Message from the Hawks Cast Team || Hawks Cast Forum Rules


30 mil. + for Russell??



  • No. Not only no.... Hell No.

    There is paying a guy what he deserves then there is, for the betterment of the team, letting a guy go for someone else to do it.

    After the Seahawks went to back-to-back Super Bowls, I got it in my head that this system of paying rookies GREATLY benefits the team especially when it comes to QBs. While this CBA is in place, as is, chasing Championships with a QB on his rookie contract, with money spent on many other highly talented players, isn't the only way to go, but is IMO, the best way to go..

    I'd rather put the pressure on the scouting department to find a next Russ or Wentz. We can talk about how the QB is the most important player on the team. However saying that too many times can lead one to start to believe that money is no object and that he has got to be on your team because if not, that would guarantee a litany of losing seasons resulting in moving the team to somewhere like Mexico City.

    The time of the highly paid Great QB being the most important ingredient in a championship team is over. The money it takes to retain them has taken them over line from helpful to hurtful. I see the future of 30 million dollar QBs to be stars of Wild Card teams with 9-10 wins. The future is QBs on their rookie contract, playing for Championships, then being discarded by SB contenders to make big money in Cleveland.

    Wrong or right that hot take has been on my mind for a while now. It may just be from nostalgia of the XLVIII team coupled with a strong Eagles team that's emerging and the news that Matt Ryan is the leagues first 30 million a year QB. Matt Ryan of "one great year" fame. If Russell wants to beat that deal he most certainly will. I just hope its not the Seahawks that will be flipping the bill.



  • Doesn't the cap usually go up every year? It's not like the 'Hawks are going broke, nor is this a fantasy league.

    Will $30mil (as compared to let's say, 25mil) keep us from getting/keeping good players? IMHO: That is the real question.



  • @lymon said in 30 mil. + for Russell??:

    Doesn't the cap usually go up every year? It's not like the 'Hawks are going broke, nor is this a fantasy league.

    Will $30mil (as compared to let's say, 25mil) keep us from getting/keeping good players? IMHO: That is the real question.

    Yeah the cap goes up. So does the percentage of cap QBs are eating year after year. I was railing against paying QBs all this money in that post but I think at the heart of all my babbling was to not give QBs a 2nd contract. Ok, VERY hot take, but the team gets control of a rookie drafted in the first round for, what is it, 4-years with a team option for a 5th? I'd rather go that route and spend on defense and offensive line. When the Seahawks won the SB they had a very well paid O-line.

    If you had the choice save money at one of the Defense, Offensive Line, or Quarterback, I'm saying I'm going QB because the kid is playing for his 2nd contract wherever that would come from.

    I woke up from a nap with this hot take. I'm sure its flawed as hell but I'm rolling with it for now!



  • New standard.

    As bad at that sounds, it's worth it. I'd lean towards resigning him sooner than later because the price will just climb higher and higher.



  • I've made that argument before, with slightly different reasoning. When RW came up for renewal the first time I suggested letting him go/trading him. People thought I was insane. I thought between the Eagles success, the Seahawks success, and even the Rams people might be more open to it. But the Peyton Manning Theory of Team Building is still seen really as the only way to build a team: grab a franchise QB, and when you do a franchise QB means you're always a contender and you pay whatever you do to keep him.

    And it's true Manning made every team he was on a contender but for who he was he famously didn't win as many Super Bowls as you might expect. And meanwhile last year the Eagles won the SB with a back up QB with their rookie contract QB getting them there. The Vikings used a pair of career journeymen QBs to go deep in the playoffs. The Rams QB is in his rookie contract. TB12 is underpaid by a lot.

    In the last, 8? Super Bowls only 1 that I recall was won by a second/third contract QB being paid market value.

    Players also have to get smarter. If RW was paid 1 million less a year last year then we kept Freeny and probably at least made the playoffs. Which adds to prestige and all sort of other intangibles that do eventually help your cash flow.

    Anyway, I'm open to building a different way.



  • Honestly, I thought I was going to get more push back than this. Surprisingly that makes me sad. I want Russ to retire a Seahawk but I know when its his turn he'll want to break the bank. Even possibly go fully guaranteed. I just don't want that for my Seahawks. I don't really think ANY one person is worth that much of the percentage of cap space. So if it comes down to that, I'd say goodbye to a player I was proud of and I loved to cheer for.

    Makes me sad. (sadface emoji)



  • I'm not sure you're correct that quarterbacks are taking up a higher percentage of the salary cap. For quite a while their price was stagnant actually. The cap has gone up 25% in a fairly short time but quarterbacks haven't gone up by that I don't think.. would need to look it up.





  • @veda-the-moor said in 30 mil. + for Russell??:

    I'm not sure you're correct that quarterbacks are taking up a higher percentage of the salary cap. For quite a while their price was stagnant actually. The cap has gone up 25% in a fairly short time but quarterbacks haven't gone up by that I don't think.. would need to look it up.

    Oops... didn't mean to talk out my butt there. I thought I read it... on the internet... and thought "well this has to be true!" but I can't find it in the couple moments that I looked for it. It may have been something like the initial contracts are in line but the more contracts are signed in a given year, the further out of whack it gets. What with all the "1-upsmanship" and all. I wonder if, historically speaking, there was point in time when QB salaries made a jump in terms cap percentage. If it jumped say, in 2010, then looking at a before and after may be interesting.

    But regardless, I'm still contending QBs on rookie contracts is the way to contend for championships and that belief is really starting to settle in for the long haul I think.

    @veda-the-moor said in 30 mil. + for Russell??:

    This article reaches the same conclusion as we did:
    https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-quarterback-salaries-salary-cap-kirk-cousins-free-agency/amp

    Ok... maybe I had a hot take in my mind but just a plain "take" in the real world. Is this opinion of ours in a stark minority or is it when thats gaining steam in the NFL community? Normally I'm dialed in better than this.



  • The big problem I find with your hypothesis is you seem to think quality/franchise QBs are easy to find. Now, we did great with our rookie contract QB, but that I believe is not the norm. A very good QB is hard to find....IMO.



  • @lymon said in 30 mil. + for Russell??:

    The big problem I find with your hypothesis is you seem to think quality/franchise QBs are easy to find. Now, we did great with our rookie contract QB, but that I believe is not the norm. A very good QB is hard to find....IMO.

    I don't think they are easy to find, but I do think... how do I say this.... the number of potential QBs you can win with improves the stronger your team is on both sides of the ball. A team wouldn't need to identify that great QB coming down the pipeline years in advance the way Andrew Luck was watched. There would be QBs every year that could get it done with all the money spent on the rest of the team.



  • @lymon said in 30 mil. + for Russell??:

    The big problem I find with your hypothesis is you seem to think quality/franchise QBs are easy to find. Now, we did great with our rookie contract QB, but that I believe is not the norm. A very good QB is hard to find....IMO.

    1,000x.

    Last QBs to win in the Superbowl (and the losing QB)

    Superbowl Wining QB Losing QB
    52 | Nick Foles ($5M; Carson Wentz $6.6M) | Tom Brady ($20.5M)
    51 | Brady ($20.5M) | Matt Ryan ($20.7M)
    50 | Peyton Manning ($17M) | Cam Newton ($20.7M)
    49 | Brady ($9M) | Russell Wilson ( $750K)
    48 | Wilson ($750K) | Manning ($19.2M)
    47 | Joe Flacco ($5.9M) | Colin Kaepernick ($1.2M)
    46 | Eli Manning ($16.5M) | Brady ($18M)

    Only 4 Rookies played in the Superbowl on their 1st deal; only on of them was a 1st round pick (Flacco), the other 3 were on their rookie deals but not a 1st round pick (Wilson [2x) and Kaepernick}. Wentz was a 1st round pick but did not play in the Superbowl. It doesn't mean that you can only win if a QB is on a rookie deal because so many QBs suck.

    Of these past 7 Superbowls, the QBs only had 4 out of 14 that played on a Rookie deal.

    A rookie deal helps a team spend money elsewhere and retain core vets, but all of one of those past 7 SBs did two rookie deal QBs play against each other.



  • K, I'm out over my ski's a bit aren't I.

    I debate for Sh*t I know. Ultimately what I meant was if it came between either making Russ the highest paid or draft somebody. I'd draft somebody.

    I was trying to get to what I thought the future should hold in a world according to me. Thats a future that would willfully fly in the face of recent history. I'm positing that the time has arrived that no team with a QB that becomes the highest paid QB in the NFL will play in a Super Bowl henceforth! Matt Ryan's deal has sealed the Falcons fate to years of "almost but nope." Rodgers will continue hamstringing the Packers, then sadly, the Seahawks will not go back to the Super Bowl if they sign Russell Wilson to a contract that makes him the highest paid QB in the NFL. Yeah, I said it!

    Also, I say to get a rookie to make your run on because of the rookie deals. A journeyman can have a good year then renegotiate,hold out, or just be a pain. Rookies are Effed! They are under complete control of the team and the 1st round rookies could be under team control for 5 years! If the rook tries anything funny he's putting his 2nd contract in jeopardy. He's got to bust his tail for as long as the team wants him. If he isn't working out, there is another crop of QBs coming up the following year. Meanwhile, Your strong and complete (sans QB) team is still intact.



  • @sammyc521 said in 30 mil. + for Russell??:

    @lymon said in 30 mil. + for Russell??:

    The big problem I find with your hypothesis is you seem to think quality/franchise QBs are easy to find. Now, we did great with our rookie contract QB, but that I believe is not the norm. A very good QB is hard to find....IMO.

    1,000x.

    Last QBs to win in the Superbowl (and the losing QB)

    Superbowl Wining QB Losing QB
    52 | Nick Foles ($5M; Carson Wentz $6.6M) | Tom Brady ($20.5M)
    51 | Brady ($20.5M) | Matt Ryan ($20.7M)
    50 | Peyton Manning ($17M) | Cam Newton ($20.7M)
    49 | Brady ($9M) | Russell Wilson ( $750K)
    48 | Wilson ($750K) | Manning ($19.2M)
    47 | Joe Flacco ($5.9M) | Colin Kaepernick ($1.2M)
    46 | Eli Manning ($16.5M) | Brady ($18M)

    Only 4 Rookies played in the Superbowl on their 1st deal; only on of them was a 1st round pick (Flacco), the other 3 were on their rookie deals but not a 1st round pick (Wilson [2x) and Kaepernick}. Wentz was a 1st round pick but did not play in the Superbowl. It doesn't mean that you can only win if a QB is on a rookie deal because so many QBs suck.

    Of these past 7 Superbowls, the QBs only had 4 out of 14 that played on a Rookie deal.

    A rookie deal helps a team spend money elsewhere and retain core vets, but all of one of those past 7 SBs did two rookie deal QBs play against each other.

    Hmm.. but the numbers youre using arent actually correct, and youre not looking at them , in my opinion correctly. You listed 7 Super Bowls.. but there are just 10 quarterbacks there, not 14. Of those 10, 4 of them are playing on a rookie deal. One of them is playing for rookie contract type money because he was deemed a "failure" (and then won Super Bowl MVP), and one of them is playing on a contract that is well below market value (Brady), and one that was playing for somewhat less than market value (Peyton Manning was offered more by two other teams).

    So,. 40% of of the last 10 Super Bowl QBs have been rookies, and 1 of them was a re tread.

    Look what just happened to all the Minnessota Viking QBs from last year. All of them previously were considered garbage or journeymen at best. So they signed low contracts. So the Vikings had lots of money for the supporting cast..which made those QBs look great.

    Once Flacco signed his second contract, hes never been near a Super Bowl. Once Russel Wilson signed his second contract, he hasnt been back and last year we even missed the playoffs and are no lock to make them this year.

    There are a lot of moving parts so its hard to see..and people actually get offended saying youre insulting a QB by saying he needs pieces around him..but although its hard to find a good rookie deal QB, Id say its looking likes its actually harder to find a QB who you can pay elite QB money to and still have money and chemistry enough left over to win the Super Bowl.

    When it came to Russel Wilson's deal I was particularly torn. At the time we were still a run first team that threw fewer passes than any other team. Its just economics -- youre investing a huge amount of limited resources into a phase of the game that wasnt as important to your team. And since then, weve increasingly thrown the ball. The problem with that is the rest of the team, and the philosophy of how the team is put together doesnt support that. We became a pass first team but with a receiving corps that isnt on par with other pass first teams. And you run into the further problem that before we were built an interesting, "moneyball"ish way -- while the rest of the league was a passing league , we were a running team. Teams were spending their money to defeat the PASS.. so their 2 elite CBs that they spent millions on were spent chasing our 500k WRs about, while we ran the ball down their throats against their D line that lacked elite run stoppers because people build to stop the pass.

    Russel Wilson's second contract stops all that.

    Its not easy to find a QB as good as Wilson, but its even harder to build a team the Peyton Manning Way.. pay an elite QB whatever he wants and hope all your draft choices work out.

    Find a Kaep, a Wilson, a Flacco..if you can.. and use your left over 25 million to get/keep FIVE other players that are good.. or 3 near elite players, or a shut down corner and elite pass rusher.

    If we go to 30 million on Wilson, the opportunity cost is huge, more than the actual money... its 30 million youre not spending anywhere else and its hard to overcome.

    If you spend it, you know two things -- youre building just like every other team, so you dont have any competitive advantage built in, and you know you literally need to hit on nearly every draft choice to keep the talent level up -- and it also says you know youre going to develop those draft picks but the best of them youre going to let walk after their first contract.

    I am torn because I love Wilson..but there are serious inefficiencies in the market. I really thought last year was going to open peoples and teams eyes doing things differently, but it didnt.



  • Let me change direction a bit. First, it depends on what one considers a successful team...from a fan's perspective. Is it only a successful team if you win a SB? Or if you are able to continually field a team who wins more games than losing games?

    To me, a good organization is the prime ingredient....and we have one. As a fan. as long as you show me a competitive team who wins more games than losing games I'm happy....and that we have also. If my team doesn't go all the way and win the SB, you'll never hear me say, "I am disappointed in the 'Hawks because they should have won the SB." If I did, it would be my fault for overestimating my team. Not the team's fault for not living up to my expectations.

    So to me using SB stats to make a point, doesn't impress me, or make a great argument....at least not to me. (No insults intended.)

    That being said, a QB is the most important player on a football team. And if you find one who's a constant winner, you keep him. Simple...at least to me. 😉

    There is more I could write on this, but it's getting late and I'm an oldster. So, night all.



  • As an add-on to Ross' SB stats. When looking at Brady's salary numbers we should remember he has re-worked his salary/contract a number of times.....gotta remember his wife makes more than he does! Must be nice! 🙂



  • https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-think-getting-tom-brady-at-a-discounts-a-good-deal-heres-a-breakdown/

    this article highlights how much of a discount Brady has given the Patriots.

    If you look at the top paid QBs of the past 5 seasons, they are all either at 1 or no Super Bowls in that time. Flacco, who we all think sucks now.. may not actually suck that bad.. his contract may just be that much of a hindrance on his team. There is a chart in the article, if nothing else, look at that.



  • That list of Highest Paid Totals for QBs have the following Superbowl Experience from the link.

    9 Appearances between Flacco (1), E Manning (2), Brees (1), Ryan (1), Roethlisberger (3) and Rodgers (1).

    7 Wins between those guys Flacco (1), E Manning (2), Brees (1), Roethisberger (2) and Rodgers (1).

    Guys on that list with 0 appearances, Stafford and Rivers.

    I am not in the camp that thinks Flacco sucks; he's a good QB. But the problem is that the market doesn't pay you to be a "good" they pay you regardless because the fear of being the Browns or Jets is too much to bare.


Log in to reply