Seahawks' Wilson Agree to 4yr Extension

[Ramrocket]

Frank Clark apparently tweeted about how he was lied to.

And so it begins..... :mrburnsevil:

 

[TSFH Fan]

For Goff's contract extension, the Rams just need to use the Brady Exemption (my term) -- basically, if an NFL player owns a separate business, an NFL team can use and endorse that business without salary cap implication to the team. In practice, it allows the team to sign the player to a "lesser" NFL contract and supplement it by team spending on the player's business.

I don't think anyone would be totally surprised if, when Paul Allen died, he had outstanding, prepaid orders for several million pallets of Wussel Wilson's magic water, right? Wussel's 2015 extension was nice and all, I just don't know if it should have been more.

So, the fun is in predicting what business could Goff get into and the Rams use/endorse?

 

[Farr Be It]

I don't think anyone would be totally surprised if, when Paul Allen died, he had outstanding, prepaid orders for several million pallets of Wussel Wilson's magic water, right?

If Paul Allen had several million pallets of the magic water, he would NEVER die. Duh. :yess:

 

[Poppinfresh]

Exhibit A for the new percolating argument that teams should just replace their quarterbacks every 5-6 years (rookie deals + a potential tag year) and use the money on the other 21 guys.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Exhibit A for the new percolating argument that teams should just replace their quarterbacks every 5-6 years (rookie deals + a potential tag year) and use the money on the other 21 guys.

replace them with who? if they could replace them that easily they wouldn't pay them all that money.

.

 

[GoodBadUgly]

What I realize is that Goff is way better than Wilson. Wilson can barely process the game. He is a sandlot QB who's skill is to run around while things break down and maybe a WR will run his way open. Wilson can't read a defense and make throws efficiently like most QB's do. He's lucky to have a horse face coach who is willing to let him freelance all game.

So glad you saved me from typing virtually the same thing. Any competent defensive mind can shut down the Hawks and watch RW try (and mostly fail) doing it himself. This gets harder for him as he loses mobility over the years.

Even Fish owned these guys for cry-eye!

 

[Poppinfresh]

replace them with who? if they could replace them that easily they wouldn't pay them all that money.

.

I think it's patently obvious with who, since I referenced 5th year options. It's been proven time and again you can have success with merely a "pretty good" quarterback, so long as the rest of your team is talented.

 

[LesBaker]

Rams fans do realize that, right now, Goff is worse than Wilson with a (MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH) better supporting cast, right?

When I think of supporting cast I think of the defense too.

And in that regard we can say it's a tie and has been for the last few seasons which is all we have to compare.

Theres going to be a point where the qb is getting too much where it starts effecting the talent around them. I really hope Goff would rather take a lesser paycheck to help the team as a whole. But we shall see.

No talented QB is signing at a discount. Ever.

A change to the cap may be in order. But QB's will always be the highest paid players.

To be fair, RW is a helluva QB. I’d rather he be my QB than Aaron Rodgers, and on multiple levels, at that.

I luve ya @Rams43 but you are all wet here.

Put AR on the Seahawks for the last several years and they would almost certainly have one or two more SB wins. Wilson has had some bad playoff performances covered up by a great defense and fantastic running game. Often he didn't even throw that much.

Rodgers would have put that team in an entirely different order over that span.

Frankly, I would be good with them getting rid of the cap. Mind you... I haven't consulted Stan on this but as a fan of the team with one of the richest owners, I'm good with buying championships.

The cap has to stay in place or the sport will suffer decline in interest.

And I think fans overall would agree.

If someone with a trillion dollars decided to buy all the best players fans would tune out pretty quickly.

And FYI we have no idea of SK wants to win titles or not.

Lets face it, most sports team owners want to make sure the stadium is full, people are eating, drinking and paying for parking and buying merchandise.

Titles are not as important as the money for a lot of these owners.

 

[I like Rams]

When I think of supporting cast I think of the defense too.

And in that regard we can say it's a tie and has been for the last few seasons which is all we have to compare.



No talented QB is signing at a discount. Ever.

A change to the cap may be in order. But QB's will always be the highest paid players.




I luve ya @Rams43 but you are all wet here.

Put AR on the Seahawks for the last several years and they would almost certainly have one or two more SB wins. Wilson has had some bad playoff performances covered up by a great defense and fantastic running game. Often he didn't even throw that much.

Rodgers would have put that team in an entirely different order over that span.



The cap has to stay in place or the sport will suffer decline in interest.

And I think fans overall would agree.

If someone with a trillion dollars decided to buy all the best players fans would tune out pretty quickly.

And FYI we have no idea of SK wants to win titles or not.

Lets face it, most sports team owners want to make sure the stadium is full, people are eating, drinking and paying for parking and buying merchandise.

Titles are not as important as the money for a lot of these owners.

You must have never heard of Tom Brady.

 

[Kevin]

I think it's patently obvious with who, since I referenced 5th year options. It's been proven time and again you can have success with merely a "pretty good" quarterback, so long as the rest of your team is talented.

.
I just don't see it. Which teams have been doing this?

 

[dieterbrock]

replace them with who? if they could replace them that easily they wouldn't pay them all that money.

.

Any QB will do. Just look at Cleveland. They have gotten a new QB every year for the last 20 years and it worked wonders for them.
Oh, wait a minute

 

[Ewe83]

Rams fans do realize that, right now, Goff is worse than Wilson with a (MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH) better supporting cast, right?

 

[LesBaker]

.
I just don't see it. Which teams have been doing this?

Only a few in a long time and each of those teams had a stellar defense.

 

[Akrasian]

Only a few in a long time and each of those teams had a stellar defense.

And the game favors the passing game a lot more now than it used to, making QBs more important than ever. It used to be far easier to win with a competent QB, so long as you had talent all around him. Even when Foles and the Eagles won - he actually played great in the playoffs - he'd always been streaky.

 

[FrantikRam]

And the game favors the passing game a lot more now than it used to, making QBs more important than ever. It used to be far easier to win with a competent QB, so long as you had talent all around him. Even when Foles and the Eagles won - he actually played great in the playoffs - he'd always been streaky.

I disagree. It is now easier to win with a competent QB and more talent versus more talented QB and just competent supporting cast.

Super Bowl champs:

Patriots - Brady barely contributed to their win - unfortunately for the Rams, the sad truth is our offense played so badly that the Patriots probably win that Super Bowl with 15 different QBs

Eagles - as you said (which contradicted your point?), the Eagles won the Super Bowl with a mediocre QB because of the talent around him - this IMO is where fans get confused, because you said "Foles played great" - and he did put up great numbers - but where people get confused is whether a QB puts up numbers because he's great or because his supporting cast is great. People give QBs too much credit and as such, Russell Wilson - who in 16 career games against the Rams has had maybe 6 good ones - is the highest paid player in NFL history.

Patriots - the Patriots will be the exception in some cases because Brady has frequently been paid below market value

Broncos - Manning was one of the worst players on the field

Patriots - again they are the exception, although it's worth noting that if they hand off to Marshawn Lynch, this is another case of an average QB winning because the supporting cast was so much better

Seahawks - the Broncos were very good but got obliterated because Wilson's supporting cast was so much better

Ravens - what happened to Flacco when he got paid and his cast got worse?

Giants - Eli is on nobody's short list of elite QBs

Packers - Rodgers was great but this was also before he signed any kind of cap-breaking contract

Saints - an exception, but also a tainted win in a few different ways

Steelers - Ben was never paid THAT much


We can go on and on and on - the top paid QBs all missed the playoffs last year - think about that - they didn't even make the playoffs.

I disagree on the importance of QBs - you need to find one that's at least average and then put a good supporting cast around him - that's the true recipe for success in the NFL. The major mistake teams make is paying a "franchise QB" who is not elite. And even if you do get an elite one like Rodgers or Brees, it often leads to random seasons where you're not even a contender, where the media blames the lack of a supporting cast. The best model for sustained success would be to draft a QB in the first round every three years, and let him go after 4 or 5 (depending on how good he is).

 

[Mojo Ram]

My quick take on QB's and winning playoff games and Super Bowls is you've got to have one who can get things done on 3rd down against the elite/great defenses that you inevitably face. This is why i favor the more cerebral pocket passers than the athletic, exciting "dual threat" QB's in the big games.

 

[Kevin]

Only a few in a long time and each of those teams had a stellar defense.

Trent Dilfer automatically comes to mind. After that I can't think of any.

 

[FrantikRam]

Trent Dilfer automatically comes to mind. After that I can't think of any.

Depends on how we define success.

Super Bowl winning QBs are usually not elite:

Dilfer, Brady, Johnson, Brady, Brady, Roethilsberger - that was six consecutive years of basically average to below average QBs winning it all (and yes, Brady was essentially average-above average during this time period).

The next group has diversity:

Manning, Eli Manning, Roethlisberger, Brees, Rodgers, Eli Manning - that's elite, average, above average, elite, all-star, average - yes, Aaron Rodgers just gets all-star here because he was not yet the player that he is today. He was barely better than Roethlisberger when they won the Super Bowl.

And then the next group is:

Flacco, Wilson, Brady, Manning, Brady, Foles, Brady - average, average, elite, below average, elite, average, elite


So out of the past 19 Super Bowl champs, only five of them were established top 3/elite/GOAT level (however you want to define it) at the time that they won - I think we all agree that the Patriots are a MAJOR outlier in general, and specific to this exercise because Brady has typically been paid less than his market value. If you take them away, you're left with just two QBs - Manning and Brees - being established elite QBs and leading their team to ultimate victory.




But here's where the other question comes into play: would you have rather have been a Colts fan with Peyton Manning, or a Giants fan with Eli Manning?

Two Super Bowls to one, but more sustained success on the other side - that is the epitome of this dilemma. I have no doubt that paying a "franchise QB" will give you hope and lead to more winning seasons than losing - but I also have no doubt that it will only net you a max of one Super Bowl, if we're lucky.

Put me in the camp that wants to try something earth shattering: pay Cooper Kupp, Cooks, Woods, Gurley - eventually upgrade TE. Pay a LT, G and C - keep Aaron Donald, John Johnson and Peters - but the only way to do all that....

 

[Kevin]

I think your original position was that teams can be successful (however we define that) by never re-signing a QB to a second contract. Teams simply don't do that. They don't draft a mediocre QB, train him up, surround him with talent, play him four or five years, let him walk and draft another JAG. Teams want to have continuity at QB, they want to draft a guy who plays well enough to get a second contract and stay with the team.