Extend Russ asap

[c_hawkbob]

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

Then we'd wind up having to pay your superhero the same amount and wind up with half the QB.

[RiverDog]

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

I understand the context that you're saying that in, but Mariota wouldn't come cheap, either. The only advantage would be that Mariota is 5 years or so younger. If you're going to trade Russell, you're going to have to already have his replacement on the roster (ala Chiefs and Bears) or identified someone in the draft then acquire the capital it would take to get him.

It's ironic that none of the teams that traded for a veteran QB in 2018 made the playoffs: 49'ers, Redskins, Vikings, and Broncos, although to be fair, 2 of those 4 suffered season ending injuries.

[NorthHawk]

The teams you mentioned with veteran QB's didn't have very good teams - or in the Vikings case, they didn't play well
in other areas, either. They got better when they committed to the run, but their Defense wasn't as dominant this year.
Washington had more than just their QB go down, they lost most of their OL and I think a backup to injuries this year, so
it was more than just a QB issue. The 49ers and Broncos aren't that good, yet.
The Seahawks on the other hand are set in a number of areas, but need some good depth and a pass rush to take a big
step forward. A solid place kicker would help, too.
By replacing the QB, you would set the plan back a number of years.

[RiverDog]

The teams you mentioned with veteran QB's didn't have very good teams - or in the Vikings case, they didn't play well
in other areas, either. They got better when they committed to the run, but their Defense wasn't as dominant this year.
Washington had more than just their QB go down, they lost most of their OL and I think a backup to injuries this year, so
it was more than just a QB issue. The 49ers and Broncos aren't that good, yet.
The Seahawks on the other hand are set in a number of areas, but need some good depth and a pass rush to take a big
step forward. A solid place kicker would help, too.
By replacing the QB, you would set the plan back a number of years.

There's lots more examples than the Vikings and Broncos. The Raiders, another team with an overpaid QB, expected to compete when they resigned Derek Carr to a 5 year, $125M contract. Now they're in full rebuild mode. And the Packers rationalized their problems by firing the HC. Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco are highly paid, must have franchise QB's when they were signed. The Falcons didn't make the playoffs and the Ravens did it with an unproven rookie. Or what about Mathew Stafford? Are the Lions competitive with him? Where was Ben Worthlessburger this weekend?

[NorthHawk]

I think the only teams you mentioned above that might fall into the profile you present are the Falcons.
The other teams like Raiders were busy blowing up their team and the Packers were getting tired of McCarthy's message.
Flacco got injured which gave the Ravens an excuse to use Jackson and they are preparing to move on from him. He wasn't
that great after his one SB appearance the last few years, anyway. The Lions and Stafford have had bad teams around him
for years and that preceded his arrival. The Steelers turned into a bit of team turmoil with a major holdout and malcontent.

But I get your point that it does impact what a team can do with the limited salary. That means the depth has to be very good
and we used to have it back in the best days of the team. Remember when teams used to almost line up and wait for the players
we cut after TC? We were arguably the most talented team from top to bottom in the entire league, and I believe that's a
very big issue at this point.

[RiverDog]

The only teams you mentioned above that might fall into the profile you present are the Falcons. The other teams like Raiders were busy blowing up their team and the Packers were getting tired of McCarthy's message.

The Raiders didn't start blowing up their team until after they resigned Derek Carr to his $125M, 5 year contract. Before then, they had made the playoffs in 2016 and had high expectations for the 2017 season, and when they fizzled, they fired their head coach, hired Gruden, then started blowing up the team. Since then, there's been rumors that Gruden doesn't see Carr as his QB of the future.

Agreed that the narrative coming out of Titletown is that McCarthy be the one that fall on the sword. After all, any idiot should have been able to make the playoffs with Aaron Rodgers as their QB, right? Lord knows what it would have been like trying to hold Rodgers accountable.

Flacco got injured which gave the Ravens an excuse to use Jackson and they are preparing to move on from him. He wasn't
that great after his one SB appearance the last few years, anyway.

Precisely my point. Resigning Flacco didn't do squat for the Ravens.

The Lions and Stafford have had bad teams around him for years and that preceded his arrival.

Yuppers. No magic in that big contract.

The Steelers turned into a bit of team turmoil with a major holdout and malcontent.

As in Green Bay, that's the commonly accepted excuse. They lost in the first round last year and didn't make the playoffs this season, and now they're going through all this turmoil. Could all that turmoil have had anything to do with Big Ben and his contract?

But I get your point that it does impact what a team can do with the limited salary. That means the depth has to be very good
and we used to have it back in the best days of the team. Remember when teams used to almost line up and wait for the players we cut after TC? We were arguably the most talented team from top to bottom in the entire league, and I believe that's a very big issue at this point.

That was before we resigned Russell and were reaping the benefits of not having to pay a king's ransom for our quarterback.

If we end up resigning Russell to a $40M/year contract as your link suggested, that would represent 21% of the expected 2019 salary cap. Do you think that kind of financial dedication to one player might have a negative effect on the locker room?

[NorthHawk]

Precisely my point. Resigning Flacco didn't do squat for the Ravens.

I think that Wilson has more upside than Flacco ever had. The owner committed to a big contract and honored it.
But it didn't really impact their team re-signing their good players if I remember correctly.

As in Green Bay, that's the commonly accepted excuse. They lost in the first round last year and didn't make the playoffs this season, and now they're going through all this turmoil. Could all that turmoil have had anything to do with Big Ben and his contract?

I don't think so. I think it's more of a couple of players thinking they were better than they are. Bell is getting near the magic number where production falls off, and Brown has always been a loose cannon.

That was before we resigned Russell and were reaping the benefits of not having to pay a king's ransom for our quarterback.

If we end up resigning Russell to a $40M/year contract as your link suggested, that would represent 21% of the expected 2019 salary cap. Do you think that kind of financial dedication to one player might have a negative effect on the locker room?

I'm talking about quality depth - meaning low cost draft picks and role players. That's the least expensive part of the payroll, but we lost our way a little when we went a couple of drafts where only a couple of players remained. I think
it was 2014 and or 2015 drafts where after 2 years only 3 or so players were on the roster.

[RiverDog]

Precisely my point. Resigning Flacco didn't do squat for the Ravens.

I think that Wilson has more upside than Flacco ever had. The owner committed to a big contract and honored it. But it didn't really impact their team re-signing their good players if I remember correctly.

Perhaps. But there's an argument that can be made that as the years pass by, the quarterbacks that depend more on their legs to succeed will have more difficulty sustaining their success as they get into their 30's.

["RiverDog"]As in Green Bay, that's the commonly accepted excuse. They lost in the first round last year and didn't make the playoffs this season, and now they're going through all this turmoil. Could all that turmoil have had anything to do with Big Ben and his contract?[/quote]

I don't think so. I think it's more of a couple of players thinking they were better than they are. Bell is getting near the magic number where production falls off, and Brown has always been a loose cannon.

You're speaking of ownership's attitude towards resigning Bell/Brown. The question I am posing is did Big Ben's salary have an effect on those two's expectations, did it create any jealousy, animosity, etc? There was reportedly an argument between Brown and Ben that led to the problems they're now having to react to, so it's not inconceivable that the fact that Ben's status as the highest paid player on the team could have been one of the underlying causes of the rift.

[NorthHawk]

You're speaking of ownership's attitude towards resigning Bell/Brown. The question I am posing is did Big Ben's salary have an effect on those two's expectations, did it create any jealousy, animosity, etc? There was reportedly an argument between Brown and Ben that led to the problems they're now having to react to, so it's not inconceivable that the fact that Ben's status as the highest paid player on the team could have been one of the underlying causes of the rift.

If that's the case then it would have happened on any team they were on. Bell just wants a boat load of money, and Brown has always had the self centered perspective as we saw from the FB incident in the Locker Room.
He's a disruptive type. If a team with a large Cap room had those two, they might have handled it similarly as teams look at positions as worth a particular $ figure and even if they have Cap room, they don't want to waste it
because it gets used up in future years pretty quickly.

[RiverDog]

If that's the case then it would have happened on any team they were on. Bell just wants a boat load of money, and Brown has always had the self centered perspective as we saw from the FB incident in the Locker Room.

Sure it could. And I'm not trying to say that the root cause of their problems was Ben's contract. All I'm saying is that a large disparity in salary where one player hogs up 20% of the payroll could be a thorn in the side of other players.

He's (Antonio Brown) a disruptive type. If a team with a large Cap room had those two, they might have handled it similarly as teams look at positions as worth a particular $ figure and even if they have Cap room, they don't want to waste it because it gets used up in future years pretty quickly.

Yea, he's a wide receiver. There's something about that position that attracts the A-holes.

[obiken]

Then we'd wind up having to pay your superhero the same amount and wind up with half the QB.

You know I was kidding right? He will cost the TT 19 million just for his option. CBob, I have serious doubts about Marcus ability to stay healthy. As Holmy said some guys just have the injury bug. Remember Marcus Tubbs, and Anthony Simmons?