Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Interesting idea that will never happen


gftChris

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Arguably, he should have 2 Super Bowl rings.

 

He is young and appears to have strong leadership qualities.

 

Given his proven track record, he would / could command 3 First Round Picks, to start, to pry him away from Seattle.

 

I am no football expert - I am far from it. However, I wonder about his on-field talents translating outside in the AFC North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space

A person can dream for sure. I would not hate having Russell Wilson at QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another great example of why Browns Fans are the most passionate in all of the NFL. If LBJ coming home to win championships was not enough. Now the Browns Board Chairmen have found a way to steal away R. Wilson. It's a great day in Browns Board History :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

hence the 'now' part. I don't disagree that we're probably better in some areas than they, and vice versa, and overall roughly the same - just with the 'man for man' part, because that's just not the case, as you've just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree... need to see Graham there.

 

Granted we don't have one RB to match Lynch's contribution, but we don't need one... Yardage-wise we got close with two rookies while Seattle's only other significant rusher was Wilson who ran for 2/3's of Lynch's total. Tougher to match Lynch's TDs and power, red-zone running, but we'll see what 2015 brings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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.

The ultimate scenario would be Manziel assuming a Wilson-esque role here.

 

The small stature and maneuvarability behind the line similarities are there...everything else, though, needs to be refined.

 

Including fielding shotgun snaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manning is a good example. Smith I would argue with. The rest were almost 10 years ago. The trends in the league are ever evolving and for now, good pro quarterbacks are getting more scarce as the spread becomes more common in college, so people won't be nearly as willing to give them up as they have been in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manning is a good example. Smith I would argue with. The rest were almost 10 years ago. The trends in the league are ever evolving and for now, good pro quarterbacks are getting more scarce as the spread becomes more common in college, so people won't be nearly as willing to give them up as they have been in the past.

Alternatively, might we see pro-offences running more of the spread, to get more out of the college QBs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...