A tag on Suh wouldn't have worked at all anyway. They would have had to pay him $27M. He likely wouldn't even consider a long term deal when he would have had $27M fully guaranteed for just a one year commitment. No reason to.
A tag on Suh wouldn't have worked at all anyway. They would have had to pay him $27M. He likely wouldn't even consider a long term deal when he would have had $27M fully guaranteed for just a one year commitment. No reason to.
The guarantee alone on the next long term deal would have been over $40 mil. They had to bail. PFT said they should have communicated this when negotiations broke down during the season. It does seem obvious now.Originally Posted by Patler
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Here's the prevailing wisdom in Detroit, from an article in the Free Press:
"His [Suh's] presence tilts the field in a way that's hard to measure, and surely why the Lions brass strongly considered spending nearly $27 million to keep him for another year. They understand what they have in him.
They also know they have to do what it takes to sign him. Pay him what he wants. The Lions aren't building for the future. They are building for September, and that means finding a way to keep your best player."
This is the difference between the Lions and the Packers. They put themselves in this predicament by structuring Suh's last re-structuring so if he went to FA and the Lions tagged him they'd have to pay him 20% above the franchise for the year. Thus the 26 mill number.
They've also restructured Calvin Johnson and Matthew Stafford, pushing money into the future over and over. So those two are huge cap hits, and re-signing Suh would mean zero flexibility anywhere on the roster.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote