My most recent piece was around why I believed Russell Wilson will remain with the Seahawks for the remainder of his NFL career, thus making him a one-team career Seahawk. To retain Wilson for the rest of his career is almost certainly mean paying him a huge chunk of cash.
As I was writing that price I started to consider what recent Superbowl winning QB’s have got paid and whether paying a huge chunk of your available salary budget to one player is the correct way to go about building a Super Bowl-winning roster.
After all, if the Seahawks pay that much out on one position, by definition they will need to make savings elsewhere which could lead to weaknesses on the roster.
It is playoff time when these weaknesses could get exploited by the better all-around rostered teams resulting in a Seahawks failure to achieve the ultimate goals of all NFL teams, winning the Super Bowl.
Could it better for the Seahawks to let Russell Wilson go?
This thought will seem inconceivable to a lot of Seahawks fans, and it is a massive thing to consider. The Seahawks have a truly great QB on your roster, so why would they just allow him to leave? Is he not worth paying the money too and trying to give him enough weaponry to succeed with the remaining budget?
After all, every player has value and if he is worth paying the money to, surely that is what the Seahawks should do. And then let their superstar earner go prove he was worth paying by delivering success to the Seahawks that no other individual player could bring.
Didn’t Tampa go out and pay Tom Brady the big salary last season? And look what the result was. Surely you cannot win a Super Bowl without having the QB to take you to your ultimate goal and provide the one piece you can build a team around. But which argument is correct?