*--* 2015 Seattle Seahawks Thread *--* (1 Viewer)

[The General]

Say he doesn't sign. They can Franchise Tag him for what 3 years?

Would be better for him to sign this year because he loses out on probably 18 million or so.

 

[ex-ghost]

Say he doesn't sign. They can Franchise Tag him for what 3 years?

Would be better for him to sign this year because he loses out on probably 18 million or so.

I think I read in one of these threads that the salary estimate for those three years is $20M, $24M and then $35M. He would be 29 if we did not franchise him for that last year. If he is still playing like we think he will, he is in line for a MONSTER contract from someone then.

 

[Tau837]

Even if the Seahawks don't re sign him, there's no way they don't franchise him for a couple years then trade him for a kings ransom. Under no circumstances does he just walk.

I'm not aware of instances where a player was franchised and then traded. How does that work? Has it ever happened?

I am assuming that once they start tagging him, they either have to sign him to a contract, pay him based on the tag, or let him walk.

Also, I do not believe there has ever been an instance of a QB playing under a franchise tag for more than one season. (And I think there is only one QB who played even one season under the tag.) I suspect this is because it is basically never the case that a QB is good enough to merit the tag but not a mutually agreeable contract, and perhaps also because it could lead to deterioration of the relationship between the QB and the team, which would likely hurt the team and reduce the value of tagging the QB in the first place.

 

[biju]

Even if the Seahawks don't re sign him, there's no way they don't franchise him for a couple years then trade him for a kings ransom. Under no circumstances does he just walk.

I'm not aware of instances where a player was franchised and then traded. How does that work? Has it ever happened?

I am assuming that once they start tagging him, they either have to sign him to a contract, pay him based on the tag, or let him walk.

Also, I do not believe there has ever been an instance of a QB playing under a franchise tag for more than one season. (And I think there is only one QB who played even one season under the tag.) I suspect this is because it is basically never the case that a QB is good enough to merit the tag but not a mutually agreeable contract, and perhaps also because it could lead to deterioration of the relationship between the QB and the team, which would likely hurt the team and reduce the value of tagging the QB in the first place.

Yes, this does happen. The most recent example (I believe) was the Patriots, who did a franchise/trade of Matt Cassel. It's supposed to be against the spirit of the franchise tag but like that ####### matters to the Patriots.

 

[rdrouyn]

Dont understand what posturing is going to help them accomplish here. Russell has performed as a top 10 QB in this league and deserves top QB money. I'd take him over Flacco, Cutler so paying him less than that is insulting IMO. You also have to project growth into the equation, hes achieving all of these things in the first 3 years of his career. One pick thrown in the Super Bowl does not change that.

 

[Tau837]

Even if the Seahawks don't re sign him, there's no way they don't franchise him for a couple years then trade him for a kings ransom. Under no circumstances does he just walk.

I'm not aware of instances where a player was franchised and then traded. How does that work? Has it ever happened?

I am assuming that once they start tagging him, they either have to sign him to a contract, pay him based on the tag, or let him walk.

Also, I do not believe there has ever been an instance of a QB playing under a franchise tag for more than one season. (And I think there is only one QB who played even one season under the tag.) I suspect this is because it is basically never the case that a QB is good enough to merit the tag but not a mutually agreeable contract, and perhaps also because it could lead to deterioration of the relationship between the QB and the team, which would likely hurt the team and reduce the value of tagging the QB in the first place.

Yes, this does happen. The most recent example (I believe) was the Patriots, who did a franchise/trade of Matt Cassel. It's supposed to be against the spirit of the franchise tag but like that ####### matters to the Patriots.

Under your scenario of "no way they don't franchise him for a couple years then trade him", I could see it if you are saying they would franchise him for 2017 but trade him before the 2017 season. If the trade happened early enough, the acquiring team would have a window to negotiate a new long term contract that would take the place of the franchise tag value for 2017. I suppose I could see that happening if Seattle wasn't too demanding in what it would require in the trade.

But if your scenario means they franchise him twice to play for Seattle and a third time to trade him, I disagree. There is much too much risk in that for Seattle. If Wilson signed the tender and they never came to terms on a trade, they would be stuck paying Wilson $35M for the 2018 season. And that tag figure probably makes him a less attractive trade target for other teams, since Wilson could simply ride out the tag and resist a long term deal. I don't see Seattle taking that risk, especially since even if they let Wilson walk at some point, they would be in position to get compensatory picks.

 

[Tau837]

From The NFL Draft Shell Game:

...sometimes those trade-ups work out. We know from looking at trades in the past, though, that teams are almost always better off trading down to acquire more picks than trading up to grab a lone player. The consensus is almost always a better judge than any individual talent evaluator. Ozzie Newsome traded up for Kyle Boller. Ted Thompson moved up to grab Jerel Worthy. Bill Belichick dealt several picks for the chance to draft Ron Brace. Drafting is tough, and the best way to draft well is to get as many chances to pick players as possible.

With that in mind, let’s examine the trades that took place during this year’s NFL draft. To evaluate the selections, I’ll be using the draft value chart developed by Chase Stuart, which uses historical estimates of return to place a value on each selection. First, I’ll run through the 10 most lopsided trades from the draft. I’ll finish up by looking at the teams that gained or gave away the most draft capital with the moves they made.

...

1. Washington-Seattle
Washington sends: 3-69
Seattle sends: 3-95, 4-112, 5-167, 6-181
Value on the dollar: 180.2 percent

Wow. Not only is this the worst trade in the draft, it’s the worst by a significant margin. It’s pretty hard to argue with John Schneider’s success, and he’s typically one of the smartest general managers in football, but this is an incredible amount to spend on a third-round pick. If you add up the values of the four picks Schneider sent to former Seahawks executive Scot McCloughan in Washington, he treated the 69th selection as if it were about as valuable as the 27th pick in the first round.

You can interpret that one of two ways. I have a lot of faith in Schneider’s ability to spot talent, and if he thinks the player he chose — Kansas State wideout Tyler Lockett — was worth that significant of an outlay, chances are it’s worth putting some stock in that opinion. If you’re going to give anybody the benefit of the doubt, it’s Schneider. And given how thin the Seahawks are at receiver even after adding Jimmy Graham, Lockett is Seattle’s best way of adding a weapon who can help them win now.

I find the flip side of that argument far more compelling. If you have Schneider and you think he’s better at spotting talent than your competition, the best thing he can do is get as many chances to exploit that advantage as possible. Trading four picks for one limits Schneider’s shot at adding talent to a roster that isn’t quite as deep as it was in 2013, because Schneider’s midround finds are coming off their rookie contracts and becoming significantly more expensive.

It’s not just about adding Lockett; it’s the opportunity cost of missing out on a chance to find a star in the middle rounds. In the wrong hands, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-round picks might not mean that much. But in those rounds during the 2011 draft, Schneider came away with K.J. Wright, Richard Sherman, and Byron Maxwell. The pick Schneider used to draft Sherman came in a deal where the Seahawks traded down with the Lions, picking up an extra pick while swapping selections in the fifth and seventh rounds.

There is no guarantee the Seahawks are missing out on a franchise player like Sherman by trading their fifth-rounder this year, of course. They also chose Kris Durham and Mark LeGree in those rounds in 2011. But when you make trades like this, you limit your chances to get lucky. The Lions traded up that year to fill an obvious hole on their roster, grabbing their long-needed power back in Mikel Leshoure. Leshoure’s been out of football for two years. If Lockett turns out to be a star, the Seahawks will be happy. History tells us, though, that Schneider would have been better off with all of those extra picks.

Does this kind of logic suggest that Lockett is ticketed for a bigger role than might have otherwise been expected? What do you guys expect Seattle's WR depth chart to look like going into the season?

 

[Hooper31]

Does this kind of logic suggest ...

That's not logic. Its hyperbole. The guy has an opinion. IMO he's thinking that 3rd round picks and later are worth more than their true value.

Recently I heard that only two pro-bowlers have been drafted in the past five years between picks 130 and 170 (or something like that, I don't remember the exact details). Those two players are Sherman and Chancellor. None from any other teams.

 

[rdrouyn]

I bet that they studied the draft class pretty well and decided this was the best course to maximize the return on those picks. I trust them more than some random sports writer.

Lockett as a late first rounder doesnt seem that far fetched to me either. Is he that much different from Philip Dorsett? Plus special teams ability.

 

[Tau837]

I bet that they studied the draft class pretty well and decided this was the best course to maximize the return on those picks. I trust them more than some random sports writer.

Lockett as a late first rounder doesnt seem that far fetched to me either. Is he that much different from Philip Dorsett? Plus special teams ability.

Yes.

 

[Hooper31]

I bet that they studied the draft class pretty well and decided this was the best course to maximize the return on those picks. I trust them more than some random sports writer.

Lockett as a late first rounder doesnt seem that far fetched to me either. Is he that much different from Philip Dorsett? Plus special teams ability.

Yes.

Sure, and Aaron Curry was the safest draft pick in the 2009 draft according to every (and I mean EVERY) sports writer and pundit. Time will tell. We'll see.

 

[CapnJB]

I bet that they studied the draft class pretty well and decided this was the best course to maximize the return on those picks. I trust them more than some random sports writer.

Lockett as a late first rounder doesnt seem that far fetched to me either. Is he that much different from Philip Dorsett? Plus special teams ability.

Yes.

Sure, and Aaron Curry was the safest draft pick in the 2009 draft according to every (and I mean EVERY) sports writer and pundit. Time will tell. We'll see.

Anyone need a jersey?

 

[ex-ghost]

I bet that they studied the draft class pretty well and decided this was the best course to maximize the return on those picks. I trust them more than some random sports writer.

Lockett as a late first rounder doesnt seem that far fetched to me either. Is he that much different from Philip Dorsett? Plus special teams ability.

Yes.

Sure, and Aaron Curry was the safest draft pick in the 2009 draft according to every (and I mean EVERY) sports writer and pundit. Time will tell. We'll see.

I was fooled, too. Thought he was going to be the next big thing. Whoops.

 

[Tau837]

Does this kind of logic suggest ...

That's not logic. Its hyperbole. The guy has an opinion. IMO he's thinking that 3rd round picks and later are worth more than their true value.

Recently I heard that only two pro-bowlers have been drafted in the past five years between picks 130 and 170 (or something like that, I don't remember the exact details). Those two players are Sherman and Chancellor. None from any other teams.

Actually, it is more than hyperbole, at least if you put any stock into the work Chase put into the value chart referenced by the article.

 

[biju]

Does this kind of logic suggest ...

That's not logic. Its hyperbole. The guy has an opinion. IMO he's thinking that 3rd round picks and later are worth more than their true value.

Recently I heard that only two pro-bowlers have been drafted in the past five years between picks 130 and 170 (or something like that, I don't remember the exact details). Those two players are Sherman and Chancellor. None from any other teams.

Actually, it is more than hyperbole, at least if you put any stock into the work Chase put into the value chart referenced by the article.

Yeah, I'm not saying the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart is still right, but it's the reference we have.

Redskins send:

69th pick: 245 points

Seahawks send:

95th pick: 120 points

112th pick: 70 points

167th pick: 24.6 points

181st pick: 19 points

Total: 233.6

So, this guy is operating on one crazy model.

For reference, here's the values: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

 

[Tau837]

Does this kind of logic suggest ...

That's not logic. Its hyperbole. The guy has an opinion. IMO he's thinking that 3rd round picks and later are worth more than their true value.

Recently I heard that only two pro-bowlers have been drafted in the past five years between picks 130 and 170 (or something like that, I don't remember the exact details). Those two players are Sherman and Chancellor. None from any other teams.

Actually, it is more than hyperbole, at least if you put any stock into the work Chase put into the value chart referenced by the article.

Yeah, I'm not saying the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart is still right, but it's the reference we have.

Redskins send:

69th pick: 245 points

Seahawks send:

95th pick: 120 points

112th pick: 70 points

167th pick: 24.6 points

181st pick: 19 points

Total: 233.6

So, this guy is operating on one crazy model.

For reference, here's the values: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

I'm not saying Chase's model is necessarily better than the JJ chart, but I don't know the methodology behind JJ's chart, so it is hard to know how to assess its validity.

I do know the methodology behind Chase's chart, because he posted it on his web site. There is real statistical analysis behind it that is tied to historical value delivered by players drafted at each position.

Not saying Chase's methodology is perfect, but I also think it is wrong to call it a "crazy model."

 

[CapnJB]

Does this kind of logic suggest ...

That's not logic. Its hyperbole. The guy has an opinion. IMO he's thinking that 3rd round picks and later are worth more than their true value.

Recently I heard that only two pro-bowlers have been drafted in the past five years between picks 130 and 170 (or something like that, I don't remember the exact details). Those two players are Sherman and Chancellor. None from any other teams.

Actually, it is more than hyperbole, at least if you put any stock into the work Chase put into the value chart referenced by the article.

Yeah, I'm not saying the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart is still right, but it's the reference we have.

Redskins send:

69th pick: 245 points

Seahawks send:

95th pick: 120 points

112th pick: 70 points

167th pick: 24.6 points

181st pick: 19 points

Total: 233.6

So, this guy is operating on one crazy model.

For reference, here's the values: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

I'm not saying Chase's model is necessarily better than the JJ chart, but I don't know the methodology behind JJ's chart, so it is hard to know how to assess its validity.

I do know the methodology behind Chase's chart, because he posted it on his web site. There is real statistical analysis behind it that is tied to historical value delivered by players drafted at each position.

Not saying Chase's methodology is perfect, but I also think it is wrong to call it a "crazy model."

I wonder how much the abundance of picks the Hawks had affects the 'value' of each one. If team A only has 1,2,4,5,6 and Team B has 1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,5,6,7 do those 4th round picks equate?

 

[biju]

Does this kind of logic suggest ...

That's not logic. Its hyperbole. The guy has an opinion. IMO he's thinking that 3rd round picks and later are worth more than their true value.

Recently I heard that only two pro-bowlers have been drafted in the past five years between picks 130 and 170 (or something like that, I don't remember the exact details). Those two players are Sherman and Chancellor. None from any other teams.

Actually, it is more than hyperbole, at least if you put any stock into the work Chase put into the value chart referenced by the article.

Yeah, I'm not saying the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart is still right, but it's the reference we have.

Redskins send:

69th pick: 245 points

Seahawks send:

95th pick: 120 points

112th pick: 70 points

167th pick: 24.6 points

181st pick: 19 points

Total: 233.6

So, this guy is operating on one crazy model.

For reference, here's the values: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

I'm not saying Chase's model is necessarily better than the JJ chart, but I don't know the methodology behind JJ's chart, so it is hard to know how to assess its validity.

I do know the methodology behind Chase's chart, because he posted it on his web site. There is real statistical analysis behind it that is tied to historical value delivered by players drafted at each position.

Not saying Chase's methodology is perfect, but I also think it is wrong to call it a "crazy model."

Fair enough. Now add that there isn't enough room for all of Seattle's picks to actually make the team so the value of some of those later picks is actually less for them that other teams. I suspect both models work well in a vacuum and are difficult to apply in practice. This isn't me trying to debunk your assertion or Chase's model, but simply to say that I am incorrect in trying to use one theory over another without looking at the practical application.

 

[msudaisy26]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

 

[msudaisy26]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

 

[rdrouyn]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

Something about sticking to the program, and not paying players more than what their value is.

Kinda silly given that the value of a franchise quarterback is astronomical.

 

[Hooper31]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

Noted. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

A) The report isnt from rotoworld. It is from Bleacher Report.

B) https://mobile.twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/599321957000093696

 

[Sabertooth]

I hope they get something done. Need to put a hurting on that salary cap

 

[TenTimes]

Russell Wilson, Jimmy Graham miss Seahawks OTA to attend funeral

Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson and tight end Jimmy Graham will miss the first day of organized team activities Tuesday to attend the funeral of Graham's personal manager in Florida.

Danny O'Neil of 710 ESPN Radio Seattle first reported their absences.

Tammy Meyerson passed away Friday in Miami. According to her obituary, she "loved and mentored Jimmy Graham as a son."

Graham tweeted a remembrance Tuesday morning before her funeral.

Defensive ends Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett also are missing OTAs on Tuesday. Avril reportedly is attending to a personal matter. He said on Instagram that his father died three days ago.

Bennett has said he is seeking a change in his contract status. Bennett signed a four-year, $28.5 million deal in March 2014 that has $16 million of guaranteed money, but he wants to be paid among the top defensive ends in the league.

I'm good with Wilson/Graham missing, I like that Wilson went with. Avril obviously gets a pass as well.

Curious to hear thoughts on Michael Bennett. Any concern?

 

[Hooper31]

Curious to hear thoughts on Michael Bennett. Any concern?

One word. Voluntary. I'm surprised they get as many as they do attending these OTAs.

 

[TenTimes]

Curious to hear thoughts on Michael Bennett. Any concern?

One word. Voluntary. I'm surprised they get as many as they do attending these OTAs.

He seems genuinely unhappy about his contract, as opposed to using this as leverage to get out of OTAs. I wish I could find this video, I saw him on the news a few days ago speaking at a 'bike to work' awareness event, and even there he threw in a line about how everybody just wants a little more money. Rubbed me the wrong way.

Unrelated, buddy of mine sold a car to Pete Carrol a few days ago at the Mercedes dealership in Bellevue. Pete gave him tickets to the 49er game, pretty cool

 

[biju]

Curious to hear thoughts on Michael Bennett. Any concern?

One word. Voluntary. I'm surprised they get as many as they do attending these OTAs.

He seems genuinely unhappy about his contract, as opposed to using this as leverage to get out of OTAs. I wish I could find this video, I saw him on the news a few days ago speaking at a 'bike to work' awareness event, and even there he threw in a line about how everybody just wants a little more money. Rubbed me the wrong way.

Unrelated, buddy of mine sold a car to Pete Carrol a few days ago at the Mercedes dealership in Bellevue. Pete gave him tickets to the 49er game, pretty cool

I believe he's unhappy, but in the same way that I wish I got a raise as well. It's also worth noting his brother is doing the same thing in Chicago so I suspect this is just the way they've decided to think about work and salary. I don't think there's really anything wrong with it, but he doesn't have much to stand on with this one since we're one year in on his newly signed deal.

 

[PDX_Seahawk]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

Feel free to troll another fan base, though

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12968622/russell-wilson-agent-says-contract-talks-seattle-seahawks-positive-encouraging

 

[The General]

Bennett talking more.

 

[msudaisy26]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

Feel free to troll another fan base, thoughhttp://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12968622/russell-wilson-agent-says-contract-talks-seattle-seahawks-positive-encouraging

Not trying to troll, I was seriously wondering what was going on. Way to debunk the perception that most Seahawks fans aren't jerks though. Have a nice day.

 

[seahawk 17]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

Feel free to troll another fan base, thoughhttp://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12968622/russell-wilson-agent-says-contract-talks-seattle-seahawks-positive-encouraging

Not trying to troll, I was seriously wondering what was going on. Way to debunk the perception that most Seahawks fans aren't jerks though. Have a nice day.

You're lumping him/her in with the rest of us after two posts?

 

[msudaisy26]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

Feel free to troll another fan base, thoughhttp://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12968622/russell-wilson-agent-says-contract-talks-seattle-seahawks-positive-encouraging

Not trying to troll, I was seriously wondering what was going on. Way to debunk the perception that most Seahawks fans aren't jerks though. Have a nice day.

You're lumping him/her in with the rest of us after two posts?

I just assume it is an alias.

 

[BoltBacker]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

Feel free to troll another fan base, thoughhttp://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12968622/russell-wilson-agent-says-contract-talks-seattle-seahawks-positive-encouraging

Not trying to troll, I was seriously wondering what was going on. Way to debunk the perception that most Seahawks fans aren't jerks though. Have a nice day.

What makes you think SEA made a "low ball" offer in the first place?

 

[msudaisy26]

Is this for real?

 

[cr8f]

They're not letting him walk. It'll get done.

 

[Hooper31]

What makes you think SEA made a "low ball" offer in the first place?

He read it on the Intergoogle. Has to be true.

 

[Jeremy]

They're not letting him walk. It'll get done.

I agree, but I'd love to see what a QB of that caliber would get on the open market with 8 or 10 QB needy teams bidding. What would a team like Buffalo pay if a QB like that were to somehow become a free agent?

 

[msudaisy26]

What makes you think SEA made a "low ball" offer in the first place?

He read it on the Intergoogle. Has to be true.

That is why I came here to confirm it, I figured Seahawk homers would know better.

 

[Hooper31]

What makes you think SEA made a "low ball" offer in the first place?

He read it on the Intergoogle. Has to be true.

That is why I came here to confirm it, I figured Seahawk homers would know better.

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

Not sure why anyone would interpret your posts here as anything other than a person seeking the truth. Its not like your post could possibly be read as a statement of fact. Or could it?

 

[Hooper31]

The Wilson deal will eventually happen. For me the situation with Bennett is of much more concern. He's been publicly voicing that he's wanting to get paid more. We'll find out more if he chooses not to show up for any of the mandatory off-season portions and/or training camp. Time will tell.

 

[PDX_Seahawk]

So, Seahawk homers, what is it the deal with low balling your franchise quarterback?

That the reports are false.

Really? Rotoworld has their biases, but I can't ever remember seeing a false report.

Feel free to troll another fan base, thoughhttp://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12968622/russell-wilson-agent-says-contract-talks-seattle-seahawks-positive-encouraging

Not trying to troll, I was seriously wondering what was going on. Way to debunk the perception that most Seahawks fans aren't jerks though. Have a nice day.

You're lumping him/her in with the rest of us after two posts?

I just assume it is an alias.

And you would be incorrect. I'm a lurker. And you definitely came across as trolling. If you weren't then my bad.

 

[cr8f]

They're not letting him walk. It'll get done.

I agree, but I'd love to see what a QB of that caliber would get on the open market with 8 or 10 QB needy teams bidding. What would a team like Buffalo pay if a QB like that were to somehow become a free agent?

Guess it depends on how cap space they have.

 

[Jeremy]

They're not letting him walk. It'll get done.

I agree, but I'd love to see what a QB of that caliber would get on the open market with 8 or 10 QB needy teams bidding. What would a team like Buffalo pay if a QB like that were to somehow become a free agent?

Guess it depends on how cap space they have.

Yeah, and I have no idea on Buffalo specifically, but I figure there are maybe 8-10 teams that need a QB desperately. A few of them are likely to have tons of cap space burning a hold in their pocket. Considering what Suh got from Miami, what would a franchise QB in his 20s fetch in a bidding war? $25 million per? More? Would a fully guaranteed contract be out of the question?

Not that we'll find out, but it would be interesting.

 

[biju]

It's bizarre to me that this contract has so much interest... there are no upcoming deadlines so I don't really get why there is any pressure. The only pressure is coming from fans and Wilson is utilizing this to the best of his ability because other than that, there is no pressure for the team to come to terms quickly.

But, I guess when Rotoworld starts making it sound like no deal will ever happen (regardless of no need for a deal), people suddenly want to take it out on Seahawks fans.

 

[seahawk 17]

RW contract issues, Thomas injured. No CB depth.

Bennett, and Kam might hold out. Makes for an interesting start to camp.

 

[TenTimes]

Wilson signs, 4 years, $87.5 mill

Russell Wilson
@DangeRussWilson

Blessed to be w/ this organization for 4 more years! Can't wait to get on field w/ the fellas! @Seahawks #ChampionshipMindset#GoHawks
6:54 AM - 31 Jul 2015

 

[biju]

No posts about Bobby's new contract? I'm pumped! The core of players who will be here for the next 3 years is just stunning...

Russell Wilson

Marshawn Lynch

Jimmy Graham

Earl Thomas

Richard Sherman

Kam Chancellor

K.J. Wright

Michael Bennett

Cliff Avril

and now Bobby Wagner. That's 10 players will big roles on the team. It's a good time for Seahawks fans...

 

[Tau837]

No posts about Bobby's new contract? I'm pumped! The core of players who will be here for the next 3 years is just stunning...

Russell Wilson

Marshawn Lynch

Jimmy Graham

Earl Thomas

Richard Sherman

Kam Chancellor

K.J. Wright

Michael Bennett

Cliff Avril

and now Bobby Wagner. That's 10 players will big roles on the team. It's a good time for Seahawks fans...

Is it a given that Lynch will remain on the team after this season? His cap hit is pretty hefty in 2016 and 2017. I assume he will probably play 2016 under the contract, but 2017 seems questionable -- he will be 31 with a cap hit of $12.5M and just $2.5M in dead cap money if traded/released.

Having said that, agree that is a great core group. Not sure any other team can match it.