Like you said we don't really know what the final structure is. The numbers I listed above are based on what little info I have found so far. My best guess on what I've seen so far: 5 years for $89.1m which works out to an average of $17.8m. Cam's contract 6 years for $118.46m which works out to an average of $19.74m. Could they back load Wilson's contract? Of course, but that still doesn't change the yearly average over the life of the contract. Personally I am fine with paying Cam more, but this idea that Wilson's contract is going to be a bigger financial burden on the Seahawks than Cam's contract is on us just isn't factual based on the info we have as of now.
If that is true for Seattle then that will be true for us also. Cam's yearly cap hit will be just as much if not more than Wilsons. Both teams are out of the window where they have a cheap quarterback.
From a financial standpoint it really isn't. Whether or not he is as good as Cam I'll leave that for other's to argue about. Cam received a 5 year extension worth 5yr/103.8m which works out to 20.76m a year. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/carolina-panthers/cam-newton/ From the reports people are linking Wilson is receiving 4yr/87.6m which works out to 21.9m a year. I have yet to see the structure of the deal so I am guessing on some of this. Cam's new money was added to what he was already set to make in 2015 which was around 14.67m. Since some of the new money is paid out in 2015 it is almost easier to look at it as a new 6yr deal. In that case Cam is set to earn 118.46m over the next 6 years for an average of 19.74m. If Wilson's new deal follows the same format you have to include what he was set to make in 2015 which was $1.54m. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/russell-wilson/ In this scenario they will end up paying him 89.1m over the next 5 years for an average of 17.82m a year. Cam for the next 6 years at an average of 19.74m Wilson for the next 5 years at an average of 17.8m. Here again I am guessing on the structure of Wilson's deal off of the limited info that is out there right now so my numbers could be off. If they are correct though it seems like a decent deal for the Seahawks
The RB, FB, and TE groups are interesting because a few of those players, namely Tolbert and Brockel, are kind of hybrids. Tolbert is a RB/FB mix and Brockel is a TE that is often used in a FB type role. If I'm not mistaken Brockel and Ward are similar size. Last year we had 8 players on the roster in those 3 positions at the start of the year. 3 traditional RBs: Williams, Stewart, and Fozzy FB/RB: Tolbert TE/FB: Brockel 3 traditional TEs: Olsen, Dickson, Williams I could see the competition being as such: RB: Stewart RB: CAP RB: Fozzy or Todman RB/FB : Tolbert FB/TE: Brockel or Ward TE: Olsen TE: Dickson TE: Williams I could easily be wrong, but I'm not convinced we are going to keep 4 running backs plus Tolbert. That would probably only leave 3 spots for TEs. I would think we would want at least 3 pass catching TEs. In that case Brockel would be out. I'm not saying Brockel is a lock by any stretch but the role he plays (FB, H-back, blocking TE, ST) is something the coaches might be looking for from someone or a combination of players. If anything 4 traditional running backs might be redundant and in reality a 4th running back isn't going to see the field too much anyway. You can always keep a 4th running back on the practice squad incase someone gets hurt during the season. With all of that being said the coaches might decide to only keep 9 OL or 5 WRs and in that case we could carry an extra at the RB position.
When we decided to pay Hardy I am sure it was with the thought of him playing the entire season. I am not convinced an Anthony Collins type of FA acquisition would have resulted in more wins than an available Greg Hardy.
Tillman, Trusnick, and Coleman are the only FAs that will be relevant to compensatory picks. http://overthecap.com/compensatory-draft-picks-cancellation-chart/ As it stands now we have lost 3 and gained 3. Of the three we have lost there is a very good chance that Dockery won't qualify so in reality we are probably at 2 lost and 3 gained. If some younger players step up this could play into the final roster decisions. The question might not be Tillman or Garry Peters it might be Tillman or Garry Peters + a 3rd round pick. How many people here would trade Tillman or Coleman right now for a 3rd or 4th round pick?
If you read the actual methodology behind the article he states that if a team has a net value loss they are still eligible for a compensatory pick but those are always placed at the end of the 7th round after the regular compensatory picks. More times then not those fall outside of the top 32 picks. A net value loss is when a team loses and gains the same number of players but the value of those players lost is greater than those gained. http://overthecap.com/the-basics-and-methodology-of-projecting-the-nfls-compensatory-draft-picks/ On this page you will see he has us being awarded a compensatory pick but it not showing up in the top 32. http://overthecap.com/draft Under your assumption a team could lose one $12m player and gain 3 $2m players and they would be awarded a compensatory pick. I have yet to see that situation actually play out in the past. Hopefully I am wrong. As Orange Habit has said before we currently have 3 players lost and 3 players gained. Of those players lost James Dockery has a really low annual salary and therefore there is a very good chance he won't qualify unless he plays a considerable amount of snaps. So in reality we are probably looking at only 2 players lost and that is if Bell makes his team. If Hardy, Bell, and Dockery all qualify we would need one of Tillman, Coleman, and Trusnik to not make the team in order to get a compensatory pick. If Dockery doesn't qualify then we would need 2 of them to not make the team. These scenarios could factory into the final 53man roster. For example lets assume Dockery doesn't qualify and Trusnik doesn't make the team. At this point we would have 2 gained and 2 lost. At this point keeping a player like Chris Houston instead of Tillman could result in an extra 3rd or 4th rounder. Houston and a 4th rounder or Tillman is an entirely different decision for the front office than just Houston or Tillman. The same type of situation could play out for Coleman.
I would be a little surprised if we kept 4 RBs, Tolbert at FB and Brockel or Ward. There are just so many roster spots. Since people tend to debate who is a "FB" and who is a "TE" we can look at a different way. Last year we started the season with 8 roster spots allocated to RB,FB, and TE. I fully expect us to go into the season with 3 "traditional type TEs. Olsen, Dickson, and probably Williams. Stewart is a lock. CAP and probably Tolbert also. That leaves 2 roster spots for guys like Fozzy, Todman, Reaves, Ward, Wegher, and Brockel. We could always carry more then 8 but people are also wanting us to carry 6 WRs. We only had 5 on the roster at the start of last year. Either way roster spots are going to be tight and some decent players are going to be let go.
Last year we started the season with 4 running backs on the roster (Stewart, Williams, Tolbert, and Fozzy). Also Brockel made the team. http://www.panthers.com/news/article-2/Breaking-down-the-53-man-roster/f8b6396f-4ac3-4bc5-b3d3-97deec514f5a If you consider Brockel more of a fullback then a tight end that would mean that we allocated 5 roster spots to the RB/ FB positions. Stewart will be the starter. I really don't see us cutting Tolbert. Also CAP is probably safe based off of draft position. I would think the final roster decisions will be something like this: Stewart Tolbert CAP Fozzy or Todman Brockel or Ward