HawkShack.com

Wilson's contract is up soon, somehow, but the two sides, per CBS Sports NFL Insider Jason La Canfora, have not been engaging in any real talks about a new deal.

And according to a report from Jim Trotter of NFL Media, there was some recent concern from Wilson's camp about seeing Seahawks GM John Schneider at Josh Allen's Wyoming pro day. That concern, along with the Seahawks' current approach to churning the roster, coupled with Wilson's contract status, could potentially equate to Seattle and Wilson parting ways at some point in the next few years, according to Trotter.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/coul ... 018-split/

The article is several months old, but it deserves another look as the Seahawks were recently rumored to be interested in trading for Colts backup quarterback Jacoby Brissett, supposedly offering as high as a 2nd round pick for the former pupil of Hawk's offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer. That's a pretty steep price for a backup QB unless they have other plans for him.

So could it be true?

Didn't buy it then, ain't buying it now.

We don't have a second round pick for 2 years so it seems like an odd offer, if true. Interesting that as far as I can tell, the Seahawks haven't dissed it as being 'untrue'-

I think he is destined to be an LA Charger......

How can you post this crap?

jshawaii22 wrote:We don't have a second round pick for 2 years so it seems like an odd offer, if true. Interesting that as far as I can tell, the Seahawks haven't dissed it as being 'untrue'-

True, but keep in mind that the speculation is that a trade might occur in 2019 following this season, which would make a 2020 2nd rounder a little more believable.

I don't believe the rumors, either, but it isn't just random talk as there is at least some foundation for it.

Aseahawkfan wrote:How can you post this crap?

The link was a from a credible source, so don't kill the messenger.

Our back up QB situation sucks. They may have made a move to strengthen it, but I'm not even sure they really offered a 2nd for the guy. Sounds like a lie given our 2nd round situation.

After the Eagles winning it all last year, it may have lit a fire under them to get a very good backup QB just in case.

Truth Stings at Times Guys but as I said before;

RW is going to ask way too much but will end up a saint as his hero Breez retires

How do I know?

I just know take it to the bank

Also Rams have not played many starters yet and we are class A

RiverDog wrote:
True, but keep in mind that the speculation is that a trade might occur in 2019 following this season, which would make a 2020 2nd rounder a little more believable.

I don't believe the rumors, either, but it isn't just random talk as there is at least some foundation for it.

Isn't he a free agent next year? If so, we wouldn't be able to TRADE him. I could be wrong though.

Rambo, you'll get yours in 3 years. You'll have to franchise your QB after you sign Donald to the highest yearly salary in the history of the NFL. You have a 2-3 year window that starts this year, just like the Seahawks had with Russell on his rookie deal. Tick, Tick, Tick...blow it up... then you do it all over again.

Before tonight's game, Colts GM Chris Ballard said no such offer was made for Brisette.

jshawaii22 wrote:Rambo, you'll get yours in 3 years. You'll have to franchise your QB after you sign Donald to the highest yearly salary in the history of the NFL. You have a 2-3 year window that starts this year, just like the Seahawks had with Russell on his rookie deal. Tick, Tick, Tick...blow it up... then you do it all over again.

Man isnt that the truth!!

idhawkman wrote:Isn't he a free agent next year? If so, we wouldn't be able to TRADE him. I could be wrong though.

No. Russell is under contract through the 2019 season:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-sea ... lson-9885/

But common sense would dictate that we'd start negotiations at the end of this season.

RiverDog wrote:Wilson's contract is up soon, somehow, but the two sides, per CBS Sports NFL Insider Jason La Canfora, have not been engaging in any real talks about a new deal.

And according to a report from Jim Trotter of NFL Media, there was some recent concern from Wilson's camp about seeing Seahawks GM John Schneider at Josh Allen's Wyoming pro day. That concern, along with the Seahawks' current approach to churning the roster, coupled with Wilson's contract status, could potentially equate to Seattle and Wilson parting ways at some point in the next few years, according to Trotter.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/coul ... 018-split/

The article is several months old, but it deserves another look as the Seahawks were recently rumored to be interested in trading for Colts backup quarterback Jacoby Brissett, supposedly offering as high as a 2nd round pick for the former pupil of Hawk's offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer. That's a pretty steep price for a backup QB unless they have other plans for him.

So could it be true?

Nothing here at all. If you look back he has been at other QB pro days as well. He went to Patrick Mahomes pro day in 2017. He is looking for the next Aaron Rodgers (a top 10 pick who falls into the end of the first round). As far as the Brissett rumors the further we are away from the news breaking the more it looks to be false. I would say there isn’t much to be excited about in the backup QB spot in our roster and it seems like our game #1 backup is not currently on our roster.

They've had something like 9 drafts and only drafted Wilson until 2018, but waited until the 7th for McGeogh.
I would expect they would take one at some point in the middle of the draft at some point just by odds alone.
I remember JS talking about some years they won't draft any QB's but others they may select 2 or more depending on the players.
It's time they start doing that just to develop another QB in case of Wilson getting hurt enough so he can't play or if he holds out.

So we have an old article with no supportive facts around it, a Ram's troll, and a few here who have dubious motives. Sounds like a big nothing.

Anthony wrote:So we have an old article with no supportive facts around it, a Ram's troll, and a few here who have dubious motives. Sounds like a big nothing.

At this point, it is a big nothing burger, but it's a subject that's worth a discussion. With the outrageous contracts going out to QB's that haven't done squat, ie Garapollo, Cousins, and Carr, and some quarterbacks on underperforming teams like Stafford-Lions and Flacco-Ravens proving that a "franchise" QB is no guarantee of success, and with 3 of the 4 conference championship quarterbacks from last season being classified as pedestrian or backups (Keenum, Foles, Bortles), are teams going to be willing to devote 10%-15% plus of their salary cap to one player and hem themselves in for years in order to sign a second tier QB?

Depending on how this season goes, the Hawks could be presented with a big dilemma regarding extending Russell's contract out beyond 2019.

RiverDog wrote:
At this point, it is a big nothing burger, but it's a subject that's worth a discussion. With the outrageous contracts going out to QB's that haven't done squat, ie Garapollo, Cousins, and Carr, and some quarterbacks on underperforming teams like Stafford-Lions and Flacco-Ravens proving that a "franchise" QB is no guarantee of success, and with 3 of the 4 conference championship quarterbacks from last season being classified as pedestrian or backups (Keenum, Foles, Bortles), are teams going to be willing to devote 10%-15% plus of their salary cap to one player and hem themselves in for years in order to sign a second tier QB?

Depending on how this season goes, the Hawks could be presented with a big dilemma regarding extending Russell's contract out beyond 2019.

Lol 1 Wilson is not 2nd tier, 2 a big nothing but troll and a few with dubious motives.

NO one has Wilson as a Tier 2 QB. Not even Cowherd.

Gruden loves Russ. Carr is mess. Raidahs can send over the picks they got for Mack, and then some.

Interesting thought but I highly doubt that is ever going to happen.

RiverDog wrote:At this point, it is a big nothing burger, but it's a subject that's worth a discussion. With the outrageous contracts going out to QB's that haven't done squat, ie Garapollo, Cousins, and Carr, and some quarterbacks on underperforming teams like Stafford-Lions and Flacco-Ravens proving that a "franchise" QB is no guarantee of success, and with 3 of the 4 conference championship quarterbacks from last season being classified as pedestrian or backups (Keenum, Foles, Bortles), are teams going to be willing to devote 10%-15% plus of their salary cap to one player and hem themselves in for years in order to sign a second tier QB?

Depending on how this season goes, the Hawks could be presented with a big dilemma regarding extending Russell's contract out beyond 2019.

How do you even come up with Wilson is a 2nd tier QB?

And proof that a franchise QB is no guarantee of success? Flacco has a SB and has helped them stay playoff competitive until recently. Stafford has made the Lions more competitive than they've been since Barry Sanders, one of the greatest RBs in history. What would those teams being doing without their respective QBs?

What teams have been consistently competitive without a quality QB? The answer to that question is why even marginal QBs get paid. A franchise QB doesn't guarantee success, but the lack of one guarantees consistent failure more than consistent success. The lack of a QB is holding a team like Houston back while their stellar defense was wasted during JJ Watt's prime years.

Aseahawkfan wrote:How do you even come up with Wilson is a 2nd tier QB?

In my book, Brady and Rodgers are the only two first tier QB's. They're first ballot HOF'ers, so it's no diss to consider Russell 2nd tier with the likes of Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, Ben Worthlessburger, et al. Russell has yet to win a league or SB MVP, so IMO he cannot be considered any higher than 2nd tier.

And proof that a franchise QB is no guarantee of success? Flacco has a SB and has helped them stay playoff competitive until recently. Stafford has made the Lions more competitive than they've been since Barry Sanders, one of the greatest RBs in history. What would those teams being doing without their respective QBs?

Stafford is 60-68 as a starter and hasn't ever won a playoff game. His winning percentage is worse than Alex Smith, Ryan Tannehill, Matt Schuab, and Andy Dalton, all QB's that haven't had anymore support around them than Stafford has had. If there's an argument against paying a so-called franchise quarterback 15% of the payroll, it's Stafford.

What teams have been consistently competitive without a quality QB? The answer to that question is why even marginal QBs get paid. A franchise QB doesn't guarantee success, but the lack of one guarantees consistent failure more than consistent success. The lack of a QB is holding a team like Houston back while their stellar defense was wasted during JJ Watt's prime years.

The point is that a 'franchise quarterback' is no guarantee of success. Neither Stafford or Dalton have ever won a playoff game. Eli and the Giants haven't won a playoff game for 7 years. Phillip Rivers has won a grand total of 4 playoff games...in 15 frigging seasons. Yet some journeyman like Nick Foles can win a SB MVP.

I am not advocating that we consider trading Russell, at least not yet. I was simply discussing the possibility as it has been rumored. But if we have a bad season, if Russell wants to be paid like Rodgers, and some team with a bag full of draft choices like Cleveland dangles a couple of top 10 draft picks in front of us, then that option might be on the table.

One thing we don't want to do is risk letting Russell go on the free market. If we're determined to keep him for another 5+ seasons, then we need to extend his contract at the end of this season and not wait until 2020.

RiverDog wrote:In my book, Brady and Rodgers are the only two first tier QB's. They're first ballot HOF'ers, so it's no diss to consider Russell 2nd tier with the likes of Drew Brees, Phillip Rivers, Ben Worthlessburger, et al. Russell has yet to win a league or SB MVP, so IMO he cannot be considered any higher than 2nd tier.

So you're using your criteria and acting as though we should all know what you're talking about.

Stafford is 60-68 as a starter and hasn't ever won a playoff game. His winning percentage is worse than Alex Smith, Ryan Tannehill, Matt Schuab, and Andy Dalton, all QB's that haven't had anymore support around them than Stafford has had. If there's an argument against paying a so-called franchise quarterback 15% of the payroll, it's Stafford.

And still makes them better if they had not had him. All your advocating with this is that teams need to hire better coaches. If you were to do a study of the league, you'd find two things make teams great: coach and QB. You missing one or the other, you're not likely to be consistently good. Fact is the great coaches are rare and when you get one, you hold onto them as long as you can because they are so hard to find.

The point is that a 'franchise quarterback' is no guarantee of success. Neither Stafford or Dalton have ever won a playoff game. Eli and the Giants haven't won a playoff game for 7 years. Phillip Rivers has won a grand total of 4 playoff games...in 15 frigging seasons. Yet some journeyman like Nick Foles can win a SB MVP.

Your point still does not show how not having a great QB is better than having one. You're hoping we can get rid of our franchise QB and have some one off Super Bowl? Is that you're claiming? What teams have been consistently good or won multiple Super Bowls without a franchise QB? I can't think of a single back to back Super Bowl winner without a franchise QB. If you look at some teams like Baltimore and Tampa Bay, both had record setting, amazing defenses and were held back from consistent playoff contention by lack of a quality QB. They had one off wins, then up and down seasons until the QB position was stabilized.

I am not advocating that we consider trading Russell, at least not yet. I was simply discussing the possibility as it has been rumored. But if we have a bad season, if Russell wants to be paid like Rodgers, and some team with a bag full of draft choices like Cleveland dangles a couple of top 10 draft picks in front of us, then that option might be on the table.

What team has ever traded away a proven playoff competitive QB and improved themselves? I mean a QB that he himself makes the team competitive by on field production. I'd like to see this list that is making you entertain this idea.

IMO Russell wasn't too good yesterday. It was a new system for him which is an excuse I know but he may not have the entire playbook down and comfortable with it yet. He still has a problem with timing routes though. Its like he stares down his receiver too long before moving on to another one or he's waiting too long for someone to be WIDE open to avoid the turnover.

I'm willing to give him a little leeway for now but hopefully Shotty can get in his mind and get him to pull the trigger a lot quicker.

Remember when RW used to say, "The separation is in the preparation?" I'm not sure he's putting in enough time in this new system to make that happen.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So you're using your criteria and acting as though we should all know what you're talking about.

I didn't suggest that you understood or accepted my criteria. I was just explaining it.

And still makes them (Lions, Chargers, Giants, et al) better if they had not had him. All your advocating with this is that teams need to hire better coaches. If you were to do a study of the league, you'd find two things make teams great: coach and QB. You missing one or the other, you're not likely to be consistently good. Fact is the great coaches are rare and when you get one, you hold onto them as long as you can because they are so hard to find.

They wouldn't have been as bad as the Browns, but it's still not anywhere close to being palatable. The Lions remain as the only non expansion team never to have played in the Super Bowl, and the Chargers ended up moving to LA and can't even fill a soccer stadium. And where did coaching come into the discussion? Did I say something about getting rid of Pete?

Your point still does not show how not having a great QB is better than having one. You're hoping we can get rid of our franchise QB and have some one off Super Bowl? Is that you're claiming? What teams have been consistently good or won multiple Super Bowls without a franchise QB? I can't think of a single back to back Super Bowl winner without a franchise QB. If you look at some teams like Baltimore and Tampa Bay, both had record setting, amazing defenses and were held back from consistent playoff contention by lack of a quality QB. They had one off wins, then up and down seasons until the QB position was stabilized.

That was your point, and it is valid. I am not disagreeing with your point. What I am saying is that a so called franchise QB is not a guarantee and that there are a number of teams out there that secured their man and they went nowhere.

What team has ever traded away a proven playoff competitive QB and improved themselves? I mean a QB that he himself makes the team competitive by on field production. I'd like to see this list that is making you entertain this idea.

Not many, but it does happen. The Colts let Peyton Manning walk. The Packers let Bret Favre walk. And more recently, the Redskins let a productive QB in Kirk Cousins walk. But you're right, it would be almost unprecedented, at least in recent NFL history, to trade a QB in their prime. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't at least be considered.

And once again, I am not advocating trading Russell, actually the opposite . It would be a sad day in Seahawk history if we ever traded Russell. You're reading more into my comments than I'm saying. It's just a discussion, for crying out loud.

The question: Is Russell Wilson worth $35-40 mil per year when 2020 rolls around.....

What team has ever traded away a proven playoff competitive QB and improved themselves? I mean a QB that he himself makes the team competitive by on field production. I'd like to see this list that is making you entertain this idea.

San Francisco trading HOF First Ballot Joe Montana away to KC and Steve Young came in and with the help of Jerry Rice and others made them a SB winner again.
How's that? I'm sure there are others.

You should not do drugs

jshawaii22 wrote:What team has ever traded away a proven playoff competitive QB and improved themselves?

San Francisco trading HOF First Ballot Joe Montana away to KC and Steve Young came in and with the help of Jerry Rice and others made them a SB winner again.
How's that? I'm sure there are others.

Bret Favre was traded to the Jets and was a bust there, but subsequently went to the Vikings and led them to the NFCCG. Although not traded, the Colts let Peyton Manning walk, drafted Andrew Luck with the #1 overall pick in the draft, and made the playoffs for 3 straight seasons. Montana, Favre, and Manning were all slam dunk HOF'ers before their teams decided to part ways.

Russell is 5-8 years younger than any of those guys, although he's not nearly as accomplished.

There's no question that a trade is conceivable, but it would require a very unique set of circumstances.