HawkShack.com

by **Anthony** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:26 pm

Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson reign among improvisational QBs

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... tional-qbs

by **Vegaseahawk** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:41 am

Great article, but I thought this post was about your opinion, not someone else's. The reason I say this is because I've read some very well thought opinions from you on many subjects regarding the Seahawks in the past.

by **Anthony** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:00 am

Vegaseahawk wrote:Great article, but I thought this post was about your opinion, not someone else's. The reason I say this is because I've read some very well thought opinions from you on many subjects regarding the Seahawks in the past.

It just so happens my opinion in this case is pretty close to the same as his except I would but Rodgers and Wilson 1 and 1a, not 1 and 2

by **Hawktawk** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:32 am

I wouldnt trade them. Rodgers is an incredibly smooth player and very good throwing on the run from different arm angles.Wilson is the most mobile athletic QB in the league. But for me its the intangibles. Russlell is upbeat and positive. Rodgers is dour and prissy and has no problem blaming others for things instead of shouldering some blame. Russell is God squad, Rogers isn't.
The force is with Wilson. he will be one of the best all time when his career is over.

by **Distant Relative** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:41 pm

Honest question here. How good will Wilson be in 4 or 5 years after taking the punishment that NFL QB's endure throughout the season? How good will he be when his legs aren't so young? How good will he be when he can't escape the pocket to find the open spot to throw from in the backfield or be able to escape and run for 30 yards? No doubt in my mind he is worth top 5 money at his age now but I have serious concerns about what kind of QB he will be once he starts loosing his legs. I just don't see him being a great consistent pocket passer due to his height.

by **burrrton** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:59 pm

I just don't see him being a great consistent pocket passer due to his height.

Why? He's as good from the pocket as any young QB in the league.

by **Anthony** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:15 pm

Distant Relative wrote:Honest question here. How good will Wilson be in 4 or 5 years after taking the punishment that NFL QB's endure throughout the season? How good will he be when his legs aren't so young? How good will he be when he can't escape the pocket to find the open spot to throw from in the backfield or be able to escape and run for 30 yards? No doubt in my mind he is worth top 5 money at his age now but I have serious concerns about what kind of QB he will be once he starts loosing his legs. I just don't see him being a great consistent pocket passer due to his height.

well they said that about brees and considering he is amongst the best in the league form inside the pocket I do not see any concerns, other than they will need to improve the oline

by **Anthony** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:15 pm

burrrton wrote:
Why? He's as good from the pocket as any young QB in the league.

OH MY GOD we agree

by **burrrton** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:21 pm

Anthony wrote:OH MY GOD we agree

Seriously, why do we have to keep repeating this (no offense, DR, if you just weren't aware)?

by **burrrton** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:22 pm

Anthony wrote:well they said that about brees and considering he is amongst the best in the league form inside the pocket I do not see any concerns, other than they will need to improve the oline

Exactly. All they'll have to do is spend $$ on the O-line and they'll have someone as good or better than Luck (at least as he's been to this point).

by **Distant Relative** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:41 pm

I just don't see him being a great consistent pocket passer due to his height.

Why? He's as good from the pocket as any young QB in the league.

To the point, I agree he is good at this point in his career as a pocket passer but I believe its due to the respect that the D's have knowing he could
take off pretty much anytime he wants! Now take his legs away and see what happens behind an average O line.

My point was...... How good will he be when he doesn't have his legs to save him from poor pass blocking? if you've watched football for any length of time
you will have saw several examples of what happens to an athletic QB once he starts to age and his legs start to go.

I wont blame the Hawks if they don't sell the farm to keep Wilson.

JMO opinion Burt.

by **Anthony** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:05 pm

Distant Relative wrote:

To the point, I agree he is good at this point in his career as a pocket passer but I believe its due to the respect that the D's have knowing he could
take off pretty much anytime he wants! Now take his legs away and see what happens behind an average O line.

My point was...... How good will he be when he doesn't have his legs to save him from poor pass blocking? if you've watched football for any length of time
you will have saw several examples of what happens to an athletic QB once he starts to age and his legs start to go.

I wont blame the Hawks if they don't sell the farm to keep Wilson.

JMO opinion Burt.

and our point is if he could not run they would improve the oline and problem solved, yes I see it happened to Brees oh wait it didn't. As to what you believe well that and a dime will get you a cup of coffee back in 1910. The reality is you do not know at all, Tarkenton was still running enough to keep people off balance well into mid thirties, that would be 9 years from now, well after the deal he will sign would have been over. Also if they improve the oline pass blocking to say middle of the pack that alone will negate any loss in his legs. Let me remind you right now they are bottom 8 in the league improve them to say top 15 and well no legs is not an issue. As to not blaming the Hawks, yes you will if we loose him and then go back to 7-9 or worse.

by **Distant Relative** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:35 pm

and our point is if he could not run they would improve the oline and problem solved,

That will be tough to do while paying a QB 20 mil + a year while trying to keep weapons around him.

yes I see it happened to Brees oh wait it didn't

Surely your not comparing Drew B's athletic ability to Wilsons. Not even close.

Tarkenton was still running enough to keep people off balance well into mid thirties

Fran wouldn't make it out of the first quarter in todays football.

I have only owned 4 Hawks jerseys in my 34 years as a Hawks fan. Zorn, Largent, Hass and Wilson. That being said I love Wilson but I love the Hawks as
a whole more. Also wasn't trying to start a new debate about Wilson, just putting some thoughts on the board as to how I see it. Like I said Burt , JMO that's all. Let's just say you guys are right and move on. Moot point here I guess.

Sorry to the OP on the Hijack.

by **Anthony** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:52 pm

Distant Relative wrote:
I have only owned 4 Hawks jerseys in my 34 years as a Hawks fan. Zorn, Largent, Hass and Wilson. That being said I love Wilson but I love the Hawks as
a whole more. Also wasn't trying to start a new debate about Wilson, just putting some thoughts on the board as to how I see it. Like I said Burt , JMO that's all. Let's just say you guys are right and move on. Moot point here I guess.

Sorry to the OP on the Hijack.

Hmm Dallas did it, GB did it, NE, did it, Denver did it, Dallas did it. I can go on and on when your oline is ranked 24th in pass blocking and that is the best it has been ranked over Wilson 3 years it is not tough to go up at all.

by **Hawktawk** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:11 am

[quote="Distant Relative"][quote]I just don't see him being a great consistent pocket passer due to his height

To the point, I agree he is good at this point in his career as a pocket passer but I believe its due to the respect that the D's have knowing he could
take off pretty much anytime he wants! Now take his legs away and see what happens behind an average O line.

My point was...... How good will he be when he doesn't have his legs to save him from poor pass blocking? if you've watched football for any length of time
you will have saw several examples of what happens to an athletic QB once he starts to age and his legs start to go.

I wont blame the Hawks if they don't sell the farm to keep Wilson.

Wilson is in incredible physical condition and is a workout warrior. he spent the winter in California with a conditioning guru. His quote was "I'm tired of defensive backs catching me from behind". He is super intelligent when he does scramble and rarely takes a direct hit. He has not missed one single play due to injury in his career despite playing behind a terrible pass blocking line. Hes going to be great for a long time. He will be like Brady winning after his entire supporting cast from this dynasty is retired.This guy is a coaches dream. Hes a winner of all winners. The Hawks need to open the checkbook PRONTO or he will finish his 15 year career and enter the HOF in someone else s jersey.
If the Hawks lose Wilson the will have already sold the farm. It would be beyond stupid to be so arrogant they think they dont need him as much as some linebacker they could lose.

Its a no brainer Schneider.

by **NorthHawk** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:52 am

"I just don't see him being a great consistent pocket passer due to his height"

Some people are still caught up with the height issue.
It simply isn't a factor for good QBs. For marginal QBs, it could be because of other deficiencies, but very good QBs instinctively understand the throwing lanes and how to get the best view.
Brees and Theismann are only 6' tall and 1 to 1.5 inches don't make much of a difference. Interestingly enough they are all Super Bowl winners.
It's time to put the height thing to rest.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:54 am

Hmm Dallas did it, GB did it, NE, did it, Denver did it, Dallas did it. I can go on and on when your oline is ranked 24th in pass blocking and that is the best it has been ranked over Wilson 3 years it is not tough to go up at all

You are using examples of teams that haven't won but a single championship in recent years, with the exception of the Pats, who happen to have a QB that makes 14 million a year. None of the others listed have won one since getting obscene numbers. You might want to use some other examples. If you want to be like Dallas, or even GB fine, but don't expect everyone else to have the same goal. Not everybody wants only to have a franchise QB who season ends before February every year.

by **Anthony** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:28 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:
You are using examples of teams that haven't won but a single championship in recent years, with the exception of the Pats, who happen to have a QB that makes 14 million a year. None of the others listed have won one since getting obscene numbers. You might want to use some other examples. If you want to be like Dallas, or even GB fine, but don't expect everyone else to have the same goal. Not everybody wants only to have a franchise QB who season ends before February every year.

Dude he said that you cannot pay a Qb, qb money and still improve or have a good Oline and the answer is yes you can because they have done it and while they may not have won many SBs they are pretty much always in the hunt. As tot he pats the reason he makes 14 mil is because he has had his big contract already and is 36+ years old. BY the way Rodgers make smore than 14 mil, Romo will be making over 20 mil starting next year, and I can go on, The reality is the Hawks did not do a good job of building their oline prior to Wilsons deal ending at least not from a pass protection point of view. Also Manning makes more than 14 mil and again I can go on.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:03 pm

Really not interested in being "in the hunt" but never getting there, or getting there every 7 or so years, but losing. If that's is your preference, fine, but stop telling us what OURS should be. Yes, Brady already got his "big" contract, how many championships did he win, while he was getting said contract? The answer is ZERO , the other examples have won zero as well once a team has made those moves. Brady makes less because he is smart enough to KNOW he needs a defense and complete team to be not just "in the hunt" and is a perfect example of why you SHOULDN'T pay whatever they want, and decimate your team to do it, not the other way around.

by **Anthony** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:28 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Really not interested in being "in the hunt" but never getting there, or getting there every 7 or so years, but losing. If that's is your preference, fine, but stop telling us what OURS should be. Yes, Brady already got his "big" contract, how many championships did he win, while he was getting said contract? The answer is ZERO , the other examples have won zero as well once a team has made those moves. Brady makes less because he is smart enough to KNOW he needs a defense and complete team to be not just "in the hunt" and is a perfect example of why you SHOULDN'T pay whatever they want, and decimate your team to do it, not the other way around.

First off I am not telling you what to think or not to, so get off it. I would rather be in the hunt every year then be the team who is one top level QB from being in the hunt every year. Yes Brady makes less but you can bet if it was his first big contract he would not be making less. So again lets not pay Wilson and in 2 years be stuck without a QB and the LOB with only 1 year left on their deals and be stuck in 7-9 land and not even in the hunt. I never said pay them whatever they want, you did, all I said is you can pay your QB and still build your oline. Again you have a choice pay your QB and always be in the hunt, or do not and hope you find another franchise QB which means years of not even being in the hunt. pretty simple. oh and FYI I never said never getting there you cannot get there unless your in the hunt can you.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:22 pm

No where did I say not to pay Wilson, nor have I said they shouldn't, difference is, I know it takes complete teams to win Championships, which means you can not just jettison whomever, whenever to pay one player, whether he be a QB or not. there HAS to be a balance, and reason. If Wilson wants to "build" his brand winning championships, he will HAVE to realise that whether others do or not.

Seattle faces 30 potential free agents next season, IF the choice is to let the team fall into shambles to pay Wilson the biggest contract in history, than an intelligent fan would realise that no matter the talent of the QB they can NOT be successful without the necessary talent. If the choice is between Wilson, and say Irvin, Baldwin or Okung and Kearse you keep Wilson, but is Wilson worth Okung, Irvin, Wagner, Baldwin and Kearse? Those are the things that HAVE to be asked and answered by the guys who built the team, no matter what anyone here's answer might be.

Teams are "in the hunt" without obscenely paid QBs it happens every year, teams Luke Baltimore, routinely pull it off, and I hope the front office understands that NO QB wins a SB without a defense no matter how good the QB happens to be, Finds that balance, and does not turn into Dallas north, or GB west.

by **NorthHawk** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:11 pm

Is there another QB that can successfully play in this Offense when Lynch retires?
I don't see any that might become available any time soon. Perhaps there might be a draftable QB, but I doubt their development would be as quick as Wilson and it might take giving up a lot of draft capital or good players to get that pick.

by **Anthony** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:17 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:No where did I say not to pay Wilson, nor have I said they shouldn't, difference is, I know it takes complete teams to win Championships, which means you can not just jettison whomever, whenever to pay one player, whether he be a QB or not. there HAS to be a balance, and reason. If Wilson wants to "build" his brand winning championships, he will HAVE to realise that whether others do or not.

Seattle faces 30 potential free agents next season, IF the choice is to let the team fall into shambles to pay Wilson the biggest contract in history, than an intelligent fan would realise that no matter the talent of the QB they can NOT be successful without the necessary talent. If the choice is between Wilson, and say Irvin, Baldwin or Okung and Kearse you keep Wilson, but is Wilson worth Okung, Irvin, Wagner, Baldwin and Kearse? Those are the things that HAVE to be asked and answered by the guys who built the team, no matter what anyone here's answer might be.

Teams are "in the hunt" without obscenely paid QBs it happens every year, teams Luke Baltimore, routinely pull it off, and I hope the front office understands that NO QB wins a SB without a defense no matter how good the QB happens to be, Finds that balance, and does not turn into Dallas north, or GB west.

Ahh you realize Baltimore has a high paid QB right? lets look at the teams who have been routinely in the playoffs not just one offs, NE-Brady, GB Rodgers, Denver Manning, Steeler Rothesburger, Ravens Flacco, Seattle Wilson, Cincy Palmer. All of theses QBs except Wilson is and or were highly paid and they get into the playoffs on a regular basis. Those teams without a franchise QB do not get in consistently and there for are not always in the hunt. Once again you cannot win if you are not in the hunt and to be in the hunt on a consistent basis you need a franchise QB and they cost. All those teams have no problem paying their QB and still fielding a very good team. SO if they can do it we can do it. IN fact if you look at the teams that made the playoffs last year only 1 did not have a franchise QB and 2 other have franchise QBs on rookie deals. All the rest are either highly paid or just became highly paid. SO again you can rant and rave all you want about the defense but the reality is you need a franchise QB to compete every year and have a chance to get to the SB, and for that you have to pay. That said how much you pay is open for debate. At this point we really do not know how much Wilson wants and how he wants it broken down, and we do not know what the Hawks have offered or how it is broken down, it is all speculation. For all we know the hold up is he guarantees only Wilson wants 50 mil and the Hawks(allen) only wants 40 which I have seen written about a lot. Maybe Wilson does want 25 mil a year. I do not know, what I do know is whatever Wilson does get will be a bargain within 2 years

by **Hawktawk** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:57 am

Ahh you realize Baltimore has a high paid QB right? lets look at the teams who have been routinely in the playoffs not just one offs, NE-Brady, GB Rodgers, Denver Manning, Steeler Rothesburger, Ravens Flacco, Seattle Wilson, Cincy Palmer. All of theses QBs except Wilson is and or were highly paid and they get into the playoffs on a regular basis. Those teams without a franchise QB do not get in consistently and there for are not always in the hunt. Once again you cannot win if you are not in the hunt and to be in the hunt on a consistent basis you need a franchise QB and they cost. All those teams have no problem paying their QB and still fielding a very good team. SO if they can do it we can do it. IN fact if you look at the teams that made the playoffs last year only 1 did not have a franchise QB and 2 other have franchise QBs on rookie deals. All the rest are either highly paid or just became highly paid. SO again you can rant and rave all you want about the defense but the reality is you need a franchise QB to compete every year and have a chance to get to the SB, and for that you have to pay. That said how much you pay is open for debate. At this point we really do not know how much Wilson wants and how he wants it broken down, and we do not know what the Hawks have offered or how it is broken down, it is all speculation. For all we know the hold up is he guarantees only Wilson wants 50 mil and the Hawks(allen) only wants 40 which I have seen written about a lot. Maybe Wilson does want 25 mil a year. I do not know, what I do know is whatever Wilson does get will be a bargain within 2 years[/quote]

Thats extremely well said Anthony. Thats it in a nutshell. Anybody who wants to consistently be in the hunt must have a great QB. And we have one of the absolute best if not the best in the league. He is certainly the most explosive multidimensional QB. Were going to have to give him top money or enjoy the show folks cause it will end in 2016 and it would be one of the biggest blunders in Seattle sports history. You are also correct that it is a complete straw man talking about Brady signing a modified deal to sign other players. Hes already been paid handsomely and is a very wealthy man. Manning took less because with his declining skills he wouldn't have had a job had he not accepted it. Neither of these situations is remotely similar to Wilson's situation being paid less than 40 other QB s in the league and averaging 12 wins a season.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:58 am

Now, they have a high paid QB. which occurred AFTER they won their last SB not before, as did GB, NE etc. You can PAY A QB, you simply can't spend a bulk of resources on one player, and expect to win SBs.

My point is not that they should not pay Wilson, it is that people insisting they do so, and advocate dumping key defensive players, or productive offensive players to create GB, Dallas, NO, Detroit have missed the boat. Some advocate being competitive over winning championships, and personally I find that thought process moronic.

(also there is a bunch of consistent in the hunt teams seems that don't make the list without said WBS, or you conveniently put in a different QB than the actual QB. Cincy has Dalton, not Palmer, SF got to a SB and three straight NFC championship games with Smith and Kaepernik, KC with Smith, Carolina with Newton)

by **NorthHawk** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 10:31 am

Lynch has been mentioning retirement for the last couple of years.
He's also about to hit the magic 30 and has had a lot of carries the last few years.

Can you imagine this Offense without both Wilson and Lynch?
As well, when Lynch does hang them up, it will free approximately half of Wilsons expected salary, so the hit might not be as bad as we think.

by **Anthony** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:21 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Now, they have a high paid QB. which occurred AFTER they won their last SB not before, as did GB, NE etc. You can PAY A QB, you simply can't spend a bulk of resources on one player, and expect to win SBs.

My point is not that they should not pay Wilson, it is that people insisting they do so, and advocate dumping key defensive players, or productive offensive players to create GB, Dallas, NO, Detroit have missed the boat. Some advocate being competitive over winning championships, and personally I find that thought process moronic.

(also there is a bunch of consistent in the hunt teams seems that don't make the list without said WBS, or you conveniently put in a different QB than the actual QB. Cincy has Dalton, not Palmer, SF got to a SB and three straight NFC championship games with Smith and Kaepernik, KC with Smith, Carolina with Newton)

so you have a choice of being in the hunt every year which means you have a chance of winning the SB every year or being in the hunt once every 5-7 years and having a chance to win an SB you would pick the once every 5-7 years talk about moronic.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:17 am

Your problem seems to be believing a great TEAM isn't in the "hunt" without a premier QB every year, which based on some of YOUR examples ( as well as several you conviently excluded, or even one you inserted a QB on another team) . I don't and will never adhere to the " one guy" makes a team SB caliber, or one unit. I have plenty to base that on, and back it up, but as I continue to explain, you can believe what you want to. The extreme of every 7 year's because you don't have player X is laughable.

by **Anthony** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:29 am

HumanCockroach wrote:Your problem seems to be believing a great TEAM isn't in the "hunt" without a premier QB every year, which based on some of YOUR examples ( as well as several you conviently excluded, or even one you inserted a QB on another team) . I don't and will never adhere to the " one guy" makes a team SB caliber, or one unit. I have plenty to base that on, and back it up, but as I continue to explain, you can believe what you want to. The extreme of every 7 year's because you don't have player X is laughable.

It is not my problem it is historical fact, something you seem to be wanting to ignore.

by **kalibane** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:33 am

Flacco's contract has cost the Ravens Torrey Smith, Paul Kruger, Danell Ellerbe, Haloti Ngata and Matt Birk and Anquan Boldin among others.

That's the reality of life in the NFL. You can say that Flacco isn't a great QB but he played at an All Pro level during that Playoff run, and without it they wouldn't have a championship.

The Ravens may have a long well regarded track record but they were up and down (record wise) after that 2000 season as they searched for a QB and weren't really a threat to get to the Super Bowl until Flacco developed. People forget how close they were to the Super Bowl the year before they won it as well.

When you build a team good enough to get to the Super Bowl it comes as a result of 3-5 years of good drafting and development and you probably have a 2-3 year window where you can win a championship before you start losing guys to free agency or they decline due to injury. Sure it's harder to build that kind of team when you're using so much of that cap space on one player. But it's harder (IMO) to build that team and find the right QB in the right window that can take advantage of it. Having a good QB keeps you in contention so that when your drafting and roster building does align you can take advantage of it immediately.

Say we let Russell go and we are forced to use a vet retread in the short term... that's a wasted year. Now we have to go search for a new young franchise QB. Even if we make a "good" pick to be our next QB it may be on the level of a Ryan Tannehill or Andy Dalton, and we aren't winning anything with one of those guys.

In fact Andy Dalton is the perfect example where the Bengals have one of the most talented teams in the league over the past 3 years and Andy Dalton keeps on being the reason they fail in the playoffs.

Better to have the QB and trust in your drafting and development to put a talented enough team around him that will open legit champion ship windows over the next 10 years.

by **Anthony** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:15 pm

kalibane wrote:Flacco's contract has cost the Ravens Torrey Smith, Paul Kruger, Danell Ellerbe, Haloti Ngata and Matt Birk and Anquan Boldin among others.

That's the reality of life in the NFL. You can say that Flacco isn't a great QB but he played at an All Pro level during that Playoff run, and without it they wouldn't have a championship.

The Ravens may have a long well regarded track record but they were up and down (record wise) after that 2000 season as they searched for a QB and weren't really a threat to get to the Super Bowl until Flacco developed. People forget how close they were to the Super Bowl the year before they won it as well.

When you build a team good enough to get to the Super Bowl it comes as a result of 3-5 years of good drafting and development and you probably have a 2-3 year window where you can win a championship before you start losing guys to free agency or they decline due to injury. Sure it's harder to build that kind of team when you're using so much of that cap space on one player. But it's harder (IMO) to build that team and find the right QB in the right window that can take advantage of it. Having a good QB keeps you in contention so that when your drafting and roster building does align you can take advantage of it immediately.

Say we let Russell go and we are forced to use a vet retread in the short term... that's a wasted year. Now we have to go search for a new young franchise QB. Even if we make a "good" pick to be our next QB it may be on the level of a Ryan Tannehill or Andy Dalton, and we aren't winning anything with one of those guys.

In fact Andy Dalton is the perfect example where the Bengals have one of the most talented teams in the league over the past 3 years and Andy Dalton keeps on being the reason they fail in the playoffs.

Better to have the QB and trust in your drafting and development to put a talented enough team around him that will open legit champion ship windows over the next 10 years.

Great post spot on.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:15 pm

Let's look at our Offense.
We currently have Graham, Lynch, and Okung as the top paid players.
Okung looks like he is going elsewhere next year, and Lynch is nearing retirement.
That means we could sign Wilson to a deal next year that we could better afford, and the year after that (assuming Lynch has had enough or the magic 30 has taken effect) there will be even more money. Add in the Cap increases and a deal looks very doable. We can probably even afford a year with the tag.
The problems become replacing the productivity of Lynch and the play of Okung with a vastly inferior Offensive Line.

Background info.
Okungs current Cap hit is $7,280,000.
Lynch's current Cap hit is $8,500,000 in 2015 and $11,500,000 in 2016.
These figures are from Spotrac.

So let's guess that Wilson gets $23 Million.
Subtract $5 Million as the difference we will be paying a competent LT (2 - 2.5 Million for a LT) and you get the team paying a net cost increase of $18 million.
Then subtract the $1.5 Million we will pay Wilson this year and the difference is $16.5 million.
If Lynch is gone in 2016, the net increase in cost will be $8.5 million in 2016.

There's also dead Cap numbers coming off the books next year from Harvin, Unger, and Miller for this year of about $10 Million.
I'm not sure how that figures into the calculations so I didn't include it

The numbers can work - we just have to get past this year, and I didn't even factor in any expected Cap increase $.
Oh, and draft good Offensive Linemen who can already play the position so the learning curve is flatter.

by **Anthony** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:26 pm

NorthHawk wrote:Let's look at our Offense.
We currently have Graham, Lynch, and Okung as the top paid players.
Okung looks like he is going elsewhere next year, and Lynch is nearing retirement.
That means we could sign Wilson to a deal next year that we could better afford, and the year after that (assuming Lynch has had enough or the magic 30 has taken effect) there will be even more money. Add in the Cap increases and a deal looks very doable. We can probably even afford a year with the tag.
The problems become replacing the productivity of Lynch and the play of Okung with a vastly inferior Offensive Line.

Background info.
Okungs current Cap hit is $7,280,000.
Lynch's current Cap hit is $8,500,000 in 2015 and $11,500,000 in 2016.
These figures are from Spotrac.

So let's guess that Wilson gets $23 Million.
Subtract $5 Million as the difference we will be paying a competent LT (2 - 2.5 Million for a LT) and you get the team paying a net cost increase of $18 million.
Then subtract the $1.5 Million we will pay Wilson this year and the difference is $16.5 million.
If Lynch is gone in 2016, the net increase in cost will be $8.5 million in 2016.

There's also dead Cap numbers coming off the books next year from Harvin, Unger, and Miller for this year of about $10 Million.
I'm not sure how that figures into the calculations so I didn't include it

The numbers can work - we just have to get past this year, and I didn't even factor in any expected Cap increase $.
Oh, and draft good Offensive Linemen who can already play the position so the learning curve is flatter.

YUP, YUP AND YUP totally agree!!

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:54 pm

Let me know where I said not to pay Wilson fella's.

No where have I said that, not one place EVER in any post. I am ALL for paying him, but IMHO dismantling a championship caliber team, to do so, is the HEIGHT of stupidity. By all means, give Wilson "top money" I agree with finding a way to give in the 20 million dollar a year range, thing is, that is NOT where the disagreement lies, the crux of it is, and remains winning CHAMPIONSHIPS which some erroneously insist starts and ends with a QB and his weapons, which is not close to true no matter what manufactured history is desired.

Flacco, Dalton, Kaepernick, Smith, Newton are NOT elite QBS, and ylet those teams are "in the hunt" every year, how is that possible? Hell the three headed abysmal QBs last season in arizona won 11 flipping games, the Flipping Jets aren't all that far removed from having Sanchise a game out of the SB two years in a row, QBs do matter, they are important, and when you get one you hold on to him, but you do NOT completely pull a 180 on your philosophy, and gut the team to do so.

I am not advocating dumping Wilson, but I am not going to pretend like adding offensive weapons and turning into GB West is a recipe for extended success either. Unlike some it seems I grasp the concept if having a full team as an avenue to Championships. Not Wild Bills wild west show.

by **Anthony** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:07 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Let me know where I said not to pay Wilson fella's.

No where have I said that, not one place EVER in any post. I am ALL for paying him, but IMHO dismantling a championship caliber team, to do so, is the HEIGHT of stupidity. By all means, give Wilson "top money" I agree with finding a way to give in the 20 million dollar a year range, thing is, that is NOT where the disagreement lies, the crux of it is, and remains winning CHAMPIONSHIPS which some erroneously insist starts and ends with a QB and his weapons, which is not close to true no matter what manufactured history is desired.

Flacco, Dalton, Kaepernick, Smith, Newton are NOT elite QBS, and ylet those teams are "in the hunt" every year, how is that possible? Hell the three headed abysmal QBs last season in arizona won 11 flipping games, the Flipping Jets aren't all that far removed from having Sanchise a game out of the SB two years in a row, QBs do matter, they are important, and when you get one you hold on to him, but you do NOT completely pull a 180 on your philosophy, and gut the team to do so.

I am not advocating dumping Wilson, but I am not going to pretend like adding offensive weapons and turning into GB West is a recipe for extended success either. Unlike some it seems I grasp the concept if having a full team as an avenue to Championships. Not Wild Bills wild west show.

are we a SB caliber team without Wilson and with an Avg QB? Answer is no. FY all those QBs you mentioned have gotten big pay days. As to Az yes they won 11 game san were 1 and out and never a real SB contender. FYI how would we be gutting the team, all the major guys are signed but Wilson and Wagner. You really do not grasp much of nothing given you really believe you could let Wilson go and we would still be a SB contender. Only way that happens is if you get another top QB who is mobile as heck, Last I checked there were not any available.

You should read this,

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/bl ... /04/page/3

5.73 wins a year over an avg QB remove them ad we miss the playoffs every year. Using this there are only 8 QBs that we could get and still be a SB contender and reminder this is based on what they did w9ith other teams, and other oline and WR there is no guarantee any of then could do it with our oline. Al of them are signed of big money except Rivers who will be next year however do you really think Rivers could survive behind this oline? answer NO.

by **Distant Relative** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:46 pm

It's like beating your head against a wall Roach.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:22 pm

Distant Relative wrote:It's like beating your head against a wall Roach.

Yep.

by **Anthony** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:05 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:
Yep.

Funny that is how I feel, only difference is I have no problem trying to help you get it.

by **HumanCockroach** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:09 pm

Uh huh.

by **kalibane** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:17 am

HumanCockroach wrote:Let me know where I said not to pay Wilson fella's.

No where have I said that, not one place EVER in any post. I am ALL for paying him, but IMHO dismantling a championship caliber team, to do so, is the HEIGHT of stupidity.

Flacco, Dalton, Kaepernick, Smith, Newton are NOT elite QBS, and ylet those teams are "in the hunt" every year, how is that possible? Hell the three headed abysmal QBs last season in arizona won 11 flipping games, the Flipping Jets aren't all that far removed from having Sanchise a game out of the SB two years in a row, QBs do matter, they are important, and when you get one you hold on to him, but you do NOT completely pull a 180 on your philosophy, and gut the team to do so.

I never said you did HC. But I do think you are underselling how hard it is to find a good QB and the importance of holding onto one. It's a minor miracle that they figured out how to extend Bennett, Sherman, Avril, K.J. Wright, Lynch and still managed to have room to take on Jimmy Graham's contract and resign Wilson let alone enough room to hopefully fit Wilson and Wagner under the cap. I love Baldwin and Kearse but they are completely replaceable. So you're talking about losing Wagner and Okung. Wilson is more important than both of them combined, even if he's not a Top 5 QB.

My overall point is it isn't just Wilson who's a threat to Wagner being resigned. It's all those guys particularly Lynch who when you read between the lines of how his previous contract was structured and how the team drafted was almost certainly a scheduled cap casualty for this offseason.

Furthermore, all those QBs you listed? It's not about being elite. It's about having a certain level of mastery over the game and the ability to take over a game when necessary. Newton is actually a very good QB that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge for whatever reason. He isn't perfect but he's much closer to Russell Wilson than he is to Colin Kaepernick. At worst he's the 12th best QB in the league. Dalton, Smith and Kaepernick are examples of why you don't let go of a good QB when you have them. You can make the playoffs with those guys but you can only go so far, particularly Dalton and Smith.

The 2011 NFC championship game is the perfect example of why Alex Smith will never win a Super Bowl. A good team took away what he did well and he completely fell apart. Dalton is the same way. His limitations get completely exposed in the playoffs every year. Kaepernick is a bit of an outlier because he's such a physical freak and teams were not able to account for him initially. It's even harder to find a someone with his skill set than it is to find a good QB. So it's not like you can say, "oh we can just go out and get a Kaepernick and be just fine". Furthermore, now that teams know what to expect athletically he will never win a Super Bowl either until he learns to go through his progressions. And if he does learn to go through his progressions then he is a Top 10 QB instantly.

As for Flacco, he's a good QB... he can take over games when necessary in a way that Dalton and Smith can't. Even if he doesn't do it every game. We've seen him go head to head, point for point with Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger and come out on top more than a few times. And the highly regarded Ravens front office obviously recognized how hard it is to get a QB who can do that. He's in the Eli Manning tier. They may not ever lead the league in passing but you feel completely comfortable with them in a big game.

I think some of the rumored numbers are a little outrageous personally but if we lose Wilson we just end up wasting the prime years of our other high priced blue chip players searching for another QB who won't be insufficient on the biggest stage.

HawkShack.com

Who is online