User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 49253
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 40,870.73
A lot of pundits are questioning whether it would be smarter for the Seahawks to trade Russell Wilson rather than pay the man a record setting contract.

This situation is probably less with your opinions on Russell Wilson specifically (I know he has a small group of irrational haters for whatever reason) but more toward the philosophy of how to build a team post-rookie contract at the most important position. (although this would be Russ’ third contract)

Pay Russ, stay competitive while being hamstrung a bit on adding more players

Or

Trade him for a kings ransom, reboot and rebuild?
Moderator
Posts: 56598
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 114,352.16
endzoneview wrote:Pay Russ, stay competitive while being hamstrung a bit on adding more players

This.

What's happening in Seattle should provide a warning to others about going all-in when you're in the rookie contract window though. They pushed all of their chips into the middle of the table built around Russ and that defense. Like any strong defense, it broke up suddenly and violently - and they haven't drafted as well in recent years with the few early round picks they've had.

Teams with young QB's - success sustainability depends first on your future draft picks then re-signing decisions and finally on what you do in the open markets (free agent/trade). If you end up with less priority picks because of fa/trade decisions then your room for error decreases.

So what's the remedy in Seattle? Get more picks and draft better.
Megalodon
Posts: 19098
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009
Sand$: 20,470.56
You'd think teams would learn that in today's NFL, trying to build up an elite defense and sustain it is neither realistic nor a viable strategy at winning. At least with Jacksonville they were trying to do it to mask Bortles' inefficiency (not saying it was a smart move, they should have just gotten another QB), but Seahawks have one of the best QBs in the league. Focus on getting as much talent around him first then worry about your defense. New England showed you don't even have to be the best at drafting, you just need to acquire guys that fit your scheme and have a good coach and your defense can be more than good enough to win.
Great White Shark
Posts: 8473
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010
Sand$: 17,871.46
Markulous wrote:You'd think teams would learn that in today's NFL, trying to build up an elite defense and sustain it is neither realistic nor a viable strategy at winning. At least with Jacksonville they were trying to do it to mask Bortles' inefficiency (not saying it was a smart move, they should have just gotten another QB), but Seahawks have one of the best QBs in the league. Focus on getting as much talent around him first then worry about your defense. New England showed you don't even have to be the best at drafting, you just need to acquire guys that fit your scheme and have a good coach and your defense can be more than good enough to win.


That is the underrated part and where teams have flexibility since there is not coach pay scale.


Though the Patriots are a unicorn since Tom Brady is willing to work for less than top dollar. This year Brady will make only $27 Million. And they'll probably chop that with an extension.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 37769
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006
Sand$: 62,419.19
Elite QBs are hard to find and the Seahawks are foolish if they think they will be able to dump Wilson and draft a replacement. Pay the man.
User avatar
Leopard Shark
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 6, 2019
Sand$: 381.56
endzoneview wrote:A lot of pundits are questioning whether it would be smarter for the Seahawks to trade Russell Wilson rather than pay the man a record setting contract.

This situation is probably less with your opinions on Russell Wilson specifically (I know he has a small group of irrational haters for whatever reason) but more toward the philosophy of how to build a team post-rookie contract at the most important position. (although this would be Russ’ third contract)

Pay Russ, stay competitive while being hamstrung a bit on adding more players

Or

Trade him for a kings ransom, reboot and rebuild?


Trade him for a kings ransom, reboot and rebuild?


Outside of Tom Brady taking a huge 100m pay cut in his career allowing the cap to work with his team, name me another top priced QB as an anchor to a cap and the team having a SB win? I know its all relative, and if the total cap continues to go, it's equivalent. But it's not. Prices for top Qb's are out pacing the increase in the cap.

Trade for a kings ransom, reboot imo.
_______________________________________

Image
User avatar
Leopard Shark
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 6, 2019
Sand$: 381.56
OarChambo wrote:
endzoneview wrote:Pay Russ, stay competitive while being hamstrung a bit on adding more players

This.

What's happening in Seattle should provide a warning to others about going all-in when you're in the rookie contract window though. They pushed all of their chips into the middle of the table built around Russ and that defense. Like any strong defense, it broke up suddenly and violently - and they haven't drafted as well in recent years with the few early round picks they've had.

Teams with young QB's - success sustainability depends first on your future draft picks then re-signing decisions and finally on what you do in the open markets (free agent/trade). If you end up with less priority picks because of fa/trade decisions then your room for error decreases.

So what's the remedy in Seattle? Get more picks and draft better.


Get more picks and draft better


I actually like this and should have used this as a secondary issue. This is really the ONLY alternative to trade and reboot. But with the RIGHT trade..( you dont do this plan without it) you can get a high enough pick to get the young stud you're high on. With todays NFL, there will be more stud QB's available as time goes on. To keep Russ, they have to really believe they can out do the packers attempts at keeping Rodgers a viable SB threat. Because they shyte the bed in their attempts.
Last edited by PigskinPete22 on Mon 04.15.2019, 14:15, edited 1 time in total.
_______________________________________

Image
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 59248
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 25,234.98
That Tom Brady too substantially less money is one of New England's biggest lies.
User avatar
Leopard Shark
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 6, 2019
Sand$: 381.56
Elmagister wrote:That Tom Brady too substantially less money is one of New England's biggest lies.


What do you mean exactly? He didnt take substantially less money over the course of his career in your view?
_______________________________________

Image
Moderator
Posts: 56598
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 114,352.16
I admittedly haven't paid enough attention, but my perception has been the Pats moves have not been influenced by Tom's cap hit. He's given them a discount, but they haven't turned around and spent that money. They always have space to work with - then don't.

But if I'm wrong then please re-direct. Again, not something I've paid a ton of attention to.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 59248
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009
Sand$: 25,234.98
I found an article that states he's given up $60-$100 million, but he's 4th place all time earnings. Just 3 million behind Brees, and about 30 behind Manning.

So, my perception is wrong, but I don't think it's as much as people say.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 21225
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012
Sand$: 52,054.22
OarChambo wrote:I admittedly haven't paid enough attention, but my perception has been the Pats moves have not been influenced by Tom's cap hit. He's given them a discount, but they haven't turned around and spent that money. They always have space to work with - then don't.

But if I'm wrong then please re-direct. Again, not something I've paid a ton of attention to.

This is true.

Also I am a full believer that the salary cap can be negotiated around in almost any instance. #capiscrap
User avatar
Leopard Shark
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 6, 2019
Sand$: 381.56
OarChambo wrote:I admittedly haven't paid enough attention, but my perception has been the Pats moves have not been influenced by Tom's cap hit. He's given them a discount, but they haven't turned around and spent that money. They always have space to work with - then don't.

But if I'm wrong then please re-direct. Again, not something I've paid a ton of attention to.


I haven't actually considered that. I think that may correct. They have used it naturally, but never to the max. Surgically, I guess is the best description.
_______________________________________

Image
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 28862
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 79,051.02
Elmagister wrote:I found an article that states he's given up $60-$100 million, but he's 4th place all time earnings. Just 3 million behind Brees, and about 30 behind Manning.

So, my perception is wrong, but I don't think it's as much as people say.


yep, its not tom brady taking the cheap contract, its every one else on the team.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 28862
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 79,051.02
qb contracts haven't been outpacing the cap either. draft picks are great, but the teams you think that have good gms dont hit on draft picks as much as people think they do. There is a lot bigger picture here than these things were discussing. Thats why the contract for foles really doesnt hurt anybody in the bigger scheme of things.


|Biggest issue is the owners have to figure out a way the change the way the cap works in the overall structure of things. There behind on that compared to the other leagues. someone needs to crowbar the owners azzes open and let some of the money come out.
Last edited by rugger48 on Mon 04.15.2019, 14:49, edited 1 time in total.