Time to Trade Wilson??

[obiken]

NO one that I can think of is a bigger supporter of RW than I am on this site. However, is it time to shop him? It hurts to even think about, but do we want to become the Packers? The only players they can get are young and cheap. Just asking. We probably don't have a choice, damned if we do and damned if we don't. 35 million on the cap!! Thats just killer!

[Aseahawkfan]

I can think of 99.9% of people that are bigger supporters of RW than you on this site that would never even think of trading him.

Hell no! You don't trade a franchise QB hoping to get better when he is literally the best of one of the best classes to ever be drafted and the best QB in the history of the franchise. Why would you even think of trading the best QB in franchise history and a future Hall of Famer while he has at least another five or more high performing years?

[RiverDog]

NO one that I can think of is a bigger supporter of RW than I am on this site. However, is it time to shop him? It hurts to even think about, but do we want to become the Packers? The only players they can get are young and cheap. Just asking. We probably don't have a choice, damned if we do and damned if we don't. 35 million on the cap!! Thats just killer!

I'm going to leave that decision up to Pete. If Pete thinks Russell's worth $40M a year and that he can win championships with a quarterback that hogs up 20% of the salary cap, then I'm all for resigning him. If he thinks that the best thing for our team is trading him, then so be it. Out with the old, in with the new.

I honestly don't have an opinion on trading Russell and I won't lose any sleep over the negotiations. I'm all about our team winning football games. Outside of the fact that I like rooting for the good guys...and Russell is a good guy like no other....nothing else matters more to me than winning.

That's not saying that I won't be paying close attention.

[burrrton]

"Won't be losing sleep over the negotiations"

This is me. I want to keep our franchise QB, but not if it means the rest of the team is a wreck. We'll see...

[obiken]

If he is Brady and willing to take less fine, but if he Rogers and wants a max we are totally screwed.

[c_hawkbob]

A franchise without a franchise QB is every bit as screwed too, which is why GB had to meet Rogers' demands. Trading Wilson is not going to happen.

[RiverDog]

A franchise without a franchise QB is every bit as screwed too, which is why GB had to meet Rogers' demands. Trading Wilson is not going to happen.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, indeed I think there's a very slim chance that we end up trading Russell.

But Green Bay is a QB-centric team that was dependent on a healthy Aaron Rodgers. We're much lesss dependent on a star QB than the Packers were when they resigned Rodgers. I doubt that Pete thinks he can win games with Bret Hundley as his QB, but it would be easier for us to do without a franchise QB than a team like the Packers.

[NorthHawk]

Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.
Wilson does things that make this Offense successful. His mobility and chunk plays aren't common and
if you give up say 10 TD's and a few years developing a QB to work in our system or modifying our system
to fit a new QB, then the other stars like Wagner, and maybe Clark and Reed may be on the downside of
their careers.
Basically do we want to challenge for a championship in the next few years or after 4 or 5 years?
The only QB I can see with some similarity with Wilson is Kyler Murray and he may not play football and go for baseball instead.

[RiverDog]

Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.
Wilson does things that make this Offense successful. His mobility and chunk plays aren't common and
if you give up say 10 TD's and a few years developing a QB to work in our system or modifying our system
to fit a new QB, then the other stars like Wagner, and maybe Clark and Reed may be on the downside of
their careers.
Basically do we want to challenge for a championship in the next few years or after 4 or 5 years?
The only QB I can see with some similarity with Wilson is Kyler Murray and he may not play football and go for baseball instead.

Resigning Russell doesn't guarantee that we'll be competing for a championship. If we can't resign Clark, Wagner, Fluker, Sweezy, et al due to dedicating so much resources to resign Russell, we might not be competing for a championship anytime soon with or without Russell.

I don't know what the answer is regarding the resigning of Russell to an amount that could approach $40M and 20% of our cap. All I'll say is that the current quarterback arms race is likely to start forcing teams to look at other methods of competing rather than being a slave to the conventional wisdom of the past 10 years or so that you have to have a franchise quarterback if you want to compete for a championship. Certainly the Eagles and Nick Foles proved last season that it's not a requirement.

[NorthHawk]

The Cap is expected to go up on average $10 million per year, so like the last contract in a few years it will not be as impactful.
I think it speaks to a bigger problem in the NFL with QB's making so much more than the rest of the players.


I think in the long term, it will mean some type of exemption for QB salaries from the Cap. If not the entire salary, maybe
a percentage like 50% Cap exempt. The rule could be 1 player per year with exempt status but we've discussed this in
previous threads. It will hit the fan when the "big market teams" like Dallas and maybe the Jets, but also LA and Cleveland
should those teams QBs develop into high quality players worthy of similar contracts to Rodgers and Wilson.

[RiverDog]

The Cap is expected to go up on average $10 million per year, so like the last contract in a few years it will not be as impactful.
I think it speaks to a bigger problem in the NFL with QB's making so much more than the rest of the players.

Agreed.

I think in the long term, it will mean some type of exemption for QB salaries from the Cap. If not the entire salary, maybe
a percentage like 50% Cap exempt. The rule could be 1 player per year with exempt status but we've discussed this in
previous threads. It will hit the fan when the "big market teams" like Dallas and maybe the Jets, but also LA and Cleveland
should those teams QBs develop into high quality players worthy of similar contracts to Rodgers and Wilson.

I'd be more willing to accept a ceiling for any one player, say no more than 12% of the cap rather than an exemption. Removing them from the cap would create an even greater disparity between the have's and have not's. Force teams to spread the wealth.

[NorthHawk]

I'd be more willing to accept a ceiling for any one player, say no more than 12% of the cap rather than an exemption. Removing them from the cap would create an even greater disparity between the have's and have not's. Force teams to spread the wealth.

That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure the players would go for it, though.
But if it meant more for the others, maybe it might work.

[RiverDog]

I'd be more willing to accept a ceiling for any one player, say no more than 12% of the cap rather than an exemption. Removing them from the cap would create an even greater disparity between the have's and have not's. Force teams to spread the wealth.

That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure the players would go for it, though. But if it meant more for the others, maybe it might work.

The quarterbacks wouldn't go for it, but if you're a guard or a center, would you like to see a proposal like that adapted?

[NorthHawk]

The quarterbacks wouldn't go for it, but if you're a guard or a center, would you like to see a proposal like that adapted?

Probably, but I think the resistance would be from restricting salaries at all. I don't think they want to set any type of precedent.

[RiverDog]

The quarterbacks wouldn't go for it, but if you're a guard or a center, would you like to see a proposal like that adapted?

Probably, but I think the resistance would be from restricting salaries at all. I don't think they want to set any type of precedent.

I'd argue that the precedent was set when they restricted rookie contracts.

[obiken]

Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.
Wilson does things that make this Offense successful. His mobility and chunk plays aren't common and
if you give up say 10 TD's and a few years developing a QB to work in our system or modifying our system
to fit a new QB, then the other stars like Wagner, and maybe Clark and Reed may be on the downside of
their careers.
Basically do we want to challenge for a championship in the next few years or after 4 or 5 years?
The only QB I can see with some similarity with Wilson is Kyler Murray and he may not play football and go for baseball instead.

I agree but we can get a Nick Foles for 17 million and have a better qb than most of the starters in this league. I AM NOT trying to push RW out the door, I love the man, as a person and player. Moreover, I agree with River, the chance of us trading RW are very slim. WE will become the GB packers of the NFC West, I am just saying I dont like that future either.

[RiverDog]

I AM NOT trying to push RW out the door...

No, but you'll end up pushing Anthony out of a top floor window of a 10 story building.

[obiken]

No, but you'll end up pushing Anthony out of a top floor window of a 10 story building.

It will be sad but there is always unavoidable collateral damage.

[The POPE]

I figured Anthony would be all over this post like stink on sh$$. Maybe they finally took my advice and cut off all phone and internet access at the funny farm I am all for signing Russell if the price is right. If he truly wants to be recognized as the best then he has to allow for talent to be put in place around him. Only have to look at Rodgers situation to see that one man no matter how good can’t do it alone in the NFL. As much as I don’t care for Brady, he does sacrifice $ in order to keep a competitive level of talent and depth on the team. The bottom line is Lombardi’s and those won’t be seen when 20% or more of the cap is invested in 1 player.


Pope out

[obiken]

I figured Anthony would be all over this post like stink on sh$$. Maybe they finally took my advice and cut off all phone and internet access at the funny farm I am all for signing Russell if the price is right. If he truly wants to be recognized as the best then he has to allow for talent to be put in place around him. Only have to look at Rodgers situation to see that one man no matter how good can’t do it alone in the NFL. As much as I don’t care for Brady, he does sacrifice $ in order to keep a competitive level of talent and depth on the team. The bottom line is Lombardi’s and those won’t be seen when 20% or more of the cap is invested in 1 player.


Pope out

Spot on Poperuni!

[mykc14]

I figured Anthony would be all over this post like stink on sh$$. Maybe they finally took my advice and cut off all phone and internet access at the funny farm I am all for signing Russell if the price is right. If he truly wants to be recognized as the best then he has to allow for talent to be put in place around him. Only have to look at Rodgers situation to see that one man no matter how good can’t do it alone in the NFL. As much as I don’t care for Brady, he does sacrifice $ in order to keep a competitive level of talent and depth on the team. The bottom line is Lombardi’s and those won’t be seen when 20% or more of the cap is invested in 1 player.


Pope out

While I agree with this for the most part I think it is also important to remember that RW didn't break the bank with the Hawks last contract, at least not as far as cap hit. To compare on TB's last contract he gave the Pat's a 22 and 27 (next year) mil cap hit... RW's cap hits over the course of his current contract have been 7, 18, 14, 23, and next year would be 25. I have no doubt that his next contract will look big, but I imagine they will do a good job of spreading out the cap hit over the course of the contract. Here are other examples:

Aaron Rodgers (33 mil): 20, 26, 32, 33, 37, 25
Matt Ryan (30 mil): 17, 22, 31, 34, 35, 30
Kirk Cousins (28): 24, 28, 31

In other words even if his average looks big, like 35 mil/year there is a good chance that he will only count more than that towards the cap in one or two years of the contract. This idea that he is going to count 20% of the cap is never going to happen. He *might* cost 37-40 mil in one year of the contract but that will be in 3 or 4 years when the cap goes up another 30-40 million. By the time he costs the team 38 million the cap probably will be around 230 million. This year RW's salary was about 12% of our teams cap, if he has a 38 mil hit in 4 or 5 years that would project to be about 16% of the cap. My guess is his contract will vary from taking 11-17% of the cap in a given year over the course of his contract...

[NorthHawk]

That's kind of my thoughts on this, mykc14.
We should be looking at the % of the Cap instead of the $ figure and 17% even though large, is manageable, but 11% is cheap.
I wonder if there is some type of deal to be made whereby his salary would be dependent upon a Cap %, with a floor, so it would escalate as the Cap escalates.
It would be different from most if not all previous contracts, but something has to change in the NFL if they want to remain top dog in sports.

[The POPE]

While I agree with this for the most part I think it is also important to remember that RW didn't break the bank with the Hawks last contract, at least not as far as cap hit. To compare on TB's last contract he gave the Pat's a 22 and 27 (next year) mil cap hit... RW's cap hits over the course of his current contract have been 7, 18, 14, 23, and next year would be 25. I have no doubt that his next contract will look big, but I imagine they will do a good job of spreading out the cap hit over the course of the contract. Here are other examples:

Aaron Rodgers (33 mil): 20, 26, 32, 33, 37, 25
Matt Ryan (30 mil): 17, 22, 31, 34, 35, 30
Kirk Cousins (28): 24, 28, 31

In other words even if his average looks big, like 35 mil/year there is a good chance that he will only count more than that towards the cap in one or two years of the contract. This idea that he is going to count 20% of the cap is never going to happen. He *might* cost 37-40 mil in one year of the contract but that will be in 3 or 4 years when the cap goes up another 30-40 million. By the time he costs the team 38 million the cap probably will be around 230 million. This year RW's salary was about 12% of our teams cap, if he has a 38 mil hit in 4 or 5 years that would project to be about 16% of the cap. My guess is his contract will vary from taking 11-17% of the cap in a given year over the course of his contract...[/quote].

Hello MYKC14,

If the numbers could work out as you suggest then I would be all for signing Wilson today. We will see where it goes. Wilson has to decide if he can obtain his goals long term in Seattle. His next contract would outlast Pete’s tenure. Ownership changes and a lot of unknowns coming up. I could see him taking the tag to see what’s going to happen. Maybe the next coach or owner will favor big offense versus 3 yards and a cloud of dust. If I was him I thing i would take the tag for at least a year and take out a big insurance policy for career ending injury. A lot of uncertainty awaits the Hawks in the coming years. It will be interesting.

Pope out

[mykc14]

I could see him taking the tag

Pope out

I think most people would agree that if his goal is to make as much money as possible that would be the route to go. One thing that the Hawks have in their favor is the the end of the current CBA. If he felt quite sure the rules regarding the use of the Franchise Tag would stay the same under the next CBA he would stand to gain a lot of money by being F-Tagged for 2 years, but the rules surrounding the F-tag could change and that makes it a little less of a sure thing for him. The uncertainty of the next CBA and the F-tag might make signing a long-term contract a little more appealing. At the same time it could benefit him to wait until the next CBA is signed or to sign a shorter contract because the next CBA *could* allow him to sign for a lot more money... In the end I see him probably signing something like a 3-year extension that averages 35 mil/year... just my guess.

[RiverDog]

Good thoughts by all 3 of you guys. I agree with North Hawk, that we should be looking at a percentage of the cap rather than the dollar amount. But 15% on an expected $190M cap is just $28M, which would be a bargain. There's rumors that he could ask for as much as $40M, which would put it at well over 20%.

[mykc14]

Good thoughts by all 3 of you guys. I agree with North Hawk, that we should be looking at a percentage of the cap rather than the dollar amount. But 15% on an expected $190M cap is just $28M, which would be a bargain. There's rumors that he could ask for as much as $40M, which would put it at well over 20%.

Right, but that $190 mil cap would be in 2019... Even if he were to sign a $40mil/year contract (which I highly doubt) his cap hit in 2019 wouldn't be 40 mil it would be around that 28mil number, which puts him in that 11-17% category. As his cap hit goes up over his contract so too will the cap. His cap hit next year is 25 mil right now. There is very little chance that the Hawks would construct a contract that would pay him much more than 25 mil in 2019. JS and PC clearly have a budget in place and are planning for his hit to be around 25 mil. Even if he were to get F-tagged in 2020 and 2021 his cap hits over the next 3 years would be (about) 25, 30, 36 mil... There is no way they would construct a contract that would lead to cap hits much more than those in the next 3 years.

[Aseahawkfan]

I look at the team landscape out there and all I see from consistently competitive teams separating from the one offs is a franchise QB like Russell Wilson. You don't have a franchise QB, your chances of consistently competing drop substantially. Not even sure why there are members of any football fan base that goes against this evidence. In competitive football moreso than any other sport, having a franchise QB is absolutely a requirement for consistent, long-term competitiveness. All we would do if we traded Russell Wilson is post a ton of threads about finding our next franchise QB and our horrible QB play and what we could trade to find a franchise QB or how we need a high draft pick for a franchise QB.

Did everyone on here just suddenly forget all those threads when we didn't have Russell? This is what everyone wants to go back to? Posting threads about finding our next franchise QB because our management traded a franchise QB we already had? That just seems really, really dumb.

[savvyman]

Trade Him

Him and his greedy agent will want to break the bank for his new contract.

Better to use $40 Million in 7 great pieces than one QB.

[NorthHawk]

Trade Him

Him and his greedy agent will want to break the bank for his new contract.

Better to use $40 Million in 7 great pieces than one QB.

Who do you have in mind to replace him?
Pete's Offense requires a "Point Guard" QB to be at its most effective.
The only player I can see that might fit would be Kyler Murray, but if he doesn't like the situation or he wants to
be in a big media market, he might just move on to Baseball. And he would take a few years to get to the level of Wilson if at all.
Mariota? Possibly but would the Titans want to take on Wilson's salary?
We could always sign Kapaernick as he has shown he can run a similar Offense.
Nick Foles? He works well in a Pederson Offense and would probably do well in a WCO like Reid runs, but he's not an RPO type or a "Point Guard".

So who else do you have in mind?

[NineR]

At least you guys do not have a $140 mil QB who has not played hardly at all.

[mykc14]

At least you guys do not have a $140 mil QB who has not played hardly at all.

True, but his cap hits aren't bad for you guys now. He had a $37 mil hit this year. The rest of his contract they will be much lower, if he is still your QB. He could be a bargain from now on if he plays well...

[RiverDog]

I look at the team landscape out there and all I see from consistently competitive teams separating from the one offs is a franchise QB like Russell Wilson. You don't have a franchise QB, your chances of consistently competing drop substantially. Not even sure why there are members of any football fan base that goes against this evidence. In competitive football moreso than any other sport, having a franchise QB is absolutely a requirement for consistent, long-term competitiveness. All we would do if we traded Russell Wilson is post a ton of threads about finding our next franchise QB and our horrible QB play and what we could trade to find a franchise QB or how we need a high draft pick for a franchise QB.

Did everyone on here just suddenly forget all those threads when we didn't have Russell? This is what everyone wants to go back to? Posting threads about finding our next franchise QB because our management traded a franchise QB we already had? That just seems really, really dumb.

Teams from that era had a lot more wrong with them than not having a franchise quarterback, namely Mora and Ruskell.

I'm pretty neutral on the subject, preferring to wait and see what Russell's demands are going to be and how Pete and JS intend to approach them. If Pete thinks he can field a team that's going to compete for a SB year-in and year-out by paying Russell 18-20% of payroll, then I'm good with it. If we decide to move on from Russell, I'm OK with that, too.

As far as the requirement for a 'franchise quarterback' being an absolute requirement for consistent competitiveness, what you are saying is the conventional wisdom of current thinking that might be changing here in the near future. If teams like the Packers, Falcons, and Steelers continue their slides and teams like the Eagles, Texans, and Ravens keep making the playoffs with underpaid pedestrian QB's like Nick Foles or young quarterbacks a year or two out of college, then that thinking might come to be considered as being outdated.

[Aseahawkfan]

Teams from that era had a lot more wrong with them than not having a franchise quarterback, namely Mora and Ruskell.

I'm pretty neutral on the subject, preferring to wait and see what Russell's demands are going to be and how Pete and JS intend to approach them. If Pete thinks he can field a team that's going to compete for a SB year-in and year-out by paying Russell 18-20% of payroll, then I'm good with it. If we decide to move on from Russell, I'm OK with that, too.

As far as the requirement for a 'franchise quarterback' being an absolute requirement for consistent competitiveness, what you are saying is the conventional wisdom of current thinking that might be changing here in the near future. If teams like the Packers, Falcons, and Steelers continue their slides and teams like the Eagles, Texans, and Ravens keep making the playoffs with underpaid pedestrian QB's like Nick Foles or young quarterbacks a year or two out of college, then that thinking might come to be considered as being outdated.

What are you talking about? Eagles made the playoffs with a 1st round pick. They won the Super Bowl with NIck Foles playing a hell of a game. It took them years to get in that position. It may fall apart just as quick if Wentz doesn't come back healthy.

The Colts turned it around in one year with the return of Andrew Luck. Saints, KC, New England, and San Diego all have franchise QBs, most of them for years. So what are you talking about?

I'll make you a huge money bet like a $1000 right now that if Russell is traded this forum will be rife with complaints and threads about finding a franchise QB. It's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of. This idea of "value QBs" is pure bunk. We've had our best years with a franchise QB. So have most teams not named the Washington Red Skins when Joe Gibbs ran the team. I don't know what you're talking about. You are talking flavor of the month teams that do something for a year or two, then fall off because no franchise QB like the Baltimore Ravens with one of the best defenses in history or the Tampa Bay Bucs when their defense and run game were amazing, but Trent Dilfer at QB.

No one is saying all you need is a franchise QB to win. That's not true either as evidence presents itself with plenty of one off teams. If you want to be some one off team, then sure entertain training Russell and hope for the right mix. If you want to be doing the playoffs year in and year out, you better have a franchise QB. Then rebuild and everything else are easier once you have that most important team piece figured out. You can find quality defensive pieces for cheap like we've done. You don't skimp on QB. That's the cornerstone of your offense.

You'll be one of the ones complaining the loudest if we trade Russell and can't find a decent QB for the next decade.

[obiken]

At least you guys do not have a $140 mil QB who has not played hardly at all.

You guys have a good problem IMHO 9er, Mullens was not bad, he beat teams he was not supposed to beat, like us! He has a good arm, great leadership skills and a never quit attitude. I would take him as a backup from you guys in a NY minute.

[Anthony]

LOL thanks for the laughs

[RiverDog]

I'm pretty neutral on the subject, preferring to wait and see what Russell's demands are going to be and how Pete and JS intend to approach them. If Pete thinks he can field a team that's going to compete for a SB year-in and year-out by paying Russell 18-20% of payroll, then I'm good with it. If we decide to move on from Russell, I'm OK with that, too.

As far as the requirement for a 'franchise quarterback' being an absolute requirement for consistent competitiveness, what you are saying is the conventional wisdom of current thinking that might be changing here in the near future. If teams like the Packers, Falcons, and Steelers continue their slides and teams like the Eagles, Texans, and Ravens keep making the playoffs with underpaid pedestrian QB's like Nick Foles or young quarterbacks a year or two out of college, then that thinking might come to be considered as being outdated.

What are you talking about? Eagles made the playoffs with a 1st round pick. They won the Super Bowl with NIck Foles playing a hell of a game. It took them years to get in that position. It may fall apart just as quick if Wentz doesn't come back healthy.

This season, counting the playoffs, the Eagles were 5-6 with Wentz starting, 5-2 with Foles. Last year when Wentz went down, the Eagles went 5-1 with Foles as their starter, their only loss being a mail it in game when Foles didn't even play in the 2nd half. There's no doubt that Wentz made some significant contributions, particularly in their Lombardi season, but the point is that the Eagles proved that they can win consistently and win against the best of the best with Foles as their starting QB. It was a very similar situation in Minnesota last season with Case Keenum starting.

The Colts turned it around in one year with the return of Andrew Luck. Saints, KC, New England, and San Diego all have franchise QBs, most of them for years. So what are you talking about?

My point is that it's not necessarily a requirement for a team to have a franchise QB to succeed, at least not for every team, particularly those that rely on strong defenses. I agree that it does help your odds if you have a 'franchise qb', but it's not clear whether a team can remain competitive year in and year out by giving him a huge chunk of the payroll like they have with Aaron Rodgers. At some point, there has to be a breaking point: Is it 15%? 20%? 25%?

Once again, as I stated above, I am not advocating that we trade Russell. Like I said, my preference is that we resign him. But if Pete and JS feel that he's asking too much and decide to move on from him, I'll trust their judgement until they're proven wrong.

[obiken]

Going forward Wentz is the better QB. As we know it usually takes 2 seasons to heal an ACL Tear.

[RiverDog]

Going forward Wentz is the better QB. As we know it usually takes 2 seasons to heal an ACL Tear.

Maybe, maybe not. Wentz hasn't been battle tested, has never had to perform during the playoffs or even in the stretch run leading up to the playoffs. The team is still his and I wouldn't argue that they'd be better off with Foles, but the fact is, and the point of my argument is, that over the past two seasons the Eagles have played their best football with Nick Foles as their QB and that certain teams don't need a "franchise QB" to be successful. With some teams, the system is what makes the QB successful, not the other way around.

[NorthHawk]

I was listening to NFLRadio a while ago and Pat Kirwan pointed out that the Eagles could fit both Foles and Wentz onto their roster because of Wentz's 1st contract.
He said something like it would cost them about $24 million or so per year which isn't a lot for a franchise QB, let alone 2 quality QB's.
His argument was more involved, but it made sense.

[RiverDog]

I was listening to NFLRadio a while ago and Pat Kirwan pointed out that the Eagles could fit both Foles and Wentz onto their roster because of Wentz's 1st contract.
He said something like it would cost them about $24 million or so per year which isn't a lot for a franchise QB, let alone 2 quality QB's.
His argument was more involved, but it made sense.

Yea, it's a real debate in the City of Brotherly Love, perhaps the first true QB controversy since Indy let Manning walk and drafted Andrew Luck.

If Arizona had a bigger, more passionate fan base, I could hear them debating whether or not to trade Rosen and draft Kyler Murray.

Speaking of quarterbacks, I heard Mel Kiper saying yesterday that Clemson QB Trevor Lawerence was the best QB coming out of college since Andrew Luck, but it will be a couple of years before he hits the draft. It will be interesting to see how his stock does in the next couple of years.