Player signs largest contract for a DT

[bearsfan_51]

Corey Redding is a better player.

Tommie Harris is going to get something similar to Dwight Freeney's contract. 30 million to sign, maybe more after this.

[OzTitan]

Originally Posted by The Unseen

I think people may be overreacting. Contract sizes are going to be larger due to the new(er) CBA, and they grow higher every year. I'm not saying that he deserved his contract, but I think the perspective here is marred by the past.

Agreed. The Lions and Redding set the standard last year. This is now the standard for average young DT's thanks to them, the Raiders are just doing what's necessary to keep a good player.

Redding and Kelly are pretty much the only two significant DT's to get a new deal since the new CBA, right? Harris, Haynesworth etc will all command deals that put this one back into perspective. It's just how the league works. It's all relative. You've just got to understand contract levels respective to playing talent are changing (increasing) all the time. If a top level DT wants X% more than a lower level DT, the raw $ value isn't really relevant when discussing who is and isn't overpaid.

I don't think it means they don't go DT at #4, either.

[DaBear89]

at least I had heard of cory redding b4 he signed a ridiculous contract

[OzTitan]

Well, you're a Bear fan, your team plays the Lions twice a season. I actually hadn't heard of Redding being anything but a stop gap player myself when he signed, but I've known Kelly for a while.

[Iamcanadian]

The salary cap went up a ridiculous amount last year due to the new TV contracts and as the veterans become FA's, they are going to be playing catch up. If you think your team has an immense amount of money in salary cap space and will be signing a ton of FA's, forget it, most of the cap space will be tied up resigning veterans. Teams that don't have a lot of cap space could lose a lot of veterans to FA or see their team make deep roster cuts to find the money to retain their own significant FA's.

[slightlyaraiderfan]

See location.

[JagHombre22]

word is is that Oakland is now the laughing stock of the league for dishing out 50 mil to a DT that has 13 sacks in his entire career...

[KCJ58]

Originally Posted by slightlyaraiderfan

See location.

nice username change :)

also i thought you were retired

[LonghornsLegend]

Originally Posted by JagHombre22

word is is that Oakland is now the laughing stock of the league for dishing out 50 mil to a DT that has 13 sacks in his entire career...

It can only get better when you sign Kwame Harris.

[JagHombre22]

yea, perhaps Oakland should try combining the two players together...they may get a semi-productive player in return...

[slightlyaraiderfan]

Originally Posted by KCJ58

nice username change :)

also i thought you were retired

No, but it shows that people don't read post before they respond! If people would have read what I had said they would have seen that it was a joke.

[OzTitan]

Since when did sacks measure how well a DT is playing?

[Oaktown1981]

Tommie Harris : 60 games, 141 tackes, 19.5 sacks, 5 forced fumbles, 2 passes defended.

Vince Wilfork : 61 games, 194 tackles, 5.5 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 7 passes defended.

Tommy Kelly : 49 games, 166 tackles, 13 sacks, 7 forced fumbles, 5 passes
defended.

I'm not saying Kelly is better than these guy but he is a pretty good player.. He isn't going to get 50 mil dollars either.. A lot of people have never even seen him play.. He is still young I'm glad the Raiders resigned him.... Overpaid ? Sure but who won't get overpaid this offseason...

[OzTitan]

He's only "overpaid" until Haynesworth, Harris etc redefine DT contracts. Like OG's, DT's have typically seen pretty small contracts in recent times, and this is changing. It's just instead of the pro bowlers getting the new deals from the onset, the next tier down players like Kelly and Redding are, so DT contracts are being redefined from the middle instead of the top. In time though the top will readjust and deals like this will indeed look 2nd tier.

[LonghornsLegend]

Originally Posted by OzTitan

He's only "overpaid" until Haynesworth, Harris etc redefine DT contracts. Like OG's, DT's have typically seen pretty small contracts in recent times, and this is changing. It's just instead of the pro bowlers getting the new deals from the onset, the next tier down players like Kelly and Redding are, so DT contracts are being redefined from the middle instead of the top. In time though the top will readjust and deals like this will indeed look 2nd tier.

I agree, but you let a guy walk if he's asking for 50 million and he hasnt done much up to this point, and for some reason I dont get the feeling he demanded to be paid this much, so I dont understand why or how they got started out so high in negotiations. I could of seen him just as easily sign for 20 million without a problem.

[slightlyaraiderfan]

Originally Posted by Oaktown1981

Tommie Harris : 60 games, 141 tackes, 19.5 sacks, 5 forced fumbles, 2 passes defended.

Vince Wilfork : 61 games, 194 tackles, 5.5 sacks, 0 forced fumbles, 7 passes defended.

Tommy Kelly : 49 games, 166 tackles, 13 sacks, 7 forced fumbles, 5 passes
defended.

I'm not saying Kelly is better than these guy but he is a pretty good player.. He isn't going to get 50 mil dollars either.. A lot of people have never even seen him play.. He is still young I'm glad the Raiders resigned him.... Overpaid ? Sure but who won't get overpaid this offseason...

Of course FA's are going to get overpaid this offseason, but this deal for Kelly is beyond ridiculous. It is laughable, I can't believe that you're actually trying to justify this signing.

[RaiderNation420]

Quote:
KPIX CBS5
“He’ll be better than me,” Sapp said. “He’ll have better numbers than me when his game’s over. … I know him. This kid’s picking up everything you could possibly imagine. His game has just evolved.”

The story ended this way:

“For me, a three-technique is gravy for him because you can’t move him,” Sapp said. “You can’t double him because he can play low, and you can’t block him one-on-one. There’s a couple intricate parts I’ve got to teach him with this and that or whatever. After I get finished with him in the next year and a half, he’ll be able to get protections and everything down.”

If that’s the case, then why are the Raiders insistent on playing Kelly at defensive end?

“Because I’m here,” Sapp said with a hearty laugh. “The professor ain’t gone yet.”

[LonghornsLegend]

None of that really matters, how good you WILL be, or how good you will end up, it matters what your worth is right now, and his was nowhere near 50 million...If thats the case we better scrap Chris Canty now because id kill myself if we signed him to a 50 million dollar deal and he's a gamer...Justin Tuck signed a 30 million dollar deal, 30 million and he's one of the best pass rushers in the game who has at least shown it consistently...


Add to the fact he's coming off an ACL, Im 100% no other team in the league would of signed him for more then 30 million, and thats being generous because its more like 20.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

Well, the bright side is that in seven years Kelly won't be anywhere need the top paid defensive tackle. Besides that, this deal is crap. Oakland paid an inconsistent producer money that would have been better spent in a promising new rookie.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by slightlyaraiderfan

See location.

Hahaha, good one, sarf.

[nobodyinparticular]

Raiders are apparently ready to sign FA Gibril Wilson to $6 million a year or so.

Someone familiar with the situation tells Newsday that free agent S Gibril Wilson is expected to sign a deal with the Raiders.
The deal would be for $6-6.5 million a year, more than he was initially said to be seeking. It looks like Oakland will keep Michael Huff at strong safety in 2008, rather than move him to his more natural spot on the weak side.
Source: Newsday
Related: Raiders, Eagles

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...rt=NFL&id=2841

I actually like Wilson so I don't think this is that bad of a signing. I'm not sure on the money, I'd have to see the length and total of the contract.

All I have to say though, is can the Raiders please lock up Asomugha longterm with all this money they are throwing around?

[OzTitan]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

I agree, but you let a guy walk if he's asking for 50 million and he hasnt done much up to this point, and for some reason I dont get the feeling he demanded to be paid this much, so I dont understand why or how they got started out so high in negotiations. I could of seen him just as easily sign for 20 million without a problem.

I'd say he did ask for this much. If Redding can get it, why can't he? Even with the injury his 07 season was almost better than Redding's statistically, just 7 tackles off according to NFL.com. Before that Kelly has been more productive.

Kelly is a pretty good versatile DL. If he was on a good team these past few years I suspect he would have seen a deal like this sooner.

[Mr. Stiller]

All this after only playing like 5 games last year with an ACL tear?

People are goign to be demanding his agent.

[LonghornsLegend]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

Raiders are apparently ready to sign FA Gibril Wilson to $6 million a year or so.



http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...rt=NFL&id=2841

I actually like Wilson so I don't think this is that bad of a signing. I'm not sure on the money, I'd have to see the length and total of the contract.

All I have to say though, is can the Raiders please lock up Asomugha longterm with all this money they are throwing around?

although neither is really the perfect fit, isnt Wilson a better SS then Huff? Why in the hell do they insist on playing Huff out of position? I understand you need personell but Huff isnt even doing the job you want your SS to do because he isnt suited for it, I would of made it a priority to grab a SS this off season to get Huff acclomated in the secondary, he should be deep and be able to roam the secondary to make plays similiar to how michael griffin plays in Tennessee, so he still has yet to get time at his true position.

[nobodyinparticular]

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

although neither is really the perfect fit, isnt Wilson a better SS then Huff? Why in the hell do they insist on playing Huff out of position? I understand you need personell but Huff isnt even doing the job you want your SS to do because he isnt suited for it, I would of made it a priority to grab a SS this off season to get Huff acclomated in the secondary, he should be deep and be able to roam the secondary to make plays similiar to how michael griffin plays in Tennessee, so he still has yet to get time at his true position.

That's absolutely true. The one thing I would say is that I'm not sure about the validity of actually keeping Huff at SS. I think the Raiders very well could have targetted Wilson so that they could move Huff to FS. Like you said, Wilson isn't exactly perfect for the position either--he certainly isn't going to conjure up images of Donavin Darius, Rodney Harrison or Jack Tatum--but he's solid in run support.