More Wilson Contract stuff

[RiverDog]

Thanks River! I think Dallas made a tactical error. They should tagged DM and let DB walk. Their running game was killer now not so much.

Hey, what are friends for, anyway?

Agreed about Dallas, although long term it was probably best that they not resign Murray to a long term deal. Great teams are not built around running backs.

[kalibane]

Last year was the first year Demarco Murray stayed healthy. They also absolutely ran him into the ground last year. I will be absolutely shocked if he ever matches that production again and wouldn't be surprised if he steadily went down hill. That Offensive line is also amazing. I think they should have made more effort to replace Murray but they don't need a top tier back to hurt people in the running game with that line. Dez Bryant was the more important player between the two. He changes how the defense plays.

On a side note, the most important point regarding the Seahawks offense (or lack thereof, if that's what you believe) is that if the Seahawks didn't have the type of defense they did, the offensive play calling would change. There would almost certainly be fewer three and outs or stalled drives because the coaching staff wouldn't be content to punt and play field position as often.

Trying to prove that the Seahawks are inept based on comparisons to the Patriots or Broncos offenses is no different than Cromartie claiming Richard Sherman isn't the top Corner in the game because he doesn't "follow the #1 WR". You decided on your conclusion based on what you think might happen (which not coincidentally matches what you want to believe) but there is zero empirical evidence to support the conclusion. All your focus is on one detail (raw yardage) without considering the context in which Bevell might call a power run on 3rd and 7 because he can punt and let defense hold serve when if the defense is bad he'd never call that play.

[RiverDog]

On a side note, the most important point regarding the Seahawks offense (or lack thereof, if that's what you believe) is that if the Seahawks didn't have the type of defense they did, the offensive play calling would change. There would almost certainly be fewer three and outs or stalled drives because the coaching staff wouldn't be content to punt and play field position as often.

Trying to prove that the Seahawks are inept based on comparisons to the Patriots or Broncos offenses is no different than Cromartie claiming Richard Sherman isn't the top Corner in the game because he doesn't "follow the #1 WR". You decided on your conclusion based on what you think might happen (which not coincidentally matches what you want to believe) but there is zero empirical evidence to support the conclusion. All your focus is on one detail (raw yardage) without considering the context in which Bevell might call a power run on 3rd and 7 because he can punt and let defense hold serve when if the defense is bad he'd never call that play.

Absolutely. And not only would it change our play calling, it almost certainly would change game management decisions (you pointed out one, there are others), our draft philosophy, the free agents we pursue, the coaches that are hired, and so on. It would change the entire character of the team.

[NorthHawk]

Oh, I get it.
They didn't TRY against the Packers in the first half and hoped the Defense held so they could have some late game heroics.
They didn't TRY against the Cowboys and got beaten by an average Defense. The list goes on.
Even in a lot of the games we won it was because the Defense shut down the opposing Offense, not our Offense providing a cushion.
When our Defense needed help against the Chargers in the heat, they couldn't deliver - and the Chargers Defense although solid, wasn't one of the elite.

I'm sure the Offensive philosophy is to try to score every time they have the ball.
Obviously no team succeeds in that, but we have far too many occasions where we can't move the ball and it's the Defense that bails us out.

There's a reason why people look at Wilson and dismiss his accomplishments by saying he's playing behind one of the best Defenses.
That's true, he does have a great Defense to support him, but it's also true that he doesn't have much of a supporting cast on Offense outside of Lynch and now Graham.
If you don't think that's the case, ask yourself who the DCs have to plan against. You can only come up with 2 names - Lynch and Wilson. Hopefully Graham adds to the short list.
They know they can attack our OL and have a good chance to win in the trenches, but it's tackling Lynch and corralling Wilson that are difficult.
Lynch broke 130 tackles last year. That's 7 per game in a 19 game season (playoffs included). The nearest back to Lynch was 100. That tells us that our OL is overrated in the run game and we all know the problems in pass protection.

This really is not a good Offense in its totality.

[kalibane]

Are you serious North? Do you really want to dig your heels in on this subject and pin your hopes to that kind of post?

1. If you want to completely disregard Wilson's best game against Atlanta where he clearly carried the offense, then you can't pin your entire argument on his worst game against Green Bay.

2. We aren't talking about situational play calling where all of a sudden we are passing more and the defense KNOWS we have to pass. We're talking about how right now it's not uncommon to be conservative on 3rd and 6 by calling a running play or if a passing play how Wilson is instructed to just get rid of the ball if it's not open in a scoreless game in the first quarter. Or kicking 30 yard field goals instead of going for it on 4th and 1. If the defense couldn't be counted on those play calls and overall philosophy would change THROUGHOUT the game. This is also exactly how the Dallas game was called, the defense just didn't hold up their end this time. It happens.

You just married yourself to this narrative for whatever reason and are now searching for ways to support it. The fact is we don't know what the offense would look like if we didn't have a strong defense and Pete Carroll couldn't utilize his PREFERRED philosophy. However, there are more positive indicators than negative... the number of big plays that Wilson has made in the passing game, especially considering his two top WRs have been two undrafted free agents is unreal. When people were marveling at how the Patriots were winning with the likes of Troy Brown and David Givens, that is exactly what Russell Wilson has been doing... even if it does make ADB, ADB.

[RiverDog]

When our Defense needed help against the Chargers in the heat, they couldn't deliver - and the Chargers Defense although solid, wasn't one of the elite.

As I recall, our defense played just as poorly if not more so as the offense did on that day even though we were at virtually full strength. We couldn't get San Diego off the field as the Chargers converted on 10 out of 17 3rd downs. We had absolutely no pressure on Rivers. Stupid azz penalties like Irvin's late hit didn't help matters. Antonio Gates was beetch slapping our LOB. Defensively it was one of the most frustrating games to watch in the past 3 years. That kind of performance you can't hang on the offense. The best offense in the league isn't going to win too many games if their D surrenders 30 PPG.

And FYI, San Diego had the 9th ranked defense in 2014. I'd call that pretty darn solid. Plus we were playing them on the road.

[Anthony]

This does not help us at all

http://realredskins.com/2015/04/22/plen ... ct-option/

"Since it seems unlikely that Mariota will still be available, it looks like they could decide to extend the option, which comes with a one-year salary of about $16.5 million."

[c_hawkbob]

An article from before the draft even ... you're going to impressive lengths to keep the pressure on.

[Anthony]

An article from before the draft even ... you're going to impressive lengths to keep the pressure on.

no just providing info as I bet you Wilsons agent brought it up.

[Anthony]

The more I think about it I think the hold of is the 100MIl mark that al the other QBs are getting. I think Wilson wants 100Mil and to do that the hawks would need to go 5 years and I do not think they want to do 5 years. They have not done any 5 year contract they have all been 4.

Newton 5 years 103.8 mil
Kap 6 years 126


100M is a huge mark and Tannenhills deal is 98 mil

I think that is the hold up. It cannot be about this year as if he plays it out he still only gets the 1.5 and it has been said he will. So that would make no sense. I think it is the 100m mark and to do that the hawks would need to go 5 years. Also all the others deals are 5 or more years.

[HumanCockroach]

They inked a player to a five year deal two years ago. They will do it, but their model certainly isn't to do so.

[Anthony]

They inked a player to a five year deal two years ago. They will do it, but their model certainly isn't to do so.

ahh who?

[jshawaii22]

This site shows 3: Jon Ryan, Mebane and Okung... but I don't think that "This" FO signed Ryan or Mebane to the existing contract and Okung's was a mandantory rookie deal (wow, 6 years?)

Everyone else.... no more then 4. It seems to be the magic #, so we may be onto the main holdup. Baseball contracts are generally 7 years or so...
7 years / 200m... Russell becomes the first 200m football player? Wouldn't surprise me at all, given the rise is salary cap is running 12m a year, the Baseball guy is building 5-10% raises a year. Even if they agree to start year #1 @ 18m. the 7th years is around 30m.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/


js

[obiken]

No on OKung, too many injuries. If you look at his career with WJ's Big Walt had longevity. This guy will be out in 5 years.

[HumanCockroach]

Percy.

[Anthony]

This site shows 3: Jon Ryan, Mebane and Okung... but I don't think that "This" FO signed Ryan or Mebane to the existing contract and Okung's was a mandantory rookie deal (wow, 6 years?)

Everyone else.... no more then 4. It seems to be the magic #, so we may be onto the main holdup. Baseball contracts are generally 7 years or so...
7 years / 200m... Russell becomes the first 200m football player? Wouldn't surprise me at all, given the rise is salary cap is running 12m a year, the Baseball guy is building 5-10% raises a year. Even if they agree to start year #1 @ 18m. the 7th years is around 30m.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/


js

yeah 7 years 200 mil is to high, that is 8 years 201,5 or 25 mil a year. I would say at least 5 years 110mil or 6 years 111,5 or 18.6 mil a year but in new money 22 milk a year

[NorthHawk]

The more I think about it I think the hold of is the 100MIl mark that al the other QBs are getting. I think Wilson wants 100Mil and to do that the hawks would need to go 5 years and I do not think they want to do 5 years. They have not done any 5 year contract they have all been 4.

Newton 5 years 103.8 mil
Kap 6 years 126


100M is a huge mark and Tannenhills deal is 98 mil

I think that is the hold up. It cannot be about this year as if he plays it out he still only gets the 1.5 and it has been said he will. So that would make no sense. I think it is the 100m mark and to do that the hawks would need to go 5 years. Also all the others deals are 5 or more years.

Let's suppose Wilson does want a $100 M contract and the team doesn't want more than a 4 year deal.
How could both get what they want?

One way is for Wilson to play out this year at $1.5 M and then get the FT next year. The numbers being thrown around in this forum for the FT would be about $22 - 25 M.
That gives him around $25 M guaranteed for the next 2 years.
He then signs a 4 year $90 M contract with $50 M guaranteed.
That would give him 6 years with $75 M guaranteed and the team spreads the cost over 6 years with a huge hit in the FT year.

Massage some of the numbers and it could be the basis of a workable scenario.

[c_hawkbob]

But a dangerous plan as it exposes him to other teams, either next year if we don't use the exclusive rights tag or the following year when using the tag a second time would be prohibitive to say the least. As soon as we fail to use that second tag teams will be falling all over themselves to make him the offer we wouldn't.

[NorthHawk]

But a dangerous plan as it exposes him to other teams, either next year if we don't use the exclusive rights tag or the following year when using the tag a second time would be prohibitive to say the least. As soon as we fail to use that second tag teams will be falling all over themselves to make him the offer we wouldn't.

It doesn't mean they can't work towards a new contract each of the next 2 years, but if Wilson is in fact wanting 100M and if as Anthony posits, the team only wants 4 year contracts, some risks will have to be taken and creativity will be required.

[Anthony]

Let's suppose Wilson does want a $100 M contract and the team doesn't want more than a 4 year deal.
How could both get what they want?

One way is for Wilson to play out this year at $1.5 M and then get the FT next year. The numbers being thrown around in this forum for the FT would be about $22 - 25 M.
That gives him around $25 M guaranteed for the next 2 years.
He then signs a 4 year $90 M contract with $50 M guaranteed.
That would give him 6 years with $75 M guaranteed and the team spreads the cost over 6 years with a huge hit in the FT year.

Massage some of the numbers and it could be the basis of a workable scenario.

good thought but I think the point is to have the deal be 100mil+ not 100 mil over what would be in essence 3 deals. his final ear, a tag, and then new contract. Also still not sure we can afford 25+MIL tag next year and if they use the other tag we could loose him.

[Anthony]

It doesn't mean they can't work towards a new contract each of the next 2 years, but if Wilson is in fact wanting 100M and if as Anthony posits, the team only wants 4 year contracts, some risks will have to be taken and creativity will be required.

To me if the issue is as I laid out and the team looses him for want of 1 year that is on them. I can understand why Wilson would want the 100M look at the other top Qbs, I would not understand why for 1 year they would not do it, heck they could put language in allowing them to turn it down or something. Just seems stupid and short sighted to me. IF I am right and we loose him because of we will look very stupid.

[Hawktawk]

But a dangerous plan as it exposes him to other teams, either next year if we don't use the exclusive rights tag or the following year when using the tag a second time would be prohibitive to say the least. As soon as we fail to use that second tag teams will be falling all over themselves to make him the offer we wouldn't.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This is exactly what I worry about. I feel like JS is willing to play chicken with Wilson. And as many opponents have discovered you underestimate the pride, self confidence, and resolve of RW at your peril.For his genuine nice guy personna he turns into a shark eyed assassin when the lights come on. He wants to be the BEST QB OF ALL TIME. He has said so. He has worked tirelessly on his craft and done everything right on and off the field. I have a hunch he feels handcuffed at times by the limitations of the offense and low balling him on a contract might rankle him even more. Its far fetched to believe they would screw it up and lose him but everyone thought we would keep Hutch too and the stakes are infinitely higher in this situation.

[NorthHawk]

I'm not at all concerned and won't be until this time next year.
I continue to believe things will work themselves out.

[Anthony]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This is exactly what I worry about. I feel like JS is willing to play chicken with Wilson. And as many opponents have discovered you underestimate the pride, self confidence, and resolve of RW at your peril.For his genuine nice guy personna he turns into a shark eyed assassin when the lights come on. He wants to be the BEST QB OF ALL TIME. He has said so. He has worked tirelessly on his craft and done everything right on and off the field. I have a hunch he feels handcuffed at times by the limitations of the offense and low balling him on a contract might rankle him even more. Its far fetched to believe they would screw it up and lose him but everyone thought we would keep Hutch too and the stakes are infinitely higher in this situation.

It has been my fear for a while now, and lord help us if he really kicks it into gear and has a great great season. Makes you wonder did they get Graham for Wilson or to get more talent so the next QB would not need to be as good or as expensive?

[Anthony]

"
Adam Schefter
✔ ‎@AdamSchefter
Seattle QB Russell Wilson will play last season of his deal w/ insurance policy worth millions in case of career-ending injury, per sources.


12:35 PM - 16 Jun 2015



467 467 Retweets

394 394 favorites "

Hmm interesting

[NorthHawk]

He's said from the beginning he was willing to play out the rest of his contract.
Nothing new here except that he's making the prudent move by insuring his future earnings.
He'd be pretty stupid not to...

[c_hawkbob]

Exactly. As it is he's got no financial safety net, beyond the rest of his salary for this season, if he get's injured. It'd be shocking if he didn't take out a policy this year.

[NorthHawk]

Here's a link to an older story (June 3rd) about Wilson and his view of the contract talks so far.
I don't know if it was previously linked in another post or thread.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/06/0 ... talks.html

[Anthony]

You know there is an elephant in the room, Wagner. If he wants Matthews money we are in trouble(12.7 mil a year). If he wants Cushing money (7.9 mil a year)we are good and can even give Wilson something this year which may be why the are talking to Bobby to see if they can do something for Wilson this year.

[Anthony]

Well we finally have someone saying what Wilson wants, we do not know it is true but at least it is a number

That rings hollow if Seattle doesn't take care of Wilson. According to multiple reports, he is seeking a five-year deal worth more than $110 million. Sounds like a bargain.

http://www.denverpost.com/renck/ci_2834 ... e-seahawks

Given Newton got 5 years 103.8 is this really unrealistic for Wilson?

What is interesting to me is if what Clayton said is true they offered 4 years 87.8 mil they are 1 year and .2 mil apart. I doubt the .2 is the issue I think it is the 5th year as the Hawks as a norm do not do 5 year contracts. It would be a shame to go through all of this for 1 year.

[NorthHawk]

Here's what I think is the sticking point, not the amount:

"The guarantee represents the biggest hurdle for agent Mark Rodgers..."

[c_hawkbob]

Still say a deal gets done before camp.

[RiverDog]

It needs to happen at least by then or else this thread is going to overload some circuit breakers.

[NorthHawk]

It looks like he might be asking to be the highest paid player...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... id-player/

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... aid-player

It's part of the package with highly competitive people.

[c_hawkbob]

Cole spoke to Wilson's agent Mark Rodgers who "did not necessarily deny that he has asked" for the biggest deal in the league

I guess, if you take lack of denial as confirmation.

[c_hawkbob]

You'll like this:

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 39m39 minutes ago

Been hearing from plenty of folks since posting latest Russell Wilson blurb.

Current prediction:He's playing for someone else in 2016.

RETWEETS
186
FAVORITES
95

[Anthony]

You'll like this:

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 39m39 minutes ago

Been hearing from plenty of folks since posting latest Russell Wilson blurb.

Current prediction:He's playing for someone else in 2016.

RETWEETS
186
FAVORITES
95

Rumor mill running rampant. We will see.

[jshawaii22]

As I've been saying for a couple of months. It looks much more like the Agent is the issue, not the Team, not JS / PC or anyone else. Russell has turned this over to a baseball agent. We now have to look at this as possibly two first round picks in exchange for his 4 years of service or blow up the team to keep him.

js

[NorthHawk]

Or when the time comes, trade him for a veteran QB who has some mobility.

[c_hawkbob]

Really?

Mike Florio is who you guys are throwing your lot in with?

That's almost as bad as deciding to go with Skippy Brainless' take on things ...