Wilson going to the Broncos

[DHoey]

I think the point @flyerhawk is making is that in the times it's happened, the replacement QB was ALREADY on the team, so that's why they felt ok in trading away out the "old" PB QB. Montana/Young, Favruh/Rodgers, Brees/Rivers, and more recently (though lesser), Flacco/Jackson, Smith/Mahomes, etc. Teams get into trouble when they cut/trade away their PB-level QB without a replacement already there and waiting.

What PB-Level QB has been cut or traded lately? I know Stafford, but that was the Lions. Pats had one down year post Brady.

 

[MrS]

What's done is done. But ultimately I think that Jodie Allen chose PC/JS over Russ primarily because of financial considerations and her lack of interest with regards to the Seahawks success. And I think that we all need to accept the reality that this team is unlikely to be truly successful again until Jodie sells the team.

Wilson had a no trade clause, if he wanted to stay he would have.

the fact is, he wanted out and all his assurances were bullshit.

 

[flyerhawk]

I think the point @flyerhawk is making is that in the times it's happened, the replacement QB was ALREADY on the team, so that's why they felt ok in trading away out the "old" PB QB. Montana/Young, Favruh/Rodgers, Brees/Rivers, and more recently (though lesser), Flacco/Jackson, Smith/Mahomes, etc. Teams get into trouble when they cut/trade away their PB-level QB without a replacement already there and waiting.

Exactly. If the Seahawks had been grooming a replacement then I would be more or less fine with it. Obviously there would be risks still but at least it would show that there is a plan.

But they didn't do that. Instead they have no one and now need to either pray that they hit in the draft or can rehabilitate someone like Jameis or Mariota which is mostly a fool's errand.

Seems like PC/JS are setting things up to have a ton of cap space for 2023 and rebuild from there. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Niner Outlaw]

What PB-Level QB has been cut or traded lately? I know Stafford, but that was the Lions. Pats had one down year post Brady.

Post 160. "...and more recently (though lesser), Flacco/Jackson, Smith/Mahomes, etc."

I'll grant that both Flacco and Smith were just PB alternates, but both were moved b/c a young (and cheap) replacement was waiting in the wings. For all the pub Stafford got this season, his only real PB was 7 years ago.

The Lions and Pats both moved on at QB without having a man waiting to take his place. It worked ok for the Pats after 1 down season, and it probably won't work for the Lions b/c...they're the Lions. It's rare to see a quick rebound like that unless the team nails its first try at finding a new franchise QB.

 

[MrS]

Seems like PC/JS are setting things up to have a ton of cap space for 2023 and rebuild from there. Makes no sense to me.

Pete is signed through 2025, if he plans to finish out his contract it makes sense to tank for a year and rebuild in 23 for a final run at the SB in 24 and 25.

 

[flyerhawk]

What PB-Level QB has been cut or traded lately? I know Stafford, but that was the Lions. Pats had one down year post Brady.

But that's the thing. Teams DON'T get rid of high level QBs.

The Redksins dumped Kirk Cousins and the are STILL searching in vain for a QB. The Lions remain lost at sea with no hope of recovery. The Colts haven't recovered from Andrew Luck retiring despite having quite a bit of talent. The Steelers are about to wander into that wilderness. The Broncos never recovered from Peyton retiring.

I'm sure that the Packers would love to get rid of the Aaron Rodgers headaches and not spend 50 million on him. But Jordan Love is not the answer.

 

[flyerhawk]

Pete is signed through 2025, if he plans to finish out his contract it makes sense to tank for a year and rebuild in 23 for a final run at the SB in 24 and 25.

If Pete Carroll is planning for a run in 4 years then he's a bigger fool than I realized.

 

[flyerhawk]

Wilson had a no trade clause, if he wanted to stay he would have.

the fact is, he wanted out and all his assurances were bullshit.

I don't care whether he wanted out or not. That was never a factor. Aaron Rodgers wanted out last year as well. Wound up winning an MVP.

The team chose to put their faith in 71 year old Pete Carroll over Russell Wilson.

And if the Seahawks go 4-13 and the Broncos are in the AFC championship game, it is going to be pretty embarrassing. The former is more likely than not than and the latter is entirely possible given their talent.

 

[MrS]

I don't care whether he wanted out or not. That was never a factor. Aaron Rodgers wanted out last year as well. Wound up winning an MVP.

The team chose to put their faith in 71 year old Pete Carroll over Russell Wilson.

And if the Seahawks go 4-13 and the Broncos are in the AFC championship game, it is going to be pretty embarrassing. The former is more likely than not than and the latter is entirely possible given their talent.

wilson IS NOT aaron rodgers, lets not delude ourselves here. he has never won an MVP, he has never really even come close. he hasnt gotten us to an NFCCG in almost 10 years now.

dont be shocked if he struggles in denver and they are bounced in round one.

 

[Southieinnc]

So basically the Seahawks paid millions to get rid of one of the best QB's in the league?

 

[megalodon30]

The Broncos never recovered from Peyton retiring.

They didn’t?

 

[flyerhawk]

wilson IS NOT aaron rodgers, lets not delude ourselves here. he has never won an MVP, he has never really even come close. he hasnt gotten us to an NFCCG in almost 10 years now.

dont be shocked if he struggles in denver and they are bounced in round one.

I didn't say he was Aaron Rodgers. And I guess we'll see whether the problem was Russell Wilson or Pete Carroll this fall.

 

[flyerhawk]

They didn’t?

1 9 win season in the last 6 would suggest they never did. Which is why they just traded a bunch of stuff for Wilson.

 

[megalodon30]

1 9 win season in the last 6 would suggest they never did. Which is why they just traded a bunch of stuff for Wilson.

Took a few years, but they did…

 

[JMR]

I think the best thing about this trade (and the positives are few and far between) is that it kept the rumored Aaron Rodgers extension from being the story of the day for all of about 15 minutes. My other thoughts after a night to sleep on it:

• The sour grapes stuff (not necessarily from people here, as I haven't gone through all 8+ pages of this thread) is humorous..."his skills are declining"..."has had trouble in the pocket"..."not as valuable as we thought he was"..."didn't look like himself last year"..."past his prime"..etc. Good god. It's a defense mechanism that insecure/immature people use when things don't go how they want. He was leading the league in passer rating last season before the injury and looked just like himself again after he had fully recovered and shook off the rust. Don't emulate Richard Sherman in this manner.
• Not possible for me to reconcile in my brain why someone above PC thinks it's a good idea to go into full rebuild mode (which is where we are, clearly) with a HC who is over the age of 70 and is allergic to the type of football that is common to nearly all of today's top contending teams.
• This trade only makes a smidge of sense to me if it was driven in ultimatum type form by RW. I personally haven't seen much evidence of that (the best we have is the "list" that came out a year ago, and to me that's a weak argument at best), but I would sympathize with the FO if Russell is telling them behind the scenes he wants out and then they get the news that Rodgers has reset the QB market at $50M a year, then you look ahead and realize you'll be at the negotiating table with RW in a year from now...and they determine the lesser of 2 evils in their eyes is to make the trade now instead of next year either having to work a deal to move him during possibly contentious negotiations (that could drop his value) or face the prospect of paying $60M/yr.
• I think the dumbest thing I've heard about this is that since RW had a no-trade clause, it means he wanted out if he doesn't use the clause and kill the deal (this is Dave Wyman's position, btw). If I am in Russell's shoes and the team comes to me and says they're trying to trade me, I'm most likely going to go along with it because why would I now want to stay on a team that wants me to be on another team?? The no trade clause means squat.
• We will most likely have rough waters ahead, but how this trade came about matters in how I feel about where we are headed from here. I'll be most optimistic/confident if this was demanded by RW. In that scenario, the FO ostensibly played the hand they were dealt as good as they could. Made the best out of a bad situation and dealt away a problem to get back what value they could. We are in deep shit if after this season, Jody Allen pondered who she wanted to side with in a divorce between PC and RW...and picked the older, less rare of the 2 commodities. That would make me petrified about what other horrible football decisions a non-football person/owner is going to make in the future, especially after how great Paul Allen was at supporting and allowing the football people to make the football decisions. Somewhere in the middle of those 2 is the FO initiating this thing from the beginning and deciding that we can't just run it back as is (which I agree with), and the future of the team is brighter if we move RW now and get as much as possible before he's up for a new deal in a year (and the spectre of having to pay him north of $50M/yr) vs going all in and trying to get 1 more good SB run in the next 2 or 3 years...but the thing about that scenario that doesn't make any sense to me is why a 70+ year old HC would sign up for a full rebuild.
• Buckle Up!!

 

[flyerhawk]

I think the best thing about this trade (and the positives are few and far between) is that it kept the rumored Aaron Rodgers extension from being the story of the day for all of about 15 minutes. My other thoughts after a night to sleep on it:

• The sour grapes stuff (not necessarily from people here, as I haven't gone through all 8+ pages of this thread) is humorous..."his skills are declining"..."has had trouble in the pocket"..."not as valuable as we thought he was"..."didn't look like himself last year"..."past his prime"..etc. Good god. It's a defense mechanism that insecure/immature people use when things don't go how they want. He was leading the league in passer rating last season before the injury and looked just like himself again after he had fully recovered and shook off the rust. Don't emulate Richard Sherman in this manner.
• Not possible for me to reconcile in my brain why someone above PC thinks it's a good idea to go into full rebuild mode (which is where we are, clearly) with a HC who is over the age of 70 and is allergic to the type of football that is common to nearly all of today's top contending teams.
• This trade only makes a smidge of sense to me if it was driven in ultimatum type form by RW. I personally haven't seen much evidence of that (the best we have is the "list" that came out a year ago, and to me that's a weak argument at best), but I would sympathize with the FO if Russell is telling them behind the scenes he wants out and then they get the news that Rodgers has reset the QB market at $50M a year, then you look ahead and realize you'll be at the negotiating table with RW in a year from now...and they determine the lesser of 2 evils in their eyes is to make the trade now instead of next year either having to work a deal to move him during possibly contentious negotiations (that could drop his value) or face the prospect of paying $60M/yr.
• I think the dumbest thing I've heard about this is that since RW had a no-trade clause, it means he wanted out if he doesn't use the clause and kill the deal (this is Dave Wyman's position, btw). If I am in Russell's shoes and the team comes to me and says they're trying to trade me, I'm most likely going to go along with it because why would I now want to stay on a team that wants me to be on another team?? The no trade clause means squat.
• We will most likely have rough waters ahead, but how this trade came about matters in how I feel about where we are headed from here. I'll be most optimistic/confident if this was demanded by RW. In that scenario, the FO ostensibly played the hand they were dealt as good as they could. Made the best out of a bad situation and dealt away a problem to get back what value they could. We are in deep shit if after this season, Jody Allen pondered who she wanted to side with in a divorce between PC and RW...and picked the older, less rare of the 2 commodities. That would make me petrified about what other horrible football decisions a non-football person/owner is going to make in the future, especially after how great Paul Allen was at supporting and allowing the football people to make the football decisions. Somewhere in the middle of those 2 is the FO initiating this thing from the beginning and deciding that we can't just run it back as is (which I agree with), and the future of the team is brighter if we move RW now and get as much as possible before he's up for a new deal in a year (and the spectre of having to pay him north of $50M/yr) vs going all in and trying to get 1 more good SB run in the next 2 or 3 years...but the thing about that scenario that doesn't make any sense to me is why a 70+ year old HC would sign up for a full rebuild.
• Buckle Up!!

I agree that if Russ was the one pushing for this to happen behind the scenes, then I have a different view of this. However, if this was a matter of Pete or Russ and they picked Pete then I have no faith that this team has any clue what they are doing.

Anyone who believes that PC/JS can run it back because they were successful once is being willfully naive. The Seahawks have 10 years of success because they hit the lottery with a 3rd round pick. While I generally bristle when I hear people talk about how bad the Seahawks drafting has been, because it is largely ignorant about the statistical probabilities involved with drafts, it is also not reasonable to believe that the Seahawks can replicate their 2011/2012 drafts. Leaving aside that the Seahawks had a great deal of inside information at the time because of Pete's time at USC, EVERY team regresses to the mean.

I guess you could argue that the Seahawks will be more focused on building the team and less focused on win now moves that push them to do things like trade for Adams. But ultimately they made that choice. No one forced them to trade for Adams. And they made that trade because their DL was so bad that they were hoping that they could create a wildcard with Adams as a pass rusher.

 

[JMR]

I think the dead money implications here don't mean much for 2 main reasons: 1) we're taking a huge step back this season no matter what happens from here, and 2) those dead contracts will be off the books a year from now. On top of that, this team still has more cap room for '22 than the vast majority of other teams.

 

[flyerhawk]

I think the dead money implications here don't mean much for 2 main reasons: 1) we're taking a huge step back this season no matter what happens from here, and 2) those dead contracts will be off the books a year from now. On top of that, this team still has more cap room for '22 than the vast majority of other teams.

Well I do think that having that 20 something million in cap space would be helpful for this year. Unless PC/JS are seriously planning to intentionally tank in which case they should both be summarily fired immediately.

 

[msgkings322]

What possible haul will make it worthwhile? 3 1st round draft picks?

As it stands the Seahawks starting QB is Drew Lock.

We'll now be one of those teams struggling for a wildcard spot every year with no hope of anything beyond that with a dinosaur coach.

Might as well trade Lockett and Metcalf. Maybe we can go 2-15 and get a good pick for 2023.

I think that's the plan. Total rebuild. I suspect 70 year old Pete Carroll may choose to move on.

 

[JMR]

Can you think of an example of team getting rid of a Pro Bowl QB and being a Super Bowl contender within a few years of getting rid of that player?

The best example I can think of is when the Colts cut Peyton Manning after his neck injury, had the #1 pick because they were terrible the year PM was hurt, and had the fortune of drafting Andrew Luck. They got as far as the AFCC.

The Patriots damn near did it this year.

But I think your point is clear. The worst problem you can have in the NFL is not having a good QB, and we just voluntarily brought that problem upon ourselves (notwithstanding the possibility that RW demanded the trade).