Michology 101

March 2nd, 2015 at 12:16 PM ^

I’m not for sure what you mean by years ago. What two years ago? Three years ago? If you’re saying three years ago, Suh hadn’t fully proven he was worth a big extension at that time. There were lots of question marks about his character and play. And how his numbers were falling off from his great rookie year. If you’re saying two years ago, Suh wouldn’t have signed an extension at that time. He would’ve ruined any chances of collecting $60 million guaranteed and well over $100 million on his new contract. Have you seen these ridiculous contracts top NFL players are getting? Suh wasn't going to accept a simple extension.

boliver46

March 2nd, 2015 at 9:59 AM ^

I'd think they would still do the Non-Exclusive Franchise tag...lock him up for a year at the "going rate" but give him the opportunity to negotiate long-term deals elsewhere.  If someone else signs him, they give the Lions 2 First-Round picks.  

Must be something going on that they wouldn't even take a shot at that.

In reply to by boliver46

boliver46

March 2nd, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^

to how the Broncos are handling Thomas

The "nonexclusive" tag makes it possible for other teams to negotiate with Thomas, although the Broncos would have the right to match any offer. Moreover, should the Broncos decide against matching an offer, the team signing away Thomas would have to compensate Denver with two first-round draft picks.

Link

In reply to by boliver46

Mr Miggle

March 2nd, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^

different tags. Either one obligates the Lions to pay Suh $26.9M for next season. Having that guarantee makes him harder to sign to a long term deal, since he has the option of simply waiting a year and testing the market then. I don't see another team offering him a deal while he has the non-exclusive tag. Make it one the Lions would happily match and you don't get a chance at Suh next year. Make it so high that the Lions won't match and you get hit with losing two #1s and the hit to your salary cap. You can't beat out the Lions by front loading the offer, since they would be prepared for a very big hit anyway in 2015. It's an unusual situation since Suh's franchise tag is extraordinarily high.

 

boliver46

March 2nd, 2015 at 1:21 PM ^

Yes - both would obligate the Lions to pay Suh $26.9M next season.  However, (1) franchising him gives them time to negotiate a long-term deal if they so choose, else pay the $26.9; (2) it is a ONE-YEAR DEAL and no agent in his right mind would be happy with that, despite the high number - NFL contracts are NOT guaranteed, so if Suh went down to injury with a one-year deal, his short-term gain with a high $ contract is a long-term loss.

It behooves Suh to get the big payday he wants but spread it out with a long-term deal.  He might get less in the first year on base salary (say $17-18M), but he would more than make that up with (a) longevity of the deal, and (b) signing bonuses he would get up front.

Just my .02.

I Like Burgers

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:50 AM ^

Fairley is an unrestricted free agent too.  If the Lions knew they weren't going to franchise Suh last year, they should have at least picked up Fairley's option to give themselves some flexibility this offseason.  Now they probably won't have either back next season and will get nothing in return.  What a clusterfuck.

creelymonk10

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^

I hope they'll keep Fairley. The opponent's YPC when Fairley was in but not Suh was something like 2.3 YPC, while the opponent's YPC when neither were in was in the 4s. It will be a huge dropoff if we return neither of them, unless they replace them with a 1st round pick.

ClassOf14

March 2nd, 2015 at 11:43 AM ^

I seriously question fairley's work ethic after hearing numerous reports that he wasn't in shape and didn't take workouts seriously before the current season, which makes sense considering he was in a contract year this time. If I'm the lions I'm not signing him to any deal over 2 years, but I do agree he has value if he's giving 100 percent and in shape.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Yostbound and Down

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:07 AM ^

I still think he'll take a long term deal. I am glad they won't franchise tag him but it would be devestating for him to leave.

Fairley is maybe half the player Suh is and hurt all the time, good riddance to him.

The Mad Hatter

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:08 AM ^

is just too much to pay for a DT, even the best one in the NFL.  They would have had to make some serious cuts to get under the salary cap.

I'd like him to stay, but not at that price. 

Powderd Toast

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:09 AM ^

Although it'll suck to see Suh dominate somewhere else this is a good move. Losing Suh frees up some cap space and they can fill some of the holes in the secondary with that money.

MGJS SuperKick Party

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:16 AM ^

Love it. He's a great player but I almost let him walk if it's not reasonable. We have way too many players who are going to command a bigger salary in the coming years -Ie: Ziggy and Slay.
If he doesn't sign, we can go get some quality starters to make us better overall



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Naked Bootlegger

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^

Sucks.   The franchise tag is a huge expense, so I understand the reasoning - although I would still like to see them get draft picks if another team signs him (non-exclusive frachise tag route).   I guess the risk is getting "stuck" with him and a huge salary for one more year if other teams aren't interested in negotiating.   I'm torn.  He was a beast last year, is durable, and a true game-changer.   But tying up 20+ million/year in a DT is risky.  Their window of opportunity with Suh was last year.   This draft and free agency become extremely important to replenish the interior DL (and Fairley, in my mind, is not the answer).

My worst fear is seeing Suh in a Bears or Packers jersey.   Actually, I fear heights and am claustrophobic, so Suh in a Bears or Packers jersey would probably be #3 on my list.

Bluecamo

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^

What is the downside of using the Non Exclusive tag? I dont get why they would not do this? This would ensure they would at least get draft picks if they cannot match. Seems like a no brainer. Am I missing something?

93Grad

March 2nd, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^

how exactly is it good news that the Lions are losing their best player and the best DT in the game?  And don't say that they couldn't afford to tag him.  I understand that, but that is not a positive.  That is just avoiding another giant negative. 

FauxMichBro

March 2nd, 2015 at 4:43 PM ^

they definitely could...the lions have been getting better players in the mayhew era. guys like slay, ziggy, warford, waddle were all recent mayhew picks that are cornerstone players. do they miss a lot? of course, but all teams miss. i'd rather take my chances spreading that money around.

umumum

March 2nd, 2015 at 5:24 PM ^

in 11 months.  I have 58 years of history on my side.  Suh is a game-changing player who brought an attitude to the Lions that, while detested by many,  may well be responsible for the recent uptick.  We don't get many of those players.  Its alot of money--but he may be worth it. Illitch would spend it.

FauxMichBro

March 2nd, 2015 at 6:45 PM ^

this doesn't even close the door on signing suh tho. they could still re-sign him and maybe the fact they didn't tag him means they're confident. nonetheless, they could not commit that kind of money to him it would cripple what little momentum they have.

Brian Griese

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^

But they made the right move.  I still think they'll make a play for him in FA. Suh will really have to decide if he wants the big $$$ to play in Oakland, take a hometown discount for Seattle, or take a fair offer from numerous other contenders, including the Lions. 

BeantownBlue

March 2nd, 2015 at 12:01 PM ^

I think this was absolutely the right move.  As good as he is (and I think he's the best DT in the league) I don't think the Patriots or Seahawks would've spent the kind of money he was going to require to lock up.  Paying him huge amounts would have been a Texans move.  Letting him go is a Patriots move (the same type they employed w/ Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Randy Moss, and Logan Mankins).  Football is a team sport and I'm glad to see the Lions focus on spreading money across the whole team.

Zarniwoop

March 2nd, 2015 at 10:38 AM ^

If Suh thinks anyone in the NFL is going to pay him 20 million a year, over a long-term contract he's delusional.

He may even be worth it, but you just can't do that in the NFL and have a successful team.

There are top 8 quarterbacks in the NFL that don't make that money (although some are close).

Edit: Does anyone know what the lions offered him? Or is there factual information about what he actually wants?  I've heard too many soundbytes that say he wants 20ish a year, but I am curious what has actually been legitimately reported, if anything.