Reports: Ndamukong Suh wants to sign with Seahawks

[Hyak]

Absolutely not a pipe dream. Huge contracts are signed every offseason and a lot of those aren't to the teams with the most cap money. There's always a way around this stuff.

Exactly, look at Denver last season. They weren't exactly at the top of the cap room list, yet they managed to land Talib and Ware both. There are ways to get things done. If you figure that a guy like Suh can allow you to go on a 2-3 year run of being at the top of the heap, you find a way to get it done.

Denver signed those guys but it didn't helped them much. They ended up firing their coaches after the season. They regressed from where they were the prior season. Suh is a great player but he's only one player. Seahawks won a SB without Suh and made it back to a SB without him too. They can do it again without him. Suh for the right price would be a nice add though, no doubt about that.

Denver's defense was actually much improved because of those moves. They lost in the playoffs because their pass offense was pretty bad in the Indy game - largely because Manning was playing badly and hurt.

Regardless, what Denver did or didn't do is irrelevant. The fact is that we have seen first hand how FA can impact a team - see Bennett and Avril. In addition, I think addressing the pass rush is a valid issue with the defense even though it's excellent. Any moves that can get us back to a 6-8 deep rotation that consistently applies pass rush is good by me. I want us to dominate elite passers like we did in 2013.

 

[Barthawk]

Denver will have 2x as much tied up in their pass rush too.. Miller is gonna cost 10M per

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I don't see why this would go against their philosophy at all. They spent a first rounder on Harvin (an outsider) and paid him a huge contract at the expense of a homegrown receiver like Tate. We had to cut away guys like Clemons to accommodate the deal while re-signing the Sherman's and Thomas'.

They have shown they are willing to be aggressive to go after an elite talent if that player dramatically improves the roster. It doesn't mean they'll sign Suh, but if they did -- it would be exactly the type of move I'd expect this FO to make.

It would go against their philosophy because Harvin was the FA exception, and Pete and John said as much when they traded for him.

Now Suh would also certainly fit into that "special player" exception for breaking the bank as they did with Harvin, but it won't come at the expense of the cap.......which is what Schneider alluded to when he said "we need to get back to what we do, etc."

 

[McGruff]

I don't see why this would go against their philosophy at all. They spent a first rounder on Harvin (an outsider) and paid him a huge contract at the expense of a homegrown receiver like Tate. We had to cut away guys like Clemons to accommodate the deal while re-signing the Sherman's and Thomas'.

They have shown they are willing to be aggressive to go after an elite talent if that player dramatically improves the roster. It doesn't mean they'll sign Suh, but if they did -- it would be exactly the type of move I'd expect this FO to make.

It would go against their philosophy because Harvin was the FA exception, and Pete and John said as much when they traded for him.

Now Suh would also certainly fit into that "special player" exception for breaking the bank as they did with Harvin, but it won't come at the expense of the cap.......which is what Schneider alluded to when he said "we need to get back to what we do, etc."

Sydney Rice? Was he an exception as well? They shelled out a huge contract for him. They went hard after Peyton and Jared Allen. Were they exceptions?

If Sydney and Percy and Peyton and Allen are exceptions, and Suh would be an exception, how many occurrences turn exceptions into a pattern?

The pattern is pretty established. They don't sign mid-level veterans to massive contracts, but they will go hard after elite level talents.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I don't see why this would go against their philosophy at all. They spent a first rounder on Harvin (an outsider) and paid him a huge contract at the expense of a homegrown receiver like Tate. We had to cut away guys like Clemons to accommodate the deal while re-signing the Sherman's and Thomas'.

They have shown they are willing to be aggressive to go after an elite talent if that player dramatically improves the roster. It doesn't mean they'll sign Suh, but if they did -- it would be exactly the type of move I'd expect this FO to make.

It would go against their philosophy because Harvin was the FA exception, and Pete and John said as much when they traded for him.

Now Suh would also certainly fit into that "special player" exception for breaking the bank as they did with Harvin, but it won't come at the expense of the cap.......which is what Schneider alluded to when he said "we need to get back to what we do, etc."

Sydney Rice? Was he an exception as well? They shelled out a huge contract for him. They went hard after Peyton and Jared Allen. Were they exceptions?

If Sydney and Percy and Peyton and Allen are exceptions, and Suh would be an exception, how many occurrences turn exceptions into a pattern?

The pattern is pretty established. They don't sign mid-level veterans to massive contracts, but they will go hard after elite level talents.

Rice did sign a big deal, but it wasn't a bank breaker like Harvin, or potentially Suh. I think the most Rice ever made was like 10M in 2013?

Certainly not the rumored 15-20M Suh might command.

 

[bbsplitter]

I think every year they have proven they are willing to spend money if it is the right fit and right price for the team. There is no reason to put an ultimatum on "they NEVER" go after big free agents". Is it not usually their style? Perhaps. But to pass up a generational talent such as Suh if he were the right price is also not in their style, IMO. I boils down to the right price, I think everyone can agree on. If we can keep RW's cap hit low the first year or two, I would be fine with 12APY for Suh. Now when I say 12APY I dont mean the contract will actually be 3yrs for 36mil etc, I just mean realistic money, that he actually recieves. I have no doubt the actual contract would be an inflated behemoth. A backloaded contract with guarantees, per the usual. Even if it means eating 2-3 million in guarantees a year or two after he is gone, it would spread the cap hit out more, which I think would be worth it.

 

[Hyak]

PC and JS have shown a willingness to take some chances and use a variety of means to build their team (draft, trade, FA). They also are predictably unpredictable. This is a move most teams wouldn't contemplate.

I'll be surprised if they simply circle the wagons and rely solely on the draft and re-signing their own FA's.

 

[McGruff]

I don't see why this would go against their philosophy at all. They spent a first rounder on Harvin (an outsider) and paid him a huge contract at the expense of a homegrown receiver like Tate. We had to cut away guys like Clemons to accommodate the deal while re-signing the Sherman's and Thomas'.

They have shown they are willing to be aggressive to go after an elite talent if that player dramatically improves the roster. It doesn't mean they'll sign Suh, but if they did -- it would be exactly the type of move I'd expect this FO to make.

It would go against their philosophy because Harvin was the FA exception, and Pete and John said as much when they traded for him.

Now Suh would also certainly fit into that "special player" exception for breaking the bank as they did with Harvin, but it won't come at the expense of the cap.......which is what Schneider alluded to when he said "we need to get back to what we do, etc."

Sydney Rice? Was he an exception as well? They shelled out a huge contract for him. They went hard after Peyton and Jared Allen. Were they exceptions?

If Sydney and Percy and Peyton and Allen are exceptions, and Suh would be an exception, how many occurrences turn exceptions into a pattern?

The pattern is pretty established. They don't sign mid-level veterans to massive contracts, but they will go hard after elite level talents.

Rice did sign a big deal, but it wasn't a bank breaker like Harvin, or potentially Suh. I think the most Rice ever made was like 10M in 2013?

Certainly not the rumored 15-20M Suh might command.

Well, considering the salary cap has increased $20 million since Sydney signed that contract, in relative dollar his contract would be about 15-20% more today than it was 4 years ago. And Sydney was nowhere near the level of player that Suh was. The point remains . . . John and Pete have showed repeatedly that they are willing to dive in hard with elite level players and big contracts. Do they hand them out like candy like the Redskins? No, but when talent and resources align, they go for it.

 

[bbsplitter]

Well, considering the salary cap has increased $20 million since Sydney signed that contract, in relative dollar his contract would be about 15-20% more today than it was 4 years ago. And Sydney was nowhere near the level of player that Suh was. The point remains . . . John and Pete have showed repeatedly that they are willing to dive in hard with elite level players and big contracts. Do they hand them out like candy like the Redskins? No, but when talent and resources align, they go for it.

And even more so to the point... They had to spend more $$ to even GET free agents to CONSIDER seattle back then. They were willing to basically pay an inflated price for an above-average FA just to get him to seattle. Nowadays? They have an elite caliber player who WANTS to come to seattle, who the could pay market value for, and people think that would turn them off?? How? It simply comes down to if they can fit the $$ in the budget, but if they can, I don't see them saying "nah, we shouldnt" to the opportunity simply because he is a big $$ FA.

 

[Scottemojo]

One of Pete's stated goals back when he took the job was to turn Seattle into a free agent destination. A place players would want to go, not have to break the bank to go.

Mission accomplished.

 

[kf3339]

Remember that NFL deals are all about structure and slobs like us (well...you, really) have a hard time getting beyond just looking at the average salary/bonus per year. The media doesn't really help, to be honest, but make no mistake: We have some money and Schneider can figure out ways to make a Suh signing work.

We would definitely have to get a lot of value in the draft to ensure we have enough low-earning players out-performing their contracts to balance things out, but I'm confident that we have the FO to pull this off. The only thing that really gives me pause is the number of injuries to key players (guys like Marsh, Pierre, Hill, etc). We're counting on them to be the low cost/high value guys to fill out our depth.

This is very true. To me the fact that our young players have been hurt so much makes the potential Suh signing such a major move on the team's part. Our young D-Line guys have not made enough of a major push to impact our rotation to this point. We have seem glimpses from Hill and a little from Marsh early, but nothing that you can really count on. In addition both Scruggs and Jesse Williams haven't done anything.

The money can be made to work if Suh is willing to work with the team and truly wants to be a part of this teams dynasty in the making. We shall see.

 

[YYZHawksFan]

Maybe I should have tried to get him to sign a Seahawks jersey for me yesterday when he was at the Raptors game here.

 

[kearly]

I don't see why this would go against their philosophy at all. They spent a first rounder on Harvin (an outsider) and paid him a huge contract at the expense of a homegrown receiver like Tate. We had to cut away guys like Clemons to accommodate the deal while re-signing the Sherman's and Thomas'.

They have shown they are willing to be aggressive to go after an elite talent if that player dramatically improves the roster. It doesn't mean they'll sign Suh, but if they did -- it would be exactly the type of move I'd expect this FO to make.

Good point.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I don't see why this would go against their philosophy at all. They spent a first rounder on Harvin (an outsider) and paid him a huge contract at the expense of a homegrown receiver like Tate. We had to cut away guys like Clemons to accommodate the deal while re-signing the Sherman's and Thomas'.

They have shown they are willing to be aggressive to go after an elite talent if that player dramatically improves the roster. It doesn't mean they'll sign Suh, but if they did -- it would be exactly the type of move I'd expect this FO to make.

Good point.

From a personnel standpoint you guys are right, but from a cap/budget/allocation standpoint is where I'm having a hard time seeing us sign Suh.

If you're familiar with Davis Hsu on Twitter, he breaks it down nicely. If we sign Suh then that's 80 million of cap space in 2015 dedicated to the defense, and only 60 million for the offense. That's a very dangerous disproportionate mix, most teams like it even, or at least close.

That's why Davis is thinking this isn't going to happen, and I tend to agree with him, too many holes on offense to address to spend 2-3 positions of need/depth on Suh.

 

[Alexander]

I don't see why this would go against their philosophy at all. They spent a first rounder on Harvin (an outsider) and paid him a huge contract at the expense of a homegrown receiver like Tate. We had to cut away guys like Clemons to accommodate the deal while re-signing the Sherman's and Thomas'.

They have shown they are willing to be aggressive to go after an elite talent if that player dramatically improves the roster. It doesn't mean they'll sign Suh, but if they did -- it would be exactly the type of move I'd expect this FO to make.

Good point.

From a personnel standpoint you guys are right, but from a cap/budget/allocation standpoint is where I'm having a hard time seeing us sign Suh.

If you're familiar with Davis Hsu on Twitter, he breaks it down nicely. If we sign Suh then that's 80 million of cap space in 2015 dedicated to the defense, and only 60 million for the offense. That's a very dangerous disproportionate mix, most teams like it even, or at least close.

That's why Davis is thinking this isn't going to happen, and I tend to agree with him, too many holes on offense to address to spend 2-3 positions of need/depth on Suh.

Interesting perspective on Suh here: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/12/8022199/nfl-free-agents-2015-ndamukong-suh-detroit-lions

I haven't watched film myself, so I can't corroborate the claim that Suh hasn't developed as a pass rusher, but if true, it does sour me on the guy. Pass rushers who "age well" and remain productive in their 30s usually do so by adding moves to their repertoire and mastering the fine points of their craft.

 

[chris98251]

I don't see why this would go against their philosophy at all. They spent a first rounder on Harvin (an outsider) and paid him a huge contract at the expense of a homegrown receiver like Tate. We had to cut away guys like Clemons to accommodate the deal while re-signing the Sherman's and Thomas'.

They have shown they are willing to be aggressive to go after an elite talent if that player dramatically improves the roster. It doesn't mean they'll sign Suh, but if they did -- it would be exactly the type of move I'd expect this FO to make.

Good point.

From a personnel standpoint you guys are right, but from a cap/budget/allocation standpoint is where I'm having a hard time seeing us sign Suh.

If you're familiar with Davis Hsu on Twitter, he breaks it down nicely. If we sign Suh then that's 80 million of cap space in 2015 dedicated to the defense, and only 60 million for the offense. That's a very dangerous disproportionate mix, most teams like it even, or at least close.

That's why Davis is thinking this isn't going to happen, and I tend to agree with him, too many holes on offense to address to spend 2-3 positions of need/depth on Suh.

Remember everyone said the same thing about bringing Harvin in, and Rice in, Bennett, Avril, Miller as well.

They made it happen.

 

[mikeak]

If you're familiar with Davis Hsu on Twitter, he breaks it down nicely. If we sign Suh then that's 80 million of cap space in 2015 dedicated to the defense, and only 60 million for the offense. That's a very dangerous disproportionate mix, most teams like it even, or at least close.

.

IMHO looking at numbers like that is to simple.

You have to see where you can strenghten the team in a draft and where you do it in the FA market. Example Bennet and Avril took cheaper deals to play with Seattle. So it made financial sense to spend more on them relatively to two offensive FA players.

You will not get that kind of players on the offense because we run a vanilla offense that doesn't do much for WR diva's and we already have Lynch at RB position.

Exception would be an aging player like Andre Johnson who would now want to win a ring.

So my point being if you spend on defense in FA by default the dollars spent will be more then you build offense through draft. As long as you have a relatively even talent level then you are ok. We managed to build the defense through the draft and now we pay more for them so lets see if we can build the offense through the draft and pay less for awhile.

Examples - Norwood, Richardsson, Turbin, Michaels, RW.....

 

[Jville]

I don't see the need for Suh from either a cap or personnel standpoint.

The defensive team doesn't need Suh. It has had the best 3 year run since the 69-79-71 Purple People Eaters. What it lost from the 2013 line was the depth of that great rotation. It could use more production from #5, #6, #7 and #8 to maximize the energy it can keep on the field. They have enjoyed leadership and play from Bennett, Avril, Mebane and Williams. The team has more pressing needs in other areas.

 

[Ozzy]

The 80/60 split could work if a lot of the offense is built on the past couple of drafts. Richardson, Norwood, Michael and then this years draft class. It could work and if you're a team built on defense it makes some sense. I'm with you that I doubt it happens but its fun discussing it.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The 80/60 split could work if a lot of the offense is built on the past couple of drafts. Richardson, Norwood, Michael and then this years draft class. It could work and if you're a team built on defense it makes some sense. I'm with you that I doubt it happens but its fun discussing it.

But we haven't built through the draft enough on offense to justify an 80/60 split.

Yes if Michael was the man, Willson was a bonafide #1 TE and Norwood and P-Rich had amazing rookie seasons and were our #2 and #3 receivers.

Instead we have to try and resign Lynch, find another TE and sign or draft at least 2 or 3 more WR's because Richardson has a 50% chance of starting the year on the PUP list.

I want Suh as much as the next guy, but we've got A LOT of positions and depth to address on the offensive side of the ball.