Seahawks! SUPER BOWL Champs! Topic

Posted by AlCheez on 12/16/2014 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Would you support the Ravens cutting Flacco this offseason (I have no idea what the additional cap hit would be, but let's pretend they could do it and just clear his salary), signing Ryan Fitzpatrick, and drafting a developmental QB?
No, but then again I think Flacco is a better QB than Wilson.  Flacco can make all the throws, he is big, he is strong, and he is fairly mobile.  He can throw from the pocket, he can throw on the move, and he doesn't have that Farveish gun slinger mentality (that gets guys like Romo in trouble a fair amount).  He isn't a top five guy, but I think he is a top ten QB in the same general area as Big Ben.  I think he is clearly better than Wilson and I don't see anyone coming out of college that would be a better QB than him over the next 3 seasons and thus don't see the point in moving on from him.
12/16/2014 3:00 PM
You could have just said "No, but I'm a Ravens homer who can't view Flacco objectively."  More efficient.

Seriously, forget all your lyricism about Flacco's tools and look what actually happens when he plays relative to the same for Wilson.  I asked you for a stat comparison a while ago and you didn't provide it, and it's not hard to understand why.  
12/16/2014 4:19 PM (edited)
moranis has been playing Madden.

12/16/2014 3:58 PM
Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 12/16/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Again moranis, what's the plan in your scenario which involves not re-signing Russell Wilson?
I would certainly try to re-sign him, I just wouldn't pay him 20 million a year.  Not sure what money he will be looking at or ultimately command.  If I can't re-sign him, I'd look at a short term stop gap while I develop someone in the draft.  A guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brian Hoyer, etc. which are always available and while certainly not long term solutions would be acceptable short term QB's.  I mean Fitzpatrick is a pretty solid statistical QB at 63%, 17 TD's, 8 INT's, 207 yards a game, rating of 95, QBR of 55.  A game manager type QB, which would certainly allow a team with a defense and running game like Seattle has to still be very competitive. 
This is what I was looking for. Let's dump our good (but not great) QB, sign a journeyman QB for a season, then pray our newly drafted QB pans out.

For ****'s sake, Fitzpatrick and Hoyer! LOL! Both have been benched due to suckitude.

Fitzpatrick, and all his interceptions, is not a "game manager".
12/16/2014 4:07 PM
And all rather than risk paying him 5 million dollars more than he's worth, since he's already made it clear that $15 million would be okay.  Because we all know that extra $5 million has a way better chance of hindering the team than downgrading at QB...
12/16/2014 4:28 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 12/16/2014 4:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 12/16/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Again moranis, what's the plan in your scenario which involves not re-signing Russell Wilson?
I would certainly try to re-sign him, I just wouldn't pay him 20 million a year.  Not sure what money he will be looking at or ultimately command.  If I can't re-sign him, I'd look at a short term stop gap while I develop someone in the draft.  A guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brian Hoyer, etc. which are always available and while certainly not long term solutions would be acceptable short term QB's.  I mean Fitzpatrick is a pretty solid statistical QB at 63%, 17 TD's, 8 INT's, 207 yards a game, rating of 95, QBR of 55.  A game manager type QB, which would certainly allow a team with a defense and running game like Seattle has to still be very competitive. 
This is what I was looking for. Let's dump our good (but not great) QB, sign a journeyman QB for a season, then pray our newly drafted QB pans out.

For ****'s sake, Fitzpatrick and Hoyer! LOL! Both have been benched due to suckitude.

Fitzpatrick, and all his interceptions, is not a "game manager".
Fitzpatrick has 8 INT's.  He also makes 3.675 million.  You can sign a lot of players with that extra 16 million + dollars. 


I don't believe Wilson is an elite franchise QB and wouldn't pay him as such.  It really is that simple for me.  I'm sure Seattle will pay him as such because you're right it is a hard thing to do what I'd do, but if keeping Wilson means you lose Avril, Okung, and Lynch (as an example), the team might very well regress enough that it regrets giving Wilson that kind of money.  There are still a couple of years before Wilson is a free agent, so things might change before then one way or the other (maybe he develops into a more complete passer, maybe he gets hurt, maybe he gets exposed, etc.)
12/16/2014 5:06 PM (edited)
I don't know why I'm continuing. I'm not going to further debate the merits of Ryan Fitzpatrick. He sucks, there's a reason he's been available the last few offseasons, and despite not being as ****** as the past few seasons, he still got benched. He didn't just appear this season, he's an inception prone QB, if you want "Game Manager" he's one of last people you want.

You're in the MikeT Zone where you say something stupid and defend it forever, or try and stray for the subject to get away from your initial dumb commentary.

If you think getting rid of a pretty good QB in order to save some cash, then replacing pretty good QB with some journeyman, and eventually praying that your newly drafted QB will be better than the QB you dumped is a good strategy, then good for you, But that strategy is absurd.
12/16/2014 5:28 PM
Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 12/16/2014 4:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 12/16/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Again moranis, what's the plan in your scenario which involves not re-signing Russell Wilson?
I would certainly try to re-sign him, I just wouldn't pay him 20 million a year.  Not sure what money he will be looking at or ultimately command.  If I can't re-sign him, I'd look at a short term stop gap while I develop someone in the draft.  A guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brian Hoyer, etc. which are always available and while certainly not long term solutions would be acceptable short term QB's.  I mean Fitzpatrick is a pretty solid statistical QB at 63%, 17 TD's, 8 INT's, 207 yards a game, rating of 95, QBR of 55.  A game manager type QB, which would certainly allow a team with a defense and running game like Seattle has to still be very competitive. 
This is what I was looking for. Let's dump our good (but not great) QB, sign a journeyman QB for a season, then pray our newly drafted QB pans out.

For ****'s sake, Fitzpatrick and Hoyer! LOL! Both have been benched due to suckitude.

Fitzpatrick, and all his interceptions, is not a "game manager".
Fitzpatrick has 8 INT's.  He also makes 3.675 million.  You can sign a lot of players with that extra 16 million + dollars. 


I don't believe Wilson is an elite franchise QB and wouldn't pay him as such.  It really is that simple for me.  I'm sure Seattle will pay him as such because you're right it is a hard thing to do what I'd do, but if keeping Wilson means you lose Avril, Okung, and Lynch (as an example), the team might very well regress enough that it regrets giving Wilson that kind of money.  There are still a couple of years before Wilson is a free agent, so things might change before then one way or the other (maybe he develops into a more complete passer, maybe he gets hurt, maybe he gets exposed, etc.)
But you're okay with paying Wilson 15 million dollars.  Paying Wilson 15 million dollars vs. paying him 20 isn't going to cost you 3 players.  Paying him 20 vs. paying Ryan Fitzpatrick 4 million might cost them 3 players, but it also gives them Ryan Fitzpatrick.  And if we're going to use total outlier seasons as reasonable predictions of future success (Fitzpatrick has a 2/1 TD INT ratio this year after being 1.2/1 for his entire pretty long career), that completely shapes the discussion.  I bet Matt Cassel would be even cheaper that Fitzpatrick.  He once threw 27 TDs against only 7 picks in a season.

The thing that makes this the most laughable is that you defend the Flacco contract. But you're right, Flacco is better than Wilson at everything except playing the actual game of football.

12/16/2014 5:43 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/15/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):
You almost have to, IMO.   The way the game is set up now, you have to have a QB who's in the top third of the NFL.    Guys like Smith and Wilson have to concentrate on playing mistake free, thus letting the D win, while the more talented guys, Rodgers and Brady-types, can attempt to win a shootout.   Teams that have "QB battles" in training camp aren't winning a lot of games in the fall/winter.
Going back to this.

I've called Wilson an "over-rated game manager" many times, probably in this thread, but, if you look at the revolving door QB teams, they're not competing.   If you've got a guy you think you can win with, that you have won with, you don't quibble over a few million and roll the dice on Hoyer, Fitzpatrick, Schaub, etc, etc for a few years while you cross your fingers and hope your draft pick works out. 
12/16/2014 7:06 PM
Posted by AlCheez on 12/16/2014 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 5:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 12/16/2014 4:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 12/16/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):
Again moranis, what's the plan in your scenario which involves not re-signing Russell Wilson?
I would certainly try to re-sign him, I just wouldn't pay him 20 million a year.  Not sure what money he will be looking at or ultimately command.  If I can't re-sign him, I'd look at a short term stop gap while I develop someone in the draft.  A guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brian Hoyer, etc. which are always available and while certainly not long term solutions would be acceptable short term QB's.  I mean Fitzpatrick is a pretty solid statistical QB at 63%, 17 TD's, 8 INT's, 207 yards a game, rating of 95, QBR of 55.  A game manager type QB, which would certainly allow a team with a defense and running game like Seattle has to still be very competitive. 
This is what I was looking for. Let's dump our good (but not great) QB, sign a journeyman QB for a season, then pray our newly drafted QB pans out.

For ****'s sake, Fitzpatrick and Hoyer! LOL! Both have been benched due to suckitude.

Fitzpatrick, and all his interceptions, is not a "game manager".
Fitzpatrick has 8 INT's.  He also makes 3.675 million.  You can sign a lot of players with that extra 16 million + dollars. 


I don't believe Wilson is an elite franchise QB and wouldn't pay him as such.  It really is that simple for me.  I'm sure Seattle will pay him as such because you're right it is a hard thing to do what I'd do, but if keeping Wilson means you lose Avril, Okung, and Lynch (as an example), the team might very well regress enough that it regrets giving Wilson that kind of money.  There are still a couple of years before Wilson is a free agent, so things might change before then one way or the other (maybe he develops into a more complete passer, maybe he gets hurt, maybe he gets exposed, etc.)
But you're okay with paying Wilson 15 million dollars.  Paying Wilson 15 million dollars vs. paying him 20 isn't going to cost you 3 players.  Paying him 20 vs. paying Ryan Fitzpatrick 4 million might cost them 3 players, but it also gives them Ryan Fitzpatrick.  And if we're going to use total outlier seasons as reasonable predictions of future success (Fitzpatrick has a 2/1 TD INT ratio this year after being 1.2/1 for his entire pretty long career), that completely shapes the discussion.  I bet Matt Cassel would be even cheaper that Fitzpatrick.  He once threw 27 TDs against only 7 picks in a season.

The thing that makes this the most laughable is that you defend the Flacco contract. But you're right, Flacco is better than Wilson at everything except playing the actual game of football.

Total QBR, Flacco is 5th in the league.  Wilson is 13th.  If you look at just the passing component, Flacco is 10th and Wilson is 18th.  Wilson has by far the best rushing component of course that is counteracted a bit by him being 24th in the sack component. 

But I guess you know more than the people paid to analyze this stuff for a living.
12/17/2014 8:11 AM
Well, I honestly don't think anyone actually knows what QBR means because it's something that ESPN made up and pushes and that's about it.  I know what's supposed to mean.  But it places Nick Foles above Russell Wilson for this season, and even as an Eagles fan, that alone is enough to make me look at it sideways.

That being said, I'll play your game.  Flacco was sub-50 (20th and 22nd in the league) the last 2 years and has never been over 60 before this year.  He's never been in the top 10 prior to this year.  Remember what I said about outliers?  Wilson's QBR this year is better than any year Flacco had ever put up prior to this year.

So, maybe Flacco just took a big leap forward in his 7th season.  Or maybe this year is a fluke for any number of reasons.  It really doesn't matter.  If Wilson at 20 million a year is a really bad idea, so is/was Flacco.
12/17/2014 8:39 AM
Hmm... which of these rates out as a better QB:






Maybe we should look at their rushing stats to see if that changes things....

12/17/2014 9:38 AM
This is a laughable comparison.
12/17/2014 9:49 AM
The thing of this discussion is, moranis is in a convenient position.  There's a good chance it's going to look like he was right.  Whether they pay him only what moranis thinks he's worth, or 20 million, it's going to really impact their roster.  They've had a huge advantage in getting quality production from the QB position at a bargain basement price the last 3 years.  To some extent, they've benefited with having young, cheap talent all over the roster that they are just now having to pay to keep. At some point, that ends at the QB you stick with Wilson, or really any QB as a long-term solution.  The actual amount is almost inconsequential unless they go completely bonkers.

Basically, the fundamental question is whether they should commit to Wilson and make the corresponding adjustments to how they build the roster, or attempt to continue getting good QB play on the cheap.  Once you've settled on the first option, quibbling over a few million dollars is a mistake, IMO.  And the second option is playing russian roulette with a team that's ready to win now.  Which might sound like a novel idea if it's not your team.
12/17/2014 2:53 PM
Of course he's going to look "right" in the long run.   Lynch is getting older.   The DB are getting paid.    Seattle is arguably one of the top 5 teams in the NFL.   No one is saying Wilson is a top 5 QB.    Their run will not last forever.   And, when it's over, it will be easy to say "Look at all the money they're paying Wilson.   He's not even a top 5 QB."
12/17/2014 3:02 PM
◂ Prev 1...40|41|42|43|44...51 Next ▸
Seahawks! SUPER BOWL Champs! Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.