Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
ImTheScientist

***Russell Wilson Bandwagon***

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, kittenmittens said:

I think this is a false narrative.  It reduces your margin for error, sure, but certainly doesn't cause the team to be bad because of QB pay.  

Rodgers is making bank, yet they still gave plenty of money to waste on essentially worthless players like Jimmy Graham. 

It's bad GMing, not because the QB gets paid. Brees makes 4 million less than Rodgers.  Less than the Packers spend on their kicker. Same for Brady. 

Rdodgers is a perfect example.  They didnt make the playoffs.  Stafford is getting big bucks too.  No playoffs.  Matt Ryan too.

Both Brady and Brees - 2 of the all time best to ever play the position - take team-friendly deals to help give their teams a better shot at competitng.  They are not getting $30M per year like WIlson is supposedly asking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, ChuckLiddell said:

Rdodgers is a perfect example.  They didnt make the playoffs.  Stafford is getting big bucks too.  No playoffs.  Matt Ryan too.

Both Brady and Brees - 2 of the all time best to ever play the position - take team-friendly deals to help give their teams a better shot at competitng.  They are not getting $30M per year like WIlson is supposedly asking for.

Rodgers cap hit is 26 million.  They still found 12 million for worthless Jimmy Graham, who is worthless and did nothing. 

How did the Chargers make the playoffs paying Rivers all of that money?   What about the Falcons last year?   The Ravens made it with Flacco on the books.   The Seahawks made it too paying Wilson 24 million.  Andrew Luck isn't on his rookie contract....  By my count halfof the playoff teams have a QB making at least 23 million. 

The Lions are a ridiculous example.  Terrible organization. 

Edited by kittenmittens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ChuckLiddell said:

What would I like the Dolphins to do...

I'd like them to follow the blueprint that recent super bowl teams and contenders have followed.  Draft a QB, and win while he is on a rookie deal.  Big Ben, Wilson, Wentz...teams all won with them on rookie deals.  Goff and Mahomes came real close.  Even Case Keenum came close on a cheap QB deal.  Watch Cleveland going forward.  Thats what I want Miami to do.  Not trade away valuable picks and put a $30M QB onto a terrible team that he cannot win with because they have no players and no draft picks.

And the other question is how do you see it playing out if they follow your plan because Cleveland lost for two decades and was coming off an 1-31 back-to-back worst ever in NFL history losing years to secure the top pick on Mayfield after wasting years and years struggling to find that elusive franchise QB.

Keenum?  I don't think anyone is counting on taking years to build up a solid defense and then finding two uber values at WR to make plays and then spending next to nothing on a journeyman hitting his low ceiling.  The 85 Bears and 2000 Ravens built SB defenses but that isn't sustainable and falls apart much quicker than getting the franchise QB.

I wouldn't count on finding the next Russell Wilson in the 3rd round or Tom Brady in the 6th round since the odds are not even worth discussion. 

Every single other QB you mentioned, Big Ben, Wentz, Goff, Mahomes the team had to move-up to get the QB so if the plan is to not give up valuable draft picks then going that route takes a lot of draft resources so back to the follow up question.

It is difficult to find a franchise QB without paying a price because drafting a QB in the middle of the 1st like a Tannehill and spending 7 years, $100 million, and wasting entire teams of draft picks trying to build around a guy who isn't a franchise just doesn't work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kittenmittens said:

Rodgers cap hit is 26 million.  They still found 12 million for worthless Jimmy Graham, who is worthless and did nothing. 

How did the Chargers make the playoffs paying Rivers all of that money?   What about the Falcons last year?   How did the Vikings make the playoffs paying Cousins? The Ravens made it with Flacco on the books.   The Seahawks made it too paying Wilson 24 million.  Andrew Luck isn't on his rookie contract....  By my count that is over half the playoff teams have a QB making at least 23 million. 

The Lions are a ridiculous example.  Terrible organization. 

I never said it was 100%, but I will also say that the teams you mentioned all went out early.  The final 4 teams had 2 teams with QBs on rookie deals, and 2 teams with QBs that took team friendly deals.  Minnesota took a sizable step back with Cousins on a big money deal versus Keenum on a nothing contract.  Having a great QB is obviously a huge advantage and will make you competitive, but only if you have a team around them.  If Miami traded away 2 firsts for Wilson, they would have no team around him, and no draft picks to build one.  Maybe he could sneak them into the playoffs somehow on his back alone, but I doubt he can bring home the hardware in that situation.  Thats the point I was making. 

For what its worth, you called the Lions a terrible organization.  What would you have said about the Browns for the past 20 years?  What would you say about them now - now that they have a QB on a rookie deal and can afford to build a team around him?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

And the other question is how do you see it playing out if they follow your plan because Cleveland lost for two decades and was coming off an 1-31 back-to-back worst ever in NFL history losing years to secure the top pick on Mayfield after wasting years and years struggling to find that elusive franchise QB.

Keenum?  I don't think anyone is counting on taking years to build up a solid defense and then finding two uber values at WR to make plays and then spending next to nothing on a journeyman hitting his low ceiling.  The 85 Bears and 2000 Ravens built SB defenses but that isn't sustainable and falls apart much quicker than getting the franchise QB.

I wouldn't count on finding the next Russell Wilson in the 3rd round or Tom Brady in the 6th round since the odds are not even worth discussion. 

Every single other QB you mentioned, Big Ben, Wentz, Goff, Mahomes the team had to move-up to get the QB so if the plan is to not give up valuable draft picks then going that route takes a lot of draft resources so back to the follow up question.

It is difficult to find a franchise QB without paying a price because drafting a QB in the middle of the 1st like a Tannehill and spending 7 years, $100 million, and wasting entire teams of draft picks trying to build around a guy who isn't a franchise just doesn't work.

I expect the Dolphins to be drafting in the top 3 in 2020.  No need to trade up from there, and you get Luck instead of Tannehill.  I know, I know...you can also get RG3.  Its tough to count on getting "the guy" in the draft and a proven commodity is obviously an option.  But to give up first round picks and sacrifice that much money on the cap...I am not on board with that.  We will have to agree to disagree.  You arent going to convince me that Phili, KC, LA, and Cleveland are not building better than Green Bay, Minnesota, Atlanta, and Detroit are with their bloated QB deals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChuckLiddell said:

I never said it was 100%, but I will also say that the teams you mentioned all went out early.  The final 4 teams had 2 teams with QBs on rookie deals, and 2 teams with QBs that took team friendly deals.  Minnesota took a sizable step back with Cousins on a big money deal versus Keenum on a nothing contract.  Having a great QB is obviously a huge advantage and will make you competitive, but only if you have a team around them.  If Miami traded away 2 firsts for Wilson, they would have no team around him, and no draft picks to build one.  Maybe he could sneak them into the playoffs somehow on his back alone, but I doubt he can bring home the hardware in that situation.  Thats the point I was making. 

For what its worth, you called the Lions a terrible organization.  What would you have said about the Browns for the past 20 years?  What would you say about them now - now that they have a QB on a rookie deal and can afford to build a team around him?

I think there is a huge luck component here that we may both be discounting.  The super bowl should have been Brady and Brees... Both at 22 million cap hit.  I don't think it's a good argument to say that the extra 4 million Rodgers is making prevents the Packers from getting there. 

I agree with your position on Miami.  If it didn't cost picks and was just money it might make more sense, but they are not in a position to give up picks to get a QB because they are too far away from competing.  I didn't list Miami as a team I thought would be interested fwiw. 

What I would say about the Browns is they were a terrible organization for 20 years.  They finally decided to do a full rebuild instead of take shortcuts, and it worked great.  I think Miami should do the same thing.  Now when Baker is ready to get signed, should they let him go FA because he will make too much?  No way!  Not going to win without him and it's too hard to hit on a rookie QB who is good right away. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kittenmittens said:

I think there is a huge luck component here that we may both be discounting.  The super bowl should have been Brady and Brees... Both at 22 million cap hit.  I don't think it's a good argument to say that the extra 4 million Rodgers is making prevents the Packers from getting there. 

I agree with your position on Miami.  If it didn't cost picks and was just money it might make more sense, but they are not in a position to give up picks to get a QB because they are too far away from competing.  I didn't list Miami as a team I thought would be interested fwiw. 

What I would say about the Browns is they were a terrible organization for 20 years.  They finally decided to do a full rebuild instead of take shortcuts, and it worked great.  I think Miami should do the same thing.  Now when Baker is ready to get signed, should they let him go FA because he will make too much?  No way!  Not going to win without him and it's too hard to hit on a rookie QB who is good right away. 

 

We are on the same page.  I completely agree with you on this post.  Especially the part about Cleveland re-signing Baker when the time is right.  At that point, the idea would be that you have a contending team built around him already, so keep it rolling. 

I wonder if Seattle feels that way right now.  They were pretty good last year considering that they were expected to be in transition, but if they dont think they are close to winning it all, then I could see them moving him for a coule 1's and a player.  Signing him would mean that they have to move forward basically with what they have, small free agent splashes, and the draft.  If they do make any other big splashes, they had better hit.  Unlike Jimmy Graham for GB in previous examples.  Your margin for error shrinks down to nearly nothing when so much is tied up on one player.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kittenmittens said:

I think there is a huge luck component here that we may both be discounting.  The super bowl should have been Brady and Brees... Both at 22 million cap hit.  I don't think it's a good argument to say that the extra 4 million Rodgers is making prevents the Packers from getting there. 

I agree with your position on Miami.  If it didn't cost picks and was just money it might make more sense, but they are not in a position to give up picks to get a QB because they are too far away from competing.  I didn't list Miami as a team I thought would be interested fwiw. 

What I would say about the Browns is they were a terrible organization for 20 years.  They finally decided to do a full rebuild instead of take shortcuts, and it worked great.  I think Miami should do the same thing.  Now when Baker is ready to get signed, should they let him go FA because he will make too much?  No way!  Not going to win without him and it's too hard to hit on a rookie QB who is good right away. 

 

If we’re playing these hypotheticals, I’ll give you the no-call PI for Brees, but want the offsides on Ford in return.  Making the Super Bowl Brees and Mahomes.  One vote for the “friendly contract veteran” and one for the “rookie contract” side.

Which reinforces your primary point...once in the playoffs, luck, refs, coaching and a host of factors beyond the QB’s control affect who advances.  To base a future strategy on “how deep did teams with varied QB situations go in the playoffs” as the previous poster was doing seems unwise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL Network's Ian Rapoport reports "it's still too early to tell" if a deal will get done between the Seahawks and Russell Wilson before Monday's April 15 deadline.

Wilson plans to break off negotiations if the sides can't come to terms before the start of the offseason program. There's been some movement in talks over the weekend, but there's enough of a gap that this isn't a lock. Wilson will top Aaron Rodgers as the highest paid quarterback in the league whenever a deal gets done.

SOURCE: NFL Network

Apr 13, 2019, 9:54 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ChuckLiddell said:

I expect the Dolphins to be drafting in the top 3 in 2020.  No need to trade up from there, and you get Luck instead of Tannehill.  I know, I know...you can also get RG3.  Its tough to count on getting "the guy" in the draft and a proven commodity is obviously an option.  But to give up first round picks and sacrifice that much money on the cap...I am not on board with that.  We will have to agree to disagree.  You arent going to convince me that Phili, KC, LA, and Cleveland are not building better than Green Bay, Minnesota, Atlanta, and Detroit are with their bloated QB deals.

Miami may or may not be drafting in the top-3.  Teams drafting 1 and 2 might need a QB or be willing to trade-down with teams hoping to trade-up ahead of Miami and  their are no guarantees with any QB draft class.

Philly, KC, and LA had to move-up to get their QB and the Cleveland model is to lose for decades and flounder before locking up the first pick in back-to-back drafts and don;t forget they bypassed taking Wentz and DeSuan Foster (EDIT and don't forget they could have had Pat Mahomes) by trading down before falling into the top pick and Baker Mayfield.  IOWs you can't mention Cleveland as some sort of model for any team to follow.  No one wants to go that route ever trust me.  

Green Bay and Rodgers, they've won a SB with him and he's given them a window.  Minnesota did not move up with Christian Ponder just as Miami did with Tannenhill.  They have moved to acquire Kirk Cousins but he isn't Russell Wilson or he'd never make it out of DC and that is reflected in them not paying any draft picks but he provides a window with that D and those WRs..  Atlanta has gone to the post season six times with Matty Ice and got to the SB two years ago after his extension, Detroit's issue is ownership.  The key is creating a window and you won't have a window without a franchise QB.

If you go the draft route you will pay the price of uncertainty.  That is a HUUUUUUUGE price to pay.

Uncertainty can and statistically costs teams years and years and millions and millions betting on the wrong guy and that means tons of draft picks trying to build around the wrong guy.  Sometimes it is cheaper to pay money and draft picks to secure the franchise QB if by some miracle a guy like Russell  Wilson becomes available.  

I think Seattle will resign him because they haven't spent a ton at WR or on the O-Line because of his mobility and playmaking ability.  They can go with a smash mouth O-Line and clock control run game and devote draft resources to the D.  If they pay him it takes away from that model but it doesn't kill it.  They just have to smart and not torpedo everything like Pittsburgh did because they think he should give a home town discount.

The wild card in the Russell Wilson saga is his pop star wife and the small market of Seattle over the big time of South Beach and what that sort of exposure can do for her career which has been mentioned by more than source in this story.

Edited by Bracie Smathers
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bracie Smathers said:

He's a multi Pro Bowl QB who has consistently been to the playoffs and won a Super Bowl and he's under the age of 35 entering his contract year.

Why haven't the Seahawks extended him well before now?  

It is a fair question because this never happens to QBs with his resume.  

The Seahawks have a policy that they do not extend contracts with more than 1 year remaining. That is why it was not extended prior to this offseason. And it likely will be extended this offseason. The timing is a non-issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ChuckLiddell said:

Rdodgers is a perfect example.  They didnt make the playoffs.  Stafford is getting big bucks too.  No playoffs.  Matt Ryan too.

Both Brady and Brees - 2 of the all time best to ever play the position - take team-friendly deals to help give their teams a better shot at competitng.  They are not getting $30M per year like WIlson is supposedly asking for.

You named 5 QBs in this post. Let's examine their 2018 cap hits:

  • Stafford $26.5M
  • Brees $24M
  • Brady $22M
  • Rodgers $20.9M
  • Ryan $17.7M

I used 2018 cap hits because Brees and Brady will likely get contract extensions this offseason, which will change their 2019 cap hits.

Anyway, you were right about Stafford, though the delta from him to Brees is pretty insignificant... and you were wrong about the others.

Furthermore, Wilson's 2019 cap hit is currently #6 in the league at $25.3M. Bumping him to $30M a year will not make much of a difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kittenmittens said:

The super bowl should have been Brady and Brees... Both at 22 million cap hit

Brees had a 2018 cap hit of $24M. Brady was $22M.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

You named 5 QBs in this post. Let's examine their 2018 cap hits:

  • Stafford $26.5M
  • Brees $24M
  • Brady $22M
  • Rodgers $20.9M
  • Ryan $17.7M

I used 2018 cap hits because Brees and Brady will likely get contract extensions this offseason, which will change their 2019 cap hits.

Anyway, you were right about Stafford, though the delta from him to Brees is pretty insignificant... and you were wrong about the others.

Furthermore, Wilson's 2019 cap hit is currently #6 in the league at $25.3M. Bumping him to $30M a year will not make much of a difference.

Appreciate the data - its good stuff.  Not sure how it makes me "wrong" though.  Those are all heavy cap hits, and only 2 of the 5 made the playoffs.  What were Mahomes, Wentz, and Goff's cap hits?  Wilson's $25M cap hit last year cost Seattle a lot of good players, especially on D.  Now it will go up $5M from there.  They built an amazing D when he was on his rookie deal.  Thats kind of always been my point.  Also, that a team like Miami trading 2 first rounders and paying one player $30M is not a formula for success.  

Denver signing Manning was the best counter-argument, but they started out with a very good nucleus.  Not even comparable to where Miami is right now.  I'd be surprised if Miami didnt pick 1 overall next year.  Worst roster in the NFL in my opinion.  One player wont change that quickly, and without draft picks you cant build around him.  Give me one of the top QB options in 2020, and I will buy into a rebuild.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
2 hours ago, Bracie Smathers said:

Miami may or may not be drafting in the top-3.  Teams drafting 1 and 2 might need a QB or be willing to trade-down with teams hoping to trade-up ahead of Miami and  their are no guarantees with any QB draft class.

Philly, KC, and LA had to move-up to get their QB and the Cleveland model is to lose for decades and flounder before locking up the first pick in back-to-back drafts and don;t forget they bypassed taking Wentz and DeSuan Foster (EDIT and don't forget they could have had Pat Mahomes) by trading down before falling into the top pick and Baker Mayfield.  IOWs you can't mention Cleveland as some sort of model for any team to follow.  No one wants to go that route ever trust me.  

Green Bay and Rodgers, they've won a SB with him and he's given them a window.  Minnesota did not move up with Christian Ponder just as Miami did with Tannenhill.  They have moved to acquire Kirk Cousins but he isn't Russell Wilson or he'd never make it out of DC and that is reflected in them not paying any draft picks but he provides a window with that D and those WRs..  Atlanta has gone to the post season six times with Matty Ice and got to the SB two years ago after his extension, Detroit's issue is ownership.  The key is creating a window and you won't have a window without a franchise QB.

If you go the draft route you will pay the price of uncertainty.  That is a HUUUUUUUGE price to pay.

Uncertainty can and statistically costs teams years and years and millions and millions betting on the wrong guy and that means tons of draft picks trying to build around the wrong guy.  Sometimes it is cheaper to pay money and draft picks to secure the franchise QB if by some miracle a guy like Russell  Wilson becomes available.  

I think Seattle will resign him because they haven't spent a ton at WR or on the O-Line because of his mobility and playmaking ability.  They can go with a smash mouth O-Line and clock control run game and devote draft resources to the D.  If they pay him it takes away from that model but it doesn't kill it.  They just have to smart and not torpedo everything like Pittsburgh did because they think he should give a home town discount.

The wild card in the Russell Wilson saga is his pop star wife and the small market of Seattle over the big time of South Beach and what that sort of exposure can do for her career which has been mentioned by more than source in this story.

Trading away multiple firsts and paying one player $30M/year is also a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE price to pay.  Pick your poison.

Miami will draft top 3.  I would bet on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m glad I can come into this thread and learn about what the Miami dolphins are theoretically doing right/wrong .. 

Loads of fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ChuckLiddell said:

Id be pissed if my team gave up  two firsts for him.  And I am a Dolphins fan.  And a Wilson fan.  And a Phish fan.  

Its not the picks that are the problem.  Paying one player that large of a percentage of your salary cap is crippling.  The teams that win Super Bowls seem to be for the most part teams with QBS on rookie deals, or a team where the star QB takes a very team-friendly deal.  We know Brady does, and I think Brees does too (although I dont know that for sure).  Stafford and Rodgers are making bank, and they arent even taking their teams to the playoffs.  Probably because they cannot afford to build a team around them with so much money tied to one player.

Super bowl QBs and cap % since 2011 CBA:

2011/2012: Eli Manning (11.61%), Tom Brady (10.19%)

2012/2013: Joe Flacco (6.63%), Colin Kaepernick (0.97%)

2013/2014: Russell Wilson (0.49%), Peyton Manning (12.42%)

2014/2015: Tom Brady (10.64%), Russell Wilson (0.60%)

2015/2016: Peyton Manning (11.66%), Cam Newton (8.70%)

2016/2017: Tom Brady (8.62%), Matt Ryan (14.96%)

2017/2018: Nick Foles (0.91%), Tom Brady (8.36%)

2018/2019: Tom Brady (12.21%), Jared Goff (4.20%)

4 out of 16 of these QBs were on rookie contracts. 6 of 16 were typical high QB contracts (10+%). The remaining 4 were veterans on "team friendly" contracts (<10%).

If we focus on winners, 4 of 8 were typical high QB contracts, 3 were team friendly veteran contracts, and 1 was a rookie contract

Paying typical high QB money is not necessarily crippling your team in terms of chances to win or participate in a Superbowl. I would argue paying the wrong QB big money certainly is, however.  Personally, I think Russell Wilson has proven he deserves and is worth a hefty contract.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maven25 said:

Super bowl QBs and cap % since 2011 CBA:

2011/2012: Eli Manning (11.61%), Tom Brady (10.19%)

2012/2013: Joe Flacco (6.63%), Colin Kaepernick (0.97%)

2013/2014: Russell Wilson (0.49%), Peyton Manning (12.42%)

2014/2015: Tom Brady (10.64%), Russell Wilson (0.60%)

2015/2016: Peyton Manning (11.66%), Cam Newton (8.70%)

2016/2017: Tom Brady (8.62%), Matt Ryan (14.96%)

2017/2018: Nick Foles (0.91%), Tom Brady (8.36%)

2018/2019: Tom Brady (12.21%), Jared Goff (4.20%)

4 out of 16 of these QBs were on rookie contracts. 6 of 16 were typical high QB contracts (10+%). The remaining 4 were veterans on "team friendly" contracts (<10%).

If we focus on winners, 4 of 8 were typical high QB contracts, 3 were team friendly veteran contracts, and 1 was a rookie contract

Paying typical high QB money is not necessarily crippling your team in terms of chances to win or participate in a Superbowl. I would argue paying the wrong QB big money certainly is, however.  Personally, I think Russell Wilson has proven he deserves and is worth a hefty contract.

Good posting. Brady is, as Henry Ford has pointed out in the Shark Pool many times, actually not on a team-friendly deal the way the numbers work out; therefore, if you're counting him as team-friendly, you might want to reconsider that. 

Never mind, I see you've set a threshold of cap space as less than ten percent as team-friendly. Perhaps this is the case. Nice breakdown. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maven25 said:

Super bowl QBs and cap % since 2011 CBA:

2011/2012: Eli Manning (11.61%), Tom Brady (10.19%)

2012/2013: Joe Flacco (6.63%), Colin Kaepernick (0.97%)

2013/2014: Russell Wilson (0.49%), Peyton Manning (12.42%)

2014/2015: Tom Brady (10.64%), Russell Wilson (0.60%)

2015/2016: Peyton Manning (11.66%), Cam Newton (8.70%)

2016/2017: Tom Brady (8.62%), Matt Ryan (14.96%)

2017/2018: Nick Foles (0.91%), Tom Brady (8.36%)

2018/2019: Tom Brady (12.21%), Jared Goff (4.20%)

4 out of 16 of these QBs were on rookie contracts. 6 of 16 were typical high QB contracts (10+%). The remaining 4 were veterans on "team friendly" contracts (<10%).

If we focus on winners, 4 of 8 were typical high QB contracts, 3 were team friendly veteran contracts, and 1 was a rookie contract

Paying typical high QB money is not necessarily crippling your team in terms of chances to win or participate in a Superbowl. I would argue paying the wrong QB big money certainly is, however.  Personally, I think Russell Wilson has proven he deserves and is worth a hefty contract.

Great post!  

I am not claiming to be a NFL Salary cap expert.  I recognize that I am a pretty casual fan compared to many on here.  However, looking at numbers if Wilson signs a contract that counts as $30M toward the cap, and a quick google search tells me that the cap is $188M this year, that is 16% of the cap.  If my numbers are wrong, I apologize - I am not spending hours researching this.  If they are right, that 16% is way over most of these except for Ryan's 15% number in 2016.  Aside from that, the highest was Manning's 12.4%.  Thats a pretty substantial difference.  If they win a super bowl with a player making over 15% of their salary cap, it would be the first time in NFL history.  Granted, as the cap goes up, that percentage probably goes down (depending on the contract structure), but the point remains a pretty solid one in my opinion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ChuckLiddell said:

Great post!  

I am not claiming to be a NFL Salary cap expert.  I recognize that I am a pretty casual fan compared to many on here.  However, looking at numbers if Wilson signs a contract that counts as $30M toward the cap, and a quick google search tells me that the cap is $188M this year, that is 16% of the cap.  If my numbers are wrong, I apologize - I am not spending hours researching this.  If they are right, that 16% is way over most of these except for Ryan's 15% number in 2016.  Aside from that, the highest was Manning's 12.4%.  Thats a pretty substantial difference.  If they win a super bowl with a player making over 15% of their salary cap, it would be the first time in NFL history.  Granted, as the cap goes up, that percentage probably goes down (depending on the contract structure), but the point remains a pretty solid one in my opinion.

Also - The average percentage of cap used by these 16 QBs is only 7.7%.  Wilson would be more than double the average cap space used by the past 16 QBs who played in Super Bowls.  Seems significant to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ChuckLiddell said:

Great post!  

I am not claiming to be a NFL Salary cap expert.  I recognize that I am a pretty casual fan compared to many on here.  However, looking at numbers if Wilson signs a contract that counts as $30M toward the cap, and a quick google search tells me that the cap is $188M this year, that is 16% of the cap.  If my numbers are wrong, I apologize - I am not spending hours researching this.  If they are right, that 16% is way over most of these except for Ryan's 15% number in 2016.  Aside from that, the highest was Manning's 12.4%.  Thats a pretty substantial difference.  If they win a super bowl with a player making over 15% of their salary cap, it would be the first time in NFL history.  Granted, as the cap goes up, that percentage probably goes down (depending on the contract structure), but the point remains a pretty solid one in my opinion.

One thing to keep in mind is that the average per-year money doesn't necessarily count 1:1 against the cap. A great example of this is Kirk Cousins. He signed a 3 year, fully guaranteed, $87 million contract ($29 million per year).  His cap hit last year was $24 million (12.57%).  Teams will structure (and continually extend/restructure in Brees' case) to get under the cap or push the cap hit out.  Some is certainly driven by rising salary cap, some is cap "mismanagement" and pushing off the inevitable. I do agree that Russell's new contract will be higher and higher percentage of the cap, as you pointed out, but I don't think absurdly so. That might be part of the holdup with his deal. SEA may be trying to find a way of not taking a significant hit to cap% or setting themselves up for cap hell in the future. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Rotoworld just now...

A source told Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk on NBC Sports that the Seahawks believe Russell Wilson wants to play "elsewhere."

Wilson remains in contract talks with Seattle, but has so far been unwilling to grant the Seahawks a hometown discount. Florio suggests the six-time Pro Bowler could adopt a Kirk Cousins approach, playing under the franchise tag for multiple years in lieu of a long-term contract. Tyrann Mathieu (who, we must admit, is not a typical Rotoworld source) has further speculated that Wilson hopes to end up with the Giants. It goes without saying that Wilson would be a monumental upgrade on declining veteran Eli Manning and the Giants, who own two first-round picks this year, certainly have the draft capital to pull off a blockbuster. Wilson, who is due a $17 million base salary in 2019, has given the Seahawks an April 15 deadline for an extension.

RELATED: 

New York Giants

SOURCE: ProFootballTalk on NBC Sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

The Seahawks have a policy that they do not extend contracts with more than 1 year remaining. That is why it was not extended prior to this offseason. And it likely will be extended this offseason. The timing is a non-issue.

Seattle's  policy didn't stop Russell Wilson from giving the Seahawks a deadline in January.

Soon after they got the deadline, 'rumors' were leaked that Wilson might be available.

Russell Wilson's deadline of tomorrow is a timeline and it seems to be an issue for Seattle so I wouldn't dismiss it as a non-issue.

Edited by Bracie Smathers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, ChuckLiddell said:

From Rotoworld just now...

A source told Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk on NBC Sports that the Seahawks believe Russell Wilson wants to play "elsewhere."

Wilson remains in contract talks with Seattle, but has so far been unwilling to grant the Seahawks a hometown discount. Florio suggests the six-time Pro Bowler could adopt a Kirk Cousins approach, playing under the franchise tag for multiple years in lieu of a long-term contract. Tyrann Mathieu (who, we must admit, is not a typical Rotoworld source) has further speculated that Wilson hopes to end up with the Giants. It goes without saying that Wilson would be a monumental upgrade on declining veteran Eli Manning and the Giants, who own two first-round picks this year, certainly have the draft capital to pull off a blockbuster. Wilson, who is due a $17 million base salary in 2019, has given the Seahawks an April 15 deadline for an extension.

RELATED: 

New York Giants

SOURCE: ProFootballTalk on NBC Sports

I would not be at all surprised if Wilson is motivated to play elsewhere. Consider:

  1. Could he believe he would be more likely to win championships elsewhere?
  2. Could he believe he would find an offensive approach he prefers elsewhere? Is it possible he would rather be in an offense that relies on him more? (More on this below.)
  3. Could he believe a different strategy would maximize his earnings? For example, playing out current contract, playing under franchise tag for up to 3 years, then signing a big 6 year deal at age 31-34? (If franchise tags remain in next version of CBA.) In that scenario, the QB market would have presumably gone up for 3 more years. Meanwhile, he would make $25.3M this year under his current contract and these values for each franchise tag year: $30.3M (2020), $36.4M (2021), and $52.4M (2022). Where is the downside for him?
  4. How comfortable is he with the prospect of a coaching change occurring during his next contract if he signs for 4-5 more years? Carroll turns 68 right after the 2019 season starts.
  5. Could there be truth to the notion that Ciara would rather live elsewhere, whether NY, LA, or somewhere else?

Not saying any of these are definitive, but I could see all of them being a factor in his thought process. As for #2, imagine what coaches like Payton, McVay, Reid, Pederson, Nagy, etc. would do with the exact same set of personnel as Seattle had in 2018. Probably something like this:

  • Faster tempo on offense = more plays
  • Less predictability in play calling
  • More passing, less running, something like 530 pass attempts (plus ~40 sacks), 460 rushing attempts
  • More creative use of Wilson’s mobility = at least a few RPOs, rollouts, bootlegs
  • More misdirection to keep the defense guessing
  • More use of RBs and TEs in the passing game to force the defense to pay attention to them
  • More targets to Lockett – the fact that Wilson had a perfect passer rating when targeting Lockett and yet he only had 70 targets on the season, even with Baldwin missing games and playing other games through injury… well, that just wouldn’t happen with a normal OC

It’s not rocket science. And it is also worth noting that an offense like that does not hurt the defense. Of the 5 coaches I named above, all had strong defenses in 2018 except KC.

The point is that the Seahawks have enough talent on offense to be a lot better than they have been recently. Carroll has a philosophy that leads him to choose not to use it in a manner that would maximize yards and points. And I think Seattle is the only team in the NFL that willingly accepts less, which is, frankly, quite bizarre.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

Seattle's  policy didn't stop Russell Wilson from giving the Seahawks a deadline in January.

Soon after they got the deadline, 'rumors' were leaked that Wilson might be available.

Russell Wilson's deadline of tomorrow is a timeline and it seems to be an issue for Seattle so I wouldn't dismiss it as a non-issue.

My point was to explain why the team did not extend Wilson prior to this offseason. I agree the deadline could be an issue, since it is tomorrow and there is no rumor a deal will get done.

That said, the team could keep Wilson this year and franchise him in 2020 and 2021 and pay out a total value pretty similar to what they would pay him in a contract extension. So they really have nearly 3 years to get a deal done. IMO it is more about what Wilson wants than what the team wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just Win Baby said:

Could there be truth to the notion that Ciara would rather live elsewhere, whether NY, LA, or somewhere else?

In cyberspace Russell Wilson is popular for an NFL player with over 5 million Twitter followers and Ciara made it to 98 of the top 100 musical personalities but in real life Seattle is 3 hours away from the bulk of the US population.   

Both would get a lot more exposure in the Big Apple, South Beach, or even on the WC in the much larger market of LA but it doesn't seem like either LA team needs a QB right now.

Its reasonable to assume her career would get a leg up if they moved to a big East Coast location.

She has some influence on her husband in where she'd like him to play especially if it benefits her career.

Maybe I'm over emphasizing her role but I just have a gut feeling her role isn't as unimportant as mentioned in most stories.

22 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

My point was to explain why the team did not extend Wilson prior to this offseason.

Agreed. 

They did not have this information before January but it seems odd Wilson gave what can only be described as an ultimatum out of the blue.  I don't think they got caught completely unaware of his intentions before he gave them a deadline.  

I'm not a cap guy but any time a contract like his comes close to the final year people speculate so I think 'some' stories came out before last year about the Seahawks locker room and Russell or the big looming contract but I wasn't paying attention.  

Now it is not speculation and in 24 hours it could get real.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

In cyberspace Russell Wilson is popular for an NFL player with over 5 million Twitter followers and Ciara made it to 98 of the top 100 musical personalities but in real life Seattle is 3 hours away from the bulk of the US population.   

Both would get a lot more exposure in the Big Apple, South Beach, or even on the WC in the much larger market of LA but it doesn't seem like either LA team needs a QB right now.

Its reasonable to assume her career would get a leg up if they moved to a big East Coast location.

She has some influence on her husband in where she'd like him to play especially if it benefits her career.

Maybe I'm over emphasizing her role but I just have a gut feeling her role isn't as unimportant as mentioned in most stories.

Agreed. 

They did not have this information before January but it seems odd Wilson gave what can only be described as an ultimatum out of the blue.  I don't think they got caught completely unaware of his intentions before he gave them a deadline.  

I'm not a cap guy but any time a contract like his comes close to the final year people speculate so I think 'some' stories came out before last year about the Seahawks locker room and Russell or the big looming contract but I wasn't paying attention.  

Now it is not speculation and in 24 hours it could get real.  

Interesting perspective. 

Seattle is definitely in a bind here... this could cripple the franchise either way it goes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

In cyberspace Russell Wilson is popular for an NFL player with over 5 million Twitter followers and Ciara made it to 98 of the top 100 musical personalities but in real life Seattle is 3 hours away from the bulk of the US population.   

Both would get a lot more exposure in the Big Apple, South Beach, or even on the WC in the much larger market of LA but it doesn't seem like either LA team needs a QB right now.

Its reasonable to assume her career would get a leg up if they moved to a big East Coast location.

She has some influence on her husband in where she'd like him to play especially if it benefits her career.

Maybe I'm over emphasizing her role but I just have a gut feeling her role isn't as unimportant as mentioned in most stories.

Las Vegas would be an interesting market as well, and the Raiders obviously have the draft capital to do it, and Seattle may have interest in getting Carr in return as well.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, travdogg said:

Las Vegas would be an interesting market as well, and the Raiders obviously have the draft capital to do it, and Seattle may have interest in getting Carr in return as well.

Didn't they just gut the team and lose a HOF OLB/DE in cap cutting moves?

The reason wasn't entirely cap space, it was cash flow which means the ownership literally cannot afford to pay their top guys so I dunno if OAK/Vegas could take the cash flow hit but good NFL reasoning on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, travdogg said:

Las Vegas would be an interesting market as well, and the Raiders obviously have the draft capital to do it, and Seattle may have interest in getting Carr in return as well.

I wonder if Seattle would be interested in signing Mariota in 20 as well, just based off of scramble similarities. Thats about where their similaries end. 

Not a bad idea though. It would actually make a lot of sense for the Raiders as they arent as much of a dumpster fire as Miami is. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

Didn't they just gut the team and lose a HOF OLB/DE in cap cutting moves?

The reason wasn't entirely cap space, it was cash flow which means the ownership literally cannot afford to pay their top guys so I dunno if OAK/Vegas could take the cash flow hit but good NFL reasoning on your part.

But they traded for AB and (I assume; I havent been following the story) resigned him

Why trade for a wr entering the sun set tour of his career if you're planning on a massive rebuild?

Edited by Dr. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

Didn't they just gut the team and lose a HOF OLB/DE in cap cutting moves?

The reason wasn't entirely cap space, it was cash flow which means the ownership literally cannot afford to pay their top guys so I dunno if OAK/Vegas could take the cash flow hit but good NFL reasoning on your part.

Part of the move to Vegas was to increase the cash flow if I recall correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, travdogg said:

Part of the move to Vegas was to increase the cash flow if I recall correctly.

so I'm not 100% certain on salary cap rules...

If a team doesnt use all of their cap space, is that kept money? I thought they could carry some over to the next season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

But the traded for AB and (I assume; I havent been following the story) resign him? 

Why trade for a wr entering the sun set tour of his career if you're planning on a massive rebuild?

If anyone can explain the Raider moves over the past year ....

Stories about Al Davis selling shares of the Raiders to raise money have popped up in the past.

This THEE family business not like Paul Allen's family wealth tied to Microsoft or Authur Blank's money coming from Home Depot or Detroit coming from the Ford family fortune of Ford Motors.  Their only income is from the team so the stories about cash flow are reasonable and the 'odd' moves that would financially benefit ownership make more sense but taking it down to individual contracts can make sense if their are large guarantees up front like Kalil Mack getting $60 million guaranteed.

Not sure if he really got that up front or it is protected in some sort of account but I don't think you can guarantee money in a contract unless you can prove you have it to give to them.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

 

Not sure if he really got that up front or it is protected in some sort of account but I don't think you can guarantee money in a contract unless you can prove you have it to give to them.  

interesting. I never thought about it from this perspective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Seattle is willing to take those 2 1sts for Russell, and Gettleman passes, he deserves to have his lifetime of salary revoked from him and sentenced to the AFL. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bojang0301 said:

Tyrann Matthieu just tweeted Russell wants to go to NY. 

What do you think would be a reasonable offer from NY? Their top-3 picks this year, plus a 2020 2nd?

Would Seattle want Eli in return? I wouldn't be I'm not them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, travdogg said:

What do you think would be a reasonable offer from NY? Their top-3 picks this year, plus a 2020 2nd?

Would Seattle want Eli in return? I wouldn't be I'm not them. 

Both the ones and that’s a starting point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

LOL Top 3 picks? Trade market is depreciated, even on QBs.

 

Maybe the Giants do the 6th pick, a 2nd, and a future 2nd/3rd or another player. Keep in mind the later this gets the less leverage SEA has in negotiations unless they just franchise him.

Edited by The Frankman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Frankman said:

LOL Top 3 picks? Trade market is depreciated, even on QBs.

 

Maybe the Giants do the 6th pick, a 2nd, and a future 2nd/3rd or another player. Keep in mind the later this gets the less leverage SEA has in negotiations unless they just franchise him.

yeah seems the fantasy community frequently puts too much value on players in trade talks than what is really the case in the real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, The Frankman said:

LOL Top 3 picks? Trade market is depreciated, even on QBs.

 

Maybe the Giants do the 6th pick, a 2nd, and a future 2nd/3rd or another player. Keep in mind the later this gets the less leverage SEA has in negotiations unless they just franchise him.

That isn't even close to getting it done. Not even close. Wilson is an upper tier QB in his prime who has 10 more years to play. If every player in the NFL was redrafted tomorrow, he would be drafted in the top 10.

Any team would have to give 3 1st round picks to get him unless their trade offer included at least one top tier player.

ETA: You cannot make any claim about the trade market for Wilson. No QB of Wilson's combined level of play, health, and age/projected years remaining has ever been traded in the history of the NFL. There is no precedent.

Edited by Just Win Baby
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with just win. Qbs like Wilson just don’t ever get traded. 3 1sts is maybe not enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IHEARTFF said:

Agree with just win. Qbs like Wilson just don’t ever get traded. 3 1sts is maybe not enough. 

Good point. A team like New England could not get it done with 3 1sts, because it would mean 3 late first round picks over 3 drafts.

3 1sts only works if 2 of them are this year, and at least one of them is very early. The Giants and the Raiders could possibly make it happen if Seattle and Wilson were open to it.

The Packers also have 2 first rounders, but I can't see them trading for Wilson. Their picks are also less compelling than the Giants and Raiders picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Good point. A team like New England could not get it done with 3 1sts, because it would mean 3 late first round picks over 3 drafts.

3 1sts only works if 2 of them are this year, and at least one of them is very early. The Giants and the Raiders could possibly make it happen if Seattle and Wilson were open to it.

The Packers also have 2 first rounders, but I can't see them trading for Wilson. Their picks are also less compelling than the Giants and Raiders picks.

Interesting. I'd agree whatever he could be traded for, the majority has to be from this year. He undoubtedly woule make which ever team he goes to better enough to where a 2020 pick is mid range at best. 

 

IMO he either wants to draw this out so he is eventually a FA or he gets what he wants and is paid enough to like Seattle for awhile longer. And that is mostly based off of what you said above, QBs of his status dont get traded 

Edited by Dr. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

Agree with just win. Qbs like Wilson just don’t ever get traded. 3 1sts is maybe not enough. 

Right, has an All Pro QB ever been traded in their prime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in an offseason where OBJ was traded, I'll put nothing down on the fact that russell wont be traded.

unlikelier than obj, but still possible, esp if he says he wants out to ownership

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As a dynasty owner, praying he gets traded. Seattle has really screwed him his entire career with mediocre wr's and a bad OL.  If I were him I'd get the hell out of there, move to Miami or NYC, win-win for both him and his wife.

Edited by Tool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Right, has an All Pro QB ever been traded in their prime?

Kurt Warner maybe...although I think injuries played a role in that decision at the time...still went on to have some good years after the Rams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.