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

Extend Russ at 35 million?

  • Herald Net - POLL RESULTS: Opinions mixed on Russell Wilson contract

    About half of the Seahawk fanbase polled would extend Russell Wilson at any cost. The other half wants a more team cap friendly deal and some want to trade him for what I assume would be a kings ransom. What are your thoughts? Personally, and I love Russ, but trade him. I think in a system that pushes a strong running game with a stout defense, the QB has less pressure than a pass-oriented team with ok defense that is designed to win shootouts. In that scenario, Aaron Rodgers money is called for. But with the Seahawks, a accurate, and yeah I'll say it, "Game Manager" type of QB that makes decent but not top dollar money would be perfect for them.

    Look, its not a question of Russ or Nathan Peterman. There are good QBs coming up that could do the job AND be on a cap friendly rookie contract. Think RW + LOB all over again. Russ's rookie contract allowed big spending else where. Come get one of those QBs that teams trade back into the late first round for and you got him for 5 years on the cheap!

    Love him and he'll always be remembered as part of the greatest Seahawk teams (so far) but Russ has got to go.

  • 0_1544811277517_ca2813bc-88b8-47b4-bcc3-2cf1fecd8c7a-image.png

    Yes, pay him. Not because he's worth $35M a year but the cost to replace a QB that can play at his level is nearly impossible.

    All the people that argue that spending this kind of money cripples your franchise... yes, there's a lot of logic to that. But the ability to find a generational talent like Russell in the next draft or in FA is illogical.

    If you can find a $15-20M or rookie QB you have tons of money to throw around your veterans or Free Agent, but no player has such an impact on a team than the QB.

    The Seahawks are not in a position where they are winning in-spite of Wilson, they are winning largley because of Wilson's efficiency. I don't understand the logic that Wilson (and the money he costs) is replaceable.

    There's no defensive player that could eat up a portion of that money and make the Seahawks that much better than what Wilson already brings.

  • Ok. I see where you're coming from. I just don't buy it!

    First we'd need to agree that Russ is a generational talent. If he is, I want to know what generation? RW is a great QB but "generational"? If you really believe that then Yes, you'd pay him. I don't. No one will remember this era of the NFL as the Russell Wilson Era. Not with the big 3 of Brady, Rogers and Brees in the league. It's because he's a great fit for this team and the way they use him.

    The goal is Super Bowls. I don't believe part of getting there is securing a top 5 paid QB. We need to look at the ingredients to go to the Bowl in this era of football and salary cap. That is the Russell Wilson and Carson Wentz model of team building. Drafting QBs is a crap-shoot but that's why you hire the best GM and Scouting Department money can by. They increase your chances of not drafting a dud. Get a player like Mahomes and your golden. Hell, I think Pete Carroll could build a winner around Lamar Jackson. I mean, he's a running threat that would complicate the already formidable run game and would give us money to get great players at other positions.

    Ultimately I believe the key to winning the Super Bowl isn't the highest paid Quarterback. It is the quality of the playerS (plural) on your team. In this era the money is better spent in multiple, smaller chunks to 2nd contract players than one lump sum to QB of a run first team.

  • I've seen what a Hasselbeck-less and Wilson-less Seahawks team looks like.

    I also have seen what happens when you tie your boat to QBs like Stafford, Carr, Schuab, Dalton, Romo, Prescott, Goff, Smith, <Insert Browns QB>, Bortles, etc.

    Paying a QB is not a total detriment to a team's superbowl chances. While Tom Brady is taking a less contract, he's still made it to 3 of the past 4 Superbowls.

    Matt Ryan made it to a Superbowl. Manning made it to 3 Superbowls being a highly cap-restrictive position. For every Rookie Joe Flacco, Ben Roethelisberger, Russell Wilson or Collin Kaepernick, there are guys like Cam Newton, Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Kurt Warners.

    In the past 8 SBs, only 4 QBs have shown up for the AFC and 7 in the NFC; AFC P Manning (2), Tom Brady (4), Ben Roethlisberg (1) & Joe Flacco (1) vs NFC Aaron Rodgers (1), Eli Manning (1), Colin Kaepernick (1), Russell Wilson (2), Cam Newton (1), Matt Ryan (1) & Nick Foles (1).

    The biggest thing is investing in the right players; whether that's the QB, DE, OL or P. The NFL as a whole does not define what is best for the Seahawks given they are the only team to rush more than they pass, the only team to have 2,000+ yards rushing and how lost 5+ Pro-Bowlers from their defensive roster from last year.

    I have yet to see how Wilson's current contract prevented them from retaining any of their best players. The best player they lost was due to betting on the wrong player and that was Percy Harvin over Golden Tate. There's no other former Seahawks who was released or lost in Free Agency that has gone on to have a better career.

    Here's the thing, no franchise will willingly give up on their QB. The fact that Kirk Cousins can get $84M guaranteed is less about Kirk Cousins and more about how much the position is coveted. If anything, it proves that Washington was right for stringing him along for as long as they could. They are not that far off from where Minnesota is right now but they lost their QB so they are shot.

    Russell's succcess is so hard to replicate and I feel that we (collective "we") too often look at the fantasy numbers to justify who is good/bad. Lamar Jackson is on a great tear right now... but Russell has been Russell for 7+ years now. There's no sign that he's holding this team back in any capacity and that is valuable in-of-itself.

    The other issue is that there is not always money to spend on these great talents in Free Agency. The best bargains for Seattle have been guys that no one wanted (Arvil, Bennnett, Baldwin, Browner, McDaniels, McDougald, etc.) or were willing to give them top-dollar so they took a short-term deal to try it out.

  • You were making my case for me a little bit here.

    1st - Brady took less. Why did he do that? To have money to spend elsewhere. If Russ doesn't want top dollar and wants to take less to have money for other positions, sign him now.

    2nd - In the past 8 Super Bowls you listed 11 QBs. I would argue 3 of the 11 could be considered generational. A generational QB is NOT needed.

    3rd - "The bigest thing is investing in the right players". I completely agree. At the right price of course.

    4th - If Wilson was on his rookie contract the Hawks may not of lowballed a player they invested good draft capital in. Sheldon Richardson should still be a part of this team.

    5th - I agree that there is no sign that Russ is holding the Hawks back. However you don't need a record-breaking QB contracts to not hold a team back.

    6th - The best bargains were on prove it deals. The thing was when they did prove it there was money for the 2nd contracts.

    With the cap money they'd save and the haul of players and/or picks from the trade, JS would risk cap-strapping the team and risking its future if they didn't trade Russ.

  • Bird: Since Brady's wife makes more money than he does, might come into the answer.

    The Cap goes up every year, so I'm not worried about the money....and besides this ain't fantasy foots, this is real life.

    RW is the winningist QB we've ever had. Although I'm no RW homer and I don't really know what his price is, if it's within any reasonable amount of $, I say pay the man.

  • @Lymon I was floored when I saw that she made over 2x the amount he did! I had no idea! Still, if that is the reason he didn't want the richest contract in NFL history then Ciara needs to get off her lazy tookus and sang some more songs!

    Everything is relative with the cap. The cap goes up and so does the players salary demands. But I agree about Wilson. The key is "reasonable amount". I'm saying that 35 million a year is not reasonable for what the position is asked to do in this system. Russ has perhaps played so well that he's played himself right out of the Seahawks system. If the system relies on Running over 50% of the time and a top 5 defense then is it really wise to spend what would be the NFL's richest contract with the most money ever guaranteed? I'm saying no. I don't really know why anyone would say yes?

  • BTW: Anyone know how/who came up with the 35 Mil, figure?

  • @Lymon said in Extend Russ at 35 million?:

    BTW: Anyone know how/who came up with the 35 Mil, figure?

    Some nameless/linkless source that the Herald Writer states but doesn't say exactly where.

  • Yes, we are winning because of Wilson right now, not just with him. But we have to.. hes on his second contract. Hes eating a huge percentage of the cap. And although the cap goes up every year, the percentage of the cap that is taken up by the quarterback has been steadily increasing.

    You dont need a generational quarterback to win the Super Bowl. There isnt one answer to the Super Bowl puzzle. Its, in my opinion, very lazy of teams to keep going with the Peyton Manning Model.. "once you have your QB pay him anything because thats all that matters!"

    Last Super Bowl.. it was Brady vs Foles. Brady takes less because his business gets benefits from the Patriots. Foles was a cheap back up, Wentz was on his rookie contract.

    The year before, Matt Ryan was the high priced QB and lost. The cheaper quarterback won (Brady again).

    The year before? It was Manning and Newton. This is where we reinforced the Manning method..

    The year before that.. Wilson on his rookie contract, Brady on his discount contract.

    They year before that.. Wilson vs Manning. Two completely different models of getting there.

    Before that , Flacco and Kaep.. 2 qbs on their rookie contracts.

    We dont see Stafford, Rodgers, Rivers or any number of other "franchise QBs" whose teams use up a huge amount of cap space on their qb. You CAN win that way..but its really hard.. if 20 teams build that way and you want to compete with have to have a better QB or potentially better WRS. Its hard to get a competitive advantage unless you truly have a super elite QB like Manning. Mere Franchise QBs dont seem to cut it when paid like the market says they should be, and then look at the Seahawks -- the more they pay Wilson the worse theyve done in the playoffs.

    I heard it mentioned if you build this way its easier because its easier to get one player right -- The QB. But I dont buy that.. to be competitive with a 30 million dollar QB taking up 17% of your cap you have to hit on all your draft picks so you have cheap , competent players everywhere.

    We will keep Wilson..but thats because its a risk adverse league.

  • It comes down to banking on the right player (regardless of position); and of any player to spend money on it should always be the QB based on the fact they are the hardest to secure and hardest replace.

    Without a replacement or draft position I feel that it's foolish to entertain the idea of replacing or trading Wilson away. Wilson is not a Stafford, Ryan, Carr or any other sub-tier QB who was recently extended.

  • But you DO recognize we got to the Super Bowl on his rookie contract, twice..and since then as his salary goes up weve been less and less successful, right? Potentially this year breaks that trend..though not yet..

  • No. I'm pretty sure that the Seahawks paid Wilson $99M his first contract.

    Who are these players that the Seahawks are magically missing out on by giving Wilson his first extension? If anything trading for players like Harvin and Graham have done more to hurt the Seahawks than extending their QB.

  • So your argument is there is no one in the NFL worth spending any money on except Russel Wilson...? That giant contracts DONT actually affect your ability to pay other people...?

  • @sammyc521 said in Extend Russ at 35 million?:

    No. I'm pretty sure that the Seahawks paid Wilson $99M his first contract.

    Who are these players that the Seahawks are magically missing out on by giving Wilson his first extension? If anything trading for players like Harvin and Graham have done more to hurt the Seahawks than extending their QB.

    This is pretty difficult to answer with specific names. I will say that all that extra money would have been spent. Maybe even spent on the Offensive Line that was neglected for so long because there wasn't money to pay them. That's the kind of thing that happens when a QB is signed to massive contracts. There becomes less money to spend on players from every position group.

    What I'm saying is, IN THIS ERA, I believe that a team will have a better chance at winning it all by drafting a Rookie QB, and using all the extra money to solidify the rest of the teams position groups. Which is what the Seahawks did that won them SB48. It is especially important to do this now. With the bounty from a Wilson trade the Seahawks could be rebuilt in an offseason and back to the SB in 3 years. So in other words, attack this roster like PC and JS did when they first got here. Worked the first time!


    Youtube Video

    Actually, since it's looking like we'll have to pay Frank Clark over 20 mil a year if we want to keep him my mind raced over to RW's situation again. 2 guys with over 55 mil wrapped up together in their salaries. Bless Russ and Frank but no. Something has to give here. I mean we've watched the Rams take over the division, the Eagles win a Super Bowl, the wild ascension of the Chiefs... Hell, we're going to be watching the Browns rise up next year. Big money QB's mean you'll be competing for playoffs. Good Rookie QB's just give a team a bigger advantage to challenge for Super Bowls.

    The salary cap keeps going up which gives teams more money to bring in better talent at more positions. With these rookie QB teams affording to give big contracts to various players how is a team with a 35+ mil QB and a 20+mil DE supposed to compete with that? You can't expect a team to hit on every draft pick, 1st thru 7th, and rely on that to fill all the holes of the FA's you lost out on.

    Tying up too much money between to few of players leaves teams with too many holes. If the goal is Championships, the Seahawks really need to be bold and trade Russell away. If the goal is just ticket sales, then of course sign him to whatever he wants. But watch out, because while the Rams are riding Goff's rookie contract, the Cardinals are next in line to do to us what we did to them: pay a rookie QB contract and build a LOB to pound on us.

  • Well... I’ve written at length on this topic. Since last I wrote it’s become more clear Wilson wants 35. And it makes sense— Cousins contract pays 31 next year and Wilson isn’t going to take less than that obviously. And now he has set a rather arbitrary date that the contract must be done by. Because #baseballagent thinks he can change the NFL.

    Demarcus Lawrence got his big money today. And that sets Clark’s table.

    So, yea, it’s going to be: do we want to spend 1/5 of the cap on those two? I think Clark is real good but I don’t see him as Aaron Donald good.

    If we sign these two like this and Wagner. And Reed. The we need to hit on every draft pick and FA signing. We wiii have to let people go next year.

    Problem is we don’t have picks this year and although we assume we will get some trading down when the whole world knows what your cards are it’s hard to win much in poker.

    I don’t know. Seahawks really put themselves in a hole last year and the year before with questionable/desperate decisions.

    I do still think that once you pay even Wilson 35 million you’re most likely playing for the play offs not championships.

  • @Veda-the-Moor the cap is going to jump a ton over the next 3 years so I would pay him 35 million and wouldn't think twice. An elite QB isn't a lock for the SB but what it does do is keep you in that 9-11 win range and with some luck, great draft picks, health etc you can win one. Look how many teams bwver even get close because of subpar QB play. For me losing Wilson could set you back a decade or more. He keeps you relevant and in the mix. But I'm the biggest Wilson Homer there is for whatever that's worth 🙂

  • The reason they are not back to any Super Bowls is long lasting hangover and drama after the INT and the LOB / defense got older and injured. It hasn’t been the same since that Thursday night when they lost Sherm, Cliff and Kam. Earl has been hurt a couple of times. It isn’t all Russ’ fault although nobody is perfect.

    I think you have sign Russ long term, not franchised. It will just be more after Mahomes signs. Some other team would be happy to pay Russ if the Seahawks don’t. Even if he signs long term there’s nothing to stop the Seahawks from developing a QB and trading Russ when the heir becomes apparent. Otherwise you’re trading Russ for a high draft pick and a shot at a rookie? That scares the hell out of me.

  • What should we get for Russ? THAT is the big question for someone like me who is no longer sold on having to have an elite QB to compete for Super Bowls. For the life of me I can't completely answer that. I think I have already come to grips with a team not needing an elite QB anymore. But the value in a trade of the elite QB is something I just can't wrap my mind around. It hasn't really been done before. There used to be a reason for that. But is it still valid?

    Since Russ went to back to back SB's in only his 2nd and 3rd year in the league, and on his rookie contract, there became the realization that there are more than one way to build a Super Bowl contender. Russ is a much better QB now, and on his 2nd contract, than he was in his 2nd and 3rd year yet the Hawks haven't been back to the SB since. I think the only arguments you can make for that is the talent level on the rest of the team. This supports my viewpoint of the elite QB no longer needed to have a SB contender.

    Teams are rising up lately with QB's still on their rookie deals. Eagles, Rams Chiefs and even potentially the Browns are the most notable. Paying rookie contract money to a QB allows teams to overpay at other positions, thereby locking out teams with more stringent budgets. (This is even magnified by the rise in salary cap every year. More money to offer the top Strong Safety or re-sign him if he's due.)This will force said teams to compete with journeymen, RFA's and late round draft picks to round out their depth and even starting lineups.

    Elite QB's count for more wins for a team than any other position. Trading that away to chase a different team building model is terrifying. Even more terrifying is the thought of being the one to make that trade. I try to imagine it but I can't. Then every once in a while I'll have a vision of RW in black and silver...

  • Teams paying full price rarely, if ever win a Super Bowl. You can say the cap is growing, but the % of cap the QB position is taking is also growing. Basically when you pay that much you cant retain your people and you have to hit on every draft pick. The Seahawks this year though have 4 picks. Yes, they will get more.. we hope.. but its not ideal. Wilson re signed will get you to the playoffs a lot.. but I dont know if they get back to the Super Bowl paying that much out. Naholmes said above they didnt get back because of the hangover..which I dont really believe.. depends on what you mean by that..and the LOB leaving. But the LOB left a couple years later..but in the meantime they started to lose depth.. and one reason is paying more at the QB position.

    If we resign Wilson and Wagner and Clark.. we literally can retain just about no one else. So every other free agent will need to be replaced by draft. Every other player has to be drafted for and the pick needs to work out. It might actually be easier to retain some players and try drafting a special QB. I know that its not easy. But weve seen recently the QB position doesnt have to be quite as important as its made out to be, or rather, its not quite as narrow as portrayed when considering who can get you there.. and it might be easier to draft 1 good QB then 6 , 7 position players and need ALL to pan out and maybe 1 or 2 to be All Pro level.

    Im not choosing this hill to die on.Im not going to go around beating a drum for trading Wilson. I know that objectively its the way to go ..but its not an objective world. We have to sign him, and we are going to have fun and I wont be a hater. I like watching him play. But when that happens I will be hoping for SBs but expecting 1st and 2nd round playoff departures.

  • Hoping I get some time later to respond as I think Trading Wilson would be a catastrophic mistake.

  • It well could be , depending on what you get and how you use it. But if the Vikings can get deep in the playoffs with their #3 QB, and if the Eagles can advance to and win the playoffs with their #2.. while Brees, Rodgers, and other full priced QBs cant get back it might actually be time for some level of reappraisal. I was astounded when it happened -- the needle didnt twitch. You still need good QB play. No one is saying you dont. Im not one of those who says "the Seahawks are run heavy so they dont need a great QB". Its just a question of are you playing for the playoffs or playing for the Super Bowl?

    If youre paying your QB 35 million a year, and Team X has a QB on their rookie deal and he is also good.. youre essentially playing the same game but with 34 million dollars less in payroll. That is 2 star level players, or 5 or 6 good veteran players youre resigning while the other team has to draft 5 or 6 rookies and hope they are good enough. You have to hit on 5 or 6..out of 7 if youve kept all your choices. And thats just to keep pace.

    Obviously its more complicated that all that..

    But there is more than one way to build a football team than the Peyton Manning model, in my opinion.

  • The NFL ducked things up by allowing that on-call foul against the Saints.

    Had the Saints been in the NFL, they would have been there and not a rookie contract QB. This would have flipped all the "you cant play in the SB if you're paying your QB."

  • Actually..for me anyway, not really. Because I guess I should say it this way: you can make it, but you have to really hit on your drafts. Kamara and Michael Thomas are huge hits that make that go for them.

    Its not exactly impossible, its just very difficult. And if the Saints had gone, it would show that .. it would have been 1 instead of zero market value quarterbacks making it.

    I mean look at the Seahawks right now. We are struggling to see if we can keep the talent we have. Compared to our Super Bowl teams.. we are better at one position or two. Dramatically weaker in a couple, Slightly weaker in the rest. And we are thinking we maybe cant keep 1 or 2 of the next big 4 to resign. We wont have cap space even to say the Bennett or Avril opportunity types. We have to build solely through the draft with these contracts, and cant retain our stars except 2 or 3 of them. This is why it hurt so bad when they got rid of picks for short term gains or nothing.. we have 4 picks to restock shelves.
    I think it will be very hard to get the talent level up to the Super Bowl level with these contracts.

Log in to reply