Terrell Suggs extended

[JoeyFlex5]

don't get it mixed up, suggs isn't gonna take some major paycut, and why should he, he is our clear cut emotional leader. if suggs feels he is being lowballed, he will walk. and the sad part about it is, he probably will not accept any type of hometown discount, and unless we make him happy with a backloaded restructured contract, which will put us in a bind a few year from now, then he probably wont be a ravennext year. we need him, he is the last remaining raven from our prime years as a defensive team, but its not very likely in my opinion.

[Dnyce215]

I believe he is staying, they gonna work out an extension and retire a raven

[The Raven]

Doesn't seem the greedy type? 

 

We had to franchise tag him twice because he was holding out for more money. I love the guy but he wants the money. Maybe he'll give us that hometown discount everyone talks about but I'm pretty sure that discount is a myth. 

[rmw10]

Doesn't seem the greedy type? 

 

We had to franchise tag him twice because he was holding out for more money. I love the guy but he wants the money. Maybe he'll give us that hometown discount everyone talks about but I'm pretty sure that discount is a myth. 

 

But on the other hand, the market for aging pass rushers isn't that good.  We saw a lot of guys that got considerably less than what they wanted on the market last year.  Now, Suggs is better than all of those guys, but is it a smart move?  It's really hard to peg.  He could not accept the pay cut, go into FA, and get offers less than what the Ravens offered, or he could get higher offers.  He's got to evaluate the risks and see what he'd rather do.

[Bltravens]

Doesn't seem the greedy type? 

 

We had to franchise tag him twice because he was holding out for more money. I love the guy but he wants the money. Maybe he'll give us that hometown discount everyone talks about but I'm pretty sure that discount is a myth. 

In fairness to him, he didn't expect anything outlandish.  His first tag he knew he wasn't an OLB in the 43 sense of the definition so he accepted a hybrid contract between DE and OLB.  His second tag was just to work out the extension for which he was paid his worth,

[Sami84]

In this league, there is no room for sentiment when you are a rebuilding team. News Flash we are a rebuiling team. We are not as good of a squad as from 2008-2012. We need cap. a 32 year old past his prime edge rusher is taking up a lot of it.

 

Time to move on. We also need to learn how to do contracts.

[Dnyce215]

No we need Suggs point blank period! I guess you guys didn't see the Super bowl? Defense is what win championships.

[Sami84]

yes, we need to replace suggs. Seahawks have shown with good drafting ( ie no midgets in the secondary like mr eat greedy) you can get rid of past their prime players. 

[Dnyce215]

Who we gonna replace him with? The problem we are not the Seahawks, we are the Ravens. Why copy other teams? When we are the original blue print for Defense that the teams follow and copy

[Sami84]

Who we gonna replace him with? The problem we are not the Seahawks, we are the Ravens. Why copy other teams? When we are the original blue print for Defense that the teams follow and copy

 

Draft the new Ed Reed/Rod Woodson then and cut down on the terrance codys and matt elams.

 

by the way, our 2006 Defense was in my opinion, talent wise the best we ever had. No one cares though.

 

Outside of Dwan Landry And samari Rolle I wouldn't select any seahawk over our starting D

[Dnyce215]

Draft the new Ed Reed/Rod Woodson then and cut down on the terrance codys and matt elams.

by the way, our 2006 Defense was in my opinion, talent wise the best we ever had. No one cares though.

Outside of Dwan Landry And samari Rolle I wouldn't select any seahawk over our starting D

Sami that is hard to pick the next Reed or Woodson. And who would you think can play at that level I'm this year's draft?

[Ravenslifer]

Sami that is hard to pick the next Reed or Woodson. And who would you think can play at that level I'm this year's draft?

 

There's nobody like that in this year's draft for now - Reed and Woodson played safety when the run-game was still hugely important.  These days teams are prioritizing positions like safety, CB, WR, TE.  The Seahawks were very fortunate twice that they found Chancellor and Sherman in the 5th round of their respective drafts.  And as much as Suggs' play has tailed off, you're right it's not likely we can just find a replacement in this draft this year.

[hatt]

yes, we need to replace suggs. Seahawks have shown with good drafting ( ie no midgets in the secondary like mr eat greedy) you can get rid of past their prime players. 

 

Earl Thomas and Matt Elam are the exact same height...

[redrum52]

Statue?  I love Suggs, he's the last remaining link to some dirty defenses and he's the only guy who played with both Lewis and Reed in their primes left in the league but unless Suggs goes on a tear and leads the team to another Super Bowl, virtually single handedly defensively, he's not getting a statue.

He also needs to not be fat for the entire season next year.

In Suggs' defense, he waited til mid season to get fat.

[bauer77]

Draft the new Ed Reed/Rod Woodson then and cut down on the terrance codys and matt elams.

 

by the way, our 2006 Defense was in my opinion, talent wise the best we ever had. No one cares though.

 

Outside of Dwan Landry And samari Rolle I wouldn't select any seahawk over our starting D

 

Its not exactly easy to draft the "new Ed Reed/Rod Woodson". Those players don't exactly grow on trees.

 

Bashing Matt Elam already, after a year? When he's playing outside of his true position? Welp, seen it all now. 

 

Back on topic: I don't want Suggs to go anywhere. I think he would be a bigger loss than people think. Extend his deal to lower his cap hit.  He's getting older, but he still has plenty of gas left in the tank if he can just stay in shape. 

[Ravenslifer]

Earl Thomas and Matt Elam are the exact same height...

 

And Ed Reed is only an inch taller.

[B-more Ravor]

A reasonable 3-year extension could reduce his 2014 Cap number by $3-5M and give him reasonable Cap numbers over the next 4 years.  More importantly, his bonus wouldn't be that large - likely $10-12M - that it would cause major problems in the future and would allow them to release him, if necessary, either after the 3rd year of the deal or after June 1 of the 3rd year.

[KDUBB44]

I say if we cant restructure his contract we let him go. He's past his prime, he looked sluggish last year, and didn't step up. If a team offers a pick we should consider it. Love suggs and his tenacity but he's sucking up too much money we could be using.

[HomeoftheBRAVENS]

If Terrell Suggs is not on this roster come week 1 a #1 wr better be filling the void his extra cap space would leave.A straight up trade giving Suggs to ATL in exchange for Roddy White sounds reasonable to me.They're both around the same age,have 1 year left on they're contracts,would fill a huge need on each team and are close to being paid the same.But I'd rather us extend Suggs and keep him and Dumervil together for the next 3 or 4 years.

[HoldingCall]

So, what's the point of giving contracts that finally results in cutting/trading or redoing them? Example: Boldin, Suggs, probably future Flacco, Rice and Webb.  Are there teams that are more likely to honor contracts than others? Just wondering!

 

I know every team has cut players they feel are no longer worth the contract but I wonder which teams are more likely than other to do this? And what's up with team that over spend? Households that stay within its financial means have a much higher chance of being better off in the end. 

[The Raven]

So, what's the point of giving contracts that finally results in cutting/trading or redoing them? Example: Boldin, Suggs, probably future Flacco, Rice and Webb.  Are there teams that are more likely to honor contracts than others? Just wondering!

 

I know every team has cut players they feel are no longer worth the contract but I wonder which teams are more likely than other to do this? And what's up with team that over spend? Households that stay within its financial means have a much higher chance of being better off in the end. 

 

You give contracts based on what the player is projected to do during the duration of the contract. They're not designed this way. I don't think Ozzie said "Hey, Terrell, we're gonna give you this contract but then you're gonna under perform in 2013 and we'll have to renegotiate." He didn't say "Hey Anquan, we don't think you'll be performing up to your worth in 2013, so we'll just trade you."

 

Contracts are designed for the best case scenario and then re-done to reflect the performance of the player. 

[mmcclend]

yes, we need to replace suggs. Seahawks have shown with good drafting ( ie no midgets in the secondary like mr eat greedy) you can get rid of past their prime players. 

HAHHAHHAHA this guy is funny

[HoldingCall]

You give contracts based on what the player is projected to do during the duration of the contract. They're not designed this way. I don't think Ozzie said "Hey, Terrell, we're gonna give you this contract but then you're gonna under perform in 2013 and we'll have to renegotiate." He didn't say "Hey Anquan, we don't think you'll be performing up to your worth in 2013, so we'll just trade you."

 

Contracts are designed for the best case scenario and then re-done to reflect the performance of the player. 

I get that, but I think it hurt the team's image in the eye of players and agents when it occurs; like it or not. I believe it's also a poor business practice if it continues year after year. 

 

Is there anyone among us who don't expect a redo of Flacco's contract down the road? The structure of his contract becomes dangerously expensive in a few years and I don't see them honoring it to the end.

[rmw10]

I get that, but I think it hurt the team's image in the eye of players and agents when it occurs; like it or not. I believe it's also a poor business practice if it continues year after year. 

 

Is there anyone among us who don't expect a redo of Flacco's contract down the road? The structure of his contract becomes dangerously expensive in a few years and I don't see them honoring it to the end.

 

It's business.  There is no loyalty.  The same thing that happens in the NFL happens in the real world everyday.  People get fired from their jobs because they aren't performing up to their salary and they may be able to be replaced for cheaper.  It's life.

 

It's unfortunate that it happens, but it does.  Just like the NFL has a salary cap, businesses have budgets.  There's not one team exempt from needing/wanting to cut players at some point, despite what their contract says.  It's not going to make us look bad if we make that decision as long as the player knows it's strictly business.

[The Raven]

I get that, but I think it hurt the team's image in the eye of players and agents when it occurs; like it or not. I believe it's also a poor business practice if it continues year after year. 

 

Is there anyone among us who don't expect a redo of Flacco's contract down the road? The structure of his contract becomes dangerously expensive in a few years and I don't see them honoring it to the end.

 

It's a business, and every team in the NFL does it. I actually think that we do it less than average. I mean, what players have we really even restructured? Who have we seriously talked about restructuring? Boldin, Suggs, and Flacco are the only three big names that come to mind when we talk about who has and who will been in restructure negotiations.

 

We're almost definitely restructuring Joe's deal after his third season. It goes up to like 30 million. We're going to honor it to the end because he's a franchise QB, simple as that. How we're going to restructure it, I'm not yet sure. 

[Robbo15]

Cut him but keep Ball so hard u

[Militant X 1]

It's business.  There is no loyalty.  The same thing that happens in the NFL happens in the real world everyday.  People get fired from their jobs because they aren't performing up to their salary and they may be able to be replaced for cheaper.  It's life.

 

It's unfortunate that it happens, but it does.  Just like the NFL has a salary cap, businesses have budgets.  There's not one team exempt from needing/wanting to cut players at some point, despite what their contract says.  It's not going to make us look bad if we make that decision as long as the player knows it's strictly business.

 

And this is why to me, these players need to look out for themselves and their families; even if that means leaving Baltimore!

 

#Mili

[arnie_uk]

It's a business, and every team in the NFL does it. I actually think that we do it less than average. I mean, what players have we really even restructured? Who have we seriously talked about restructuring? Boldin, Suggs, and Flacco are the only three big names that come to mind when we talk about who has and who will been in restructure negotiations.

We're almost definitely restructuring Joe's deal after his third season. It goes up to like 30 million. We're going to honor it to the end because he's a franchise QB, simple as that. How we're going to restructure it, I'm not yet sure.

yanda has been extended a couple times still inside his big contract

[arnie_uk]

Regards re structuring there isnt actually many teams that do that. Most teams extend contracts and turn base salary into the signing bonus. They are two totally different things.

[izvoodoo]

You give contracts based on what the player is projected to do during the duration of the contract. They're not designed this way. I don't think Ozzie said "Hey, Terrell, we're gonna give you this contract but then you're gonna under perform in 2013 and we'll have to renegotiate." He didn't say "Hey Anquan, we don't think you'll be performing up to your worth in 2013, so we'll just trade you."

 

Contracts are designed for the best case scenario and then re-done to reflect the performance of the player. 

Some contracts are back heavy so the team can save money cutting them.