Should we try to sign Terrell Suggs to an offer sheet?

[mayoclinic]

I've thrown this idea out a few times, but no one has bitten so far, so I'll throw it out as a thread.

Now that we have cap room and a ton of draft picks, does anyone think it makes sense to do the following:

1. Sign Terrell Suggs to a long-term offer sheet. His franchise tag is $10.2M. He's 26, and arguable the best 3-4 OLB in the NFL not named DeMarcus Ware. BB reportedly loved him coming out of college. Would reunite him with Adalius Thomas. Would cost us #23 in 2009 and our 2010 1st (probably #28-32).

2. Trade one of our 2nd round picks back to re-acquire a 2010 1st round pick. This would likely be #34 or #47.

3. Be left with #34/47, 58, 89 and 97 on the 1st day to spend on draft picks.

We would presumably move AD to SILB, leaving us with Suggs-Thomas-Mayo-Woods/Crable as our starting LB corps. Not too shabby. I could see us still going for someone like Connor Barwin if we managed to keep #34 (or Sintim or English at #47), using Woods as a one year stopgap. Suggs-Thomas-Mayo-Barwin would be unreal in a year or so. We could use the remaining pick on a DB such as Patrick Chung or William Moore (presumable Sean Smith and Louis Delmas would be gone by #58).

For those baulking at Julius Peppers, Suggs is younger, has 3-4 OLB experience, and with a $10M cap hit could probably be signed to a long-term deal. The chance of getting a Suggs/Ware caliber OLB would be a rare opportunity.

 

[j00fek]

his tag is 17m

 

[mayoclinic]

his tag is 17m

That's for Peppers, not for Suggs. Here's a link:

Ravens place franchise tag on Suggs -- baltimoresun.com

Baltimore compromised with Suggs in 2007 when they first tagged him, splitting the difference between the LB and DE tag numbers. His 2008 tag hit was 120% of his 2007 salary.

 

[PATSNUTme]

We now have $16.6mil in cap space not including the J. Sanders signing, according to Miguel. There is still a lot of work to do.

Who wouldn't want Suggs, but it would come at too high a price.

 

[j00fek]

guess i mixed em up, but still it wont happen

 

[Rob0729]

I've thrown this idea out a few times, but no one has bitten so far, so I'll throw it out as a thread.

Now that we have cap room and a ton of draft picks, does anyone think it makes sense to do the following:

1. Sign Terrell Suggs to a long-term offer sheet. His franchise tag is $10.2M. He's 26, and arguable the best 3-4 OLB in the NFL not named DeMarcus Ware. BB reportedly loved him coming out of college. Would reunite him with Adalius Thomas. Would cost us #23 in 2009 and our 2010 1st (probably #28-32).

2. Trade one of our 2nd round picks back to re-acquire a 2010 1st round pick. This would likely be #34 or #47.

3. Be left with #34/47, 58, 89 and 97 on the 1st day to spend on draft picks.

We would presumably move AD to SILB, leaving us with Suggs-Thomas-Mayo-Woods/Crable as our starting LB corps. Not too shabby. I could see us still going for someone like Connor Barwin if we managed to keep #34 (or Sintim or English at #47), using Woods as a one year stopgap. Suggs-Thomas-Mayo-Barwin would be unreal in a year or so. We could use the remaining pick on a DB such as Patrick Chung or William Moore (presumable Sean Smith and Louis Delmas would be gone by #58).

For those baulking at Julius Peppers, Suggs is younger, has 3-4 OLB experience, and with a $10M cap hit could probably be signed to a long-term deal. The chance of getting a Suggs/Ware caliber OLB would be a rare opportunity.

First, you have to assume that Suggs' contract demands aren't too out of whack and the Pats can offer him a contract that the Ravens wouldn't match.

Second, you gotta hope the Ravens are willing to trade one of the Pats' second round picks to save the first next year. Besides, if the Pats have to give up the 34th this year, I would rather give up the first next year since this draft is supposed to be deep at the top.

 

[mayoclinic]

Here's another wild thought.

If the Pats knew that they wanted to sign a franchised player to an offer sheet (such as Suggs) then it would make sense to trade Cassel for a high 2nd rather than a 1st. With 2 2009 1sts they would have to give up both picks if they signed a franchised player. With only one 2009 1st and #34, they would give up their 2009 and 2010 1st, and then could trade one of their 2nd round picks into 2010 (which would probably end up higher than the Pats original 2010 pick). They would actually end up better off than if they had acquired a higher pick.

Just a thought. Suggs is the only franchised player I can think of for whom this would work - possibly Dansby, but I doubt it. Peppers could be had for less given Carolina's cap situation.

There is some rational explanation for the Pats doing what they did, and my guess is it will end up being something to do with them being smarter than the rest of the league, not dumber. This is at least a new one.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I would in a heartbeat. Young, 26 years old, experienced in the LB positions and can fill in at defensive end. Something we may need next year when we let Seymour walk to try to sign Wilfork and Mankins.

To be honest I don't know why we are talking about Peppers when we should be talking about this guy.

 

[Rob0729]

Here's another wild thought.

If the Pats knew that they wanted to sign a franchised player to an offer sheet (such as Suggs) then it would make sense to trade Cassel for a high 2nd rather than a 1st. With 2 2009 1sts they would have to give up both picks if they signed a franchised player. With only one 2009 1st and #34, they would give up their 2009 and 2010 1st, and then could trade one of their 2nd round picks into 2010 (which would probably end up higher than the Pats original 2010 pick). They would actually end up better off than if they had acquired a higher pick.

Just a thought. Suggs is the only franchised player I can think of for whom this would work - possibly Dansby, but I doubt it. Peppers could be had for less given Carolina's cap situation.

There is some rational explanation for the Pats doing what they did, and my guess is it will end up being something to do with them being smarter than the rest of the league, not dumber. This is at least a new one.

Actually, I am pretty sure you do not have to give up any picks you received in trade unless you want to and the other team wants to. So if the Pats got a first rounder for Cassel, it still would be the Pats' first this year and the Pats' next year not both the Pats' firsrt this year.

 

[Rob0729]

I would in a heartbeat. Young, 26 years old, experienced in the LB positions and can fill in at defensive end. Something we may need next year when we let Seymour walk to try to sign Wilfork and Mankins.

To be honest I don't know why we are talking about Peppers when we should be talking about this guy.

I would strongly consider it, but it would depend on what Suggs wants and if the Ravens were willing to trade for less than two first rounders. I don't think any OLB is worth 2 firsts.

 

[mayoclinic]

First, you have to assume that Suggs' contract demands aren't too out of whack and the Pats can offer him a contract that the Ravens wouldn't match.

Second, you gotta hope the Ravens are willing to trade one of the Pats' second round picks to save the first next year. Besides, if the Pats have to give up the 34th this year, I would rather give up the first next year since this draft is supposed to be deep at the top.

Let's take your points in reverse order. First, your second point.

You misunderstand what I proposed. Under league rules, if the Pats sign Suggs to an offer sheet, Baltimore gets our 2009 and 2010 1st round picks. No wiggle room there. We give up a lowish 2009 1st and probably a very low 2010 1st, and get Suggs.

Trading one of our 2009 2nd round picks for a 2010 1st rounder has nothing to do with signing Suggs or anyone else, and would not likely involve Baltimore. It's just a logical thing which may happen anyway with all of our picks. If we gave up our 2010 1st, then we would likely want to reacquire a 2010 1st round pick.

Second, your first point.

Baltimore would likely want to match any offer for Suggs. But nothing would stop us from including a "poison pill" clause making it hard for Baltimore to match - e.g., Suggs gets some huge bonus if he plays more than 3 regular season games in the state of Maryland. That's been done with transition players before (Steve Hutchinson) but never with a franchise player, because no one has been willing to spend the two 1st round picks.

Just thoughts. But there are ways of dealing with the situation.

 

[Patriot Missile]

There aren't going to be too many more poison pills left. And besides, we are the hated Patriots, if we even tried something like that, espn,Goodel and Heaven above would nix the offer sheet.

 

[fumbrunner]

Can you imagine? AD, Suggs and Mayo as three of your 4 LBs? Add a decent free agent CB and this could be one hell of a D.

 

[mayoclinic]

There aren't going to be too many more poison pills left. And besides, we are the hated Patriots, if we even tried something like that, espn,Goodel and Heaven above would nix the offer sheet.

The league looked into the poison pill when Minnesota and did nothing about it. They have looked unfavorably on it, but have not been able to outlaw it. It would get them into an enormous legal mess.

Teams have basically avoided the transition player tag since then in order to avoid the poison pill issue. But no one has actually signed a franchise player to an offer sheet since then, or tested the rule.

In response to an earlier issue, I'm not sure if we had had two 2009 1st round picks whether we would be obliged to give them up if we signed a franchise player to an offer sheet, or rather our 2009 and 2010 1sts. I've looked into the CBA, and can find nothing that clarifies this. Again, as far as I can tell it's never been tested. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the CBA than me can clarify this.

Personally, I would seriously consider this if we could make an offer fit under the cap.

 

[SVN]

considering BB and ozzie newsome are buddies ,its interesting to watch.

 

[JMarr]

Suggs and the Ravens willing, it would be a risky move but I'd do it in a heartbeat as well. I'm kind of partial to BB's NY Giants defenses of the 80's. And I don't think he'd mind having 3 to 4 utterly dominating LBs on the field at any given time. That being said, thank God I'm not running the Pats.

 

[Patriot Missile]

The whole kicker for me is he is big enough to play as a DE. If we were to draft someone like Barwin could learn the ropes from 3 of the best in the biz. Again I reiterate the importance that I think Seymour is the odd man out here and Suggs could fill in nicely at DE when Barwin or Sintim, English etc are ready.

 

[WhiZa]

I like everything the OP said, and I would be happy with it except the large cap number. That would make it not worth it to me. At this point, I hope they draft an OLB who will be here a while.

 

[cstjohn17]

For just a moment I will forget about the salary cap... cappy smappy I say.

Sign Suggs, I think he is a great young player. That is one of the things that sucks about pick 34 as compared to pick 31. Having two first rounders creates at least the illusion of leverage if they were to pursue Peppers or Suggs. As for the Ravens with Scott gone and maybe Ray Ray as well there is no way they could afford to lose Suggs. Three starting LBs in one year, that would be pretty rough.

 

[borg]

Haven't you heard, people on this board think Crable is the 2nd coming. I hear Crable is up to 165 lb squats. No need for a Suggs...at all.