Russell Wilson

Related:
Create New Tag

6/30/2015 9:16 AM

Should they pay him like he wants?

Personally, I say that if they don't think that he is that good they should trade him or just let him walk and see how they do................


P

|

The Josie Wales of Vitalmx

6/30/2015 9:27 AM

I don't know about $25 mil+ but close to that. He's an elite QB (and they're hard to come by) and the face of he franchise. Their problem is going to be being able to pay for all the other players they have if they give him as much as he's asking for.

|

6/30/2015 9:32 AM

If Cam Newton can get $100mil (around 20 per year) then Russel should get at least that, but they have a pretty high dollar roster and cap space my affect his pay.

|

-OC
"Feed The Bull"
Twitter: @ocscottie | Facebook

6/30/2015 9:33 AM

They should have signed him EARLY, like after the Super Bowl.


P

|

The Josie Wales of Vitalmx

6/30/2015 9:40 AM

I'm a Russell Wilson fan, but to be honest the Seahawks have won as much as they have the last couple years mainly because of their defense.

I can see a trade happening, but hope it doesn't. Wilson is a good young QB, and it's always a crapshoot to find one that just won't lose games for you. The Seahawks can keep him locked up for a couple of seasons, but I don't see it going on for more than this season without a longer term deal.

|

6/30/2015 9:42 AM

The longer it draws out, the longer I am willing to let him go.

Play his final year of his rookie contract, and then franchise him for 2016. After that, sign a veteran QB who is hungry for a Super Bowl, and provide him with a stellar defense, stronger receiving crew, and stout running corp. (Turbin and Michael will be EXCELLENT replacements for Beast Mode.)

Personally, I am a bit surprised by this. I thought Russell would "Lead by example" on this issue, and clearly leave a little bit on the table, with a strong statement of how this is how they should all do it, to ensure competiveness into the future.

Brady has restructured 3 or 4 times, always making sure there was money to sign a necessary free agent. I thought RW3 would follow that example.

|

6/30/2015 9:43 AM

P wrote:

They should have signed him EARLY, like after the Super Bowl.


P

I'm pretty sure that he couldn't be signed to an extension until this offseason. There are some weird NFL rules with rookie contracts and such that keep you from escalating and extending them too early.

|

6/30/2015 10:00 AM

@ESPNNFL In the last 3 seasons including the playoffs, Russell Wilson has more wins than Tom Brady & Peyton Manning.

Photo

|

-OC
"Feed The Bull"
Twitter: @ocscottie | Facebook

6/30/2015 10:37 AM

PAY THE MAN WHAT HE IS WORTH!
|

“Adhering to 1970’s Standards of Political Correctness”

6/30/2015 1:04 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/30/2015 1:04 PM

Shiftfaced wrote:

The longer it draws out, the longer I am willing to let him go.

Play his final year of his rookie contract, and then franchise him for 2016. After that, sign a veteran QB who is hungry for a Super Bowl, and provide him with a stellar defense, stronger receiving crew, and stout running corp. (Turbin and Michael will be EXCELLENT replacements for Beast Mode.)

Personally, I am a bit surprised by this. I thought Russell would "Lead by example" on this issue, and clearly leave a little bit on the table, with a strong statement of how this is how they should all do it, to ensure competiveness into the future.

Brady has restructured 3 or 4 times, always making sure there was money to sign a necessary free agent. I thought RW3 would follow that example.

That seems to be the conventional thinking, but I think it's a bad move for a few reasons. Before the last three years the Seahawks NEVER had back-to-back double digit win seasons. I don't believe that is a coincidence. I don't think that you can just "plug in" a QB there because Russell brings intangables that most NFL QB's don't. Also, if you look at the kind of guy that he is on and off the field he is exactly what ANY franchise would want. Lastly, they have had a bargin for three years, soon to be four, and won their first Super Bowl with this guy. If you don't make him the face of your franchise I think that you send a baaaaaad message to future potential Seahawks.

If they go to and/or win another Super Bowl next year and try to franchise or trade him it would speak VOLUMNS about the organization.


P

|

The Josie Wales of Vitalmx

6/30/2015 2:19 PM

Shiftfaced wrote:

The longer it draws out, the longer I am willing to let him go.

Play his final year of his rookie contract, and then franchise him for 2016. After that, sign a veteran QB who is hungry for a Super Bowl, and provide him with a stellar defense, stronger receiving crew, and stout running corp. (Turbin and Michael will be EXCELLENT replacements for Beast Mode.)

Personally, I am a bit surprised by this. I thought Russell would "Lead by example" on this issue, and clearly leave a little bit on the table, with a strong statement of how this is how they should all do it, to ensure competiveness into the future.

Brady has restructured 3 or 4 times, always making sure there was money to sign a necessary free agent. I thought RW3 would follow that example.

Brady restructured because he had already made tons of cash, and his wife is worth more than he is....Wilson is in a far different situation.

Also, it's not all that easy for a high profile player to leave money on the table. The union and the agents want guys to set the bar high and leave it there for future negotiations.

|

Yes, I know....guacamole is extra.

6/30/2015 3:32 PM

Wilson without Lynch and the defense is average at best. Trade him and see how well he does. Keep him and see what happens when Lynch leaves next year. Drop him now while you can

|

6/30/2015 7:36 PM

When their defense struggled so did Wilson he's nowhere near an elite qb maybe top 10 . I think he's a good kid though , I like him way better than Cam

|

6/30/2015 11:22 PM

Compared to other players performance and salaries he's worth what he's asking for. Somebody will pay him I promise you that

|

in a past life, I was myself

when opportunity knocked, it waited because I was busy

I gave my father a talking to

7/1/2015 5:21 AM

Wilson is not an elite QB. Seattle has an elite defense. Pay the guys on defense the huge money. Wilson rarely had those "wow" type of games. I think he's a solid QB and I hate to take anything away from him but it's just the reality of it. Throw him on the Jacksonville Jaguars and see how well he does and how many games he wins. Throw Brady, Manning, Rogers, Brees, or Luck on that team and they're highly competitive immediately.

|

7/1/2015 6:45 AM

agn5009 wrote:

Wilson is not an elite QB. Seattle has an elite defense. Pay the guys on defense the huge money. Wilson rarely had those "wow" type of games. I think he's a solid QB and I hate to take anything away from him but it's just the reality of it. Throw him on the Jacksonville Jaguars and see how well he does and how many games he wins. Throw Brady, Manning, Rogers, Brees, or Luck on that team and they're highly competitive immediately.

I disagree. That can be said for any top QB. If you throw Brady, Banning, Rogers, any of those guys on the Jags how well would they do...............There isn't a Super Bowl winning team that isn't really good at every phase of the game. The Patriots threw big money at their defense this past year because they knew that they needed more than Tom to win it.

Here is the test to of just how good Russell Wilson is. If you throw Tannehill or Cam on the team are they highly competitive immediately? Super Bowl competitive? Personally, I don't think so. He brings more than just a perfect spiral to that team he brings a belief that they can with him no matter what. You CAN buy that..............but it cost.

I'm a Dallas fan and I don't think that you can just "plug and play" players in most cases. We will see how our rushing game is this season with the "plug and play" philosophy.


P

|

The Josie Wales of Vitalmx

7/1/2015 10:17 AM

What does it mean to "franchise" a player?

(sorry for the stupid question, but I'm one of the watch 1 game/year guys...the superbowl...so I know nothing about the sport.)

|

7/1/2015 10:25 AM

Titan1 wrote:

What does it mean to "franchise" a player?

(sorry for the stupid question, but I'm one of the watch 1 game/year guys...the superbowl...so I know nothing about the sport.)

In the general sense it's the guy that represents the franchise. The face of the franchise. However there is something called "the franchise tag" that a team can slap a guy with that means for one year they have to pay him the average of the top 5 guys (salary wise) at that position. The problem is when you feel that you are the best at your position it's not so good. Also, some players take it to mean that the team doesn't believe in them because they won't sign them to a long-term deal. Dez Bryant of the Dallas Cowboys has been slapped with the franchise tag and is pretty upset. I can't blame him. He's gurenteed around 12 mil under that tag though..................


P

|

The Josie Wales of Vitalmx

7/1/2015 10:26 AM

Titan1 wrote:

What does it mean to "franchise" a player?

(sorry for the stupid question, but I'm one of the watch 1 game/year guys...the superbowl...so I know nothing about the sport.)

P wrote:

In the general sense it's the guy that represents the franchise. The face of the franchise. However there is something called "the franchise tag" that a team can slap a guy with that means for one year they have to pay him the average of the top 5 guys (salary wise) at that position. The problem is when you feel that you are the best at your position it's not so good. Also, some players take it to mean that the team doesn't believe in them because they won't sign them to a long-term deal. Dez Bryant of the Dallas Cowboys has been slapped with the franchise tag and is pretty upset. I can't blame him. He's gurenteed around 12 mil under that tag though..................


P

Thanks for that explanation.

|

7/1/2015 10:31 AM

Titan1 wrote:

What does it mean to "franchise" a player?

(sorry for the stupid question, but I'm one of the watch 1 game/year guys...the superbowl...so I know nothing about the sport.)

P wrote:

In the general sense it's the guy that represents the franchise. The face of the franchise. However there is something called "the franchise tag" that a team can slap a guy with that means for one year they have to pay him the average of the top 5 guys (salary wise) at that position. The problem is when you feel that you are the best at your position it's not so good. Also, some players take it to mean that the team doesn't believe in them because they won't sign them to a long-term deal. Dez Bryant of the Dallas Cowboys has been slapped with the franchise tag and is pretty upset. I can't blame him. He's gurenteed around 12 mil under that tag though..................


P

Titan1 wrote:

Thanks for that explanation.

No problem. I'm not as into football as many, but that is my understanding.


P

|

The Josie Wales of Vitalmx

7/1/2015 2:44 PM

P, did you see the chunk of change Anthony Unibrow brought in? $145mil!! Richest contract in NBA history. The $$ the NBA is throwing around is fucking insane!

Im really bummed that The Warriors have broke off talks w/ Draymond Green, love that dude and i think he is making a mistake if he leaves.

*sorry to go off topic

|

-OC
"Feed The Bull"
Twitter: @ocscottie | Facebook

7/1/2015 9:35 PM

agn5009 wrote:

Wilson is not an elite QB. Seattle has an elite defense. Pay the guys on defense the huge money. Wilson rarely had those "wow" type of games. I think he's a solid QB and I hate to take anything away from him but it's just the reality of it. Throw him on the Jacksonville Jaguars and see how well he does and how many games he wins. Throw Brady, Manning, Rogers, Brees, or Luck on that team and they're highly competitive immediately.

P wrote:

I disagree. That can be said for any top QB. If you throw Brady, Banning, Rogers, any of those guys on the Jags how well would they do...............There isn't a Super Bowl winning team that isn't really good at every phase of the game. The Patriots threw big money at their defense this past year because they knew that they needed more than Tom to win it.

Here is the test to of just how good Russell Wilson is. If you throw Tannehill or Cam on the team are they highly competitive immediately? Super Bowl competitive? Personally, I don't think so. He brings more than just a perfect spiral to that team he brings a belief that they can with him no matter what. You CAN buy that..............but it cost.

I'm a Dallas fan and I don't think that you can just "plug and play" players in most cases. We will see how our rushing game is this season with the "plug and play" philosophy.


P

I know none of them would be able to win the superbowl with a team like the jags. I understand it takes a complete team to win the big game. Like I said, a great qb could at least make a team like the jags competitive. I didn't say they'd win the superbowl. Manning did it for years with the Colts. He was on a team with a really bad defense, average to below average running backs etc and still won a lot.

I just don't think Wilson is as valuable as the few elite qbs is all. He's on a winning team, the team rarely wins because of his play. They win because he doesn't turn the ball over and is smart. And that's a good thing, but an elite QB gives you the opportunity to still win no matter what.

|

7/2/2015 8:41 AM

The popular thought is that the issue with Wilson's contract isn't the overall or average value, but rather the amount of guaranteed money he's asking for. Sounds like he's asking for unprecedented sums of guaranteed money and the Seahawks don't seem to want to be the team to completely alter the landscape of the sport like that.

Cam Newton's contract looks like a monster at 5yrs/$103.8M but only $41M of that was initially guaranteed, about 40% of the total value. Rumor has Wilson's agent looking for a higher average and 60-80% of the total value guaranteed.

If those rumors are true, I'd look to trade him. You'd find out in a hurry just how much the guys who make their living evaluating talent think Wilson would elevate an average team. I don't think you'd see the Dolphins immediately giving up Tannehill, or Detroit swapping for Stafford. If you could get Newton straight even for Wilson, I'd take that deal right now.

|

7/2/2015 9:05 AM

APLMAN99 wrote:

The popular thought is that the issue with Wilson's contract isn't the overall or average value, but rather the amount of guaranteed money he's asking for. Sounds like he's asking for unprecedented sums of guaranteed money and the Seahawks don't seem to want to be the team to completely alter the landscape of the sport like that.

Cam Newton's contract looks like a monster at 5yrs/$103.8M but only $41M of that was initially guaranteed, about 40% of the total value. Rumor has Wilson's agent looking for a higher average and 60-80% of the total value guaranteed.

If those rumors are true, I'd look to trade him. You'd find out in a hurry just how much the guys who make their living evaluating talent think Wilson would elevate an average team. I don't think you'd see the Dolphins immediately giving up Tannehill, or Detroit swapping for Stafford. If you could get Newton straight even for Wilson, I'd take that deal right now.

I've heard that as well. He wants higher than normal guaranteed money. I also heard that this agent is a well known baseball agent and baseball contracts are fully guaranteed. You can't blame the guy though. The fans talk about sticking to the contract that you signed and all of that, but that contract isn't really what it seems. A team can cut a guy and he may be done in terms of getting the rest of that contract.

Cam is a good QB, but there is a reason that the entire receiving core left a year ago and Tannehill and Stafford...........you don't win on skill alone. I'll leave it at that. If any of those teams made that trade they would make their team and organization better in the long run (not to diss the QB's named above). That's how much of an impact I think Russell's intangibles would have.


P

|

The Josie Wales of Vitalmx

7/2/2015 9:19 AM

The guarantee is the side of the issue that a lot of people do not consider.

Only a portion is guaranteed, and the last couple of years of a "contract" is often where a player is negotiated down in salary so he does not get cut.

I am really strung out on this issue, because RW3 has been nothing but a great teammate, and face for the team. He lifts everybody around him up.

But the Carroll and Schneider have created this team through turn-over, and not mortgaging the future on any one player. RW3 is pushing them to toe that line.....

|