Time to Trade Wilson??

[NorthHawk]

I think that by design they want him to stay in the pocket more and run less.
We see less RPO plays than his early years, so that's in part what leads me
to that conclusion. Then again, maybe they think he won't be as effective
because he's slower.

[RiverDog]

I'm not dramatizing anything. You said it wouldn't be the end of the world if we got rid of Wilson, I'm illustrating the point that as we don't have a replacement for him, yes, as it relates to the world of football competitiveness, it would be.

Horsepucky! Where did I say if we "got rid" of Russell? That is YOUR term, not mine, and it most certainly is over dramatizing when you substitute your words for mine.

[c_hawkbob]

What ever, "get rid of", "move away from" ... one's just the PC way of saying the other.

[obiken]

The Cap just sucks but its a reality. Its all about resource designation. Prescott was strongly intimating yesterday that he was not going to take a pay cut like Brady. IF RW does't I will still like him, but I wont admire him. Course I admired Obama once too!!

[RiverDog]

What ever, "get rid of", "move away from" ... one's just the PC way of saying the other.

Vastly different terms, my friend. You're making it sound as if I am unsatisfied with Russell and want to kick him to the curb, which is not the case. Your changing the intent of my comments.

If you're going to quote me, please have the courtesy to be accurate and not substitute your terms for mine. Is that too much to ask?

[c_hawkbob]

A bit yes. If you're going to take such offense at anything that isn't expressed in exactly the words you chose but say essentially the same thing (isn't that exactly what PC is?) that's a pretty big ask.

I'll try to go back and find your exact words every time i reference something you said but I can't make any promises.

I still say 'getting rid of' and 'moving away from' a player mean exactly the same thing: the player playing somewhere else.

[RiverDog]

A bit yes. If you're going to take such offense at anything that isn't expressed in exactly the words you chose but say essentially the same thing (isn't that exactly what PC is?) that's a pretty big ask.

I'll try to go back and find your exact words every time i reference something you said but I can't make any promises.

I still say 'getting rid of' and 'moving away from' a player mean exactly the same thing: the player playing somewhere else.

Oh, for crissakes, you didn't have to "go back", you had the direct quote within your post two paragraphs above your own comments, yet you still chose to come up with your own term! And I don't care how you want to spin it, there's a big difference in saying "move away" vs. "get rid".

Just say "sorry" and we'll move on. It's really not that hard.

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry you're offended but I'm really not sorry about what I said. I still maintain that "move way from" and "get rid of" are synonymous in the world of sports. One is just the way the coach or GM says it to the press, the other is what they say to each other, even if it's in terms of getting rid of his contract or cap hit, it all means the same.

[RiverDog]

Sorry you're offended but I'm really not sorry about what I said. I still maintain that "move way from" and "get rid of" are synonymous in the world of sports. One is just the way the coach or GM says it to the press, the other is what they say to each other, even if it's in terms of getting rid of his contract or cap hit, it all means the same.

Man, you're exasperating. Here's the direct quote of what I said:

My point is that it's not necessarily the end of the world if we move away from Russell. The key would be who do we get as his replacement.

What I meant was that IF we, ie Pete and John, decided to "move away" from Russell...not my first choice by any means as I've consistently and repeatedly expressed my desire that we resign him....that it would not "necessarily" mean that we would be resigned to mediocrity. Our success would depend on who we got as his replacement...for example, if John and Pete decided to trade Russell for 3 first round picks and we were able to get into a position to draft Kyler Murray, we "might" be OK. Again, I am not advocating that option by any means.

I agree with you that our best chance at sustained success is resigning Russell...a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But the impression I got from your re-characterizing my statement was that you were trying to turn me into some sort of Russell hater, that I am dissatisfied with his body of work and/or not optimistic about his ability to perform in the future. That is absolutely not the case, and as a person I admire and respect, would appreciate some sort of acknowledgement from you that it was not your intent to portray me in that light.

[Hawktawk]

Russ rushed for 376 yards last year, a 5.6 YPC average, right on his career average of 5.7. He added a long rush of 40 yards which clinched the Vikes game and was the second longest run of his career behind a 55 yarder in 2014. Add to that his most efficient season ever throwing the ball and a team record 35 TD passes.

I'm not sure what you all are watching. Russ is a workout warrior, extremely durable and still capable of killing teams with his feet if they leave it open. Defenses have learned to adjust to his playing style and have limited his rushing attempts but hes plenty happy to burn them with his arm. But I dont think hes lost much in the terms of running ability at all. Losing him short of a reincarnation of Joe Montana or something would be the biggest mistake this franchise ever made.

[c_hawkbob]

I have no idea what you are exasperated about, I fully understand what you said. 100%. There is no misunderstanding here! I'm quite simply disagreeing with you and you seem to be wanting to make the issue about terminology. I think getting rid of (or moving away from if you prefer) Russ would be the worst thing this team could do.

[NorthHawk]

For me, he just doesn't seem as quick as he once was.
His experience can make up for a lot of things that time takes away.

[obiken]

I have no idea what you are exasperated about, I fully understand what you said. 100%. There is no misunderstanding here! I'm quite simply disagreeing with you and you seem to be wanting to make the issue about terminology. I think getting rid of (or moving away from if you prefer) Russ would be the worst thing this team could do.

You and River are like the Professor Emeritus' in here so quit fighting!! I am going to step in it however. I love RW more than River does, but IF it means becoming the GB Packers of the NW, I would go down and then up. I know Cbob what it was like before. 7-9 9-7, languishing in mediocrity, but that is a brighter future than seeing a guy I really care about get his brains bashed in when he loses his mobility. With the way the New College QB's are more NFL ready, I think that is a tad bid brighter. But, that's just me guys.

[RiverDog]

I have no idea what you are exasperated about, I fully understand what you said. 100%. There is no misunderstanding here! I'm quite simply disagreeing with you and you seem to be wanting to make the issue about terminology. I think getting rid of (or moving away from if you prefer) Russ would be the worst thing this team could do.

The issue is more than mere terminology, it's about the spirit of my comments. You've changed the meaning of my remarks to say something I did not intend. But be that as it may. You're an immovable object. I'll take obi's advice and "move on"...or maybe I should "get rid"?

I'm not nearly as certain as you apparently are as to what the best course is for the Hawks. I don't know enough about the situation, don't know what Russell's demands are, don't know what kind of sacrifices signing him would entail, or who we might get as his replacement if we were to move on. I'm putting my trust in Pete and John...a trust they have earned from me...to make that decision. If they decide that signing Russell to a fully guaranteed $350M 6 year contract is the best course for our team, then that's what I'll support. If they decide to let him walk, then I'm good with that, too. No matter what their decision is, I'll still reserve the right to change my opinion if it doesn't work out for us, but that's my starting point.

[NorthHawk]

We don't really know what Wilson will be asking for, but we can have a good guess.
The top 4 QB's salaries as of Sept 2018 are
$27.5 million for Garoppolo
$28 million for Cousins
$30 million for Ryan
$33.5 million for Rodgers

Of that list, only Rodgers has won a Super Bowl.
We know that Wilson's agent previously dragged out the negotiations until the season was to start
and we also know he likes the guaranteed money that Baseball hands out.
We also know Russell is extremely competitive, so I can see that combination driving
for a minimum of $35 million. Maybe more. I can also see a lot of guaranteed money, too
which might bring down the yearly salary, but I doubt it.
We might end up with a $35 million, 4 year contract with $120 million guaranteed.

Rodgers contract is 4 years, $134 million with $98.7 million guaranteed.
Wilson's contract will be better than that and have a staggering Cap hit.

[c_hawkbob]

We also know that Wilson pulled the plug on negotiations for is last contract and signed in time for TC because football mattered more to him than being the highest paid QB in the league. He may well become the highest paid in the league this time but I don't think that's as important to him as it is to his agent.

As for the F-tag route, while it's a distinct possibility there is a danger to that path as well in the 2021 labor negotiations. If there is no labor contract there is no tag money. I think his deal comes in under the $35M everyone is guessing but is all (or very nearly all) guaranteed.

[Aseahawkfan]

I can't even believe this is still a topic. I literally can only think of one team that kept changing QBs that won more than a one-off Super Bowl: The Washington Red Skins under Joe Gibbs. That was on the edge of the running/defense era. I can think of no modern team without a franchise QB challenging for multiple Super Bowls.

[RiverDog]

I can't even believe this is still a topic. I literally can only think of one team that kept changing QBs that won more than a one-off Super Bowl: The Washington Red Skins under Joe Gibbs. That was on the edge of the running/defense era. I can think of no modern team without a franchise QB challenging for multiple Super Bowls.

It's not a debate. Everyone in here agrees that the desired outcome is that we resign Russell. Some of us have wondered what we might have to sacrifice to make that happen and what might be the possible alternatives should talks break down, but I don't know of a single poster that wants to get rid of Russell.

[obiken]

Aseahawkfan wrote:
I can't even believe this is still a topic. I literally can only think of one team that kept changing QBs that won more than a one-off Super Bowl: The Washington Red Skins under Joe Gibbs. That was on the edge of the running/defense era. I can think of no modern team without a franchise QB challenging for multiple Super Bowls.

Joe Gibbs changed QB's but not the Hogs and the defense. I agree with you it was a different era. I do not want it to happen but I think RW will go for the max.

[Distant]

Ugh! I just checked back in after a lengthy stay away mostly due to work and this is what I see.

Just Sayin.

Go Hawks!

[NorthHawk]

Yeah, this is the time of year when players get into trouble and us posters
go a little astray. If you look at the threads, you will see some unusual
tension in a number of posts.
I suppose it's part of the withdrawal process.

[Hawk Sista]

I agree that we should do what is needed to keep RW. Whatever that is, we have a better chance with him than without him. That said, I’m a little concerned that RW will want to play in LA or NY. One or both Manning/Rivers will likely be moving on, perhaps after the end of next season. As much as I love RW, he does strike me as the type to play in a mega market. Hopefully, I’m wrong.

[obiken]

The Herd this morning stated RW's wife wants out of Seattle, and wants to go to NY. The rumor is a Trade to the Giants. Now we are probably a year out, but She feels his marketability is being wasted in Seattle. Like most big moves this is starting with agents.

[RiverDog]

That said, I’m a little concerned that RW will want to play in LA or NY. One or both Manning/Rivers will likely be moving on, perhaps after the end of next season. As much as I love RW, he does strike me as the type to play in a mega market. Hopefully, I’m wrong.

Russell is so politically correct that it's difficult if not impossible to tell where his true feelings are regarding your observation. And yea, if Rivers decides to hang it up, there's going to be one big push by the Chargers to make a big splash as would occur if they were to sign someone like Russell. Their fan base sucks, and they're going to need to do something spectacular to sell tickets and merchandise.

[RiverDog]

The Herd this morning stated RW's wife wants out of Seattle, and wants to go to NY. The rumor is a Trade to the Giants. Now we are probably a year out, but She feels his marketability is being wasted in Seattle. Like most big moves this is starting with agents.

Here's the article Obi was referring to:

https://247sports.com/nfl/seattle-seaha ... 4MqVY6mRAk

And here's a little more detailed take by Condotta:

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/sea ... ghDY-Prwl4

[obiken]

Russell is so politically correct that it's difficult if not impossible to tell where his true feelings are regarding your observation. And yea, if Rivers decides to hang it up, there's going to be one big push by the Chargers to make a big splash as would occur if they were to sign someone like Russell. Their fan base sucks, and they're going to need to do something spectacular to sell tickets and merchandise.

Chargers are a joke River, they need to go back to San Diego, or move somewhere else. I think its a 70% chance that RW is gone. You have to get atleast a high first rounder for him. Tagging a QB is just not an option.

[RiverDog]

Chargers are a joke River, they need to go back to San Diego, or move somewhere else. I think its a 70% chance that RW is gone. You have to get atleast a high first rounder for him. Tagging a QB is just not an option.

The Chargers are, indeed, a joke, but they're banking on their fortunes turning around after they move into their new digs in 2020, which is why signing a big name player would be helpful for them. They have a lot of work to do in terms of selling tickets, luxury boxes, advertizers, et al.

This is the slowest time of the year for sports. Football is over, baseball hasn't begun, and March Madness is still weeks away. Cowherd and others like him need something to talk about. He doesn't have any quotes from Russell, his wife, or anyone from the Seahawks. It's pure speculation.

[NorthHawk]

It might be in the cards that they go the FT route for 2 years.
It could benefit both sides if they do.

Reasons: The CBA expires in 2020.
2020 would be the end of the 2nd FT for Wilson.
There will be more QBs re-signing for huge deals and that will put pressure on mgmt to either increase the Cap greatly or modify it to accommodate
large contracts. KC with Mahomes will be one and Jones with Prescott if he develops into a star will be another, so some big names will have to
wrestle with the Cap and losing other good players as a result.

Since nobody knows how it's going to end up, a 2 year plan might just be in the best interest for both sides.

[RiverDog]

It might be in the cards that they go the FT route for 2 years.
It could benefit both sides if they do.

Reasons: The CBA expires in 2020.
2020 would be the end of the 2nd FT for Wilson.
There will be more QBs re-signing for huge deals and that will put pressure on mgmt to either increase the Cap greatly or modify it to accommodate
large contracts. KC with Mahomes will be one and Jones with Prescott if he develops into a star will be another, so some big names will have to
wrestle with the Cap and losing other good players as a result.

Since nobody knows how it's going to end up, a 2 year plan might just be in the best interest for both sides.

Interesting theory, but knowing the rate at which salaries for franchise QB's have been rising, I don't think the Hawks would settle for anything less than 4 years.

[NorthHawk]

What I meant was FT for 2 years to get past the CBA changes and then both sides would know the new rules or
any changes that might affect player salaries and the Cap.
A new contract today might bind Russ to less than he could otherwise get and/or it also might restrict the team’s
ability to manage the Cap in some way that could provide some benefit.

[RiverDog]

What I meant was FT for 2 years to get past the CBA changes and then both sides would know the new rules or
any changes that might affect player salaries and the Cap.
A new contract today might bind Russ to less than he could otherwise get and/or it also might restrict the team’s
ability to manage the Cap in some way that could provide some benefit.

Oh, IC.

But suppose the new CBA changes eliminates both tags. Under that scenario, If Russell isn't under contract, would not he become an unrestricted free agent?

[NorthHawk]

I can't see that happening. The Cap is what has made the NFL competitive, so I can see some modification of it
whereby the team still retains the players rights, but is treated differently by the Cap in some manner. Some
mechanism where the player could be paid more, and the team get some Cap relief.
Then again, it might stay the same and just more money added to the Cap.

[c_hawkbob]

I seem to disagree with how the impending 2021 labor negotiations (and almost certain work stoppage) will effect Russ' negotiations.

I think he'll be more likely to accept guaranteed money on a multi year contract than take a chance on there being no (or a shortened) season or a new CBA that alters the tag arrangement to his detriment. We can't assume that the way things are now is how they will be going forward.

[RiverDog]

I can't see that happening. The Cap is what has made the NFL competitive, so I can see some modification of it
whereby the team still retains the players rights, but is treated differently by the Cap in some manner. Some
mechanism where the player could be paid more, and the team get some Cap relief.
Then again, it might stay the same and just more money added to the Cap.

I wasn't speaking of changes in the salary cap. I was referring to your suggesting that the team applies and Russell accepts the franchise tag and the logic of waiting until the details of a new labor agreement is known before signing an extension.

I have a tendoncy to agree with Cbob on this one. If anything, the uncertainty regarding the outcome regarding the upcoming CBA negotiations is more likely to expedite a contract agreement rather than delay one.

[NorthHawk]

The point I was trying to make was that the FT might be advantageous to both parties because of the uncertainty.
Wilson would get some $60+ million dollars guaranteed and then be in a position to get a long term contract.
The team would be in a position to use the new Cap rules to its benefit.

[RiverDog]

The point I was trying to make was that the FT might be advantageous to both parties because of the uncertainty.
Wilson would get some $60+ million dollars guaranteed and then be in a position to get a long term contract.
The team would be in a position to use the new Cap rules to its benefit.

If the goal is to keep Russell Wilson a Seahawk, uncertainty in the form of an unknown CBA agreement, whether it be cap rules or the various tags, is not our friend. If the strategy is to wait until the next CBA is ratified, the Seahawks have more to lose than Russell does.

[idhawkman]

So he still has this year under the current contract. Then next year FTag him. That takes him into and past the CBA time, right? If not, we may need to look for another QB then anyways. If we can keep him and the CBA is favorable then all the better.

[RiverDog]

So he still has this year under the current contract. Then next year FTag him. That takes him into and past the CBA time, right? If not, we may need to look for another QB then anyways. If we can keep him and the CBA is favorable then all the better.

The CBA expires AFTER the conclusion of the 2020 season, so no, the FT would not take him PAST the new CBA.

Who knows what the new CBA will look like. They could very well say that a player can only be tagged once and count a 2020 tag as that one time or eliminate the tag altogether and we'd lose all leverage.

IMO our best bet is to get something done before the 2019 regular season starts.

[NorthHawk]

It would take him to the end of the current CBA.
Sorry if I mislead.
But the point still remains, it could be beneficial for both parties depending on what changes are made.

[idhawkman]

Well if it happens it happens. If not, I think we need to bring in a suitable replacement this year not only to help the team's leverage over RW but also in case the CBA or RW doesn't want to be here. The team has to protect itself.