Michael Bennett reportedly wants around $10 million a year

[kearly]

In 2013, Atkins a DT, not NT, played 454 defensive snaps while Bennett played 600...

That "part time rotational player" led our DL in snaps. So the next time you try to diminish what Bennett did our defense, look it up.

That's misleading. Atkins only played half the season (finished 8 games). So, double his snap count. He's an every-down player.

Further, Atkins was 24 when he signed his contract. Bill Belichick said he would go #1 overall if there were a re-draft. Come on, y'all. I love me some M. Bennett, but you can't compare the two. Atkins had all the upside in the world when he signed his deal and was on pace for yet another 12+ sack season while rushing exclusively from the the interior and playing 90% of the downs. He's a 2X All-Pro and probably would have made it against in 2013 if he hadn't gotten hurt. Bennett has never even been voted a Pro Bowl alternate and has played longer. I know some of that is just based on "perception," but perception is what defines contract value 99% of the time. There's just no way these two guys should be offered the same money.

I have a really high opinion of both guys, personally. I don't know if Bennett would be the same playing 100% of the snaps, but when he's out there, he gets sacks at the same rate that Atkins does (sacks per snap). And sacks aren't the only thing Bennett does well, he's awesome at producing consistent pressure and like Avril has a knack for forcing fumbles.

Atkins does all his damage inside but in 2013 Bennett's numbers inside were identical to his numbers outside. If we made him a full time 3-tech he'd be very productive there.

I like Bennett a little more for his complete set of skills and the versatility that Pete loves, but it's a worthy argument that Atkins adds more value simply by being on the field more. I don't think age is really a big factor because Bennett actually has less wear than Atkins does and pass rushers tend to peak in their early 30s anyway.

And it's not like the Bengals let Atkins hit UFA, either. They snapped him up to an extension at the first opportunity, and to Atkins' credit, dudes a team player. Had he hit UFA, I think he probably makes more than $11 million per year.

Either way, whether Atkins is a little more valuable or not, the simple fact is that getting guys like Geno Atkins is extremely difficult. Even getting a guy who's close to Atkins value inside is very difficult.

 

[DavidSeven]

And I didn't say we NEED to sign Bennett at all costs. What I said was we have an opportunity to address the issue of interior pass rush. Do I think we should break the bank for Bennett? No. But if he walks interior pass rush becomes a big question mark. Who is going to give us what Bennett gave us? Do we count on a draft pick? Jordan Hill? Brooks? Do we sign someone to another 1 year deal in FA?

It's too early to say. Heading into last year, everyone thought we needed to upgrade nickel CB and outside linebacker. If I said last year that we can rely on Maxwell, Thurmond and Malcolm Smith to fill some voids, people would have scoffed pretty hard. Most didn't even expect Maxwell to make the roster after Winfield was signed and Simon was drafted. Heck, everyone figured we'd cut Kearse before he got LASIK. As Seahawk fans, I think we're a little too quick to dismiss players that we haven't seen enough of. How many times did we hear that Golden Tate and Max Unger just couldn't hack it?

That being said, Bennett is a known commodity and there's value to that. No dispute there. I think ultimately everyone is quibbling over a million or two dollars per year. But that's what happens in the off-season.

 

[kearly]

I hear what you're saying. I, for one, would love to find a way to sign Bennett, I just simply don't think it can happen. I also think that if it does happen, it signifies that the end is near for Richard Sherman.

I also have a gut feeling that last season will be the best Bennett will ever play in his career. Felt slighted, playing for a big contract as well as a ring. The stars aligned, and he played with ridiculous effort. Do you expect that same effort over the next several seasons? Is 75% of Michael Bennett still the difference maker? Maybe.

Hey, remember when Marshawn Lynch got his big contract and then stopped playing hard?

It was just like when Chris Clemons and Kam Chancellor got paid and then sucked big time.

Lulz.

To Tical's points. I've read your cap breakdown. I did my own, and it wasn't as bleak as yours. I agree with you that it will be tough, but not impossible if the team makes the obvious cap clearing moves. The cap will also likely raise by a few million league-wide like it does every year.

The hard part will be keeping Wilson, Sherman, Earl, and Bennett, and Okung. That will require some wizardry, and probably at least a few painful transactions (trading Lynch, letting our better WRs walk, etc). It can be done, but it won't be without some pain. We can keep anyone we want, the real question is who we let go. Considering that Pete has struggled somewhat to find pass rushers in the draft and kissed the ring when Clemons held out a couple years ago, I would imagine that Bennett is a major, major priority for him.

I don't think Bennett is going to quit when he gets paid. Contracts in the NFL are only partially guaranteed so there is a lot of incentive to continue high level performance. Bennett has been baller since day one anyway. Even before he became a star, he was always a 110% effort guy.

 

[AgentDib]

It's pretty funny how so many in this thread can easily tell the difference between rotational DE/DT production worth $6 mil/yr vs. $8 mil/yr vs. $10 mil/yr. I will bet that our front office has put a ton of effort into this analysis and are still not completely certain about it. And of course, our FO is armed with much better information not just about how he graded out, but how his possible replacements graded out in practice and what sort of money needs to be available for other plans this off season.

Rather than staking out a position and then defending it until the bitter end, consider that your opinion SHOULD be swayed by what our front office ultimately does because they have superior information. A decision to pay Bennett big dollars is at once a validation of how important they think he is, an acknowledgement that our potential replacements are nowhere near ready to provide similar levels of production, and an indication that we may be working out fewer large extensions this off-season than some fans would want. A decision not to resign Bennett suggests that at least one of those is not correct.

 

[kearly]

I agree that Bennett is a special player. I just don't understand the notion that the defense is either made or broken by him. That ignores the fact that we were the premiere NFL defense BEFORE he signed here and every other aspect in which our defense has improved since then.

Brandon Browner's 2013 performance was basically on par with 2012 Trufant. Just one pick with mediocre coverage scores. Then Maxwell took over and was a stud, but he started less than half our games. Further, Trufant started only 2 games last year and IIRC was 4th on the team in CB snaps.

Interior pass rush, and the DC upgrade to Dan Quinn were huge factors. Last year's defense hemorrhaged a ton of yards to Tom Brady and 30 points to Matt Ryan. The lack of pass rush unquestionably led to a Seattle defeat in Atlanta. Pete looked exasperated after that game, (maybe the only time I've ever seen him exasperated) when he made it no secret that we needed to add pass rushers, plural.

You only have to watch the SB again to see how big of an impact pressure has for our defense against top competition. Without the pressure, Manning has time to process all those reads and make plays to one of his four star pass catchers. But he didn't have time, and the rest is history.

I also think that Seattle's 2012 defense, while clearly elite, was just a little bit of a mirage. Seattle faced a ton of really bad QBs that season, and Clemons was their only plus pass rusher. Take away that fluke vs. Green Bay and they are nearly dead last in sacks in 2012. On the other hand, the 2013 defense was unquestionably the real deal. No weak spots, and they played a tougher group of QBs too, including some historically dominant performances against Brees and Manning.

 

[kearly]

It's pretty funny how so many in this thread can easily tell the difference between rotational DE/DT production worth $6 mil/yr vs. $8 mil/yr vs. $10 mil/yr. I will bet that our front office has put a ton of effort into this analysis and are still not completely certain about it. And of course, our FO is armed with much better information not just about how he graded out, but how his possible replacements graded out in practice and what sort of money needs to be available for other plans this off season.

Rather than staking out a position and then defending it until the bitter end, consider that your opinion SHOULD be swayed by what our front office ultimately does because they have superior information. A decision to pay Bennett big dollars is at once a validation of how important they think he is, an acknowledgement that our potential replacements are nowhere near ready to provide similar levels of production, and an indication that we may be working out fewer large extensions this off-season than some fans would want. A decision not to resign Bennett suggests that at least one of those is not correct.

I trust this FO. Part of the reason I am supporting Bennett is because a lot of indicators have shown that he is one of Seattle's highest priorities this offseason. You hear Seattle sending signals that they will let Tate walk if the price isn't right, but you aren't hearing that hesitation for Bennett. Seattle went beyond their comfort zone contract-wise to keep Red, and they caved to Clemons when he held out. This is a FO that believes in building the DL and pass rush mostly through FA/trade, so I think it will take a really big offer to pry Bennett away from Seattle. If he isn't franchised, of course.

If you look up where Seattle spends their money, they have historically under PC/JS spent a lot of dollars on the DL. Sacrifices will be made obviously, but I think history and current indications from the media indicate that Bennett will not be one of them.

 

[Scottemojo]

don't think Pete wants Bennett to play all that much more than the 600 snaps he had this year. So in that sense, Atkins is a bad comp, he plays 25 percent more plays. which makes sense, Atkins has 23 pounds on Bennett, so plays more run downs.

Another comp...Henry Melton got 8.9 mil on the tag designation last year. He got hurt, but the year before he had played just over 600 snaps.

One thing that has not been cleared up yet, does Bennett still need surgery on his shoulder? From what I understand, that was the primary thing that drove his price down last year. He played through it, so maybe he will again, but any club looking at him is going to want to give him a physical. I would think it would be pretty difficult to get a crazy big offer with shoulder surgery looming.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Look at the overall effectiveness of the Bengals defense compared to before they lost Atkins and after.

/threadclosed,paytheman

 

[kearly]

One thing that has not been cleared up yet, does Bennett still need surgery on his shoulder? From what I understand, that was the primary thing that drove his price down last year. He played through it, so maybe he will again, but any club looking at him is going to want to give him a physical. I would think it would be pretty difficult to get a crazy big offer with shoulder surgery looming.

Apparently his shoulder actually healed this season while he played. They now think surgery can be avoided, though it will continue to be monitored.

As far as Atkins, as said before I think he gets more than $11 million per as a UFA. What's Suh making again? Actually, not as much as I thought. But for a while there, he was pulling in $16 million a season before agreeing to a more reasonable deal recently.

If I took the 25% number you used and subtracted it from Atkins street value as a UFA, I think you get pretty close to $10 million. But really for me this isn't about dollars and more about the options on the table. You lose Bennett, and you have two choices. Either pay way more than $10 million per year in total team resources to trade for a star DT, or hope to have some dumb luck with guys like Scruggs, Hill and Brooks. I like those guys, but I think they are far from a sure thing and I can think of other places I'd rather pinch pennies.

 

[Scottemojo]

One thing that has not been cleared up yet, does Bennett still need surgery on his shoulder? From what I understand, that was the primary thing that drove his price down last year. He played through it, so maybe he will again, but any club looking at him is going to want to give him a physical. I would think it would be pretty difficult to get a crazy big offer with shoulder surgery looming.

Apparently his shoulder actually healed this season while he played. They now think surgery can be avoided, though it will continue to be monitored.

As far as Atkins, as said before I think he gets more than $11 million per as a UFA. What's Suh making again?

Thanks for the shoulder knowledge.

I don't think Suh is a fair comp, he came into the league with one of those crazy rookie deals.

I know what you are saying about middle pressure, I was begging for it last year, and Bennett provided something we had not seen much of for 3 years.

Let me ask you this Kip, if forced to make a choice between Sherman and Bennett, what do you do?

 

[kearly]

Suh is currently making $12 million per on his 2nd (non-rookie) contract, one that was not signed as a UFA. I think Atkins is better than Suh.

Regardless, Atkins as a UFA would undoubtedly be the NFL's top paid DT. Which would probably put him at $13 million or more. The bidding would be intense. If Bennett is worth 25% less, why is $10 million unreasonable? Mostly, I just think it's one of those situations where he has us by the short ones, kind of like when Clemons held out a couple years ago and forced Seattle into an extension they would have preferred to avoid.

I keep Sherm, but I think we can budget both. As said before I am a big believer in Brooks and Scruggs intrigues me. Hill could maybe be another McDonald in a best case scenario. But all of them are still unproven, and I think going with unproven dudes inside makes about as much sense as going with unproven dudes at single high free safety. Those are the two spots that make our defense what it is. Bennett ain't Warren Sapp, but one of the Kiffin principles that remains strong with Pete is a need for front four pressure, which begins inside.

I think Sherman is pretty important though, despite playing at a "fungible" position. Making right handed QBs habitually throw to their left is kind of a big deal IMO, plus shutting off half the field has some pretty nice defensive advantages in itself. And when they do pass on Sherman because the temptation is too much, they almost always pay dearly for it. So, I would say Sherman in that scenario. Grim choice though.

 

[Scottemojo]

Still, they gave Suh that 2nd deal because his cap number was so awful that they had no choice, so they went to the bank of Suh and extended him to make room. I have trouble using that as a baseline.

On Atkins contract, it is a 5 year extension signed with one year left on his deal, really giving the Bengals 6 years for their 56 million/31 million guaranteed. The last two years of the deal have only 3 million in dead money, so if he declines too much they can cut him with little pain. So, all told his contract pays him just a little over 9 per. I have to wonder if the Bengals spending spree last year was tied to them finally having to get up to the cap minimum? I know they had been under it by like 45 million or something in 2012.

This next opinion has nothing to do with my feelings, which are pretty whatever anyway, I trust John that much. I don't think the Seahawks want to pay him as much as Atkins is getting. A few weeks will give us all the answers.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

I don't think the Seahawks want to pay him as much as Atkins is getting. A few weeks will give us all the answers.

I'm sure that you will find many here that will agree with you.

 

[kearly]

Still, they gave Suh that 2nd deal because his cap number was so awful that they had no choice, so they went to the bank of Suh and extended him to make room. I have trouble using that as a baseline.

On Atkins contract, it is a 5 year extension signed with one year left on his deal, really giving the Bengals 6 years for their 56 million/31 million guaranteed. The last two years of the deal have only 3 million in dead money, so if he declines too much they can cut him with little pain. So, all told his contract pays him just a little over 9 per. I have to wonder if the Bengals spending spree last year was tied to them finally having to get up to the cap minimum? I know they had been under it by like 45 million or something in 2012.

This next opinion has nothing to do with my feelings, which are pretty whatever anyway, I trust John that much. I don't think the Seahawks want to pay him as much as Atkins is getting. A few weeks will give us all the answers.

Fair enough about Suh, though I disagree with the $9 mil logic, Atkins was going to have one more cheap year regardless of that contract. It's a 9 mil average because they spread it out, but in effect, it's still an $11 mil contract plus one cheap year he was already going to get anyway. I still think he gets megabucks in UFA too, more than Greg Hardy is about to get, most likely.

Agreed that I trust PC/JS and I can see logic both ways. PC/JS have taken risks in the past that I did not agree with.

That said, I have pretty high confidence that PC/JS will agree with me and I think it will take a lot of money for other teams to pry Bennett away. There are luxury guys that teams prefer to keep on bargain deals (Golden Tate) and then there are the hard to find lynchpins who make the engine run (Earl Thomas). Teams ask "how much do I pay?" for luxury guys, but ask "how much room do I need to make?" for lynchpins. For me, Bennett is clearly in that latter category, and letting him go has the potential to be a big mistake if we don't catch a break with his replacement.

I would not be surprised if the franchise tag is used if they are allowed to franchise him as a DT. There's some logic in a transition tag too, as it has been known to scare away suitors and prevent bidding wars post-Hutch.

If we do lose Bennett, you can look forward to me becoming an insufferable Michael Brooks fanboy, in addition to some totally unrealistic Greg Hardy fantasies.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Look at the overall effectiveness of the Bengals defense compared to before they lost Atkins and after.

/threadclosed,paytheman

That comparison only works if you feel this defense significantly worsens without Bennett. We were a #1 defense before him (and others). The team will be, I feel, a top-3 defense even if he signs elsewhere.

 

[joeshaney]

Still, they gave Suh that 2nd deal because his cap number was so awful that they had no choice, so they went to the bank of Suh and extended him to make room. I have trouble using that as a baseline.

On Atkins contract, it is a 5 year extension signed with one year left on his deal, really giving the Bengals 6 years for their 56 million/31 million guaranteed. The last two years of the deal have only 3 million in dead money, so if he declines too much they can cut him with little pain. So, all told his contract pays him just a little over 9 per. I have to wonder if the Bengals spending spree last year was tied to them finally having to get up to the cap minimum? I know they had been under it by like 45 million or something in 2012.

This next opinion has nothing to do with my feelings, which are pretty whatever anyway, I trust John that much. I don't think the Seahawks want to pay him as much as Atkins is getting. A few weeks will give us all the answers.

Fair enough about Suh, though I disagree with the $9 mil logic, Atkins was going to have one more cheap year regardless of that contract. It's a 9 mil average because they spread it out, but in effect, it's still an $11 mil contract plus one cheap year he was already going to get anyway. I still think he gets megabucks in UFA too, more than Greg Hardy is about to get, most likely.

Agreed that I trust PC/JS and I can see logic both ways. PC/JS have taken risks in the past that I did not agree with.

That said, I have pretty high confidence that PC/JS will agree with me and I think it will take a lot of money for other teams to pry Bennett away. There are luxury guys that teams prefer to keep on bargain deals (Golden Tate) and then there are the hard to find lynchpins who make the engine run (Earl Thomas). Teams ask "how much do I pay?" for luxury guys, but ask "how much room do I need to make?" for lynchpins. For me, Bennett is clearly in that latter category, and letting him go has the potential to be a big mistake if we don't catch a break with his replacement.

I would not be surprised if the franchise tag is used if they are allowed to franchise him as a DT. There's some logic in a transition tag too, as it has been known to scare away suitors and prevent bidding wars post-Hutch.

If we do lose Bennett, you can look forward to me becoming an insufferable Michael Brooks fanboy, in addition to some totally unrealistic Greg Hardy fantasies.

Yup, precisely. We will offer him a reasonable deal. Take it or leave it.

 

[bellingerga]

If a team pays him that kind of dough to be THE guy on the DL, he won't be on a team that is winning games, and they won't be getting the production that kind of money would demand. The dude can play, but he has quite a bit of talent taking attention off him on this team.

This is kind of my thoughts too, and while he won't be easily replaceable...but people seem to be forgetting That Cliff Avril guy who was nearly as disruptive and made huge plays at huge times.

I don't want to lose Bennett but it just may happen and it's not the end of the world.

 

[seatownlowdown]

I don't want to lose Bennett but it just may happen and it's not the end of the world.

keeping bennett for a reasonable price ($7-9 m/yr) would be ideal. but yes im not too worried. it was pete and john that found bennett the first time, let him go, only for him to come back on a "prove it" deal to make a mark in our superbowl run. lol.

have faith people. theres somebody out there that can do what bennett did last year. just gotta find him. any pash rusher would love coming to a team that has a "cover all day" secondary like ours that gives them and extra 1-3 seconds to get to and sack the qb.

 

[Lynch Mob]

I think Bennett earned it, they payed Zach Miller 11 million in '13 so why not pay 10 mill to Bennett in '14. Seattle will get it done won't be easy but it will get done. I would let Bryant,Clemons, and both McD's walk this offseason. Draft either K.Quarles,B.Urban, or S.Tuitt in the first round to replace T. McDaniel. Then go back in get Deandre Coleman or Ed Stinson in the third or 4th round to help replace Red Bryant. Seattle's roster spots are so valuable that you have to expect Jordan Hill and Benson Mayowa to take over for McDonald/Clemons. Basically build around Bennett and let Mebane play out his contract. Get young and cheap on the D-line plus have two all-pro to lead the way for the next generation, much like the offensive line(Okung,Unger). Avril will move on after his contract is up becuase Avril's money will be needed to help extend Sherman.

Cut: Bryant, Clemons, McDaniel, McDonald and give their money to Bennett. Hill replaces McDonald and Irvin/Mayowa replace Clemons. The wild card is the MONSTAR jesse williams if he can step up and replace Bryant that would help but would'nt bet on it.

Seattle could also cut McQuistan,Rice,and Miller to save about 13 mill to pay E. thomas, Giacomini, and Hauschka.

 

[themunn]

I don't know why we're comparing Atkins and Bennett - Bennett does move inside for pass-rushing snaps, but he lines up as a DE most downs?