But the question remains, is Wilson worth 20 million a year?  If you sign him to that and he isn't, you destroy your team.  Look at Chicago and San Francisco.  Overpaid for their good QB and the talent has disappeared to the point that the teams have gotten significantly worse with the increase cost from the QB position.  Even Baltimore took a bit of step back after increasing Flacco's salary.   If you overpay, especially at QB, it significantly hurts your team going forward.  Even if you don't overpay, having that much salary locked into one player hurts a team.  Look at the Colts all those years with Manning.  They had virtually no depth and had below average starters at a number of positions because of the shear cost of having Manning. 

If Seattle can sign Wilson at 15 million or less, it is a no brainer, but if they have to start going higher than that, especially if you are in the 20 million range, it isn't so clear cut. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2014 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Golden Tate is a good example in his one season.    Less TD/yard per catch with Stafford as opposed to Wilson.  As AC said, Calvin Johnson and airing it out is the difference between what they're accomplishing.   Well, that and wins.

Yet Tate is averaging over 30 yards more per game, is getting more targets, more receptions and is doing so as a clear #2 receiver as opposed to a #1.  I'm not sure that is a real good example.

Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2014 11:17:00 AM (view original):
Golden Tate is a good example in his one season.    Less TD/yard per catch with Stafford as opposed to Wilson.  As AC said, Calvin Johnson and airing it out is the difference between what they're accomplishing.   Well, that and wins.

Yet Tate is averaging over 30 yards more per game, is getting more targets, more receptions and is doing so as a clear #2 receiver as opposed to a #1.  I'm not sure that is a real good example.

You do realize that Seattle has the fewest pass attempts in the NFL(397), right?    Detroit has 524.    BTW, Seattle has a better completion percentage. 

Tate is an excellent example.

You aren't exactly helping your case.  Seattle relies on their defense and running game, maybe just maybe because Wilson isn't an adept passer.

I think I am.    Seattle is winning more than Detroit and Wilson is completing a higher percentage of passes.   He is 18/6 TD/INT to Stafford's 19/10 with a higher yards per attempt.    Teams don't throw just because they can. 

Again moranis, what's the plan in your scenario which involves not re-signing Russell Wilson?

No, he thinks they should re-sign him.   But at 15m. 

Not sure how Wilson feels about that. 

Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
But the question remains, is Wilson worth 20 million a year?  If you sign him to that and he isn't, you destroy your team.  Look at Chicago and San Francisco.  Overpaid for their good QB and the talent has disappeared to the point that the teams have gotten significantly worse with the increase cost from the QB position.  Even Baltimore took a bit of step back after increasing Flacco's salary.   If you overpay, especially at QB, it significantly hurts your team going forward.  Even if you don't overpay, having that much salary locked into one player hurts a team.  Look at the Colts all those years with Manning.  They had virtually no depth and had below average starters at a number of positions because of the shear cost of having Manning. 

If Seattle can sign Wilson at 15 million or less, it is a no brainer, but if they have to start going higher than that, especially if you are in the 20 million range, it isn't so clear cut. 

I think pinning the step back in San Francisco and whatever the hell is going on in Chicago on the money they just  their QBs is disingenuous at best.  And frankly, let's leave Cutler out of this - the Bears didn't overpay their good quarterback, they overpaid Jay Cutler.  And they weren't good before they paid him anyhow.  Baltimore is about what it's been for the last 4-5 years save that 2013 postseason run, etc.

Kaepernick is a better example, but that just happened this year.  Who did they shed to fit him in?  My remembrance is that they largely brought back the same group they had last year.  They've had a ton of injuries and other issues that have kept players out of the lineup, there's apparently a good deal of internal drama involving the coach, etc.

The last line there makes the whole thing LOL worthy.  15 million is a no brainer, but 20 million destroys the team?  That's 5 million dollars a year difference, less than 4% of this years cap.  Obviously you never want to overpay if you can avoid it, but if you think he's worth 15, 20 million isn't a franchise killer.

Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 1:08:00 PM (view original):
You aren't exactly helping your case.  Seattle relies on their defense and running game, maybe just maybe because Wilson isn't an adept passer.

Maybe.  So what does that make Stafford, since by all statistical evidence, Wilson's a better passer than him?

And speaking of ways to destroy a team: replace a good quarterback with a bad one.  I'm willing to bet that's an easier/quicker way to do that than spending an extra 5 million dollars on a good.

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. 

Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brian Hoyer...

Well, that ought to close the thread.

Posted by AlCheez on 12/16/2014 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brian Hoyer...

Well, that ought to close the thread.

as a one year stop gap while you develop your player in the draft.  good job on the reading comprehension.

And for the record both of those guys took over terrible teams and have at least .500 win percentages.  You act like I said Geno Smith.

Posted by moranis on 12/16/2014 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 12/16/2014 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brian Hoyer...

Well, that ought to close the thread.

as a one year stop gap while you develop your player in the draft.  good job on the reading comprehension.

And for the record both of those guys took over terrible teams and have at least .500 win percentages.  You act like I said Geno Smith.

I read the whole thing and understood you perfectly.  My point is you just proposed putting those guys in charge of a team that's Super Bowl ready right now.  While you develop a guy who may or may not be any good.  Rather than risk giving Russell Wilson 5 million a year more than he's worth.

Have you seen Hoyer play recently? And Houston, IMO, and in the opinion of plenty of experts coming into the season, wasn't as bad as they looked last season.  And still, here are their wins:  Tennessee (X2), Jacksonville, Washington, Oakland, Buffalo, Cleveland.  *golf clap*

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?