View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 19th, 2014, 6:00 am



Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Rate the draft: 2010 
Author Message
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
DJ-B wrote:
WJB, It looks like KDS was saying we overpaid because he was the #2 pick and the rookie scale wasnt in place. THen he suggests we should Move Suh while he still has value since we wont be able to resign him. Im pretty sure you are agreeing with him, but thought he was saying something else.


I understand what he's saying. My point is, he would make what he's making on the open market. I realize he would be making less under a current rookie deal with the wage scale in place, but in two years he's still going to command $15 million per year, which is what he's making now. He's just flat out not worth the salary he commands, period. I don't think you can say that our "cap problems" stem from a lack of a rookie wage scale, when the player in question would be making the same salary on the open market. Sure, we missed out on two "bargain" years of having Suh cheap, but he was inevitably going to cost too much anyhow, and the year he was drafted isn't the real issue.

Our cap problems are literally that we have too much concentrated talent in too few positions. It's not that Suh should be making less, it's that we shouldn't have a "superstar" at QB, WR, and DT, and I use the term "superstar" loosely. When you're talking about Suh and Stafford, these guys are NFL darlings more so than proven players, and are largely making a lot more than they deserve. Sure you pay for "potential," but right now we're paying for too much potential and not enough result. That's our issue.


February 20th, 2013, 6:20 pm
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3346
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
DJ-B wrote:
WJB, It looks like KDS was saying we overpaid because he was the #2 pick and the rookie scale wasnt in place. THen he suggests we should Move Suh while he still has value since we wont be able to resign him. Im pretty sure you are agreeing with him, but thought he was saying something else.


Thank u, and yes that is what I was saying.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


February 20th, 2013, 9:39 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1370
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
wjb21ndtown wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
WJB, It looks like KDS was saying we overpaid because he was the #2 pick and the rookie scale wasnt in place. THen he suggests we should Move Suh while he still has value since we wont be able to resign him. Im pretty sure you are agreeing with him, but thought he was saying something else.


I understand what he's saying. My point is, he would make what he's making on the open market. I realize he would be making less under a current rookie deal with the wage scale in place, but in two years he's still going to command $15 million per year, which is what he's making now. He's just flat out not worth the salary he commands, period. I don't think you can say that our "cap problems" stem from a lack of a rookie wage scale, when the player in question would be making the same salary on the open market. Sure, we missed out on two "bargain" years of having Suh cheap, but he was inevitably going to cost too much anyhow, and the year he was drafted isn't the real issue.

Our cap problems are literally that we have too much concentrated talent in too few positions. It's not that Suh should be making less, it's that we shouldn't have a "superstar" at QB, WR, and DT, and I use the term "superstar" loosely. When you're talking about Suh and Stafford, these guys are NFL darlings more so than proven players, and are largely making a lot more than they deserve. Sure you pay for "potential," but right now we're paying for too much potential and not enough result. That's our issue.


I don't think it's true Suh would be demanding $15M/yr on the open market if it wasn't for his rookie deal. No other DT in the league averages more than $10M a year except for Mccoy and he was drafted right after Suh. The biggest problem is Suh got $40M guaranteed and the next highest DT only got $27M on a new contract. Suh's contract was so overinflated because he was the #2 pick that any contract he tries to get is now framed with his rookie deal in mind. If Suh would have been drafted with the rookie wage scale in place he'd only be averaging around $5-6M a year and even if he wanted to be the highest paid DT in the league he would only average $10-11M/yr. That's a $4-5M difference to resign him just because of the old rookie contracts and don't forget the lions would have saved $20M in guarantees on his original deal.


February 20th, 2013, 11:03 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2281
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
Exactly.On top of that, had the rookie wage scale been in play just 3-4 years earlier, the Lions would just now be resigning Stafford (no restructres needed) and Suh would be next year, and we would have had 15-20m Per year over the last 3 years to spend on other FAs. I think its pretty obvious that the Lions could have won more games over the last few seasons with an extra 15-20m to spend on proven players. The Number of Top 2 Pucks in a short span the Lions had on the team hamstrung us... because of the lack of the rookie wage scale. Could we have resigned them all at the end of their deals, possibly not... but we wouldnt have been capscrewed nearly as hard the last few years.

Mayhews method of "kicking the can down the road" as you say hasnt helped the cap situation, but those 3 picks eating up that much space was doing more damage to the team IMO. I havent done the research but id love to see how many teams have done well in the Draft era had 3 top 2 picks eating up an equivalent % of cap considering the rookie deals skyrocketed % of cap wise near the end hence the implementation of the scale.


February 21st, 2013, 2:30 am
Profile ICQ WWW
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1370
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
DJ-B wrote:
Exactly.On top of that, had the rookie wage scale been in play just 3-4 years earlier, the Lions would just now be resigning Stafford (no restructres needed) and Suh would be next year, and we would have had 15-20m Per year over the last 3 years to spend on other FAs. I think its pretty obvious that the Lions could have won more games over the last few seasons with an extra 15-20m to spend on proven players. The Number of Top 2 Pucks in a short span the Lions had on the team hamstrung us... because of the lack of the rookie wage scale. Could we have resigned them all at the end of their deals, possibly not... but we wouldnt have been capscrewed nearly as hard the last few years.

Mayhews method of "kicking the can down the road" as you say hasnt helped the cap situation, but those 3 picks eating up that much space was doing more damage to the team IMO. I havent done the research but id love to see how many teams have done well in the Draft era had 3 top 2 picks eating up an equivalent % of cap considering the rookie deals skyrocketed % of cap wise near the end hence the implementation of the scale.


Here is the top 3 teams in the draft since 99
1999 CLE PHI CIN
2000 CLE WSH WSH
2001 ATL ARI CLE
2002 HOU CAR DET
2003 CIN DET HOU
2004 SD OAK ARI
2005 SF MIA CLE
2006 HOU NO TEN
2007 OAK DET CLE
2008 MIA STL ATL
2009 DET STL KC
2010 STL DET TB

I started at 99 because CLE went back to back #1s in 99 and 2000, so it seemed like a good start.

The only team to draft 3 top 2 picks other then DET is STL, but they also traded one of their first (Jason Smith) to the Jets last year. CLE was similar with 2 1sts and a 3rd overall, but both their 1st rounders were let go after their rookie deals because they were awful.

The Lions are the only team to keep 3 top 2 picks on their roster and try to resign one while keeping the other two. DET is also in it bad because CJ turned out to be what the hype said he was and that made him cost even more money than normal when his contract was up. The Lions would have been better off having one of their picks be horrid, so they could freely cut him and save the cap space. If they plan on being competitive before the TV revenues kick in then they need to move Suh. The Old rookie contracts are just too much and inflate the players deal when trying to extend the player.

Miami is a good example of the bad contracts, Jake Long's deal was so big that they can't even franchise him because they would pay like 50% more than the 2013 LT franchise tag number. If Long had a normal deal Miami would be able to Franchise him for $9M this year to see how he rebounds, but instead they are forced to let him walk instead of paying him $15M.


February 21st, 2013, 10:34 am
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3346
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
rao wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
Exactly.On top of that, had the rookie wage scale been in play just 3-4 years earlier, the Lions would just now be resigning Stafford (no restructres needed) and Suh would be next year, and we would have had 15-20m Per year over the last 3 years to spend on other FAs. I think its pretty obvious that the Lions could have won more games over the last few seasons with an extra 15-20m to spend on proven players. The Number of Top 2 Pucks in a short span the Lions had on the team hamstrung us... because of the lack of the rookie wage scale. Could we have resigned them all at the end of their deals, possibly not... but we wouldnt have been capscrewed nearly as hard the last few years.

Mayhews method of "kicking the can down the road" as you say hasnt helped the cap situation, but those 3 picks eating up that much space was doing more damage to the team IMO. I havent done the research but id love to see how many teams have done well in the Draft era had 3 top 2 picks eating up an equivalent % of cap considering the rookie deals skyrocketed % of cap wise near the end hence the implementation of the scale.


Here is the top 3 teams in the draft since 99
1999 CLE PHI CIN
2000 CLE WSH WSH
2001 ATL ARI CLE
2002 HOU CAR DET
2003 CIN DET HOU
2004 SD OAK ARI
2005 SF MIA CLE
2006 HOU NO TEN
2007 OAK DET CLE
2008 MIA STL ATL
2009 DET STL KC
2010 STL DET TB

I started at 99 because CLE went back to back #1s in 99 and 2000, so it seemed like a good start.

The only team to draft 3 top 2 picks other then DET is STL, but they also traded one of their first (Jason Smith) to the Jets last year. CLE was similar with 2 1sts and a 3rd overall, but both their 1st rounders were let go after their rookie deals because they were awful.

The Lions are the only team to keep 3 top 2 picks on their roster and try to resign one while keeping the other two. DET is also in it bad because CJ turned out to be what the hype said he was and that made him cost even more money than normal when his contract was up. The Lions would have been better off having one of their picks be horrid, so they could freely cut him and save the cap space. If they plan on being competitive before the TV revenues kick in then they need to move Suh. The Old rookie contracts are just too much and inflate the players deal when trying to extend the player.

Miami is a good example of the bad contracts, Jake Long's deal was so big that they can't even franchise him because they would pay like 50% more than the 2013 LT franchise tag number. If Long had a normal deal Miami would be able to Franchise him for $9M this year to see how he rebounds, but instead they are forced to let him walk instead of paying him $15M.


If they franchise jake long, they will pay the LT franchise tag number, not any more.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


February 21st, 2013, 2:33 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1370
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
kdsberman wrote:
rao wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
Exactly.On top of that, had the rookie wage scale been in play just 3-4 years earlier, the Lions would just now be resigning Stafford (no restructres needed) and Suh would be next year, and we would have had 15-20m Per year over the last 3 years to spend on other FAs. I think its pretty obvious that the Lions could have won more games over the last few seasons with an extra 15-20m to spend on proven players. The Number of Top 2 Pucks in a short span the Lions had on the team hamstrung us... because of the lack of the rookie wage scale. Could we have resigned them all at the end of their deals, possibly not... but we wouldnt have been capscrewed nearly as hard the last few years.

Mayhews method of "kicking the can down the road" as you say hasnt helped the cap situation, but those 3 picks eating up that much space was doing more damage to the team IMO. I havent done the research but id love to see how many teams have done well in the Draft era had 3 top 2 picks eating up an equivalent % of cap considering the rookie deals skyrocketed % of cap wise near the end hence the implementation of the scale.


Here is the top 3 teams in the draft since 99
1999 CLE PHI CIN
2000 CLE WSH WSH
2001 ATL ARI CLE
2002 HOU CAR DET
2003 CIN DET HOU
2004 SD OAK ARI
2005 SF MIA CLE
2006 HOU NO TEN
2007 OAK DET CLE
2008 MIA STL ATL
2009 DET STL KC
2010 STL DET TB

I started at 99 because CLE went back to back #1s in 99 and 2000, so it seemed like a good start.

The only team to draft 3 top 2 picks other then DET is STL, but they also traded one of their first (Jason Smith) to the Jets last year. CLE was similar with 2 1sts and a 3rd overall, but both their 1st rounders were let go after their rookie deals because they were awful.

The Lions are the only team to keep 3 top 2 picks on their roster and try to resign one while keeping the other two. DET is also in it bad because CJ turned out to be what the hype said he was and that made him cost even more money than normal when his contract was up. The Lions would have been better off having one of their picks be horrid, so they could freely cut him and save the cap space. If they plan on being competitive before the TV revenues kick in then they need to move Suh. The Old rookie contracts are just too much and inflate the players deal when trying to extend the player.

Miami is a good example of the bad contracts, Jake Long's deal was so big that they can't even franchise him because they would pay like 50% more than the 2013 LT franchise tag number. If Long had a normal deal Miami would be able to Franchise him for $9M this year to see how he rebounds, but instead they are forced to let him walk instead of paying him $15M.


If they franchise jake long, they will pay the LT franchise tag number, not any more.


No, they have to pay 120% of his previous year salary because it is was higher than what the 2013 OT franchise tag number will be.


February 21st, 2013, 2:39 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3346
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
rao wrote:
kdsberman wrote:
rao wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
Exactly.On top of that, had the rookie wage scale been in play just 3-4 years earlier, the Lions would just now be resigning Stafford (no restructres needed) and Suh would be next year, and we would have had 15-20m Per year over the last 3 years to spend on other FAs. I think its pretty obvious that the Lions could have won more games over the last few seasons with an extra 15-20m to spend on proven players. The Number of Top 2 Pucks in a short span the Lions had on the team hamstrung us... because of the lack of the rookie wage scale. Could we have resigned them all at the end of their deals, possibly not... but we wouldnt have been capscrewed nearly as hard the last few years.

Mayhews method of "kicking the can down the road" as you say hasnt helped the cap situation, but those 3 picks eating up that much space was doing more damage to the team IMO. I havent done the research but id love to see how many teams have done well in the Draft era had 3 top 2 picks eating up an equivalent % of cap considering the rookie deals skyrocketed % of cap wise near the end hence the implementation of the scale.


Here is the top 3 teams in the draft since 99
1999 CLE PHI CIN
2000 CLE WSH WSH
2001 ATL ARI CLE
2002 HOU CAR DET
2003 CIN DET HOU
2004 SD OAK ARI
2005 SF MIA CLE
2006 HOU NO TEN
2007 OAK DET CLE
2008 MIA STL ATL
2009 DET STL KC
2010 STL DET TB

I started at 99 because CLE went back to back #1s in 99 and 2000, so it seemed like a good start.

The only team to draft 3 top 2 picks other then DET is STL, but they also traded one of their first (Jason Smith) to the Jets last year. CLE was similar with 2 1sts and a 3rd overall, but both their 1st rounders were let go after their rookie deals because they were awful.

The Lions are the only team to keep 3 top 2 picks on their roster and try to resign one while keeping the other two. DET is also in it bad because CJ turned out to be what the hype said he was and that made him cost even more money than normal when his contract was up. The Lions would have been better off having one of their picks be horrid, so they could freely cut him and save the cap space. If they plan on being competitive before the TV revenues kick in then they need to move Suh. The Old rookie contracts are just too much and inflate the players deal when trying to extend the player.

Miami is a good example of the bad contracts, Jake Long's deal was so big that they can't even franchise him because they would pay like 50% more than the 2013 LT franchise tag number. If Long had a normal deal Miami would be able to Franchise him for $9M this year to see how he rebounds, but instead they are forced to let him walk instead of paying him $15M.


If they franchise jake long, they will pay the LT franchise tag number, not any more.


No, they have to pay 120% of his previous year salary because it is was higher than what the 2013 OT franchise tag number will be.


Oh yeah that's right. Good point.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


February 21st, 2013, 2:48 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2281
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
Thanks for the analysis Rao, i was 95% sure it would pan out like that. And of those teams.... who has been good. Cle Sucked since 99 and ST Louis was good early in 2k (thanks Greatest Show on Turf) and has sucked since then.

Not trying to say which was the bigger impact, the top pick salaries preventing the team from being good, or the team just being so bad to keep earning top picks, but they definetly both played a role, or we would have never had a rookie wage scale implemented.

I agree with the end conclusion, Move Suh before we cant resign him, or accept that he will walk away and well gt a comp pick and nothing more. We certainly cant afford to give him a big contract.


February 21st, 2013, 5:56 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Online
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 9:03 am
Posts: 2299
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
I've been saying Suh was going to have to be moved for at least a year now and was really hoping to move him now to gain the cap relief. Unfortunately because off his restructure last year they can't move him until after June 1st this year or wait until next season. There was roughly another $6 million pushed back to this season leaving his cap hit at just about exactly what he is on the books for this season. So if they moved him now they get nothing but if they move him after June 1st (which is likely too late) they can split up into $9 million this year and next $9 million next year.


February 21st, 2013, 6:41 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1370
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
I'm all for moving Suh once possible, but in reality I don't see it happening. Right now he is the only star on the defense and I can't see Mayhew letting go of him without first having a new player to be the star. Also at this point they only have Fairley and Suh as DTs and nothing at DE, so if they traded Suh the defense could become bad at a level never before seen.


February 21st, 2013, 11:17 pm
Profile
Varsity Benchwarmer

Joined: January 18th, 2010, 7:54 am
Posts: 207
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
At this point, after re-structuring this season I think it is all but guaranteed Suh will be signing an extension next year, because there is no way the Lions will be able to afford him if they trade/cut/or ride the contract after re-structuring yet again.


March 22nd, 2013, 1:52 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9864
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
wjb21ndtown wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
WJB, It looks like KDS was saying we overpaid because he was the #2 pick and the rookie scale wasnt in place. THen he suggests we should Move Suh while he still has value since we wont be able to resign him. Im pretty sure you are agreeing with him, but thought he was saying something else.


I understand what he's saying. My point is, he would make what he's making on the open market. I realize he would be making less under a current rookie deal with the wage scale in place, but in two years he's still going to command $15 million per year, which is what he's making now. He's just flat out not worth the salary he commands, period. I don't think you can say that our "cap problems" stem from a lack of a rookie wage scale, when the player in question would be making the same salary on the open market. Sure, we missed out on two "bargain" years of having Suh cheap, but he was inevitably going to cost too much anyhow, and the year he was drafted isn't the real issue.

Our cap problems are literally that we have too much concentrated talent in too few positions. It's not that Suh should be making less, it's that we shouldn't have a "superstar" at QB, WR, and DT, and I use the term "superstar" loosely. When you're talking about Suh and Stafford, these guys are NFL darlings more so than proven players, and are largely making a lot more than they deserve. Sure you pay for "potential," but right now we're paying for too much potential and not enough result. That's our issue.


No way will Suh "command" $15M per season. The market sets the price, and he can't "command" the market. As a DT with pass rush ability he'll likely be staring at around $8-$9M per season, tops. A far cry from $15M per season. If he wants to go to another team, so be it. Why would that be a problem? Because we aren't getting anything in return? First, that wouldn't exactly be true (comp pick) and second, why would you regret a "locker room cancer" leaving the team? I'd think you would want him gone by hook or by crook, regardless of compensation.

Fact is, Suh may not have turned out to be the off-field choir boy, on field Godzilla that many predicted him to become. However, that doesn't mean his selection was bad. As I recall, there were three other players that most folks thought the Lions should be considering: Gerald McCoy, Russell Okung and Eric Berry. Some mentioned Joe Haden as well, but that was few and far between. Okung has injury issues, Berry hasn't been that much of a playmaker, and Suh has been more productive than McCoy. Among the top rated players Suh has been among the best, if not THE best.

I am not a Suh lover, by any stretch. There are definitely things he can improve on, particulary off the field. But there are times he seems unblockable, and causes QBs to take their eyes off the receivers. And while some of his on-field penalties have been the result of his own foolishness, other times he's been penalized for absolutely no good reason (think Marion Barber 'horsecollar' by the hair and Jay Cutler hit in the back). He may have helped create his dirty player reputation, but officials aren't supposed to flag someone over that.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


March 22nd, 2013, 2:37 pm
Profile
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
m2karateman wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
WJB, It looks like KDS was saying we overpaid because he was the #2 pick and the rookie scale wasnt in place. THen he suggests we should Move Suh while he still has value since we wont be able to resign him. Im pretty sure you are agreeing with him, but thought he was saying something else.


I understand what he's saying. My point is, he would make what he's making on the open market. I realize he would be making less under a current rookie deal with the wage scale in place, but in two years he's still going to command $15 million per year, which is what he's making now. He's just flat out not worth the salary he commands, period. I don't think you can say that our "cap problems" stem from a lack of a rookie wage scale, when the player in question would be making the same salary on the open market. Sure, we missed out on two "bargain" years of having Suh cheap, but he was inevitably going to cost too much anyhow, and the year he was drafted isn't the real issue.

Our cap problems are literally that we have too much concentrated talent in too few positions. It's not that Suh should be making less, it's that we shouldn't have a "superstar" at QB, WR, and DT, and I use the term "superstar" loosely. When you're talking about Suh and Stafford, these guys are NFL darlings more so than proven players, and are largely making a lot more than they deserve. Sure you pay for "potential," but right now we're paying for too much potential and not enough result. That's our issue.


No way will Suh "command" $15M per season. The market sets the price, and he can't "command" the market. As a DT with pass rush ability he'll likely be staring at around $8-$9M per season, tops. A far cry from $15M per season. If he wants to go to another team, so be it. Why would that be a problem? Because we aren't getting anything in return? First, that wouldn't exactly be true (comp pick) and second, why would you regret a "locker room cancer" leaving the team? I'd think you would want him gone by hook or by crook, regardless of compensation.

Fact is, Suh may not have turned out to be the off-field choir boy, on field Godzilla that many predicted him to become. However, that doesn't mean his selection was bad. As I recall, there were three other players that most folks thought the Lions should be considering: Gerald McCoy, Russell Okung and Eric Berry. Some mentioned Joe Haden as well, but that was few and far between. Okung has injury issues, Berry hasn't been that much of a playmaker, and Suh has been more productive than McCoy. Among the top rated players Suh has been among the best, if not THE best.

I am not a Suh lover, by any stretch. There are definitely things he can improve on, particulary off the field. But there are times he seems unblockable, and causes QBs to take their eyes off the receivers. And while some of his on-field penalties have been the result of his own foolishness, other times he's been penalized for absolutely no good reason (think Marion Barber 'horsecollar' by the hair and Jay Cutler hit in the back). He may have helped create his dirty player reputation, but officials aren't supposed to flag someone over that.


M2 - I think you misunderstand me...

IMO Suh and Stafford will both have to be signed for the $12-15M range (admittedly likely on the lower end of that range), because they're going to be signing an extension (if they stay, and I think Stafford will... I don't feel the same about Suh)... We're going to be "rolling guaranteed money" into Suh's deal, inflating the yearly rate of his contract by $2-3 million dollars per year. Right now even if he plays out next year under his ridiculously high salary, we're already going to have to roll $9M into his next deal.


March 22nd, 2013, 2:40 pm
Butkus Award Winner

Joined: July 3rd, 2012, 2:06 am
Posts: 649
Post Re: Rate the draft: 2010
wjb21ndtown wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
DJ-B wrote:
WJB, It looks like KDS was saying we overpaid because he was the #2 pick and the rookie scale wasnt in place. THen he suggests we should Move Suh while he still has value since we wont be able to resign him. Im pretty sure you are agreeing with him, but thought he was saying something else.


I understand what he's saying. My point is, he would make what he's making on the open market. I realize he would be making less under a current rookie deal with the wage scale in place, but in two years he's still going to command $15 million per year, which is what he's making now. He's just flat out not worth the salary he commands, period. I don't think you can say that our "cap problems" stem from a lack of a rookie wage scale, when the player in question would be making the same salary on the open market. Sure, we missed out on two "bargain" years of having Suh cheap, but he was inevitably going to cost too much anyhow, and the year he was drafted isn't the real issue.

Our cap problems are literally that we have too much concentrated talent in too few positions. It's not that Suh should be making less, it's that we shouldn't have a "superstar" at QB, WR, and DT, and I use the term "superstar" loosely. When you're talking about Suh and Stafford, these guys are NFL darlings more so than proven players, and are largely making a lot more than they deserve. Sure you pay for "potential," but right now we're paying for too much potential and not enough result. That's our issue.


No way will Suh "command" $15M per season. The market sets the price, and he can't "command" the market. As a DT with pass rush ability he'll likely be staring at around $8-$9M per season, tops. A far cry from $15M per season. If he wants to go to another team, so be it. Why would that be a problem? Because we aren't getting anything in return? First, that wouldn't exactly be true (comp pick) and second, why would you regret a "locker room cancer" leaving the team? I'd think you would want him gone by hook or by crook, regardless of compensation.

Fact is, Suh may not have turned out to be the off-field choir boy, on field Godzilla that many predicted him to become. However, that doesn't mean his selection was bad. As I recall, there were three other players that most folks thought the Lions should be considering: Gerald McCoy, Russell Okung and Eric Berry. Some mentioned Joe Haden as well, but that was few and far between. Okung has injury issues, Berry hasn't been that much of a playmaker, and Suh has been more productive than McCoy. Among the top rated players Suh has been among the best, if not THE best.

I am not a Suh lover, by any stretch. There are definitely things he can improve on, particulary off the field. But there are times he seems unblockable, and causes QBs to take their eyes off the receivers. And while some of his on-field penalties have been the result of his own foolishness, other times he's been penalized for absolutely no good reason (think Marion Barber 'horsecollar' by the hair and Jay Cutler hit in the back). He may have helped create his dirty player reputation, but officials aren't supposed to flag someone over that.


M2 - I think you misunderstand me...

IMO Suh and Stafford will both have to be signed for the $12-15M range (admittedly likely on the lower end of that range), because they're going to be signing an extension (if they stay, and I think Stafford will... I don't feel the same about Suh)... We're going to be "rolling guaranteed money" into Suh's deal, inflating the yearly rate of his contract by $2-3 million dollars per year. Right now even if he plays out next year under his ridiculously high salary, we're already going to have to roll $9M into his next deal.


I think we just suck it up and pay the dead money and let him go. I think he'll base his new deal solely on his rookie one. In other words, he'll be thinking "I made $12 million a year as a rookie, why would I sign for less?". Some team will break the bank for him, guaranteed.

_________________
Image


March 22nd, 2013, 2:47 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.