Why Ndamukong Suh won't go #1 overall

[thebandit27]

Update:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...-to-rookie-pay/

 

Could the owners possibly realize the potential conundrum of a DT going #1 overall?

 

The sudden proposal for a rookie wage scale, a full calendar year ahead of their original timeline (a fact that says a lot about a group that has dragged their feet on every CBA-related topic), would indicate that yes, they do.

 

Why else would the owners make such a swift and unexpected move to impose a rookie cap when, as of a year ago, it appeared to be something that they were willing to defer until after the uncapped season?

 

If anyone has any other ideas as to why the sudden change-of-perspective by the owners, I'm listening...

[CarolinaBill]

considering that the Rams have already invested so much in Chris long, i dont think they let suh get past them, with suh getting a lot of attention it would draw away from long. Combine that with St louis possible trading for a vet, or waiting till rd 2 (lefevour, pike) or later (canfield, tebow).

i dont think suh draft stock is falling in the least. 1 rookie contract WILL NOT disrupt the entire positional wage scale

[KD in CA]

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?

Good analysis and I think your premise has some merit. And I have seen mocks (here's one) that have the Rams taking Clausen, thus suporting your theory.

 

 

 

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

And it's no coincidence that the NFL is the best run and most competetive of the major sports.

[mrags]

Very good post Bandit. Agree on a lot of points.

[Thurman#1]

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.

 

 

 

Interesting.

 

But I have to disagree with you about Long.

 

He's still the best-paid LT out there, and it seems very unlikely that Miami will try to weasel out of paying the non-guaranteed money in his contract. He was guaranteed $30 mill, slightly more than Peters was guaranteed a year later. Gross got $30.5 mill guaranteed, but may not see the rest of the contract. It's two years later and he's still the highest paid LT and among the absolute most highly paid in terms of guaranteed money.

 

And while it would be nice to think that you're right and that each owner is really interested in the welfare of all, all for one and one for all, it has never worked that way in the past and I just doubt it will ever act that way in the future.

[Thurman#1]

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."?

 

 

 

Yeah, absolutely. It would be a great argument. And we and they need a reasonable rookie cap / salary cap deal.

 

But as I argued above, I haven't seen a long history of owner acting so selflessly.

[Thurman#1]

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!

 

 

 

Hit the "Nobody wants to come to Buffalo" threads and you might change your mind on this.

 

LOL.

[Thurman#1]

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

 

 

I personally can't see this one decision being the largest factor in the outcome of the negotiations.

[gobillsinytown]

Hit the "Nobody wants to come to Buffalo" threads and you might change your mind on this.

 

LOL.

 

Eventually the drama queen threads will die out. Especially if you use your ignore list.

 

Anyway, the thought of Suh dropping to our spot makes me all tingly. I've been watching some cut ups on You Tube of this kid's play. Right now, he's easily a physical match for any lineman in the NFL. Of course we know that NFL line play is much more complicated that just physical matchup, but Suh is already off to a great start. Once he gets his hands under his opponent's pads, they're done. He reminds me of Reggie White in college.

 

Right now he's still making some mistakes that coaching and film study can eliminate, like locking up with his opponent for too long, overpersuit, and getting suckered up the field on draws and screens designed for that purpose.

 

But If he contiues to progress at the next level, he's the next Reggie White.

[thebandit27]

considering that the Rams have already invested so much in Chris long, i dont think they let suh get past them, with suh getting a lot of attention it would draw away from long. Combine that with St louis possible trading for a vet, or waiting till rd 2 (lefevour, pike) or later (canfield, tebow).

i dont think suh draft stock is falling in the least. 1 rookie contract WILL NOT disrupt the entire positional wage scale

 

It isn't, that's correct. My position has nothing to do with his draft stock; I do believe he's the top player in college football.

 

Interesting.

 

But I have to disagree with you about Long.

 

He's still the best-paid LT out there, and it seems very unlikely that Miami will try to weasel out of paying the non-guaranteed money in his contract. He was guaranteed $30 mill, slightly more than Peters was guaranteed a year later. Gross got $30.5 mill guaranteed, but may not see the rest of the contract. It's two years later and he's still the highest paid LT and among the absolute most highly paid in terms of guaranteed money.

 

And while it would be nice to think that you're right and that each owner is really interested in the welfare of all, all for one and one for all, it has never worked that way in the past and I just doubt it will ever act that way in the future.

 

I didn't mean to insinuate that they would, but rather to point out the inevitability that he'll get a new deal before his existing contract expires, so that the team can push his base salary into future years and amortize his bonus money. Of course, that's really caponomics more than it is ecomonics, and if there's no salary cap the ideology would change significantly.

 

As far as Gross and Peters go, can you honestly say that they'd have gotten ~$30M in guarantees if Jake Long's contract were worth, say, $5M/year for 5 years, with $10M guaranteed?

 

Yeah, absolutely. It would be a great argument. And we and they need a reasonable rookie cap / salary cap deal.

 

But as I argued above, I haven't seen a long history of owner acting so selflessly.

 

I see your point, but I guess I don't look at it as acting selflessly as much as I do acting in the best interest of his asset. If the game grows and becomes more profitable, so too does each team in the league. Big business owners typically exhibit the kind of long-term thinking that would make them say: "it's worth taking a QB here, even if he's not our top guy, since it means giving our side more leverage in the most pivotal contract negotiation the game has ever seen". Think of it as the whole rising-tide-raises-all-ships mentality.

 

I personally can't see this one decision being the largest factor in the outcome of the negotiations.

 

The largest factor? No, certainly not. A factor, yes, I believe it would be. Like I said, in a contract negotiation of this magnitude, each side better be looking for every advantage they can get. And the owners being able to mete out $40M in guarantees to a rookie DT won't do them any favors.

[thebandit27]

Further update:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...adford-at-no-1/

 

I know Schefter's word isn't the end-all, be-all, but he's right more often than he's wrong.

 

Here's my take...

 

Schefter is basing his opinion on talking to "people around the league", but not to the Rams. Because this is the case, it leads to think that perhaps my original argument is not completely off target. Why? Because it's widely accepted that most people around the league view Ndamukong Suh (and/or Gerald McCoy) as the top value in the draft. If the same folks that believe this also believe that Bradford will go #1, it must mean one of two things:

 

1) These people also believe that the Rams (and GM Billy Devaney) don't know what they're doing.

 

OR

 

2) These people share a common understanding (again, this is my perception) that nobody wants to pay a DT the $40M+ in guaranteed $$ that the #1 overall pick would command.

 

I realize that some folks will still disagree that it's a money issue, but I really think that--if it happens as Schefter believes--it's because the team is ensuring that they conform to the "top 3 paid positions" theory, as I originally stated.

 

Anyone have further thoughts?

[Nanker]

What sucks is that there wasn't a Rookie salary cap put into place two decades ago.

The vets don't want to get rid of it - because the good ones that are worthy of a big cash payday use the Rookie salaries to justify making more than the rookies do. They lose that point of reference with a RSS and it would take a few years for the "fair" market prices to be established. IMHO.

 

Little chance for a RSS to be put into place this go around with the CBA though.

One is needed.

Jamarcus Russell is the poster boy for that.

[Acantha]

Further update:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...adford-at-no-1/

 

I know Schefter's word isn't the end-all, be-all, but he's right more often than he's wrong.

 

Here's my take...

 

Schefter is basing his opinion on talking to "people around the league", but not to the Rams. Because this is the case, it leads to think that perhaps my original argument is not completely off target. Why? Because it's widely accepted that most people around the league view Ndamukong Suh (and/or Gerald McCoy) as the top value in the draft. If the same folks that believe this also believe that Bradford will go #1, it must mean one of two things:

 

1) These people also believe that the Rams (and GM Billy Devaney) don't know what they're doing.

 

OR

 

2) These people share a common understanding (again, this is my perception) that nobody wants to pay a DT the $40M+ in guaranteed $$ that the #1 overall pick would command.

 

I realize that some folks will still disagree that it's a money issue, but I really think that--if it happens as Schefter believes--it's because the team is ensuring that they conform to the "top 3 paid positions" theory, as I originally stated.

 

Anyone have further thoughts?

3. Rams need a QB way more than a DT.

[BillsRUs]

Ask Tim Graham..III

[Mr. WEO]

Further update:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...adford-at-no-1/

 

I know Schefter's word isn't the end-all, be-all, but he's right more often than he's wrong.

 

Here's my take...

 

Schefter is basing his opinion on talking to "people around the league", but not to the Rams. Because this is the case, it leads to think that perhaps my original argument is not completely off target. Why? Because it's widely accepted that most people around the league view Ndamukong Suh (and/or Gerald McCoy) as the top value in the draft. If the same folks that believe this also believe that Bradford will go #1, it must mean one of two things:

 

1) These people also believe that the Rams (and GM Billy Devaney) don't know what they're doing.

 

OR

 

2) These people share a common understanding (again, this is my perception) that nobody wants to pay a DT the $40M+ in guaranteed $$ that the #1 overall pick would command.

 

I realize that some folks will still disagree that it's a money issue, but I really think that--if it happens as Schefter believes--it's because the team is ensuring that they conform to the "top 3 paid positions" theory, as I originally stated.

 

Anyone have further thoughts?

 

No, it says Schefter's prediction is based on Bradford's showing at Pro Day. The implication is that the Rams are desperate for a franchise QB. No mention of money, so....still, no.

[thebandit27]

No, it says Schefter's prediction is based on Bradford's showing at Pro Day. The implication is that the Rams are desperate for a franchise QB. No mention of money, so....still, no.

 

No, it says that "Schefter ties his prediction to Bradford showing up at his Pro Day and looking healthy", as in, the whole prediction could be shot if Bradford shows up to his Pro Day and doesn't look healthy.

 

So, still totally plausible. Just because someone doesn't spell out the entire equation for you doesn't mean that it's not a consideration.

 

Tell you what, I feel way more confident saying that there are more teams unwilling to pay a rookie DT $40M+ in guarantees than there are teams that feel Bradford is a better player than Ndamukong Suh. How about you?