Should the Seahawks trade Russell Wilson?

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Are they though?  Tom Brady is an all-time great QB and all but one of his wins came when he was making under 9% of the cap. 

Yeah, they are. Also it's not reasonable to ask people to purposefully play below their market value because it may lead to winning a Superbowl.

[tom cody]

23 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Why do you think he is that team?  Because they paid him. 

Look at the talent they had around him when he was on his rookie contract compared to the talent he had around him when he was on his second contract. 

You pay a QB, and suddenly the talent they had around them to make them look so good isn't maintainable. 

Remember when the Seahawks were a dynasty, gonna be at the top for years and years?  Remember how everybody who said as soon as the Seahawks pay Wilson they'll fall apart was laughed at? 

It happens to literally every single QB who sets that mark. 

The way to win Super Bowls right now is to have a QB married to a supermodel billionaire or to win it on your quarterback's rookie contract. 

They paid him because he is worth it. I remember last year people said Seattle would take a step back and miss the playoffs. They never and that was due to Wilson's play. If they do trade him I doubt they win 5 games in 2019.

[MacReady]

Just now, tom cody said:

They paid him because he is worth it. I remember last year people said Seattle would take a step back and miss the playoffs. They never and that was due to Wilson's play. If they do trade him I doubt they win 5 games in 2019.

That's the whole thing.  If you pay your QB 14-16% of the cap, you're stuck in good enough to reach playoffs, not good enough to win purgatory. 

It's why so often quarterbacks win Super Bowls at the end of their big contract.  Why do you think geriatric Peyton Manning won in 2015 instead of when he was dominant top 5 season for QB ever?  Because the Seahawks were paying Russell Wilson a 2nd round rookie contract and had a stacked team. 

 

[Nastradamus]

28 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

That's the whole thing.  If you pay your QB 14-16% of the cap, you're stuck in good enough to reach playoffs, not good enough to win purgatory. 

It's why so often quarterbacks win Super Bowls at the end of their big contract.  Why do you think geriatric Peyton Manning won in 2015 instead of when he was dominant top 5 season for QB ever?  Because the Seahawks were paying Russell Wilson a 2nd round rookie contract and had a stacked team. 

 

but he was still making big money

[MacReady]

Just now, Nastradamus said:

but he was still making big money

14.9%
14.2%
13.2%
12.2%

[Nastradamus]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 1:38 AM, megatechpc said:

As overrated as I sometimes think RW is, there is simply no way Seattle will allow him to leave that team.  The fact that they have shaved so much payroll over the years means they should have the cap space to accommodate him and there certainly aren't any better QB options floating around right now.

Let me also address the fact that I think RW is overrated by emphasizing that I still rate him as a top-10 QB (possibly top-5) that has almost single-handedly carried the Seahawks on offense the past couple years.  That said, the media has always fawned over him a bit too much IMO and he is absolutely not worth Aaron Rodgers money to me.  Of course the nature of the business is that it doesn't matter whether or not you actually are the best, when your turn comes around in FA you are gonna get PAID, especially if you are a franchise QB like RW (see: Kirk Cousins, Matthew Stafford, Matt Ryan, etc).

Yah, the guy has been like 11,12 and 15 in QBR the last 3 years. He's fine, but he's in the 9-15 range not the 1-8 range 

[Nastradamus]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

14.9%
14.2%
13.2%
12.2%

SO your argument is the 2% is the difference, or 3 million dolars of cap space? Yeesh...

[EL Guapo]

The only qb to win within three years was Ben and he was bad in the Super Bowl. Goff still needed the cheat sheet in his third year. I know you'll take your chances in the one game or the playoffs but a rookie isn't really a four year window. I think Eli, Wilson, and Flacco won right before the new contracts. Then Eli won again as one of the highest paid players. Wilson makes up for deficiencies, helps fill holes so I would pay him. I meant to put this in the other thread

[megatechpc]

Yeah, as QB-desperate as many teams continue to be I think it would be way too risky for Seattle to let Wilson walk out the door because the chances of replacing him with someone as good is very low.  Its really a catch-22 for all NFL teams nowadays because you build your entire team around attaining a top-10 QB like RW, but then they demand so much money at that level that you struggle to afford them.  That's why all these teams are so desperate to hit it big in the draft and win a SB while the QB is still under the rookie contract.  Recent history shows that its much harder to win a championship once you've paid your elite QB (though Ryan really should've won in 2016).  

[uk9erfan]

Absolutely not.  For reasons N4L mentioned earlier on this thread.  It would mean the Seahawks tearing down all they have done in the last two or three years to try to take some of the pressure off Wilson to be the do-everything guy on offense.  It would mean a complete change of philosophy.  That's not who they are a as a franchise.  They have shown that they are a franchise that will adapt to their changing circumstances, and do it very well.  Look at all the losses of great players they have endured over the last couple of years.  So many folk thought they were headed for 5-11 last year.  I have to gloat and say I was not one of them.  

Trading Wilson would set them back and scupper their plans to adapt on the fly so to speak (which I think they do better than most teams in the league). so no I just don't see it happening.

[SBLIII]

Yes.

[WFLukic]

Darnold and no.3 overall for Wilson.

Who's the side that says no?

[Superman(DH23)]

This time last year there was no way that Mack would he traded.  Prior to the 2009 draft everyone would have said there us no way Jay Cutler would be traded.  I've learned in my 39 years of experience that NO ONE is untradable.  We can say it's not likely to happen, and right now id put the odds at less than 2%, but this is certainly something to keep an eye on, as the draft gets closer.

[vike daddy]

Per a league source, the Seahawks think that Wilson would like to play elsewhere, even if he hasn’t and wouldn’t ever say it. They also believe that this unspoken dynamic will cause Wilson to drive a harder bargain with them than he would with another team.

Yes, Wilson and his agent, Mark Rodgers, continue to talk to the Seahawks about a long-term deal. And, yes, under the right financial circumstances, Wilson will sign what would be a third contract in Seattle. But if the Seahawks won’t pay whatever it is that Wilson wants from the Seahawks, the question becomes whether he’d want that same amount from a different team.

The answer to that question won’t be known unless and until the Seahawks and Wilson fail to work out a contract before Wilson’s stated deadline of April 15, and whether the Seahawks would at some point explore the possibility of trading Wilson elsewhere. That may not happen in 2019, when the Seahawks can keep Wilson for a base salary of $17 million. It becomes more likely if/when Wilson initiates the year-to-year Kirk Cousins-style approach under the franchise tag, with $30.34 million becoming the price tag for keeping him in 2020 — and when Wilson’s leverage on a long-term deal would skyrocket, given that the franchise tag would move to $36.4 million for 2021 and, given the 44-percent rule for a third tag, to $52.43 million for 2022.

If Wilson would take less than what he could get from the Seahawks on a long-term deal, it becomes easier to trade him, since his next team wouldn’t be looking at the same astronomical investment. And that becomes a very real dynamic in the question of whether the Seahawks will devote the cash and cap space necessary to keep him, or whether they’d get what they can and start over with a young quarterback who would be making dramatically less under the rookie wage scale.

It’s a consideration that remains premature while the window remains open on a long-term deal for Wilson. But if/when April 15 without a long-term deal between the Seahawks and Wilson, the question of whether would take less from a different team becomes highly relevant to whether the Seahawks could find a trade partner, if that’s the route the team chooses to take instead of paying him unprecedented franchise-tag money on a year-to-year basis.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/04/14/does-russell-wilson-want-to-stay-with-the-seahawks/

[Trentwannabe]

Yes they should if they know they won't get a reasonable deal done with him. Reasonable being his worth but not some outlandish number head and shoulders above the 2nd highest guy.