Rob Staton: The Russell Wilson contract saga is coming
Zeb Stark last edited by
This is likely to be the biggest story in Seattle until it's resolved. Here's Rob Staton's taek.
- His 2015 deal set a precedent
he Seahawks and Wilson last began negotiating a contract extension after the Super Bowl loss to the Patriots. A deal was expected to be a formality. Other quarterbacks like Cam Newton had set the market. Wilson was due a base salary of only $1.5m in 2015 because he was still on a third-round rookie contract.
Everything was set up. Wilson no doubt sought proper financial compensation having reached two Super Bowls (winning one). The Seahawks wanted to keep a young franchise quarterback. The market had already provided the parameters for a deal.
And yet it took months for an extension to be agreed.
- Why the odds are stacked against Seattle
Wilson is now one of the richest and most successful NFL players in the league. Furthermore, he’s married to an incredibly wealthy and successful woman — forming a celebrity power couple.
His base salary in 2019 is $17m — not $1.5m. There’s simply no financial pressure to get a deal done this time.
Adding to this is the Kirk Cousins situation. Previously the franchise tag was seen as a hindrance to players. It was a way to get a nice lump sum (guaranteed) for a years work — yet the lack of long term security was seen as a problem. Cousins completely changed the perception of the tag. He gambled on his own health and performance and made considerably more than most other quarterbacks by playing on the franchise tag year after year. And when the increasing cost became too rich for the Redskins — they allowed Cousins to test the open market.
Cousins had his cake and ate it.
- How can the Seahawks gain any kind of leverage?
It’s really, really simple…
Draft another quarterback.
Not a seventh round pick either. Someone who they can realistically point to in a negotiation.
Pretty reasonable take (regardless of whether you think they are true/false; I lean towards "more true") on what the Seahawks are setup to face.
The key difference for me is that Wilson has stated that he wants to win multiple championships and you don't usually get to do that when you switch teams. The last QBs to win a SB after moving to a new team are Drew Brees and Payton Manning; I would argue that both are exceptions and not the rule.
All the last QBs to win a SB (even to play in the SB) were drafted by their own team. I don't see that changing.
The biggest issue will come down to money and protection (for both the team and player). The biggest omission on the comparison to Cousins and Wilson is that Washington did not want to commit to Cousins; Seattle/Pete/John want to commit to Wilson.
The question will be can they reach a mutual agreement.
Veda the Moor last edited by
I would counter argue that Wilson probably feels he would be an exception not a rule as well.. he believes in himself and he will bet on himself. The only question to me really is if he can be persuaded that taking less is more. Taking less money so the team has success can lead to more earning potential. If the Seahawks are always a play off team but not a championship team.. endorsements will be less, visibility will be less. If football is a springboard to greater things, then he needs the visibility and post career cash flow that another Super Bowl or two would bring.
People were thinking that 35 million a year that we used in another example was too high , but in the end it was probably too low as a theoretical start.
So.. are you on board with RW at 38/39/40 million...?
Wilson is a top-tier QB and will get paid like one.
I would rather have a top-tier QB and risk the alternative. I know it's exceedingly expensive to do so but Russell Wilson is better than so many other QBs. I think it's unfair that people are just looking at the contracts and saying "no one is worth that much" but we are not talking about Stafford, Ryan, Cousins or the like.
The fact that the Seahawks FO wants to extend Russ it's the unlikely scenario that he goes the Cousins route because Washington was not interesting in investing in him.
Birdfinger last edited by
My thing is it depends on how we're gonna use Russ. If we really want to be a run team, and invest in run-blocking O-Line, blocking TE's, and keep trying to make starting WRs out of late round or UFA players then I don't want to have the top paid QB on the team. That investment in that position just doesn't make sense to me.
If we're going to put the weight of the offense on his shoulders I want to fully invest in both him and all the tools he needs to perform. Invest in o'line and offensive weapons beyond Lockett and an aging Baldwin.
Right now I don't get the impression that they want to be a balanced offense. They seem to want the run game to do the heavy lifting. Part of my problem is paying Russ top QB money and then focusing on the run seems to be wasting Russ's talents and Seahawks cap that they could be using to upgrade the run game and the defense.
I'm for paying Russ if they'll make him the focus of the offense. They just need to decide who and what they want to be go all in.
Veda the Moor last edited by
Just because the FO wants Russ.. why would he take less? Rather, that gives him more leverage.
It's all well and good to say he's not Stafford but then.. where is the limit?
Means they while they will negotiate against each other they are interested in working with each other.
I dont think the volume passing is the answer for any QB behind center and Russ has shown that even with fewer snaps, he can still be deadly. His efficiency is off the charts. Part of that is by design because he maximizes things.
It's not my money and I dont see it being a franchise crippling move.