Why Ndamukong Suh won't go #1 overall

[dave mcbride]

The other part of it is that the Rams absolutely, desperately need a QB. Clausen may not merit being the top pick overall, but he certainly merits being in the top 10. The NFL is not a DT-driven league; it is a QB driven league. The Rams drafted a DE two years ago and an LT last year. Common sense dictates that they take the best QB on the board, and that probably means Clausen. I suspect that if Clausen were available when the Bills picked (which he won't be), they'd draft him instantly. It's notoriously hard to predict these things, but I expect that he'll be a good NFL player. A good DT gets a team with a bad QB situation to 5-11; a good QB makes you a perennial contender. Also, let's not forget the very many top ten defensive tackle busts in recent years: DeWayne Robertson, Jonathan Sullivan, Jimmy Kennedy, Ryan Sims, ... John McCargo.

[thebandit27]

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.

 

Again, you're talking about an apples to oranges comparison.

 

When Russell went #1 overall, there were already multiple QBs making that kind of money (Manning, Brady, Favre, Roethlisberger, McNabb among them). We're talking about one DT in the whole league making $40M+ in guaranteed money, while the other top-paid DTs make less than half of that in guarantees. Also, just to illustrate the cause-and-affect from Russell, you did see guys like David Garrard get $65M w/ $30M+ in guarantees after his contract. Whether or not it was preceeded by a holdout is irrelevent, the causality is still evident.

 

Also, regarding Haynesworth, it's easy for the other 31 owners to pass off his deal as a Dan Snyder anomoly...for now. Once a team hands $38M-$40M to a rookie DT, the entire scope changes. That's the point. We're not talking about a veteran getting $40M once he's earned it, we're talking about an unproven rookie getting that kind of money, at a position that doesn't get that kind of money (except from guys like Dan Snyder).

[thebandit27]

The other part of it is that the Rams absolutely, desperately need a QB. Clausen may not merit being the top pick overall, but he certainly merits being in the top 10. The NFL is not a DT-driven league; it is a QB driven league. The Rams drafted a DE two years ago and an LT last year. Common sense dictates that they take the best QB on the board, and that probably means Clausen. I suspect that if Clausen were available when the Bills picked (which he won't be), they'd draft him instantly. A good DT gets a team with a bad QB situation to 5-11; a good QB makes you a perennial contender.

 

That's also a really good point, Dave.

[CarolinaBill]

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.

 

Stafford not a top 10 pick? right, I think you meant Sanchez

[bananathumb]

The Rams need a QB, and will try to trade that first pick to a team they know will slobber over Suh. But whoever ends up picking first, Rams or someone they can con into giving up picks - like Buffalo - will be happy to pay Suh top dollar. Looks like he'll be worth it too. I'd certainly hand it to him, knowing he'll start and be a factor from day 1 than any sketchy QB comi ng out this year, including that ND kid.

[Mr. WEO]

Again, you're talking about an apples to oranges comparison.

 

When Russell went #1 overall, there were already multiple QBs making that kind of money (Manning, Brady, Favre, Roethlisberger, McNabb among them). We're talking about one DT in the whole league making $40M+ in guaranteed money, while the other top-paid DTs make less than half of that in guarantees. Also, just to illustrate the cause-and-affect from Russell, you did see guys like David Garrard get $65M w/ $30M+ in guarantees after his contract. Whether or not it was preceeded by a holdout is irrelevent, the causality is still evident.

Again, then, you have demonstrated that this is how the NFL works. No team is going to worry about what effect their negotiations for a player will have on the rest of the owners. It just doesn't work that way.

 

It is completely relevant that Garrard did not holdout---none of those guys will get close to a first rouder's money unless they holdout. Also, his extension had nothing to do with Russell's contract--it was a reflection of the money given to Big Ben and Bulger, etc.

[iinii]

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.

If you are correct then who gets to the podium first?

[iinii]

A good DT gets a team with a bad QB situation to 5-11; a good QB makes you a perennial contender.

Like Washington?

[Acantha]

Stafford not a top 10 pick? right, I think you meant Sanchez

No, I meant Stafford. Anyone that spent any amount of time watching him in college knows what kind of QB he was. Had all the arm strength in the world, but made horrible decisions with the ball. If it wasn't for Massaquoi, who was basically to Stafford what Randy Moss was to Culpepper, Stafford's stats (mainly TD to INT ratio) wouldn't have held up to NFL standards.

 

And while he was only a rookie and has plenty of time to get his game together, his faults in college were clearly evident in his play this year. In most years, Stafford would have been a 15-25 pick. In one of the weakest QB drafts in recent memory, he went 1. That's the way the draft works, especially as combine superstars seem to become more and more desirable.

[thebandit27]

Again, then, you have demonstrated that this is how the NFL works. No team is going to worry about what effect their negotiations for a player will have on the rest of the owners. It just doesn't work that way.

 

Not sure how you made that conclusion from reading my most recent post. In fact, I clearly mentioned--many times over in this thread--that the issue comes in regard to the pay structure of another position changing significantly. The point that you are still missing is that--regardless of the fact that we're talking about giving unprecedented money to a rookie at a position that is not among the highest-paid in the game--such a decision has never before come during such a contentious CBA negotiation between the owners and players' union. A negotiation in which the owners will attempt to prove to the players that certain money aspects need to be controlled (i.e. salary cap, rookie salaries, etc.). This really isn't that difficult to understand, WEO.

 

It is completely relevant that Garrard did not holdout---none of those guys will get close to a first rouder's money unless they holdout. Also, his extension had nothing to do with Russell's contract--it was a reflection of the money given to Big Ben and Bulger, etc.

 

Not buying that at all. If you expect to sell me that, then tell me what about Garrard's 2007 season (in which he threw for 2,500 yards and 18 TDs) would thereby entitle him to the type of money the team gave him in May of 2008. He never put together a season even close the best performances of Big Ben (who twice threw for over 3,000 yards and was coming off of a 32 TD season when he got his extension 2 weeks before Garrard) and Marc Bulger (who threw for over 3,800 yards and over 20 TDs in 3 out of 4 seasons from 2003 to 2006. Sorry dude, more likely it was the $31M handed over to Russell that allowed Garrard's camp to seek that type of coin.

[thebandit27]

If you are correct then who gets to the podium first?

 

No idea yet.

 

If you want a shot in the dark, I'll say one of the following:

 

Jimmy Claussen - QB/Notre Dame

Sam Bradford - QB/Oklahoma

Russell Okung - OT/Oklahoma State

Carlos Dunlap - DE/Florida

[billsfan89]

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.

 

With the advent of Jerry Jones I think the collectivist mentality of the NFL is one that has went out the window. If the Rams feel Suh is a dominant defender then they will take him with the number 1 pick if not Suh goes number 2 to the Lions and the Lions catch a huge break for their franchise. But the Rams want the best player available in the draft and they won't care what it means to the other owners contracts.

[thebandit27]

With the advent of Jerry Jones I think the collectivist mentality of the NFL is one that has went out the window. If the Rams feel Suh is a dominant defender then they will take him with the number 1 pick if not Suh goes number 2 to the Lions and the Lions catch a huge break for their franchise. But the Rams want the best player available in the draft and they won't care what it means to the other owners contracts.

 

Even if, in the long-term, it costs the owners hundreds of millions at the CBA bargaining table?

[Alaska Darin]

I don't think Suh's "number" is going to mean anything to the Rams. I think the only way they don't take him at 1 is if someone makes them an offer they can't refuse and they move down. That's the most likely scenario, in my opinion. They've blown up pretty much the entire operation over the past offseason and they need picks in a big way.

 

I also think that one of the biggest reasons for the 2011 lockout will be draft choice money. Owners are tired of paying out big jack to unproven commodities and then having it thrown in their faces by veterans ("Mike Williams got xx signing bonus and this much guaranteed and he's not anywhere near as good as my free agent Pro Bowl tackle).

[billsfan89]

Even if, in the long-term, it costs the owners hundreds of millions at the CBA bargaining table?

 

Yes Why should the Rams care about the future if the owners of the Giants, Jets, Redskins, Cowboys, and Pats* stop caring about the long term future of the league.

[Mr. WEO]

Not sure how you made that conclusion from reading my most recent post. In fact, I clearly mentioned--many times over in this thread--that the issue comes in regard to the pay structure of another position changing significantly. The point that you are still missing is that--regardless of the fact that we're talking about giving unprecedented money to a rookie at a position that is not among the highest-paid in the game--such a decision has never before come during such a contentious CBA negotiation between the owners and players' union. A negotiation in which the owners will attempt to prove to the players that certain money aspects need to be controlled (i.e. salary cap, rookie salaries, etc.). This really isn't that difficult to understand, WEO.

 

 

 

Not buying that at all. If you expect to sell me that, then tell me what about Garrard's 2007 season (in which he threw for 2,500 yards and 18 TDs) would thereby entitle him to the type of money the team gave him in May of 2008. He never put together a season even close the best performances of Big Ben (who twice threw for over 3,000 yards and was coming off of a 32 TD season when he got his extension 2 weeks before Garrard) and Marc Bulger (who threw for over 3,800 yards and over 20 TDs in 3 out of 4 seasons from 2003 to 2006. Sorry dude, more likely it was the $31M handed over to Russell that allowed Garrard's camp to seek that type of coin.

The next CBA, if there is one, has nothing to do with Suh going number 1. As several others here have tried to explain, St. Louis will take him if they please and will do so with no concern regarding your convoluted ripple-effect theory. The only way this would be relevant would be if many other guys at the same position held out, expecting the same money--and if they did, they would be diluting the value of the position: more than one team is not going to pay that kind of money. The market sets the price for veterans, bro. If they don't hold out, then they play out their contract and try to do better in free agency when their time is up.

 

Vets all complain about first round rookie salaries, but nothing changes. Did Peters, a two time probowler, get Long's deal? His next contract is going to get him $30 mil guaranteed?

 

And there is only your imaginary line connecting Garrard to Russell. Jax was paying what they felt was the going rate for a franchise (pro-rated for Garrard's career to that point, ,meaning he wasn't quite getting Big Ben money).

[Trent is Unstoppable]

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.

I get the feeling that Suh is falling down draft boards. May not translate to the next level.

 

Don't think he is a good fit here if he falls this far.

[Alaska Darin]

I get the feeling that Suh is falling down draft boards. May not translate to the next level.

Don't think he is a good fit here if he falls this far.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Good discussion.

 

Regardless of how far Suh falls or not, I seriously doubt he will make it down to our pick at #9. So to me, this is purely an academic discussion.

 

Also, with regard to veteran players, it doesn't matter much what NFL teams think of a veteran player's contract...Albert Haynesworth for instance.

 

It does matter very much what the players agents think about a given contract. It will be interesting to see how much Haloti Ngata signs for when his rookie contract expires in 2011, or whenever the Ravens extend him. Also how much Aubrayo Franklin gets in free agency this year.

 

As for rookies, until it is changed, slotting will remain the system for determining the parameters of a rookie contract.. Look at what happened to Michael Crabtree when he tried to transcend the slotting system.

 

Suh will probably get around what Tyson Jackson got when he was drafted third overall by Kansas City. Jackson got 5 years at $57 million with $31 million guaranteed.

 

Haynesworth got a 7 year, $100 million contract with $41 million guaranteed.

 

Suh may drop. But I don't think he drops very far and I'm not so sure that the position that he plays will be a very large determinant of this.

[papazoid]

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 Post !!.....

 

#1- i think that Suh is the proto-type DE in a 3-4 defense, as such any team could easily justify his crazy rookie contract.

 

#2- such a premium is paid on getting a franchise QB, that it is very possible that St Louis trades down just one spot to Detroit, who doesn't need a QB, but who would want to protect from losing Suh to another team like TB, allowing STL to still take their choice of QB's.....the only way Det doesn't pick Suh, is if he is already gone....in which case it's a toss up between McCoy (DT)and Okung(OT).