What will the Seahawks record be in 2022?

[cdumler7]

Kyler Murray is nowhere near the level of RW. Yes there will be QBs not getting the money that Watson got but any QB in the top 5 to 7 range knows the Watson deal is the starting point and that is where RW slides in.

I guess we shall see. I could be completely off on my assessment of the situation. Watson threw a wrench into all negotiations for teams with their QB's. My guess is about every owner in the league called the Browns after that deal and cussed them out for making such a ridiculous offer in that situation.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I guess we shall see. I could be completely off on my assessment of the situation. Watson threw a wrench into all negotiations for teams with their QB's. My guess is about every owner in the league called the Browns after that deal and cussed them out for making such a ridiculous offer in that situation.

That's exactly right. The Watson deal totally screwed up the balance.

 

[flyerhawk]

May want to re read what you're replying to, because that's not what I said.

I honestly don't know what you were trying to say then.

You seemed to be suggesting that paying a top 5-7 QB makes it hard to win consistently. Which may be true but not having a top 5-7 makes it dramatically harder.

 

[Podunkparte]

I honestly don't know what you were trying to say then.

You seemed to be suggesting that paying a top 5-7 QB makes it hard to win consistently. Which may be true but not having a top 5-7 makes it dramatically harder.

Winning a super bowl with JUST a top 5-7 QB is difficult to do. It's a team sport, you need talent around that guy. Affording that talent is quite hard when you give him 40 Million dollars.

Therefore, acquiring the means to build out the rest of the team, THEN hopefully add a quality QB gives the team the best chance at winning. You know, exactly the thing we're in the middle of doing, and the thing we did that led to the trophy in the case.

Yes, good QBs are important, but not at the expense of the rest of the team.

 

[Screamin12th]

I would guess somewhere in the $180 million range. Gives him 3-years of security with the contract and then some, but gives the Broncos some wiggle room to re-do his deal down the road when they need to work on the cap.

Good luck with that, Wilson doesn't "rework" his contracts to "free up" cap space.

 

[Picklerick 2.0]

I just can't stomach the thought that people want to tank, As a fan it just feels WRONG!
Bleed blue and green till I die! GO HAWKS!

You know what team refuses to tank and never rebuilds? The Vikings. There is a reason we have never won a Superbowl. Sometimes you gotta fold when you know your cards are bad.

 

[cdumler7]

Winning a super bowl with JUST a top 5-7 QB is difficult to do. It's a team sport, you need talent around that guy. Affording that talent is quite hard when you give him 40 Million dollars.

Therefore, acquiring the means to build out the rest of the team, THEN hopefully add a quality QB gives the team the best chance at winning. You know, exactly the thing we're in the middle of doing, and the thing we did that led to the trophy in the case.

Yes, good QBs are important, but not at the expense of the rest of the team.

The hardest thing to do though is finding that top 5-7 QB. So when you have it you hold onto it and figure out how to do better with team building around them. Think about the Seahawks history at the QB position. No one comes close to what Wilson was bringing to the table for the team. Part of the reason the Seahawks only have 1 trophy in that case is a lack of QB talent over the years.

 

[Podunkparte]

The hardest thing to do though is finding that top 5-7 QB. So when you have it you hold onto it and figure out how to do better with team building around them. Think about the Seahawks history at the QB position. No one comes close to what Wilson was bringing to the table for the team. Part of the reason the Seahawks only have 1 trophy in that case is a lack of QB talent over the years.

And we also went to the SB (and did enough to win it) with a great Oline, MVP RB, and fringe top 10 QB in Matt Hasselbeck.

It can be done in ways other than catering to your QB who can't throw 7 yard crossing routes but wants MVP money.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

And we also went to the SB (and did enough to win it) with a great Oline, MVP RB, and fringe top 10 QB in Matt Hasselbeck.

It can be done in ways other than catering to your QB who can't throw 7 yard crossing routes but wants MVP money.

Bingo. Teams can't expect to draft a Mahomes type, but hoping to find a QB that's good at the NFL level is within reach. People talk about all the QBs that bust, but mostly they played for really bad teams with poor coaching and that plays into QBs becoming busts, in fact it's a major reason IMO. Even a good QB like say Stafford, playing for the Lions he looks like a stat compiler that loses over and over, then he goes to the Rams and viola he's now considered one of the better QBs in the league after all this time. Belichick started Brady slowly, not asking him to do much at the beginning other then protect the ball, then expanded what he expected from Brady with experience. He's doing the same with Jones and Pete did the same with RW. I'm really confident that the future is bright for the Seahawks, not this season so much but beginning next season I feel the Seahawks will be relevant again with Pete at the helm.

 

[Screamin12th]

Matt Hasselbeck was under rated so lets be fair. Imagine what he could have done with a WR like Lockett and Metcalf. I say Matts best WR were mid level WR's so not bad at all but Lockett and Metcalf are on different levels. Matts Best WR's he got to throw to was Koren Robinson and he had a bum knee so didn't last long. DJack was ok but not a #1... Matt had really no weapons but he had a good Online. Also he had issues staying healthy for a bit.

What made Matt even better was he was the perfect leader of men so the perfect man to have at QB.

 

[MrS]

Matt Hasselbeck was under rated so lets be fair. Imagine what he could have done with a WR like Lockett and Metcalf. I say Matts best WR were mid level WR's so not bad at all but Lockett and Metcalf are on different levels. Matts Best WR's he got to throw to was Koren Robinson and he had a bum knee so didn't last long. DJack was ok but not a #1... Matt had really no weapons but he had a good Online. Also he had issues staying healthy for a bit.

What made Matt even better was he was the perfect leader of men so the perfect man to have at QB.

Hasselbeck might have won back to back SBs if he had the teams wilson did

 

[Cave_Johnson]

What teams win consistently without a top 5-7 QB?

What teams win Super Bowls with QBs who take up huge amounts of salary cap space? Wilson was taking up 17.5% last season.

No Super Bowl winning QB has ever taken up more than about 13% and this century every Super Bowl winning QB that has taken up more than 10% was named Manning or Brady. And yes, two times it was actually Eli.

You play to win championships, not to go one and done every year.

Keeping Russ gave the Hawks a chance to be good every season, but they weren't winning another SB with him.

 

[Screamin12th]

Hasselbeck might have won back to back SBs if he had the teams wilson did

I can agree with this IF that is Pete also changed. Lets be real here he sat on a lead and sucked the life out of the team making them flat. If he did that with Hasselbeck the same thing would happen and it very well could have been even worse.

 

[blstoker]

What teams win Super Bowls with QBs who take up huge amounts of salary cap space? Wilson was taking up 17.5% last season.

No Super Bowl winning QB has ever taken up more than about 13% and this century every Super Bowl winning QB that has taken up more than 10% was named Manning or Brady. And yes, two times it was actually Eli.

You play to win championships, not to go one and done every year.

Keeping Russ gave the Hawks a chance to be good every season, but they weren't winning another SB with him.

Well, that's a misleading stat. While Stafford accounted for only 10.69% of the Rams salary last year (a number that would be accounted as one of the highest percentages less than 15 years ago), Goff accounted for 13.2%. Not only would Goff's dead money alone make him the highest % since Steve Young in 1994 (can't remember Young's percentage that year, but wanna say 13.13%), but add in Stafford and the QBs accounted for more than 24% of the cap for the Rams.

Conversely, Peyton Manning (18.8%, 14.16%) and Matt Ryan (15.3%) made the Super Bowl with higher than conventional rates in recent history. In the last 15 years or so, teams built with high priced QBs are just as likely to make the big game as teams with rookie deal / lower paid QBs. And the salary of winning QBs is taking more of the cap as we go, as according to over the cap the percentage of cap for this as been broken 3 times in the last 5 years (if you count Goff, which I do but most ignore).

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Well, that's a misleading stat. While Stafford accounted for only 10.69% of the Rams salary last year (a number that would be accounted as one of the highest percentages less than 15 years ago), Goff accounted for 13.2%. Not only would Goff's dead money alone make him the highest % since Steve Young in 1994 (can't remember Young's percentage that year, but wanna say 13.13%), but add in Stafford and the QBs accounted for more than 24% of the cap for the Rams.

Conversely, Peyton Manning (18.8%, 14.16%) and Matt Ryan (15.3%) made the Super Bowl with higher than conventional rates in recent history. In the last 15 years or so, teams built with high priced QBs are just as likely to make the big game as teams with rookie deal / lower paid QBs. And the salary of winning QBs is taking more of the cap as we go, as according to over the cap the percentage of cap for this as been broken 3 times in the last 5 years (if you count Goff, which I do but most ignore).

That's a good point, the article I was looking at didn't include the Rams as a Super Bowl winner but did mention this point about the Rams total salary cap that was sunk into QBs (Super Bowl QB Cap Percentages). I went straight for the raw numbers and missed that. Crazy.

"If we include ALL QB cap hits for 2021 (active, reserve list, practice squad, & dead cap), the Rams hold the most Quarterback cap in the NFL by a wide margin. In fact, the $46.2M allocated to Rams' QBs in 2021 is the 2nd most of all-time, behind the 2020 Colts. ($56.5M), who were still reeling from Andrew Luck's retirement, a careless Jacoby Brissett extension, & a cup of coffee for Philip Rivers"

Data from that article:



22 years of data if you include Stafford and Goff at a ridiculous 24% and Burrow at what looks like about 4.2%. That's one winner in 22 years at over 12.6% and three appearances (not winners) at over 15%. Median since 2011 is 10%.

Wilson was getting 17.5% last season and about 15.5% the year before.

So I guess you answered the question. What teams win Super Bowls with QBs who take up huge amounts of salary cap space? It's the Rams. And it happened once in 22 years. Other than that no team has won a Super Bowl committing as much to the QB position as Seattle was doing with Russ.

And that's not to say you can't pay a QB over the Median and still win a Super Bowl. But when you do that you probably want to make sure that QB is Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Eli Manning.

 

[blstoker]

That's a good point, the article I was looking at didn't include the Rams as a Super Bowl winner but did mention this point about the Rams total salary cap that was sunk into QBs (Super Bowl QB Cap Percentages). I went straight for the raw numbers and missed that. Crazy.

"If we include ALL QB cap hits for 2021 (active, reserve list, practice squad, & dead cap), the Rams hold the most Quarterback cap in the NFL by a wide margin. In fact, the $46.2M allocated to Rams' QBs in 2021 is the 2nd most of all-time, behind the 2020 Colts. ($56.5M), who were still reeling from Andrew Luck's retirement, a careless Jacoby Brissett extension, & a cup of coffee for Philip Rivers"

Data from that article:

View attachment 305713

22 years of data if you include Stafford and Goff at a ridiculous 24% and Burrow at what looks like about 4.2%. That's one winner in 22 years at over 12.6% and three appearances (not winners) at over 15%. Median since 2011 is 10%.

Wilson was getting 17.5% last season and about 15.5% the year before.

So I guess you answered the question. What teams win Super Bowls with QBs who take up huge amounts of salary cap space? It's the Rams. And it happened once in 22 years. Other than that no team has won a Super Bowl committing as much to the QB position as Seattle was doing with Russ.

And that's not to say you can't pay a QB over the Median and still win a Super Bowl. But when you do that you probably want to make sure that QB is Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Eli Manning.

Going back 22 years changes what I was saying. Since 2009, 12 QBs have made it to the SB making more than 10% of the teams salary cap. There were 2 from 2000-2008. 10 made over 11%, while the preceding 9 years had 0.

My point isn't who won @ 17.5%, my point is that QBs have been getting larger slices of the pie and still winning SBs. Since 2011, 6 SB winners have QBs with 11% or more of their teams salary cap - before 2011 there was 1 (Steve Young, 1994).

Now, answer this question - who was the last top 5 pick QB to win the super Bowl during his first 4 years? Troy Aikman - 1992. It's only happened 3 times in the history of the NFL that a QB drafted in the top 5 would go on to win the Super Bowl as a starter within the first 4 years of his career. (Namath in 68 and McMahon in 85 were the other 2). Pat Mahomes is the only other one in the top 10, but he was fortunate enough that a playoff team was able to trade up and put him on a better roster than a top 10 pick usually gets.

The salary % of QBs is trending up, and to think that we can have a bad team and pick a top QB gives us a better chance to win than to have a future HoF QB goes further against history than trying to continue the trend of paying a top QB more and save on other areas of the roster to win a SB does.

 

[PolarVortex]

6-11
0-6 in the division
6-5 against everyone else. Pretty light schedule outside of the division: Jets, Giants, Panthers, Lions, Saints, Hawks.
I know some of you have partially written off SF and Ariz. Could end up being justified, but I don't think so. Especially SF. They might squeeze out a win against Arizona but the best they can hope for, in our division, in my opinion, is 1-5.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I have to admit that preseason play has me thinking I was too optimistic with their record but I'm waiting for real games and the starters to judge.

 

[flyerhawk]

I have to admit that preseason play has me thinking I was too optimistic with their record but I'm waiting for real games and the starters to judge.

I saw a stat today that Geno Smith has a -17% completions above expected so far in the preseason.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Going back 22 years changes what I was saying. Since 2009, 12 QBs have made it to the SB making more than 10% of the teams salary cap. There were 2 from 2000-2008. 10 made over 11%, while the preceding 9 years had 0.

My point isn't who won @ 17.5%, my point is that QBs have been getting larger slices of the pie and still winning SBs. Since 2011, 6 SB winners have QBs with 11% or more of their teams salary cap - before 2011 there was 1 (Steve Young, 1994).

Now, answer this question - who was the last top 5 pick QB to win the super Bowl during his first 4 years? Troy Aikman - 1992. It's only happened 3 times in the history of the NFL that a QB drafted in the top 5 would go on to win the Super Bowl as a starter within the first 4 years of his career. (Namath in 68 and McMahon in 85 were the other 2). Pat Mahomes is the only other one in the top 10, but he was fortunate enough that a playoff team was able to trade up and put him on a better roster than a top 10 pick usually gets.

The salary % of QBs is trending up, and to think that we can have a bad team and pick a top QB gives us a better chance to win than to have a future HoF QB goes further against history than trying to continue the trend of paying a top QB more and save on other areas of the roster to win a SB does.

Well yeah they are getting larger slices, but the ones winning are still at 11%-12%. That's quite a bit less than 17.5%.

I don't think anybody is saying that Seattle has a better chance to win with a bad roster and a rookie QB than with a bad roster and a top tier QB. That's silly. The argument is just that it's hard to build a good roster while you are paying a QB 15%+ of your salary cap and that by trading Russ it allows the team to more easily build a good roster that will be able to compete when/if they can draft a good QB or who knows? Maybe attract one in free agency at the right price.

The last few years Seattle has had a mediocre roster with a top tier QB and that was good for a one and done in the playoffs and that was pretty much the likely scenario every year moving forward. Seattle has not been a serious championship contender since about 2017. From that perspective nothing really changes this season. They're just rebuilding. And that's not easy, but it's also not easy to rebuild while you're dumping a huge chunk of the salary cap into one player.

And I guess the point is sort of moot here anyway. It's not like Russ wanted to stay. He didn't want to be here and that may have been one of reasons the return from Denver was not as good as some expected.