HawkShack.com

This team is going nowhere without Russ . He’s a fixture . Everyone else that’s worth a damn gets paid . Start negotiating now. Allowing this elite athlete to play out his deal is a recipe for disaster .

Hawktawk wrote:This team is going nowhere without Russ . He’s a fixture . Everyone else that’s worth a damn gets paid . Start negotiating now. Allowing this elite athlete to play out his deal is a recipe for disaster .

I wouldn't make the assumption that our team "goes nowhere" without Russell, not when a team like the Eagles can win a Lombardi with their journeyman backup. As a matter of fact, of the top 6 paid quarterbacks, not a single one of them made the playoffs. Teams are getting there w/o an overpaid veteran QB, such as the Chiefs, Bears, Rams, Cowboys, Ravens, Texans, and Eagles, while teams like the Packers, Vikings, Steelers, Falcons, and Lions, all with highly paid veteran QB's, are on the outside looking in.

I'm going to refrain from venturing an opinion on resigning Russell until we know a little more specifics about his contract demands, but I'm not going to be sucked into this mentality that my team starts and ends with him. The team is always greater than any one individual.

My hope is that Russ will put the team ahead of his bank roll. As River indicated, smart management means avoiding lopsided payrolls that excessively rewards one talent to the detriment of overall team talent. Look at the pickle the Mariners are in because they rewarded a huge, bloated contract to F. Hernandez at the beginning of his decline and are now stuck with it for a few more years. No one will take that financial albatross off their hands.

There was talk on some sites that the word was Russ was going to not sign so he could
get franchised a couple of years in a row before signing a big contract, much like Cousins
did the last couple of years.

We’ll see how it shakes out in the next couple of years.

NorthHawk wrote:There was talk on some sites that the word was Russ was going to not sign so he could
get franchised a couple of years in a row before signing a big contract, much like Cousins
did the last couple of years.

We’ll see how it shakes out in the next couple of years.

Boy, I hope those reports aren't true.

It makes some financial sense if you consider the tag for QBs might get close to 35 million so that would be
70 million guaranteed or thereabouts then a big contract might get him another big signing bonus along with some other
guarantees.

Not going to happen I believe. I Hope Russell will hammer out a fair contract beneficial to the Seahawks.

And Wilson is elite.

politicalfootball wrote:Not going to happen I believe. I Hope Russell will hammer out a fair contract beneficial to the Seahawks.

And Wilson is elite.

His agent is from Baseball so he wants big number guaranteed contracts and one way is to go the Tag route.

NorthHawk wrote:It makes some financial sense if you consider the tag for QBs might get close to 35 million so that would be
70 million guaranteed or thereabouts then a big contract might get him another big signing bonus along with some other
guarantees.

Oh, I have no doubt it makes sense if you're Russell Wilson and your sole objective is getting every last penny you can out of the team. The question I have is does it make sense from a competitive standpoint?

NorthHawk wrote:There was talk on some sites that the word was Russ was going to not sign so he could
get franchised a couple of years in a row before signing a big contract, much like Cousins
did the last couple of years.

We’ll see how it shakes out in the next couple of years.

I believe that originated from a piece by Florio a couple months ago. I listen to PFT on the way to work and he spent the whole drive to work explaining why if he were Russ he wouldn't sign until after a couple franchise tags because he's so durable that the injury risk with him doing so isn't what it is with other QBs. He even said during the show that he was going to write up a piece for his website on it later that day.

It's an interesting strategy but it's all speculative. I think if it does go that way it'll be because our front office mishandles negotiations.

NorthHawk wrote:There was talk on some sites that the word was Russ was going to not sign so he could
get franchised a couple of years in a row before signing a big contract, much like Cousins
did the last couple of years.

We’ll see how it shakes out in the next couple of years.

c_hawkbob wrote:I believe that originated from a piece by Florio a couple months ago. I listen to PFT on the way to work and he spent the whole drive to work explaining why if he were Russ he wouldn't sign until after a couple franchise tags because he's so durable that the injury risk with him doing so isn't what it is with other QBs. He even said during the show that he was going to write up a piece for his website on it later that day.

It's an interesting strategy but it's all speculative. I think if it does go that way it'll be because our front office mishandles negotiations.

It would seem that the article you are referring to originated more than a couple of months ago, it was from May of 2018, and if you can believe Florio, it's more than speculation as he claims that Russell himself expects the Hawks to tag him.

https://www.upi.com/Sports_News/NFL/201 ... 525924201/

Quarterback Russell Wilson hopes to receive a contract extension from the Seattle Seahawks before his current deal ends at the end of next season, but according to Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, Wilson expects the Seahawks will put the franchise tag on him.

But like I said, it depends on how believable Florio is as he does not offer any direct quote of RW.

Yep, that's the article in question, or more accurately an article about the article in question, and while it says Russ expects to be tagged it also says "according to Florio" he expects to be tagged ... listening to him on his morning show however it was pretty clear this all originated in Florio's mind and not from anything Russ said to anyone.

I at least, am completely comfortable with that explanation of things. You're welcome to whatever grains of salt you're more comfortable with.

c_hawkbob wrote:Yep, that's the article in question, or more accurately an article about the article in question, and while it says Russ expects to be tagged it also says "according to Florio" he expects to be tagged ... listening to him on his morning show however it was pretty clear this all originated in Florio's mind and not from anything Russ said to anyone.

I at least, am completely comfortable with that explanation of things. You're welcome to whatever grains of salt you're more comfortable with.

Yea, "according to Florio" is the key, isn't it? I honestly don't know how reliable of a source Mike Florio is, but since he's a well known columnist, I'd assume that he's as reliable as anyone else that's in the sports reporting business.

But even if his claim is accurate, it's still from 8 months ago, and as such, probably not very relevant. Lots of things have happened since, with our owner passing away, Pete himself signing a contract extension, and the team exceeding expectations this season. Personally I'm not putting very much weight in it, mainly due to the time it was reported more so than the source. But it is a good topic for us to kick around.

I don't think either scenario happens. RW signing a cap/Seahawks friendly deal.

RW is a lot of things and you all know I have been very critical of RW. One thing he is not though is he is NOT STUPID!!!! This is a business and as a business, he is going to maximize his opportunities and limit his risks. Playing on franchise tags may be smart for a single year but get hurt and you can lose 5 times that amount. Additionally, you go for what you can get - he will only have 1 or 2 more bites at this apple if he's lucky so he needs to maximize what he can get.

I think he'll extend with big guarantees and let's the Seahawks figure out the rest.

idhawkman wrote:I don't think either scenario happens. RW signing a cap/Seahawks friendly deal.

RW is a lot of things and you all know I have been very critical of RW. One thing he is not though is he is NOT STUPID!!!! This is a business and as a business, he is going to maximize his opportunities and limit his risks. Playing on franchise tags may be smart for a single year but get hurt and you can lose 5 times that amount. Additionally, you go for what you can get - he will only have 1 or 2 more bites at this apple if he's lucky so he needs to maximize what he can get.

I think he'll extend with big guarantees and let's the Seahawks figure out the rest.

What I don't want to hear Russell saying is that "It's a business". That's code for "I'm going to take you for everything you're worth."

I think we make a hard push to extend him this offseason to avoid scenarios like Florio's.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/n ... 40020.html

If that doesn't work things are gonna get real expensive.

Anyone got any articles on making a deal with Wilson this year ?

c_hawkbob wrote:I think we make a hard push to extend him this offseason to avoid scenarios like Florio's.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/n ... 40020.html

If that doesn't work things are gonna get real expensive.

Oh, chit! He just said it!

“Oh, yeah, I mean, if that’s what I’ve got to do,” he (Wilson) said. “It’s business, and everything else.

politicalfootball wrote:Anyone got any articles on making a deal with Wilson this year ?

um, isn't that what I just posted??

Oh , there it is sorry I didn't click on the link. Good article. I think Russell will get his 30+ million I just hope it's long term. Longer than 5 years, would be a good contract.

I would be happy with a three year deal as that is a pretty standard contract length. It doesn't matter as long as he signs one and does not go the franchise route. I would like to see Russell get a 3 to 6 year contract and end his career here in Seattle the rest of his playing days if that's what everyone else and Russ want. I do think it is more fun then money for Russell.

Based on the last time around and with the same Agent - Russell will hold then franchise by the balls and will squeeze them as tightly as possible.

After what Seahawks did to players like Sherman who can blame Russell this time for treating it "Like a Business"?

savvyman wrote:Based on the last time around and with the same Agent - Russell will hold then franchise by the balls and will squeeze them as tightly as possible.

I didn't think his last contract was that unreasonable, but we'll see what his demands are this time around.

It's wise to start negotiations now when we have some leverage rather than waiting a year when we don't. This year's college QB class is pretty thin, so the market for a top 5 QB will be that much more competitive should things get to the point where we might consider a trade. Judging by Russell's comments in Cbob's link, he wants to extend his contract this offseason, too, which is a good sign.

savvyman wrote:After what Seahawks did to players like Sherman who can blame Russell this time for treating it "Like a Business"?

That's why I was so critical of Earl Thomas this past fall. Players are quick to embrace the "it's a business" mantra to justify holding out for obscene amounts of money, but when the team treats them or a teammate like yesterday's newspaper, they get pissed. What goes around, comes around.

savvyman wrote:Based on the last time around and with the same Agent - Russell will hold then franchise by the balls and will squeeze them as tightly as possible.

After what Seahawks did to players like Sherman who can blame Russell this time for treating it "Like a Business"?

I don't know exactly how the Hawks treated Sherman poorly. They paid him a ton of money and he played at a high level. If that's doing somebody dirty then please do me dirty, Hawks! Going into the last year of his contract there was ZERO chance that they were going to keep him at 13 mil when they could save 11 million on the cap by releasing him. The reality is that even if he were healthy they would have likely tried to re-do his contract. Frankly I would have been pretty ticked as a Hawks fan if we would have kept a hurt player, like Sherm, on the last year of his contract when we could cut him and save that much!

savvyman wrote:After what Seahawks did to players like Sherman who can blame Russell this time for treating it "Like a Business"?

mykc14 wrote:I don't know exactly how the Hawks treated Sherman poorly. They paid him a ton of money and he played at a high level. If that's doing somebody dirty then please do me dirty, Hawks! Going into the last year of his contract there was ZERO chance that they were going to keep him at 13 mil when they could save 11 million on the cap by releasing him. The reality is that even if he were healthy they would have likely tried to re-do his contract. Frankly I would have been pretty ticked as a Hawks fan if we would have kept a hurt player, like Sherm, on the last year of his contract when we could cut him and save that much!

I'm not speaking or savvyman, but there's two seperate issues, the first being the business side of which you are referring to and the other being the loyalty issue of which savvy was eluding to. If it had not been for the business side, the decent thing to do, considering what he helped bring to our franchise, would have been to keep Sherman and see if he could recover from his Achilles injury and return to his All Pro form.

I learned a long time ago not to get too emotionally attached to players because of their insistence on being treated like a business asset rather than a family member like you might treat your high school players.

RiverDog wrote:I'm not speaking or savvyman, but there's two seperate issues, the first being the business side of which you are referring to and the other being the loyalty issue of which savvy was eluding to. If it had not been for the business side, the decent thing to do, considering what he helped bring to our franchise, would have been to keep Sherman and see if he could recover from his Achilles injury and return to his All Pro form.

My point is that I doubt they would have kept him at 13 mil if he would have stayed healthy. I would argue that there is virtually no way they were going to pay him that much on the last year of his contract when they could save 11 mil by releasing or trading him. They were moving away from guys that were done buying into what PC was doing and Sherm definitely falls into that category, in fact there was a lot of discussion about them parting ways with him before last season even started. The 'Loyalty' aspect wasn't broken by the Hawks but instead by Sherm. They didn't see him as somebody who was fully invested and 'loyal' to the process...

Yep, its going to be YUGE!!!! Wilson not only invoked the "its a business" but he also said it was above his head meaning he is going to leave it up to his agent as he should. That's what his agent is paid for.

"IF" it becomes too big of a contract, I'd rather see us let him play out the last year of his contract, then franchise him a year or two and then let him walk away. Here's why:

1. Russel's game is in extending plays. We've seen him get slower and less elusive of the pass rush the last year or two. He's running less and therefore the read option is not as big a factor as it once was.

2. We need to sign Sweezy, Fluker, Clark and KJ this off season and I'm not sure who we have next year. (Maybe Brown is in the mix this year too but I can't remember.) That's going to cost us a lot of $$$ benjamins...

3. After 2-3 years, RW may not be effective anymore because of his lack of ability to extend plays.

4. There may be other QBs coming out of college that can take over the mantle.

That all said, I would prefer to resign him but I'm also a realist and don't want to resign him if it guts the rest of our team.

RiverDog wrote:I'm not speaking or savvyman, but there's two seperate issues, the first being the business side of which you are referring to and the other being the loyalty issue of which savvy was eluding to. If it had not been for the business side, the decent thing to do, considering what he helped bring to our franchise, would have been to keep Sherman and see if he could recover from his Achilles injury and return to his All Pro form.

mykc14 wrote:My point is that I doubt they would have kept him at 13 mil if he would have stayed healthy. I would argue that there is virtually no way they were going to pay him that much on the last year of his contract when they could save 11 mil by releasing or trading him. They were moving away from guys that were done buying into what PC was doing and Sherm definitely falls into that category, in fact there was a lot of discussion about them parting ways with him before last season even started. The 'Loyalty' aspect wasn't broken by the Hawks but instead by Sherm. They didn't see him as somebody who was fully invested and 'loyal' to the process...

I agree that Sherman was probably on his way out even before his injury and that he would have gotten traded like Bennett was. It's apparent that Pete had his fill of both him and Bennett.

But whether or not Sherman was loyal or fully 'in' is debatable. The counter argument was that Pete was using a double standard in his treatment of some players, specifically Russell Wilson. I generally come down on the coach's side on these types of issues, especially a coach that has the type of credibility that Pete has established, but we really don't know how much truth there was to the rumors that were swirling around the locker room last year or who was to blame.

Bottom line is that Sherman was treated like yesterday's newspaper and tossed in the trash bin when his usefulness had expired. My opinion is that he probably deserved it.

idhawkman wrote:Yep, its going to be YUGE!!!! Wilson not only invoked the "its a business" but he also said it was above his head meaning he is going to leave it up to his agent as he should. That's what his agent is paid for.

"IF" it becomes too big of a contract, I'd rather see us let him play out the last year of his contract, then franchise him a year or two and then let him walk away. Here's why:

1. Russel's game is in extending plays. We've seen him get slower and less elusive of the pass rush the last year or two. He's running less and therefore the read option is not as big a factor as it once was.

2. We need to sign Sweezy, Fluker, Clark and KJ this off season and I'm not sure who we have next year. (Maybe Brown is in the mix this year too but I can't remember.) That's going to cost us a lot of $$$ benjamins...

3. After 2-3 years, RW may not be effective anymore because of his lack of ability to extend plays.

4. There may be other QBs coming out of college that can take over the mantle.

My preference is that we resign him this season at whatever rate Pete and JS are comfortable with.

My backup play would be that if he's going to play hardball and hold out for the maximum amount he could possibly get, then I would like to see them at least consider a possible trade. If Russell really does want to play for us and the trade rumors start swirling, then it's going to put some pressure on him to sign the extension. If he still sticks to his guns, then we'd be looking at being the beneficiary of the biggest trade since Herschel Walker, probably at least 2 first rounders and a Pro Bowl quality starter.

And if we don't find a trading partner, then we could take the tact that you suggest.

Idahawkman wrote:That all said, I would prefer to resign him but I'm also a realist and don't want to resign him if it guts the rest of our team.

10-4.

RiverDog wrote:I wouldn't make the assumption that our team "goes nowhere" without Russell, not when a team like the Eagles can win a Lombardi with their journeyman backup. As a matter of fact, of the top 6 paid quarterbacks, not a single one of them made the playoffs. Teams are getting there w/o an overpaid veteran QB, such as the Chiefs, Bears, Rams, Cowboys, Ravens, Texans, and Eagles, while teams like the Packers, Vikings, Steelers, Falcons, and Lions, all with highly paid veteran QB's, are on the outside looking in.

I'm going to refrain from venturing an opinion on resigning Russell until we know a little more specifics about his contract demands, but I'm not going to be sucked into this mentality that my team starts and ends with him. The team is always greater than any one individual.

Actually, untrue Cousins was #3 and to be fair Brees is #7. Now the premise I don't agree with you, but we can agree to disagree.

RiverDog wrote:I wouldn't make the assumption that our team "goes nowhere" without Russell, not when a team like the Eagles can win a Lombardi with their journeyman backup. As a matter of fact, of the top 6 paid quarterbacks, not a single one of them made the playoffs. Teams are getting there w/o an overpaid veteran QB, such as the Chiefs, Bears, Rams, Cowboys, Ravens, Texans, and Eagles, while teams like the Packers, Vikings, Steelers, Falcons, and Lions, all with highly paid veteran QB's, are on the outside looking in.

I'm going to refrain from venturing an opinion on resigning Russell until we know a little more specifics about his contract demands, but I'm not going to be sucked into this mentality that my team starts and ends with him. The team is always greater than any one individual.

Anthony wrote:Actually, untrue Cousins was #3 and to be fair Brees is #7. Now the premise I don't agree with you, but we can agree to disagree.

What's untrue? That none of the top 6 paid QB's made the playoffs? Cousins plays for the Vikings, and last time I checked, they didn't make the playoffs this season. I'm not sure what your "to be fair" comment was about Brees being the #7 paid QB. What's your point?

RiverDog wrote:
Bottom line is that Sherman was treated like yesterday's newspaper and tossed in the trash bin when his usefulness had expired. My opinion is that he probably deserved it.

I was with you right up until this part Riv. He was tossed away like yesterday's newspaper when he became a locker room problem. His usefulness IMO still has not expired.

idhawkman wrote:
I was with you right up until this part Riv. He was tossed away like yesterday's newspaper when he became a locker room problem. His usefulness IMO still has not expired.

That was exactly my point, combined with the fact that he was set to cost the Hawks 13 mil if they kept him and only 2 mil if they released him. I don't think they handled him like trash. They released him before FA began- to give him a chance to get the best deal possible. How else should they have treated him if they were planning on letting him walk after the season? They didn't want him here anymore.

Absent the analogies, we're basically saying the same thing about our moving on from Sherman: That it was a combination of financial reasons and personal issues.

RiverDog wrote:Absent the analogies, we're basically saying the same thing about our moving on from Sherman: That it was a combination of financial reasons and personal issues.

Yeah, we agree on the reasons but disagree on whether or not they treated him poorly in the process.

RiverDog wrote:Absent the analogies, we're basically saying the same thing about our moving on from Sherman: That it was a combination of financial reasons and personal issues.

mykc14 wrote:Yeah, we agree on the reasons but disagree on whether or not they treated him poorly in the process.

I never said that they treated Sherman "poorly". They treated him like a business asset, an inanimate object, like "yesterday's newspaper". It's exactly how players have been asked to be treated, so I do not feel that they treated him poorly.

RiverDog wrote:
I never said that they treated Sherman "poorly". They treated him like a business asset, an inanimate object, like "yesterday's newspaper". It's exactly how players have been asked to be treated, so I do not feel that they treated him poorly.

Alright, if you don't think he was treated poorly then we do agree.

Here's an article that lays out how much we might end up paying as well as the FT scenario.
It's a lot of money.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agen ... ar-player/

NorthHawk wrote:Here's an article that lays out how much we might end up paying as well as the FT scenario.
It's a lot of money.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agen ... ar-player/

Eee gads, $40M? That's 21% of the team's expected $190M salary cap for 2019. Say goodbye to Bobby Wagner if that happens.

Trade him for Mariota and save on cap dollars, plus you get my superhero from Oregon!!