Why Ndamukong Suh won't go #1 overall

[thebandit27]

As much as I enjoy crayonz's show (and I really do--he always manages to ensnare some unsuspecting posters into thinking he's serious), his post today about Suh "slipping" inspired me to post this separate thread (I think most of you will agree, based on the content, that it deserves its own thread)...I actually have a valid point regarding Suh.

 

I've mentioned before that, despite many credible personnel men's beliefs (which I share) that Suh is the best overall player in the draft, I believe that it's very unlikely that he goes #1 overall. The biggest reasons for this are actually not related to on-the-field circumstances, but rather to the current salary structure, draft pick compensation, and upcoming labor dispute.

 

As you all likely know, the #1 overall pick will receive a contract in excess of $70M, with guaranteed money in excess of $40M. In reality, there are only 3 positions in the NFL for which the top players at those positions garner that type of salary with any commonality: QB, LT, and DE. The fact that these 3 are the highest-paid positions in the game is--in my opinion--the largest contributing factor to the reality that no other position has been selected #1 overall since 1996. Why? Because when one of those 3 positions are drafted #1, it doesn't completely throw off the salary structure for that position throughout the league.

 

Case-in-point: When Matthew Stafford was drafted #1 overall in 2009, his $41M guarantee didn't mess up the salary structure for Peyton Manning, since any elite QB is in line to receive upwards of $30M in bonus money anyway once he's proven himself (based on deals signed by guys like Tony Romo, Big Ben, David Garrard, etc.). The same situation existed in 2008, when Jake Long was selected #1 overall. Jason Peters (as a 2-time pro bowl left tackle), regardless of how you feel about him, would be in line for $30M in guaranteed money on his next contract, even if Long hadn't been selected #1 and given that amount of money (based on deals signed by guys like Jordan Gross, etc.).

 

Now back to current day NFL economics: if Ndamukong Suh goes #1 overall, a huge domino effect will come as a result. Right now, the highest amount of guaranteed money paid to a DT is $41M for Albert Haynesworth, which was more than double the highest guarantee paid to a DT before that ($18M to Oakland's Tommy Kelly and Cleveland's Corey Williams). That one contract can be considered an anomoly, and furthermore won't mess up the pay structure because Haynesworth had 2 dominant NFL seasons prior to getting that deal. Suh being drafted #1 overall, and getting a similar deal, would cause a ton of guys to expect that kind of money. Among them: Chicago's Tommie Harris, Arizona' Darnell Dockett, the Jets' Kris Jenkins, Cleveland's Shaun Rogers, Jacksonville's John Henderson, and Minnesota's Kevin Williams. Ask yourself: how does anyone expect those guys NOT to hold out for "Suh money"?

 

Given that expectation, which I highly doubt is unique to my perception, how could any owner justify selecting Suh #1 with such an intense labor dispute on the horizon? This labor dispute will include discussions regarding the salary cap, prospective rookie cap, player compensation, revenue percentages, revenue sharing, etc., all of which would be heavily affected by Suh going #1.

 

If it happens, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong, but--for now--until I see him on the podium wearing a Rams' cap, I just can't conceive it.

[Mr. WEO]

As much as I enjoy crayonz's show (and I really do--he always manages to ensnare some unsuspecting posters into thinking he's serious), his post today about Suh "slipping" inspired me to post this separate thread (I think most of you will agree, based on the content, that it deserves its own thread)...I actually have a valid point regarding Suh.

 

I've mentioned before that, despite many credible personnel men's beliefs (which I share) that Suh is the best overall player in the draft, I believe that it's very unlikely that he goes #1 overall. The biggest reasons for this are actually not related to on-the-field circumstances, but rather to the current salary structure, draft pick compensation, and upcoming labor dispute.

 

As you all likely know, the #1 overall pick will receive a contract in excess of $70M, with guaranteed money in excess of $40M. In reality, there are only 3 positions in the NFL for which the top players at those positions garner that type of salary with any commonality: QB, LT, and DE. The fact that these 3 are the highest-paid positions in the game is--in my opinion--the largest contributing factor to the reality that no other position has been selected #1 overall since 1996. Why? Because when one of those 3 positions are drafted #1, it doesn't completely throw off the salary structure for that position throughout the league.

 

Case-in-point: When Matthew Stafford was drafted #1 overall in 2009, his $41M guarantee didn't mess up the salary structure for Peyton Manning, since any elite QB is in line to receive upwards of $30M in bonus money anyway once he's proven himself (based on deals signed by guys like Tony Romo, Big Ben, David Garrard, etc.). The same situation existed in 2008, when Jake Long was selected #1 overall. Jason Peters (as a 2-time pro bowl left tackle), regardless of how you feel about him, would be in line for $30M in guaranteed money on his next contract, even if Long hadn't been selected #1 and given that amount of money (based on deals signed by guys like Jordan Gross, etc.).

 

Now back to current day NFL economics: if Ndamukong Suh goes #1 overall, a huge domino effect will come as a result. Right now, the highest amount of guaranteed money paid to a DT is $41M for Albert Haynesworth, which was more than double the highest guarantee paid to a DT before that ($18M to Oakland's Tommy Kelly and Cleveland's Corey Williams). That one contract can be considered an anomoly, and furthermore won't mess up the pay structure because Haynesworth had 2 dominant NFL seasons prior to getting that deal. Suh being drafted #1 overall, and getting a similar deal, would cause a ton of guys to expect that kind of money. Among them: Chicago's Tommie Harris, Arizona' Darnell Dockett, the Jets' Kris Jenkins, Cleveland's Shaun Rogers, Jacksonville's John Henderson, and Minnesota's Kevin Williams. Ask yourself: how does anyone expect those guys NOT to hold out for "Suh money"?

 

Given that expectation, which I highly doubt is unique to my perception, how could any owner justify selecting Suh #1 with such an intense labor dispute on the horizon? This labor dispute will include discussions regarding the salary cap, prospective rookie cap, player compensation, revenue percentages, revenue sharing, etc., all of which would be heavily affected by Suh going #1.

 

If it happens, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong, but--for now--until I see him on the podium wearing a Rams' cap, I just can't conceive it.

Why won't these guys hold out for Haynesworth money? Don't they all think they are as good or better than him? Williams IS better.

 

I think most of you will agree, based on the content, that it deserves its own thread

 

Nah.

[Cash]

Good post.

[thebandit27]

Why won't these guys hold out for Haynesworth money? Don't they all think they are as good or better than him? Williams IS better.

 

No, for lots of reasons. Among them:

 

1) Haynesworth's was an outlandish amount of $$ paid out by an owner that is notorious for handing out outlandish amounts of money annually. For any other organization to bend to a player based on a Dan Snyder contract would be ludicrous, and I think most of the league would feel the same way.

 

2) It takes more than one contract given to a veteran, two-time franchise player to set the market place for a position. Teams can easily tell all of the players that I mentioned to study the situation. Haynesworth was dominant in Tennessee for 2 straight years. Nobody could run the ball on them, and they had a great pass rush. As soon as he leaves, the defense goes in the tank. None of the players that I mentioned can boast the same kind of affect as Haynesworth on a defense.

 

3) It was pretty obvious, over the course of the season, that Haynesworth wasn't worth the coin that Snyder gave him. He missed several games, he caused problems in the locker room, and--most importantly--Washington's defense was no worse off without him when he didn't play.

 

Nah.

 

Do you have any justification or are you just being contradictory for the fun of it?

[Acantha]

If it happens, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong, but--for now--until I see him on the podium wearing a Rams' cap, I just can't conceive it.

The problem is, most people weren't expecting St Louis to take him anyway. While many things will change between now and the draft, common prediction is they are looking QB. So while he may not go number 1, I don't think it has anything to do with money or the domino effect.

 

If a team like Detroit (desperate for some D-line help and not looking for a QB) were picking first, they would take him in a second. Nobody is going to care about money and how it impacts the rest of the league (especially in an uncapped year) when they can get a talent like Suh.

[Jeffery Lester]

Good post.

agreed well thought out.

[thebandit27]

The problem is, most people weren't expecting St Louis to take him anyway. While many things will change between now and the draft, common prediction is they are looking QB. So while he may not go number 1, I don't think it has anything to do with money or the domino effect.

 

Interesting. I haven't seen one projection/value board/analyst state that they expect him to go anywhere other than 1st overall. Have you seen something different?

 

If a team like Detroit (desperate for some D-line help and not looking for a QB) were picking first, they would take him in a second. Nobody is going to care about money and how it impacts the rest of the league (especially in an uncapped year) when they can get a talent like Suh.

 

I guess I'll respond to that idea with a question: if you're an NFL owner, and you know you need to go to battle with the players' union this spring, and you know you'll be fighting on the side of the owners as a united front, how can you justify telling the players' union that a rookie cap needs to be established and that they receive too much compensation if you're willing to blow up the salary structure of another position?

[Thurman#1]

As much as I enjoy crayonz's show (and I really do--he always manages to ensnare some unsuspecting posters into thinking he's serious), his post today about Suh "slipping" inspired me to post this separate thread (I think most of you will agree, based on the content, that it deserves its own thread)...I actually have a valid point regarding Suh.

 

I've mentioned before that, despite many credible personnel men's beliefs (which I share) that Suh is the best overall player in the draft, I believe that it's very unlikely that he goes #1 overall. The biggest reasons for this are actually not related to on-the-field circumstances, but rather to the current salary structure, draft pick compensation, and upcoming labor dispute.

 

As you all likely know, the #1 overall pick will receive a contract in excess of $70M, with guaranteed money in excess of $40M. In reality, there are only 3 positions in the NFL for which the top players at those positions garner that type of salary with any commonality: QB, LT, and DE. The fact that these 3 are the highest-paid positions in the game is--in my opinion--the largest contributing factor to the reality that no other position has been selected #1 overall since 1996. Why? Because when one of those 3 positions are drafted #1, it doesn't completely throw off the salary structure for that position throughout the league.

 

Case-in-point: When Matthew Stafford was drafted #1 overall in 2009, his $41M guarantee didn't mess up the salary structure for Peyton Manning, since any elite QB is in line to receive upwards of $30M in bonus money anyway once he's proven himself (based on deals signed by guys like Tony Romo, Big Ben, David Garrard, etc.). The same situation existed in 2008, when Jake Long was selected #1 overall. Jason Peters (as a 2-time pro bowl left tackle), regardless of how you feel about him, would be in line for $30M in guaranteed money on his next contract, even if Long hadn't been selected #1 and given that amount of money (based on deals signed by guys like Jordan Gross, etc.).

 

Now back to current day NFL economics: if Ndamukong Suh goes #1 overall, a huge domino effect will come as a result. Right now, the highest amount of guaranteed money paid to a DT is $41M for Albert Haynesworth, which was more than double the highest guarantee paid to a DT before that ($18M to Oakland's Tommy Kelly and Cleveland's Corey Williams). That one contract can be considered an anomoly, and furthermore won't mess up the pay structure because Haynesworth had 2 dominant NFL seasons prior to getting that deal. Suh being drafted #1 overall, and getting a similar deal, would cause a ton of guys to expect that kind of money. Among them: Chicago's Tommie Harris, Arizona' Darnell Dockett, the Jets' Kris Jenkins, Cleveland's Shaun Rogers, Jacksonville's John Henderson, and Minnesota's Kevin Williams. Ask yourself: how does anyone expect those guys NOT to hold out for "Suh money"?

 

Given that expectation, which I highly doubt is unique to my perception, how could any owner justify selecting Suh #1 with such an intense labor dispute on the horizon? This labor dispute will include discussions regarding the salary cap, prospective rookie cap, player compensation, revenue percentages, revenue sharing, etc., all of which would be heavily affected by Suh going #1.

 

If it happens, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong, but--for now--until I see him on the podium wearing a Rams' cap, I just can't conceive it.

 

 

 

Bandit, great post, and well thought-out. I think you're right on in one point, this would throw off the salary scale.

 

But whoever drafts first won't care. In fact, they might be happy. They have their guy and he's worth the money. So other teams have to pay too much for DTs who aren't as good as Suh? So what, that just gives Suh's team a competitive advantage.

 

You're right, QB, LT and DE are the traditional cash cows, but St. Louis (assuming they don't go QB or trade the pick) won't care what that move means to other teams pay structures. If they think Suh is worth it (and I think we both think he is) I think they'll pull the trigger.

[Endless Ike]

The guys in st. louis and detroit want the best player available, they're not losing sleep about what the guys in NY and Minnesotta will have to do

[Bills(70)]

I have no idea why anyone would think there isn't going to be a salary cap in place by the beginning of next season. According to the current structure of the NFL CBA, shared revenues on marketable merchandise is a portion of every teams revenue stream. If they reverted to a non salary cap situation 8 teams right off the bat would go into the red, and according to the bean counters at NFL HQ, 4 of those teams would go bankrupt, including the Bills.

The league is not going to allow this to happen.

 

You can find all of the numbers at NFL.com. It is utter non-sense to believe a salary cap will not be in place.

[thebandit27]

I have no idea why anyone would think there isn't going to be a salary cap in place by the beginning of next season. According to the current structure of the NFL CBA, shared revenues on marketable merchandise is a portion of every teams revenue stream. If they reverted to a non salary cap situation 8 teams right off the bat would go into the red, and according to the bean counters at NFL HQ, 4 of those teams would go bankrupt, including the Bills.

The league is not going to allow this to happen.

 

You can find all of the numbers at NFL.com. It is utter non-sense to believe a salary cap will not be in place.

 

Where in this thread did anyone say that there wouldn't be a salary cap? All I said was that it would be a huge component of the labor discussion this spring.

 

And, just so you know, the new NFL season starts on March 1st, which means that--absent a new CBA prior to that date--the salary cap will be gone as of then. The lack of a salary cap also means the lack of a salary floor, so it's very difficult to understand why 8 teams go bankrupt immediately. Also, I've never seen any of this information at NFL.com. Can you point me towards it?

[slyng1]

Now back to current day NFL economics: if Ndamukong Suh goes #1 overall, a huge domino effect will come as a result. Right now, the highest amount of guaranteed money paid to a DT is $41M for Albert Haynesworth, which was more than double the highest guarantee paid to a DT before that ($18M to Oakland's Tommy Kelly and Cleveland's Corey Williams). That one contract can be considered an anomoly, and furthermore won't mess up the pay structure because Haynesworth had 2 dominant NFL seasons prior to getting that deal. Suh being drafted #1 overall, and getting a similar deal, would cause a ton of guys to expect that kind of money. Among them: Chicago's Tommie Harris, Arizona' Darnell Dockett, the Jets' Kris Jenkins, Cleveland's Shaun Rogers, Jacksonville's John Henderson, and Minnesota's Kevin Williams. Ask yourself: how does anyone expect those guys NOT to hold out for "Suh money"?

 

Given that expectation, which I highly doubt is unique to my perception, how could any owner justify selecting Suh #1 with such an intense labor dispute on the horizon? This labor dispute will include discussions regarding the salary cap, prospective rookie cap, player compensation, revenue percentages, revenue sharing, etc., all of which would be heavily affected by Suh going #1.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but if you're Team A, what do you care how your salaries affect the negotiations of Teams B, C, or D with their veteran DTs?

 

There's plenty of great examples where rookies were getting paid a lot more than proven veteran players. Darren McFadden got a 6yr $60mm deal when the same year, proven guys like Michael Turner (6yr/$34mm) and Ryan Grant (4yr/$20mm) got paid substantially less. Jake Long (5yr/$57mm) vs. Flozell Adams (6yr/$43mm)... Top rookie Salaries always seem to be out of whack with respect to veteran contracts. It doesn't re-price the position by paying a rookie a ridiculous contract...

 

But in any case, you can't really compare his (Suh's) potential salary to that of a QB since they always have bigger contracts that other 1st round draft picks...in 2008, Jake Long got $57mm over 5yrs with $30 gtd whereas Matt Ryan (with the number 3 pick) got a higher salary and more guaranteed money (I believe his deal was worth $72mm)... In 2006, same thing: Mario Williams got $54mm w/ $26gtd @ #1pick and Vince Young got $58 w/ $25.7gtd @ #3 pick. Mark Sanchez's salary was higher than both Tyson Jackson & Aaron Curry although his guaranteed money was slightly less.

 

JaMarcus Russell is the best example, the guy got over $68mm w/ over $31gtd in 2007 and Jake Long got alot less b/c his position pays less...

 

So I would argue quite the opposite of your point: I think it might make sense for them to go after Suh because he'll be a cheaper option than drafting a high priced QB with the potential for a high-profile bust...Either way, they're still going to have to pay the guy a ton of money...

[thebandit27]

Bandit, great post, and well thought-out. I think you're right on in one point, this would throw off the salary scale.

 

But whoever drafts first won't care. In fact, they might be happy. They have their guy and he's worth the money. So other teams have to pay too much for DTs who aren't as good as Suh? So what, that just gives Suh's team a competitive advantage.

 

You're right, QB, LT and DE are the traditional cash cows, but St. Louis (assuming they don't go QB or trade the pick) won't care what that move means to other teams pay structures. If they think Suh is worth it (and I think we both think he is) I think they'll pull the trigger.

 

 

The guys in st. louis and detroit want the best player available, they're not losing sleep about what the guys in NY and Minnesotta will have to do

 

 

I understand both of your points.

 

As I responded earlier, it's going to be awfully hard for the owners to convince the players that they need to re-evaluate the salary cap/rookie cap situation when they're willing to blow up the salary structure of another position. The CBA (or lack thereof) is of much greater concern to all involved parties than whether or not the team gets to draft the guy that they want vs. the guy that's 2nd on their board, since without one there will be no football.

 

Besides, wouldn't it make a great case for a rookie cap if an owner were able to say: "hey, I wanted to draft Suh, but I couldn't afford to pay $40M for a defensive tackle. not when I have to pay $33M for my 2nd year left tackle and eventually give big money to a QB."?

[THE GASH STATION]

As much as I enjoy crayonz's show (and I really do--he always manages to ensnare some unsuspecting posters into thinking he's serious), his post today about Suh "slipping" inspired me to post this separate thread (I think most of you will agree, based on the content, that it deserves its own thread)...I actually have a valid point regarding Suh.

 

I've mentioned before that, despite many credible personnel men's beliefs (which I share) that Suh is the best overall player in the draft, I believe that it's very unlikely that he goes #1 overall. The biggest reasons for this are actually not related to on-the-field circumstances, but rather to the current salary structure, draft pick compensation, and upcoming labor dispute.

 

As you all likely know, the #1 overall pick will receive a contract in excess of $70M, with guaranteed money in excess of $40M. In reality, there are only 3 positions in the NFL for which the top players at those positions garner that type of salary with any commonality: QB, LT, and DE. The fact that these 3 are the highest-paid positions in the game is--in my opinion--the largest contributing factor to the reality that no other position has been selected #1 overall since 1996. Why? Because when one of those 3 positions are drafted #1, it doesn't completely throw off the salary structure for that position throughout the league.

 

Case-in-point: When Matthew Stafford was drafted #1 overall in 2009, his $41M guarantee didn't mess up the salary structure for Peyton Manning, since any elite QB is in line to receive upwards of $30M in bonus money anyway once he's proven himself (based on deals signed by guys like Tony Romo, Big Ben, David Garrard, etc.). The same situation existed in 2008, when Jake Long was selected #1 overall. Jason Peters (as a 2-time pro bowl left tackle), regardless of how you feel about him, would be in line for $30M in guaranteed money on his next contract, even if Long hadn't been selected #1 and given that amount of money (based on deals signed by guys like Jordan Gross, etc.).

 

Now back to current day NFL economics: if Ndamukong Suh goes #1 overall, a huge domino effect will come as a result. Right now, the highest amount of guaranteed money paid to a DT is $41M for Albert Haynesworth, which was more than double the highest guarantee paid to a DT before that ($18M to Oakland's Tommy Kelly and Cleveland's Corey Williams). That one contract can be considered an anomoly, and furthermore won't mess up the pay structure because Haynesworth had 2 dominant NFL seasons prior to getting that deal. Suh being drafted #1 overall, and getting a similar deal, would cause a ton of guys to expect that kind of money. Among them: Chicago's Tommie Harris, Arizona' Darnell Dockett, the Jets' Kris Jenkins, Cleveland's Shaun Rogers, Jacksonville's John Henderson, and Minnesota's Kevin Williams. Ask yourself: how does anyone expect those guys NOT to hold out for "Suh money"?

 

Given that expectation, which I highly doubt is unique to my perception, how could any owner justify selecting Suh #1 with such an intense labor dispute on the horizon? This labor dispute will include discussions regarding the salary cap, prospective rookie cap, player compensation, revenue percentages, revenue sharing, etc., all of which would be heavily affected by Suh going #1.

 

If it happens, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong, but--for now--until I see him on the podium wearing a Rams' cap, I just can't conceive it.

 

Great analysis..

[Endless Ike]

I understand both of your points.

 

As I responded earlier, it's going to be awfully hard for the owners to convince the players that they need to re-evaluate the salary cap/rookie cap situation when they're willing to blow up the salary structure of another position. The CBA (or lack thereof) is of much greater concern to all involved parties than whether or not the team gets to draft the guy that they want vs. the guy that's 2nd on their board, since without one there will be no football.

 

Besides, wouldn't it make a great case for a rookie cap if an owner were able to say: "hey, I wanted to draft Suh, but I couldn't afford to pay $40M for a defensive tackle. not when I have to pay $33M for my 2nd year left tackle and eventually give big money to a QB."?

 

 

THe NFL players union is the weakest in any sport, they'll get steam-rolled into whatever the owners want.

[thebandit27]

Pardon my ignorance, but if you're Team A, what do you care how your salaries affect the negotiations of Teams B, C, or D with their veteran DTs?

 

There's plenty of great examples where rookies were getting paid a lot more than proven veteran players. Darren McFadden got a 6yr $60mm deal when the same year, proven guys like Michael Turner (6yr/$34mm) and Ryan Grant (4yr/$20mm) got paid substantially less. Jake Long (5yr/$57mm) vs. Flozell Adams (6yr/$43mm)... Top rookie Salaries always seem to be out of whack with respect to veteran contracts. It doesn't re-price the position by paying a rookie a ridiculous contract...

 

But in any case, you can't really compare his (Suh's) potential salary to that of a QB since they always have bigger contracts that other 1st round draft picks...in 2008, Jake Long got $57mm over 5yrs with $30 gtd whereas Matt Ryan (with the number 3 pick) got a higher salary and more guaranteed money (I believe his deal was worth $72mm)... In 2006, same thing: Mario Williams got $54mm w/ $26gtd @ #1pick and Vince Young got $58 w/ $25.7gtd @ #3 pick. Mark Sanchez's salary was higher than both Tyson Jackson & Aaron Curry although his guaranteed money was slightly less.

 

JaMarcus Russell is the best example, the guy got over $68mm w/ over $31gtd in 2007 and Jake Long got alot less b/c his position pays less...

 

So I would argue quite the opposite of your point: I think it might make sense for them to go after Suh because he'll be a cheaper option than drafting a high priced QB with the potential for a high-profile bust...Either way, they're still going to have to pay the guy a ton of money...

 

No ignorance involved, and as you'll see from other responses, my opinion is that the upcoming CBA negotiations should make the owners care quite a bit about what happens to other teams' payrolls.

 

The issue isn't necessaily about the size of the contract, it's more about the guaranteed money (an issue you clearly understand). Jamarcus Russell didn't get a lot more than Jake Long, they both got about $30M guaranteed. The total contract value is highly inflated (and thus near-to irrelevant) because by the time the last season (in which the base salary balloons to upwards of $10M) comes along, the contract will either be renegotiated or terminated.

 

When McFadden, Long, etc. were drafted, their salaries fell right in line with the top 5-10 players at their position. McFadden received a salary on par with LaDanian Tomlinson, Larry Johnson, etc., with slightly less guaranteed money. Same goes for Mario Williams and Vince Young. My point is that Suh plays a position where--prior to the Haynesworth signing--no player got more than $18M in guarantees. Looking at the fact that the #1 pick got $41M last year, even if St. Louis were to offer him less, there's no way it's dropping to less than $37M-$38M, which still blows up the whole payment structure at the DT position.

 

I understand your comments, and there isn't one bit of untruthfulness in them. I just think that it's a better long-term, whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-it's-parts investment to pick a QB, LT, or DE, and be able to stand united with the other owners come springtime.

[thebandit27]

As a side note, I'm really impressed with the level of discussion going on in this thread.

 

Perhaps we're a sharper bunch that we credit ourselves with being!

[Beastly Dareus]

Good thoughts.....

 

but Ndamukong Suh is the best player in this draft. There aren't any QB's that are worthy #1 pick this year. There also aren't any WR's worthy #1 pick. And there aren't any OL worthy #1 pick. And that's the St. Louis Rams biggest needs.

 

So in the end that leaves Ndamukong Suh as the way they would go because they need a big DT as well Unless they decide to trade down or find a partner to trade with. Or they decide to just draft Clausen or Bradford #1 which is a reach (in my opinion neither of them should be top 5 picks)

 

This years draft will be interesting...

[Acantha]

Good thoughts.....

 

but Ndamukong Suh is the best player in this draft. There aren't any QB's that are worthy #1 pick this year. There also aren't any WR's worthy #1 pick. And there aren't any OL worthy #1 pick. And that's the St. Louis Rams biggest needs.

 

So in the end that leaves Ndamukong Suh as the way they would go because they need a big DT as well Unless they decide to trade down or find a partner to trade with. Or they decide to just draft Clausen or Bradford #1 which is a reach (in my opinion neither of them should be top 5 picks)

 

This years draft will be interesting...

Stafford shouldn't have been a Top 10 pick either, but teams go crazy as the draft approaches. The top QB in the class becomes a top 5 pick almost every year. There are exceptions, but I think this year's class has more than enough name recognition to make sure one or two are picked that high.

[Mr. WEO]

No, for lots of reasons. Among them:

 

1) Haynesworth's was an outlandish amount of $$ paid out by an owner that is notorious for handing out outlandish amounts of money annually. For any other organization to bend to a player based on a Dan Snyder contract would be ludicrous, and I think most of the league would feel the same way.

 

2) It takes more than one contract given to a veteran, two-time franchise player to set the market place for a position. Teams can easily tell all of the players that I mentioned to study the situation. Haynesworth was dominant in Tennessee for 2 straight years. Nobody could run the ball on them, and they had a great pass rush. As soon as he leaves, the defense goes in the tank. None of the players that I mentioned can boast the same kind of affect as Haynesworth on a defense.

 

3) It was pretty obvious, over the course of the season, that Haynesworth wasn't worth the coin that Snyder gave him. He missed several games, he caused problems in the locker room, and--most importantly--Washington's defense was no worse off without him when he didn't play.

 

 

 

Do you have any justification or are you just being contradictory for the fun of it?

No, not just for the fun of it. But it is sometimes fun.

 

Look, you've answered your own question by stating that haynesworth was overpayed--turns out he was NOT the only one affecting a defense (See Redskins against the run ). Any of the guys on your list could NOW easily "study the situation" and (again) conclude that they are worth as much as Haynesworth. How can you now argue otherwise?

 

Well, do you think they will? And even if they all decided to holdout, only one of them would get anything close to what he's asking for--they can't all score big in the same market.

 

As others have mentioned, a team who can pick Suh doesn't care about what happens to salary levels for the rest of the league. I don't recall any QB holdouts after the Raiders gave $31 million guaranteed to a flash in the pan college QB-turned colossal bust.