Our staff grades the Russell Wilson trade

Conflicted and disappointed are the words that come to mind, here.

Up until the news that Aaron Rodgers agreed to a four-year, $200 million deal with the Packers – pushing Russell Wilson’s next contract out of a reasonable price-range – I was of the opinion that trading Wilson was the wrong move this year.

Whether the timing was coincidental or not, there’s a strong case to make that the Rodgers news made dealing Wilson immediately a necessity. While we expect Wilson still has a lot of high-level football left in him, the odds are against it and he’s already beginning to show signs of decline at 33 years old. Trading Wilson now before he turns in another iffy season and loses multiple first-round pick value is probably the right call.

That said, the package they got from Denver was not worth it. While I love both Noah Fant and Shelby Harris as complementary pieces, the fact that they didn’t get a promising young quarterback in the deal (Drew Lock is not) sours the whole thing beyond repair.

It’s hard to believe that Seattle couldn’t have gotten a QB with a higher ceiling in a similar deal with Miami or Philadelphia. Lock is only 25 years old and he may yet develop into a thing, but for now his likely career trajectory is somewhere in Sam Darnold territory. Lock couldn’t beat out Teddy Bridgewater last year and there’s no reason to assume he can beat out the equally-capable Geno Smith, who’s likely Seattle’s Week 1 starter now.

Landing either Jalen Hurts, Gardner Minshew (who’s still worth pursuing) or Tua Tagovailoa would have made me feel much better about it, but I understand why they felt they had to do it. The draft capital they got from Denver is also pretty solid for Wilson’s age, so it’s not a total failure in my opinion, certainly not nearly as bad as the trades to get Jimmy Graham, Percy Harvin and especially Jamal Adams.

Trade grade: D+