Jump to content

SEAHAWKS WON'T GIVE RUSSELL WILSON $20 MILLION A YEAR -


jeaniec

Recommended Posts

Apparently youre not interested in a respecful conversation that is twice youve lashed out at me. Read my posts, was just trying to have a discussion on a discussion board. I am genuinely interested what you consider "overpaying" but if youre too upset to discuss it, thats cool, too.

 

Some things are very obvious. If it takes time to figure out the obvious there is not much left to say. But I will give it a try.

 

Wallace was a horrible FA signing. He was way overpaid for what he was worth. Dolphins screwed up on that one.

 

Decker was a very good signing.

 

Cro was a stupid signing at the price we paid. It felt like the JETS competed against themselves to overpay Cro. Saying we are paying him way over his worth for ONLY a year is not a very bright way to look at it. Championship teams are not usually made by overpaying an aging CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yes well those teams that are consiatently successful all have one thing in common--they have drafted well, specifically at the QB position. Having a franchise QB on a rookie wage scale really helps the cause, and then when it is deal time for the QB, you need to keep hitting on supporting players in the draft to keep the train rolling as Pittsburgh has done with their revolving door of stud WRs.

For the teams without a franchise QB and who havent drafted as well? Options are to suck until you get a QB or try to be competitive via FA--which requires you to, by definition, "overplay" for talent since you must bid higher than anyone else in the marketplace.

This is why you overpay for a QB. There is much less of a linear wage scale for QBs. You're either a starter or you're a backup in free agency and get paid accordingly. There is no gradual wage scale really. Sometimes a team gets lucky and they get a starter for backup money, either due to the backup becoming the starter or by drafting someone instantly (or near-instantly) good. But there isn't this even distribution for QBs like there are for other positions, where worse starters get $10M and great starters get $20M. ALL starters get $16M-plus with 2.5 years (of that average salary) guaranteed.

The reasons are two-fold. One, it's harder to find a QB. The job is so much more important that the odds are far more stacked against a team trying to gameplan around their bad QB than one trying to gameplan around a bad LB or TE or a meh WR. Two, the QB is on the field all the time. At QB and OL, the player's out there every down. All other positions you can sub a player in & out if he's only half-ready. He can be eased into the position without disrupting the harmony on that side of the ball.

So not only do you have to overcome the difficulty in finding a keeper at QB (there are so few good enough to begin with, and most years one isn't available anyway even if your scouting and training is perfect); but he also has to be good IMMEDIATELY or the whole team takes a step back as also-rans or worse for said draftee's 1-3 years, or rely on just stupid luck of others' failures. Lose your awesome CB to free agency? Sure it'll hurt, but your lesser guys can be subbed in & out depending on a situation (and frankly, exhaustion as well). A contender can ease a new guy in slowly without disrupting the whole team.

At QB? The odds of finding a QB so good so quickly are so minimal, and one often needs to be picking in the right spot during the right draft to even have a shot at one of them. Every once in a while there's a Wilson or a Roethlisberger, where the 3rd or 4th (or lower) QB taken is just instantly good enough to win with (and even then help is needed). More commonly, though, even drafting supposed sure things (both Manning brothers, Luck, Elway, etc.) will take a bare minimum of a season to overcome his rookieness spoiling that season (or more). To say nothing of the potential investment, and betting the farm, in someone who doesn't improve as hoped or thought (like our last two).

Seattle's going to pay Wilson, and they're going to pay him plenty. They know the above all too well. They're merely playing hardball while they have the leverage to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cro was a stupid signing at the price we paid. It felt like the JETS competed against themselves to overpay Cro. Saying we are paying him way over his worth for ONLY a year is not a very bright way to look at it. Championship teams are not usually made by overpaying an aging CB.

 

What's your definition of "aging"?  The Patriots signed Revis (29) for big coin and Brandon Browner (30) last offseason to decent coin.  Cro just turned 31 last month.

 

True, it doesn't make much sense to invest heavily in a position like CB when you don't have a QB in place, but we were also coming off a season where we had perhaps the NFL's worst secondary, and also NEEDED to spend.  Our new HC is a secondary-minded guy and wanted to bring in some of "his types".  Cro was one of them, having played well with him in Arizona.  I'll trust his judgment on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your definition of "aging"?  The Patriots signed Revis (29) for big coin and Brandon Browner (30) last offseason to decent coin.  Cro just turned 31 last month.

 

True, it doesn't make much sense to invest heavily in a position like CB when you don't have a QB in place, but we were also coming off a season where we had perhaps the NFL's worst secondary, and also NEEDED to spend.  Our new HC is a secondary-minded guy and wanted to bring in some of "his types".  Cro was one of them, having played well with him in Arizona.  I'll trust his judgment on this one.

 

I can live with him fighting the Cro contract.  I am not hugely in favor of it.  The thing I don't understand is why he says "See this is why"  as if Seattle playing hardball with Wilson has any relationship.  Seattle is a well run organization, it remains to be seen whether the Jets are, but this proves nothing.  I was trying to figure out what he meant, but I never will.  Seattle is literally doing exactly what the Jets are doing with Wilkerson.  Seattle is not averse to spending.  They certainly "overpaid" Percy Harvin, of course he was their leading rusher in the super bowl, so maybe not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can live with him fighting the Cro contract.  I am not hugely in favor of it.  The thing I don't understand is why he says "See this is why"  as if Seattle playing hardball with Wilson has any relationship.  Seattle is a well run organization, it remains to be seen whether the Jets are, but this proves nothing.  I was trying to figure out what he meant, but I never will.  Seattle is literally doing exactly what the Jets are doing with Wilkerson.  Seattle is not averse to spending.  They certainly "overpaid" Percy Harvin, of course he was their leading rusher in the super bowl, so maybe not. 

 

Yep.  And the end result of all this maneuvering by the Seahawks will end up the same no matter what they do:  They'll be paying Wilson top 3 QB money.  Period.

 

It's funny how 1 championship makes everyone think the Seahawks are the only franchise who "does things the right way" now.  Just a few years ago they were starting Tarvaris Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst at QB, and had Matt Flynn pencilled in as their 2012 starter before Wilson emerged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it so hard to understand that for some teams Wilson might be worth 20 mil. per year, for others he's not? Is it really that complicated? Should we pay Wilkerson 15 mil. per year? Probably not. Are there other teams that would give their left arm to get him and pay him even more money? Absolutely. I'm sure some team would be willing to give up a 1st round pick and pay him 15+ mil. per year. We're probably not willing to even pay him 15 mil. per year, without even having to give up a 1st round pick.The Patriots don't need Odell Beckham, they shouldn't pay any receiver 15 mil. per year. The Giants need him, they have to pay him. Why is that so complicated to some folks here? Seems simple enough. Why is any player worth the same amount for every team? What does what the Ravens pay Flacco, the 49ers pay Kaepernick, the Dolphins pay Tannehill, have to do with the Seahawks paying Wilson? Nothing. They'll decide for themselves whether he's worth it or not. It's a completely different situation. He might get that money for some other team, nobody is denying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why you overpay for a QB. There is much less of a linear wage scale for QBs. You're either a starter or you're a backup in free agency and get paid accordingly. There is no gradual wage scale really. Sometimes a team gets lucky and they get a starter for backup money, either due to the backup becoming the starter or by drafting someone instantly (or near-instantly) good. But there isn't this even distribution for QBs like there are for other positions, where worse starters get $10M and great starters get $20M. ALL starters get $16M-plus with 2.5 years (of that average salary) guaranteed.

The reasons are two-fold. One, it's harder to find a QB. The job is so much more important that the odds are far more stacked against a team trying to gameplan around their bad QB than one trying to gameplan around a bad LB or TE or a meh WR. Two, the QB is on the field all the time. At QB and OL, the player's out there every down. All other positions you can sub a player in & out if he's only half-ready. He can be eased into the position without disrupting the harmony on that side of the ball.

So not only do you have to overcome the difficulty in finding a keeper at QB (there are so few good enough to begin with, and most years one isn't available anyway even if your scouting and training is perfect); but he also has to be good IMMEDIATELY or the whole team takes a step back as also-rans or worse for said draftee's 1-3 years, or rely on just stupid luck of others' failures. Lose your awesome CB to free agency? Sure it'll hurt, but your lesser guys can be subbed in & out depending on a situation (and frankly, exhaustion as well). A contender can ease a new guy in slowly without disrupting the whole team.

At QB? The odds of finding a QB so good so quickly are so minimal, and one often needs to be picking in the right spot during the right draft to even have a shot at one of them. Every once in a while there's a Wilson or a Roethlisberger, where the 3rd or 4th (or lower) QB taken is just instantly good enough to win with (and even then help is needed). More commonly, though, even drafting supposed sure things (both Manning brothers, Luck, Elway, etc.) will take a bare minimum of a season to overcome his rookieness spoiling that season (or more). To say nothing of the potential investment, and betting the farm, in someone who doesn't improve as hoped or thought (like our last two).

Seattle's going to pay Wilson, and they're going to pay him plenty. They know the above all too well. They're merely playing hardball while they have the leverage to do so.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37v-6Zs5T10

 

Some things are very obvious. If it takes time to figure out the obvious there is not much left to say. But I will give it a try.

 

Wallace was a horrible FA signing. He was way overpaid for what he was worth. Dolphins screwed up on that one.

 

Decker was a very good signing.

 

Cro was a stupid signing at the price we paid. It felt like the JETS competed against themselves to overpay Cro. Saying we are paying him way over his worth for ONLY a year is not a very bright way to look at it. Championship teams are not usually made by overpaying an aging CB.

 

Regarding Wallace, yes he is one of the biggest free agency "busts" of the last few years. That's low hanging fruit. Of course it is possible to whiff in FA, which I suppose could be short-handed as "overpaying," but I still don't fully understand how one defines overpaying in general terms. It seems you are using the wet-finger-in-the-wind test to determine if you view a signing as "overpaying." And that is totally fine to do. But my point is that is not how NFL teams decide what contracts to offer. It is quite fascinating how much goes into it with comparables and statistics I had never even thought to consider before reading Jason's work at nyjetscap.com (He is now at overthecap.com). Just one example is percentage of a team's offense attributable to the player. That tells the story a lot more than raw catch and yardage totals imho as it intrinsically controls for quality of QB, difficulty of schedule, etc. I have not done an analysis on Mike Wallace's "value" at the time he was a free agent so I'm not in a position to opine whether it was "overpaying" or a dumb deal with the information that was available at the time.

 

I don't think the Cro signing was stupid. The only way the Jets are winning this year (with Smith or Fitz) and next year (likely a first-time starter, either Petty or a rookie) is to keep opposing offenses under 20 points a game. We have to spend the money under salary cap rules and Cro was the best available, or nearly so. If we got a bargain option at CB, we'd have to spend the money elsewhere and CB was our biggest hole last year (other than QB, obviously) so I'm fine with spending the money there. The argument "why waste money until you have a QB" has some appeal, but Todd Bowles and Mac want to win. As many games as possible. Now. Absent a decent QB, they are putting the Jets in the best position to win with what they have.

 

What's your definition of "aging"?  The Patriots signed Revis (29) for big coin and Brandon Browner (30) last offseason to decent coin.  Cro just turned 31 last month.

 

True, it doesn't make much sense to invest heavily in a position like CB when you don't have a QB in place, but we were also coming off a season where we had perhaps the NFL's worst secondary, and also NEEDED to spend.  Our new HC is a secondary-minded guy and wanted to bring in some of "his types".  Cro was one of them, having played well with him in Arizona.  I'll trust his judgment on this one.

 

Yes, this isn't a situation of paying too much on Ebay for something. Maybe Woody cares if there is a surplus one year that goes into his pocket, but I sure don't. I want it all spent. Unspent money has no value to the team, like it would to you if you didn't buy that overpriced Beanie Baby on Ebay. Also, under salary cap rules much of this money has to be spent anyway. I'd rather "overpay" Cro by say 2MM a year than have 8MM left over this year into Woody's pocket. Real world economics does not always inform whether a signing is "good" or "bad."

 

Not to mention, and this is a whole other discussion, but it is very, very hard to "overpay" on short term deals. "Overpaying" on a short term deal does not create cap hell, which is what really gets teams into trouble. I'd rather pay a premium on a per year basis for a short term deal than a lower amount per year on a long term deal with a lot of dead money if the guy declines/underperforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention, and this is a whole other discussion, but it is very, very hard to "overpay" on short term deals. "Overpaying" on a short term deal does not create cap hell, which is what really gets teams into trouble. I'd rather pay a premium on a per year basis for a short term deal than a lower amount per year on a long term deal with a lot of dead money if the guy declines/underperforms.

 

Yep.  Suh is a good example of a cap-crippling deal if it doesn't work out.  Cro is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  Suh is a good example of a cap-crippling deal if it doesn't work out.  Cro is not.

 

Even Revi$, the greatest businessman in the NFL accepts this reality. To get that magic $16M he has to sacrifice long-term security and continually "bet on himself." During his contract standoff with the Jets (the last one before he was traded) he could've easily demanded, and would've received, an 8 year deal for $12M per and half guaranteed. But he wanted to maximize his earnings by getting to FA time and time again and was willing to accept the risk of injury/decline/etc. In hindsight it worked out for him, but you have to take the risk to get the ultimate reward sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  And the end result of all this maneuvering by the Seahawks will end up the same no matter what they do:  They'll be paying Wilson top 3 QB money.  Period.

 

It's funny how 1 championship makes everyone think the Seahawks are the only franchise who "does things the right way" now.  Just a few years ago they were starting Tarvaris Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst at QB, and had Matt Flynn pencilled in as their 2012 starter before Wilson emerged.

 

Amazing what a good QB can do for a team. Without Wilson, the Seahawks are the 2009-2010 Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your definition of "aging"?  The Patriots signed Revis (29) for big coin and Brandon Browner (30) last offseason to decent coin.  Cro just turned 31 last month.

 

True, it doesn't make much sense to invest heavily in a position like CB when you don't have a QB in place, but we were also coming off a season where we had perhaps the NFL's worst secondary, and also NEEDED to spend.  Our new HC is a secondary-minded guy and wanted to bring in some of "his types".  Cro was one of them, having played well with him in Arizona.  I'll trust his judgment on this one.

 

In a way you partially answered your own question. In the real world there is not much difference between 29 and 31. But in the NFL world it could mean a HUGE difference.

 

 

Regarding Wallace, yes he is one of the biggest free agency "busts" of the last few years. That's low hanging fruit. Of course it is possible to whiff in FA, which I suppose could be short-handed as "overpaying," but I still don't fully understand how one defines overpaying in general terms. It seems you are using the wet-finger-in-the-wind test to determine if you view a signing as "overpaying."

 

I am not against spending. But every player has an intrinsic value based on the position he plays, the talent,  actual play on the field and the various risk factors like age and injury which enable a team to decide the fair value for a players services. Not saying that you may always get a player at fair value BUT the team's goal has to be to acquire talent as close you can to the player's  fair value. And if you are successful in that goal more often than not in a level playing field like the NFL you end up with a team that is more loaded with talent as compared to it's counterparts and has a higher probability of success compared to it's counterparts.

 

I think Decker and Cro are making money in the same ball park. But no one is complaining about Decker's salary. Cro on the other hand is being vastly overpaid.

 

Also if i have not mentioned it already let me do so, I have no problem with WIlson getting paid 20 mill per year. Seahawks would be foolish to let him walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll trust his judgment on this one.

 

I have heard that argument so many times.

 

When Sanchez got a new contract, when Holmes got a new contract, when Plaxico was signed, when we got Derrick Mason....I could go on.......but point being at some point of time that argument stops making ZERO sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard that argument so many times.

 

When Sanchez got a new contract, when Holmes got a new contract, when Plaxico was signed, when we got Derrick Mason....I could go on.......but point being at some point of time that argument stops making ZERO sense.

 

In those cases the argument you're making is that people were trusting Tannenbaum's judgment.  And pretty much everyone here questioned the Sanchez and Holmes deals immediately.  I loved when we got Holmes for a 5th, but wasn't interested in handing him a giant contract.  And pretty much everyone felt it was stupid not to let Sanchez simply play out his contract.

 

In this case, I'm saying I'll trust Todd Bowles' judgment, because he coached Cro last year and thus saw him firsthand.  The argument makes perfect sense.  If he felt Cro was not worth bringing here and/or too old to contribute, I don't imagine he would have been on board with making Cro the # 2 corner in his secondary makeover.

 

None of the guys you listed were coached by Rex Ryan at any time before they arrived here.  And they were all offensive players to boot, so that was something Rex had no ability to judge.  I think the only offensive player Rex recommended who actually worked out at all was LaDainian Tomlinson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Cro signing was stupid. The only way the Jets are winning this year (with Smith or Fitz) and next year (likely a first-time starter, either Petty or a rookie) is to keep opposing offenses under 20 points a game. We have to spend the money under salary cap rules and Cro was the best available, or nearly so. If we got a bargain option at CB, we'd have to spend the money elsewhere and CB was our biggest hole last year (other than QB, obviously) so I'm fine with spending the money there.

 

A bad deal is a bad deal is always a bad deal.

 

Cro was overpaid. There is no justification for overpaying, not in this league.

 

Teams that have consistent success have a consistent approach towards getting the best value. It's not the ONLY factor in a teams success BUT it is a VERY HUGE factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad I could provide levity. 

 

Are people still saying the Jets shouldn't pay Wilson $20m if they got the chance, because "making believe that there is a too much you can pay for a legit top QB"?

 

Or are you guys just bickering about other stuff now. I don't have the incentive to read any of it at this point. 

Is Russell Wilson a legit top QB?  That is the question.  Mark Sanchez was talked up as being a long term great young Qb after being on a Seattle like team that had an iron clad D and a great running game.  Wilson is obviously better than Sanchez but there is a price point because you have to decide which player or players you dump to fit that guy under the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Russell Wilson a legit top QB?  That is the question.  Mark Sanchez was talked up as being a long term great young Qb after being on a Seattle like team that had an iron clad D and a great running game.  Wilson is obviously better than Sanchez but there is a price point because you have to decide which player or players you dump to fit that guy under the cap.

 

Russell Wilson is good enough for any NFL team to make a 100 million dollar mistake on him for 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In those cases the argument you're making is that people were trusting Tannenbaum's judgment. And pretty much everyone here questioned the Sanchez and Holmes deals immediately. I loved when we got Holmes for a 5th, but wasn't interested in handing him a giant contract. And pretty much everyone felt it was stupid not to let Sanchez simply play out his contract.

 

Pretty much everyone still leaves out quite a few people. But i see you avoided mentioning Plaxico Burress and Mason.

 

I am not saying Cro might not end up being productive on the field. When you get a guy on the team you expect him to be productive. But that does mean the contract he was given was not the mother of all overpayments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bad deal is a bad deal is always a bad deal.

 

Cro was overpaid. There is no justification for overpaying, not in this league.

 

Teams that have consistent success have a consistent approach towards getting the best value. It's not the ONLY factor in a teams success BUT it is a VERY HUGE factor.

 

Ok, well I can see this is getting quite circular. It is difficult to argue contract values, timeframes, dead money, and comps to someone who uses the wet finger test.  Not attacking you, that is the test I use to support my conclusion that Geno stinks and will never be any good. But it also makes it basically impossible to discuss it with me because I believe it so deeply and no data can trump the eye test for me in forming my conclusion. Congratulations on your unshakeable belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Russell Wilson a legit top QB?  That is the question.  Mark Sanchez was talked up as being a long term great young Qb after being on a Seattle like team that had an iron clad D and a great running game.  Wilson is obviously better than Sanchez but there is a price point because you have to decide which player or players you dump to fit that guy under the cap.

 

 

No offense Beerf, but have you ever watched Sanchez play vs. Wilson? If so, then you wouldn't be making this comparison.

 

Sanchez was an idiot QB with a limited skillset and terrible intangibles who played for a defense/run-first team that was able to win games in spite of Sanchez. Wilson is a good QB, with a better skillset and much better intangibles who took a defense/run-first team and made it better. 

 

A lot better.

 

I hate this logic "in order to fit him under the cap, you have to decide who you are going to dump". That's always the case and never the case at the same time. Jet fans that balk at a legit QB because of "fear of overpaying" are ridiculous. Russell Wilson will have accomplished more on his rookie deal than this franchise in over 25 years. He's only going to get better, because the prime age for QBs is not their first couple of years in the league. If he were 41 years old, I could understand "don't overpay". Or if he'd never accomplished anything or looked like a sh*t player, I could understand "don't overpay". 

 

But to argue a hypothetical scenario where he becomes available in a couple years with "don't overpay" because we won't be able to fit imaginary players under a salary cap that GOES UP EVERY YEAR is unequivocally stupid.

 

The argument that in order to have Wilson at this price, we have to give up so-and-so is a false conclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much everyone still leaves out quite a few people. But i see you avoided mentioning Plaxico Burress and Mason.

 

I am not saying Cro might not end up being productive on the field. When you get a guy on the team you expect him to be productive. But that does mean the contract he was given was not the mother of all overpayments.

 

Burress and Mason were only consequential in that they made for a horrid cocktail in the huddle.  Too many sh*tty personalities in the huddle took it's toll.  Ultimately they didn't cost us anything financially, since they were only there 1 year.  In Mason's case, not even a full season.

 

Cro's deal isn't going to hurt us beyond the 2016 season, so it's not really an overpay.  We had to use the cap space now, so for a short-term move, there are worse ways to spend the money.  We can get out of that deal very easily either of the next 2 offseasons if we need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burress and Mason were only consequential in that they made for a horrid cocktail in the huddle.  Too many sh*tty personalities in the huddle took it's toll.  Ultimately they didn't cost us anything financially, since they were only there 1 year.  In Mason's case, not even a full season.

 

Cro's deal isn't going to hurt us beyond the 2016 season, so it's not really an overpay.  We had to use the cap space now, so for a short-term move, there are worse ways to spend the money.  We can get out of that deal very easily either of the next 2 offseasons if we need to.

 

 

This.

 

Not sure I understand the "outrage" over the Cro deal. Especially after the report that he took less to come here. I don't know how anyone can consider the makeup of the contract, the fact that he was offered more, and deduce: we overpaid. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This.

 

Not sure I understand the "outrage" over the Cro deal. Especially after the report that he took less to come here. I don't know how anyone can consider the makeup of the contract, the fact that he was offered more, and deduce: we overpaid.

 

Clearly because JN Message Board regulars have a more firm grasp of NFL player market values than front offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense Beerf, but have you ever watched Sanchez play vs. Wilson? If so, then you wouldn't be making this comparison.

 

Sanchez was an idiot QB with a limited skillset and terrible intangibles who played for a defense/run-first team that was able to win games in spite of Sanchez. Wilson is a good QB, with a better skillset and much better intangibles who took a defense/run-first team and made it better. 

 

A lot better.

 

I hate this logic "in order to fit him under the cap, you have to decide who you are going to dump". That's always the case and never the case at the same time. Jet fans that balk at a legit QB because of "fear of overpaying" are ridiculous. Russell Wilson will have accomplished more on his rookie deal than this franchise in over 25 years. He's only going to get better, because the prime age for QBs is not their first couple of years in the league. If he were 41 years old, I could understand "don't overpay". Or if he'd never accomplished anything or looked like a sh*t player, I could understand "don't overpay". 

 

But to argue a hypothetical scenario where he becomes available in a couple years with "don't overpay" because we won't be able to fit imaginary players under a salary cap that GOES UP EVERY YEAR is unequivocally stupid.

 

The argument that in order to have Wilson at this price, we have to give up so-and-so is a false conclusion.

I thought Sanchez sucked almost from day one so there is no issue there.  After watching wilson the last few years how many games has he outright won for the hawks?  I'd love to see how far he can carry a team like the jets had last year or the year before.  Leaky pass defense, pretty good run game, no offensive weapons. 

 

All I can say in rebuttle to the price is 'Baltimore' after signing a mdium level Qb to a monster deal they immediately had to jettison a half dozen useful players.

 

wilson a good Qb throws the ball way less than the other top tier QBs three year avg of 417 vs 615,524,548,659,566 for the likes of brady, rogers, rivers, brees, flacco.

 

Wilson is much better than the jets have that doesn't make him a 20 million dollar player in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Sanchez sucked almost from day one so there is no issue there.  After watching wilson the last few years how many games has he outright won for the hawks?  I'd love to see how far he can carry a team like the jets had last year or the year before.  Leaky pass defense, pretty good run game, no offensive weapons. 

 

All I can say in rebuttle to the price is 'Baltimore' after signing a mdium level Qb to a monster deal they immediately had to jettison a half dozen useful players.

 

wilson a good Qb throws the ball way less than the other top tier QBs three year avg of 417 vs 615,524,548,659,566 for the likes of brady, rogers, rivers, brees, flacco.

 

Wilson is much better than the jets have that doesn't make him a 20 million dollar player in my mind.

 

Baltimore was overdue for cap trouble, with or without the Flacco deal. They've drafted so well for so long, eventually you run into issues keeping guys in those circumstances. We're not Baltimore. 

 

Wilson is much better than what most teams have. That is what makes him worth the money, that and the market increasingly favoring paying good QBs, and inflating because of the exponential growth of the salary cap each year.

 

I'd like to see Wilson carry a team like we had last year, but I'd rather seem him dominate with a team like the one we have this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baltimore was overdue for cap trouble, with or without the Flacco deal. They've drafted so well for so long, eventually you run into issues keeping guys in those circumstances. We're not Baltimore.

Wilson is much better than what most teams have. That is what makes him worth the money, that and the market increasingly favoring paying good QBs, and inflating because of the exponential growth of the salary cap each year.

I'd like to see Wilson carry a team like we had last year, but I'd rather seem him dominate with a team like the one we have this year.

Just look at his WR group. Besides Brady and maybe rivers what other QB wins with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they were lighting it up in play ?

 

Of course not.  But why is that relevant to what we're discussing?  They're long gone and didn't affect us financially.  Nor are they in any way comparable to the Cro signing for reasons I already suggested.

 

 

If i take your word that it does not hurt us beyond the 2016 season than he is getting OVERPAID for the 2015 season and the 2016 season. Period.

 

 

I thought he was cuttable after this year

 

 

I was taking his word for it.

 

Unless I'm reading THIS (http://overthecap.com/player/antonio-cromartie/966) incorrectly, looks like we can cut Cro after this season without any dead money, saving $8M in cap space.  All the $7M in guaranteed money ($5M guaranteed + $2M roster bonus) was paid up front so that we only have to commit to him for this season.

 

So who cares if we overpaid him this season?  We still have cap space, so clearly it isn't hurting us.  We didn't miss out on a QB by picking him up.  So really this isn't something worth complaining over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...