a good/very good quarterback, open your checkbook and pay him whatever market price is." That has been the philosophy for decades, and for the past 7-8 years now, quarterbacks have really taken advantage of it. We are overdue for market correction. I've been following this for over ten years now. The last time a quarterack with a top-5 salary won a Super Bowl was 2007 (Peyton). And he did that with arguably the worst roster to win a SB as far back as I can remember.
The Bills chose not to pay Tyrod Taylor. They didn't want to participate in this broken model. It looks like it was probably the right decision for them. We're still waiting for a QB who is considered a top 10-12 guy or whatever to be let go. Soon, others will follow. Looking at you, Rams. For the most part, paying your QB like that is franchise suicide. You gotta be damn sure that your qb is good enough to make up for the holes that paying him is going to create on your roster. Even a QB like Rodgers, got paid, and they haven't been able to field a truly competitive roster since. It just puts so much pressure on your front office to draft well. Look at us. We paid Russell, and since, declined every year until this season, when his cap number became more manageable and we dumped a bunch of salary from other sources.