Interesting idea that will never happen
-
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
The idea is that we could sign him if they franchise tag him - in which case it would take two 1s - which would presumably our next two ones, not picking up #31 & #32 in trade pick swaps.
-
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
OK I was thinking "Sign and Trade" agreement to preempt the standard FA stuff.
-
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
Would the Browns have the money to support a contract like his and keep around talent at other positions? I don't know what the cap situation looks like at this time.
-
Wilson is in a specifically built system to get the best out of him. He is obviously a good QB but no guarantee that if you take him out of Seattle, he plays to the same level.
-
Wilson is in a specifically built system to get the best out of him. He is obviously a good QB but no guarantee that if you take him out of Seattle, he plays to the same level.
Wilson is in a specifically built system to get the best out of him. He is obviously a good QB but no guarantee that if you take him out of Seattle, he plays to the same level.
If he plays half as well for Browns, Wilson is still far superior to any QB on the rosters as it stands.
Not that this will ever happen.
-
Also, the Browns are basically modelled on the Seahawks. Not saying Crowell/West are Lynch, but we have a similarly built D, strong OL and rushing attack. He would do fine.
-
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
Would the Browns have the money to support a contract like his and keep around talent at other positions? I don't know what the cap situation looks like at this time.
Would the Browns have the money to support a contract like his and keep around talent at other positions? I don't know what the cap situation looks like at this time.
We currently have $22.5mm in space, 3rd in the league. Seattle is 12th with only $10.3mm. So there's $12.2mm in "easy" bonus up front that Seattle could not match... without roster pain.
Both show to have 78 players currently under contract (?)... if true, then easy cuts net each another $8mm or so assuming league minimums are trimmed.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
That sure would make those bootlegs a bit more effective.
-
Would the Browns have the money to support a contract like his and keep around talent at other positions? I don't know what the cap situation looks like at this time.
We currently have $22.5mm in space, 3rd in the league. Seattle is 12th with only $10.3mm. So there's $12.2mm in "easy" bonus up front that Seattle could not match... without roster pain.
Both show to have 78 players currently under contract (?)... if true, then easy cuts net each another $8mm or so assuming league minimums are trimmed.
We currently have $22.5mm in space, 3rd in the league. Seattle is 12th with only $10.3mm. So there's $12.2mm in "easy" bonus up front that Seattle could not match... without roster pain.
Both show to have 78 players currently under contract (?)... if true, then easy cuts net each another $8mm or so assuming league minimums are trimmed.
A person can dream for sure. I would not hate having Russell Wilson at QB.
-
with the talent we have now, Id totally agree that next year would be the ideal time to "break the bank" on a QB, so to speak......compared to past years where it probably wouldnt have been worth it....
For 2 firsts and the rest of our payroll, Id say Wilson wouldnt be my first choice....but beggars cant be choosers.....
Im keeping an eye on the Phillip Rivers sweepstakes too......may be available for much cheaper than 2 firsts.....
-
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
http://www.scout.com/nfl/browns/story/1555044-what-if-russell-wilson-is-franchised-browns
The Cleveland Browns are still seeking an answer at the most important position on the field: Quarterback. Super Bowl winning QB Russell Wilson is in a contract dispute with the Seattle Seahawks. What if they Franchise Tag him? How much would he be worth to the Browns?
Obviously, it won't happen. But, assuming that all of the chips somehow magically fell into place, I think you offer 50% more than whatever Wilson is asking for. Money is no object.
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
I would be happy with a Roethlisberger-type monster contract. Taylor, D. Bryant, McCown, and Dray would all be worthy cap casualties to ensure we have enough room to bring on a mega contract.
I have a feeling that multiple players, including Thomas and Haden, would restructure to bring in a player of Wilson's caliber, it would be no different than them signing with a contender once FA hits.
Wilson is in a specifically built system to get the best out of him. He is obviously a good QB but no guarantee that if you take him out of Seattle, he plays to the same level.
That specifically built system centers around a strong running game, a stifling defense, and an overacheiving offensive line - similar to what we're seemingly trying to implement here.
Granted, we don't have a Marshawn Lynch, but we do have a better offensive line (on paper).
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Would be interesting to see Wilson on another team. He's obviously in a very good Seahawks team. How would he do on a team where it all depends on him?
-
Very good is debatable on their offense. Lynch is good. Their OL is average. Their receivers are below average. Tight ends are average.
-
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
http://www.scout.com/nfl/browns/story/1555044-what-if-russell-wilson-is-franchised-browns
The Cleveland Browns are still seeking an answer at the most important position on the field: Quarterback. Super Bowl winning QB Russell Wilson is in a contract dispute with the Seattle Seahawks. What if they Franchise Tag him? How much would he be worth to the Browns?
Obviously, it won't happen. But, assuming that all of the chips somehow magically fell into place, I think you offer 50% more than whatever Wilson is asking for. Money is no object.
But isn't the maximum pick compensation for signing away a RFA is one 1st?
EDIT: Two 1sts, if signed away under the "non-exclusive" franchise tag.
The real issue is the contract offer. It'd have to be high enough that the Seahawks would (could) not match it without hamstringing ourselves. Since the hang up appears to be guaranteed money, might be able to frontload enough to do just that...
Interesting indeed... and yes, not likely...
I would be happy with a Roethlisberger-type monster contract. Taylor, D. Bryant, McCown, and Dray would all be worthy cap casualties to ensure we have enough room to bring on a mega contract.
I have a feeling that multiple players, including Thomas and Haden, would restructure to bring in a player of Wilson's caliber, it would be no different than them signing with a contender once FA hits.
Wilson is in a specifically built system to get the best out of him. He is obviously a good QB but no guarantee that if you take him out of Seattle, he plays to the same level.
That specifically built system centers around a strong running game, a stifling defense, and an overacheiving offensive line - similar to what we're seemingly trying to implement here.
Granted, we don't have a Marshawn Lynch, but we do have a better offensive line (on paper).
Taylor, D. Bryant, McCown, and Dray would all be worthy cap casualties to ensure we have enough room to bring on a mega contract.
Don't forget Mack... there's $8mm/yr.
Would be interesting to see Wilson on another team. He's obviously in a very good Seahawks team. How would he do on a team where it all depends on him?
Huh? We're building the opposite of an everything on the QB roster.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Taylor, D. Bryant, McCown, and Dray would all be worthy cap casualties to ensure we have enough room to bring on a mega contract.
Don't forget Mack... there's $8mm/yr.
Would be interesting to see Wilson on another team. He's obviously in a very good Seahawks team. How would he do on a team where it all depends on him?
Huh? We're building the opposite of an everything on the QB roster.
Huh? We're building the opposite of an everything on the QB roster.
agreed......would say the Browns have comparable man for man offensive talent to the Hawks.....and the system being put in place is designed to diminish the requirements on the QB.....whomever it may be....sooooo.....
dont really see it as a drop off for him....
-
... and this year should show that. If McCown has a good year, then would there be any doubt that Wilson would?
Wilson may be the ultimate game manager in the league and is perfectly content in that role. But he has the upside of being able to put a team on his back every once in a while and carry them to victory.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Huh? We're building the opposite of an everything on the QB roster.
agreed......would say the Browns have comparable man for man offensive talent to the Hawks.....and the system being put in place is designed to diminish the requirements on the QB.....whomever it may be....sooooo.....
dont really see it as a drop off for him....
agreed......would say the Browns have comparable man for man offensive talent to the Hawks.....and the system being put in place is designed to diminish the requirements on the QB.....whomever it may be....sooooo.....
dont really see it as a drop off for him....
Except Lynch, and now Graham.
-
agreed......would say the Browns have comparable man for man offensive talent to the Hawks.....and the system being put in place is designed to diminish the requirements on the QB.....whomever it may be....sooooo.....
dont really see it as a drop off for him....
Except Lynch, and now Graham.
Except Lynch, and now Graham.
right....we have better players in some areas and they have better players in some areas......though Im not counting Graham, as he hasn't played with them yet, so he cant really be factored into Wilson(or Seattles) past performance....
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login