PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:My point is Wilson is not considered a top 10 QB and "Super Bowl winning-caliber QB" if Seattle doesn't put together arguably the greatest defense in the history of the league. Hence, I would favor keeping that defense together more than keeping an undersized, game manager (imo) QB who benefited from said defense. Especially at 20+ million a year.
ETA: And again I'm not advocating it. I'm just saying it should get serious consideration.
I think the difference is that I think Wilson is better than you do. Probably a lot better. He isn't Brady or Rodgers, but he's second tier. The guy just has very few weapons on his team and he hasn't had many since he came into the league.
His primary weapon, as you said, is his defense. I think they pretty much already have that secondary locked up, don't they? I was actually talked to some people I was watching the game with yesterday about how I think their downfall might be when they start to lose their pass rushers to age/free agency. They also seem to have some underrated LBs too.
Because I think Wilson is better than you do I also think it's going to be harder to replace him than you do. Wilson didn't play great, but he played well enough to get them to the Super Bowl throughout the year. In the playoffs he struggled, though he came alive at the end of the Packer game when we fell apart. I also think you may underestimate how valuable it is to them that he can run and create time... that is especially valuable when you have no one that can get open.