Jaime L Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Meriweather wasn't great for us, but he wasn't a complete disaster either. If that happened, I could live with it. If the pass rush were better, a lot of our crappy safeties would suddenly start looking competent. Not great, but adequate. I mean I think you're right - I think he is passable and probably more talented than Chris Clemons and the rest of the halfway decent safeties still out there. But I gotta say, watching him last year, he became my least favorite Redskin since Haynesworth. I mean the sheer idiocy with which he plays sometimes, blatantly headhunting in 2013, giving himself concussions with his own recklessness, going for the de-cleater and missing instead of getting the guy to the ground, it hurts my head watching it. To me he's the poster child for how undisciplined the defense has been under Haslett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I keep reading that the Lions want to and 'will absolutely' restructure Ndamukong Suh's deal which has a reported 22.5 million dollar cap hit. While I don't doubt that the Lions WANT to restructure the deal, I can't imagine why Suh would let them. The guy is about to make 22.5 million dollars this year, and then can sign a new contract at the end of the season as a pending free agent. Why on earth would any athlete restructure the last year of their massive deal if they're still young and have no risk of being cut? That makes no sense to me and I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on the situation. Restructuring generally involves turning some of the base salary into a bonus so the player gets the cash up front and the organization is given the option to spread the cap hit over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) which creates cap space. Steelers are known for doing this pretty much every season with guys like Ben, Polamalu, ect. So ultimately, the player gets money up front and the team gets cap relief. Suh would benefit from it. The other option is like Maith said and involves extending, giving a bonus up front and spreading the cap hit over the extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Restructuring generally involves turning some of the base salary into a bonus so the player gets the cash up front and the organization is given the option to spread the cap hit over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) which creates cap space. Steelers are known for doing this pretty much every season with guys like Ben, Polamalu, ect. So ultimately, the player gets money up front and the team gets cap relief. Suh would benefit from it. But is this first option even available when we are talking about the last year of a contract? Wouldn't the cap hit from a bonus be the same as a salary, because it is only distributed over the life of the contract (in this case, one year?) Correct me if I'm wrong, NFL contract minutia is not my strong suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 But is this first option even available when we are talking about the last year of a contract? Wouldn't the cap hit from a bonus be the same as a salary, because it is only distributed over the life of the contract (in this case, one year?) Correct me if I'm wrong, NFL contract minutia is not my strong suit. No you're right. That's why they'd have to do an extension and follow your process. I didn't even think about how many years Suh had left, just talking about restructuring in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Generally when you get someone to restructure in the final year of their deal, you do it by (either) extending their contract or threatening to cut them. Good as Suh is, he is absolutely not worth 22.5 million, and in general DTs have been getting less money the last couple of years because of a surge of rookies who play DT created a glut on the market. Just because Suh is better than any DT available doesn't mean that the Lions couldn't cut him. If the Lions did cut him an immediately offer him a one year, $15 million contract, that would be better than anything he could get from any other team at this point. And PRESTO, 7.5 million dollars saved. But would he take that $15 million contract? Suh strikes me as a relatively smart man (if a bit... unstable), he'd have to know that there would be other teams willing to pay well for his services. Certainly not 22.5mill, but why would he give Detroit a hometown discount if they had just cut him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 But would he take that $15 million contract? Suh strikes me as a relatively smart man (if a bit... unstable), he'd have to know that there would be other teams willing to pay well for his services. Certainly not 22.5mill, but why would he give Detroit a hometown discount if they had just cut him. The Lions wouldn't need to get a hometown discount. I don't know how many teams have $15 million in cap space at the moment. Not many, and most of those teams are pretty bad. The list goes even smaller when you consider which teams have any sort of need at DT. So there's probably not going to be a bidding war to pay Suh $15 million. And even if there were a second team interested in his services, Suh needs to consider that this new system might not be as good for him. If his production goes down or he gets lost in the wash of an overall terrible defense, then he goes into contract negotiations next year in a much weaker position. With his character issues + a poor 2014, he might only command a 4 year, 40 million kind of contract instead of something more to his liking (5 years, 65 million, for example). After free agency has passed, teams actually have a lot of leverage over their players, because they know that most clubs don't have big money to spend on free agents anymore. Even if you are a genuine pro bowl player, if your contract is obviously higher than your value, teams can lean on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The Lions wouldn't need to get a hometown discount. I don't know how many teams have $15 million in cap space at the moment. Not many, and most of those teams are pretty bad. The list goes even smaller when you consider which teams have any sort of need at DT. So there's probably not going to be a bidding war to pay Suh $15 million. Bengals do! Just wanted to throw that out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Bengals do! Just wanted to throw that out there. Ha! Like Mike Brown will ever go more than 5% over the salary floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Bengals do! Just wanted to throw that out there. I don't think Suh is even worth $15 million, which is why I chose that number. It is a ridiculously high figure, but still far lower than what he is going to be paid. The Bengals are historically a pretty cheap organization, and while they may have made some strides recently in this department, I know that they are trying to pinch pennies to make sure they have room for the upcoming contracts with guys like Green, Burfict, etc. I'm extremely skeptical they would engage in a bidding war with the Lions for Suh's services, were he available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 It's things like that which make me a little uncomfortable with the NFL. Alright Suh probably wouldn't be too badly off either way but I really don't like the labour market being skewed in the favour of the employers like that even for millionaire sports stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 18, 2014 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 It's things like that which make me a little uncomfortable with the NFL. Alright Suh probably wouldn't be too badly off either way but I really don't like the labour market being skewed in the favour of the employers like that even for millionaire sports stars. Not to mention non-guaranteed contracts, billionaire owners bilking cities out of hundreds of millions of dollars to build them new stadiums while they get to privatize the profits, the NFL's laughable status as a non-profit, the cover-up of concussion research, the captive training pool offered up by the NCAA... It's hard to be a liberal who loves football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 It's things like that which make me a little uncomfortable with the NFL. Alright Suh probably wouldn't be too badly off either way but I really don't like the labour market being skewed in the favour of the employers like that even for millionaire sports stars. The fact that NFL contracts are in no way guaranteed is pretty ridiculous. It gives the ownership a huge amount of power. But at the same time, the salary cap and competitive nature of the NFL is still it's strongest suit. (Most) teams are going to spend as much money as they can to get a competitive advantage over the other guy. Which means that after clearing the rookie wage scale, a player is always going to be worth what they can do to help another team win. Short term contracts and guys getting cut after a year or two are the new norm, but guys are getting paid too. If you can stay valuable, there is a great deal of money to be made. Hell, Revis is on his third NFL team already, and he signed a $12 million dollar deal for this coming season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I don't think Suh is even worth $15 million, which is why I chose that number. It is a ridiculously high figure, but still far lower than what he is going to be paid. The Bengals are historically a pretty cheap organization, and while they may have made some strides recently in this department, I know that they are trying to pinch pennies to make sure they have room for the upcoming contracts with guys like Green, Burfict, etc. I'm extremely skeptical they would engage in a bidding war with the Lions for Suh's services, were he available. Oh, no way they would. They won't touch anyone that costs more than 2-3 mil a season. I was just saying they have more than 15 mil cap space as usual :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 It's hard to be a liberal who loves football. Amen! It often stretches my not inconsiderable ability to compartmentalize to the limits! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Point taken, Maithanet. However... I know the Colts have the dough to spend on Suh, and I'd be happy with that. I think he'd do well as a DE in the Colts' 3-4 system (he's almost undersized as a DT but not quite fast enough for a 4-3 type DE). Suh's behavioral dickheadedness aside (it's hard to condemn a player after Erick Walden headbutted a guy who didn't have his helmet on), he's probably one of the most disruptive DT's since Sapp to my eye. 15mill is a freakishly steep figure, but I'd consider him for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Cowboys get on the board, signing Henry Melton. http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/10630600/dallas-cowboys-reach-agreement-former-chicago-bears-dt-henry-melton Have to see the details of the contract, but unless they grossly overpaid I think it's a good signing. Their defense revolves around the 3-technique tackle and he solves that. I will say that short term, Jason Hatcher is the better player, especially since Melton is coming off of an ACL injury and he has that recent arrest. But he's also only 27 so this could be a better long term signing. With this signing, it certainly affects the draft. They need a defensive end (and Jared Allen is unlikely to sign) but from what I've read, drafting a DE there in the first round would probably be reaching. They could get one of the top safeties (Clinton-Dix or Calvin Pryor) or a massive nose tackle like Louis Nix III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Cowboys get on the board, signing Henry Melton. http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/10630600/dallas-cowboys-reach-agreement-former-chicago-bears-dt-henry-melton Have to see the details of the contract, but unless they grossly overpaid I think it's a good signing. Their defense revolves around the 3-technique tackle and he solves that. I will say that short term, Jason Hatcher is the better player, especially since Melton is coming off of an ACL injury and he has that recent arrest. But he's also only 27 so this could be a better long term signing. With this signing, it certainly affects the draft. They need a defensive end (and Jared Allen is unlikely to sign) but from what I've read, drafting a DE there in the first round would probably be reaching. They could get one of the top safeties (Clinton-Dix or Calvin Pryor) or a massive nose tackle like Louis Nix III. Melton's an intriguing signing - was curious where he'd end up. He was a force pre-injury. One of the few FAs left with legitimate upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Yeah, whoever landed Melton was potentially getting a huge steal. He was going to get paid before that injury and arrest lowered his price tag. If the ACL doesn't affect him too much he should go back to being one of the top DTs in the league right away. Damn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Oh, no way they would. They won't touch anyone that costs more than 2-3 mil a season. I was just saying they have more than 15 mil cap space as usual :) Until you have to pay Andy Dalton 18 million next year. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Until you have to pay Andy Dalton 18 million next year. ;) Lord help me if that happens, though my hope is that Dalton improves enough that he's worth that 18 mil. 4th year is huge and while he was meh last year at times, he did make strides. He's working with Tom House, who also worked with Brady/Brees, this offseason so I can only hope that helps. I appreciate him working hard to get better, even if I'm not entirely sure he can. He's never worked with a "QB guru" before so I really do have high hopes. Unlike Stafford, he's not afraid to look to help. Just a little more context since I thought it was really cool what they can do these days. In 2012 The Los Angeles Times mapped out how House uses a combination of video and geometry to zero in on throwing mechanics.“Three-dimensional renderings generated by a system of eight high-speed cameras positioned at various angles, and simultaneously shooting light-sensitive dots (are) affixed to the athlete. A computer then connects the dots and forms a stick figure that, for example, shows the quarterback's head is tilted too far to one side when he's releasing the ball.”Dalton likes that idea.“He has a cool program filming a lot of throws with slow-motion cameras trying to find different things,” Dalton said. “It’s going to be good to see where I’m doing well with my motion in different areas and where they can improve it.“I know he’s worked both with Brady and Brees. I thought it would be helpful to get another opinion, get another look to see where I can improve.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.