N. Suh: Should NFL Teams Sign Superstars for Very High Salaries?

Agree 100% in theory here. This is a game of limited resources, and maximizing those resources should be the primary goal of any organization. Additionally, the inequality referenced is also a big problem for the team's culture, particularly when you consider that compensation is public, and players are required to sacrifice so much. Pay inequality is actually the number one cause of anxiety in the workplace, based on studies I have read.

It is really hard to say without putting an exact number on Suh's compensation. I think he is a truly elite player in his prime, which is extremely rare for an UFA. If you can get him for $12-13M/yr. I think that is a good contract, that he could easily out-perform and add value to the roster.

 

Nice find, but a quick glance through the article suggests one serious problem (assuming you posted this to inform the discussion on high priced free agents like Suh): they aren't restricting their analysis to free agents. They themselves say that draft status is a major factor in determining high base and compensation levels.

So, think about it... One huge reason teams (in their analysis) that have more inequitable distributions of salaries perform worse is because they drafted higher => they were worse teams to begin with!!

It would've been nice if they at least acknowledged this confound, but it doesn't seem like they did. In any case, there's a lot of goodies in the article, but it shouldn't be taken at face value if we're just talking about free agents.


Best part of the article: In the acknowledgements they say, "We thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions" LOL.. never seen that before.

 

I would give a resounding 'NO'... if he wasn't such a dominant damn player. I honestly don't know how I feel about it.

I really want my team to win, and Suh is the best DT currently in the NFL. I can't say I'd disapprove if Suh planted Brady in the turf like a lawn dart.

 

We have average talent, maybe above average if Tannehill progresses again and ALbert comes back healthy. question is whether Suh is enough to get us to a 10 or 11 win team. Personally, I think he can have that kind of impact on our defense. main problem is our already thin depth will get worse if all the FA money is funneled to one player.
- I voted yes. mainly because I'd rather take a risk and fail rather than stay mired in mediocrity.

 

No. But only because of the salary cap.

If not for the cap I'm all for the players making what they are worth to a team.

 

I also buy into this theory. Also, so often these guys just lose the "hunger" after getting that second contract. I won't be crying into my frosted mini wheats if Miami fails to land Suh. I'd rather they build through the draft. Now that the cancerous feces known as Irish is gone, they can actually do that.

 

the bottom line is there is a cap on players because there is a cap on the team, and if the player cannot understand the critical concept then he aint worth it, this aint freakin baseball..the suits have to get creative and the player must understand that the team cannot get strapped just for him..dont care how good you are, without a balanced team you aint gonna do sh*& in the league..

now that being said, I would find out the absolute max I could pay him and still build my roster because I have confidence that I could find players who stick in all rounds of the draft, but all the schmucks who have been in our personal depts the past three decades have sucked ***, so all were relying on his hope and one good draft by hickey.

 

Social Loafing???

You HAVE to be effing kidding me...LOL

 

These players are paid TONS of money to play a sport they LOVE. Stop coddling them...

 

While I think this is a real phenomenon, and maybe I'm being naive, I'm going to give these professional players the benefit of the doubt and assume they give maximum effort despite what others around them are making. I'm also assuming the FO did their homework on these players and picked guys who will always put forth the effort. But, yeah, these are a lot of assumptions, so maybe I am being naive.

 

I think that in principle it's true. So the question is whether Suh's case is going to be different or an outlier. I think in this case it could be, just like JJ Watt. They are so good and they are leaders as well (contrast that with Wallace...) to the point that whatever downsides are outweighed. I personally wouldn't be opposed to Suh, but I think there are some really good other vets we could get with that same money, that provide leadership as well, considering we have so many holes (Gore, Rolle, AJ) in addition to keeping some of our own players.

 

If we had drafted Suh, would everyone be ok paying him big to keep him?

If not, then how is a team supposed to keep great players when they find them?

 

I don't think the kind of research described there is relevant to situations where each individual is given separate motivation to do something, irrespective of what the group does. A player (ahem.. Wheeler, Ellerbe, etc..) that doesn't pull his weight might get cut in pro football. If there is a carefully done experiment that simulates the motivational structure of professional team sports and then finds the same thing holds, well.. 1) I'd be surprised, and 2) I'd be more willing to accept it as evidence.

 

Right, but none of that addresses my criticism, which is that there is a major confound in their results: weak teams get to select higher in the draft, and selecting higher in the draft means you have more unequal distribution of salaries, all other things being equal. So, you automatically have a bias towards teams having worse records if there is unequal distribution in pay, at least with respect to the effect of the draft (which they say exists) on their results.

Unless you were trying to say something different with that post..

 

Absolutely. As I was writing that, I was thinking about the big contracts like Wallace in the past. If you are going to spend big money, it better be for either a franchise QB or someone that will be a leader. Having a malcontent make that much money doesn't usually work out, but unfortunately it's usually malcontents leaving their teams trying to hit it big in FA.

 

Yeah, psychology is a very diverse field. There are some areas that you can trust as much as physics or chemistry. There are other areas that are not far removed from philosophy. Some results, like Fitt's law (empirical relation of speed/accuracy tradeoff) are likely to hold in situations no one has ever tested them in, like quantifying how accurate a QB can hit a moving target given different amounts of time to make the throw (only thing you wouldn't know is a scaling parameter specific to that situation.. but the form of the equation should hold).

But in general, you have to err on the side of: if the experiment was not done in essentially the same (or similar enough) situation, don't assume it generalizes.

That last sentence is far more important than you'd think, until you actually do such experiments yourself (people claim something generalizes, and whoops! it doesn't). So, I wouldn't try to infer anything here as long as you can point out an important difference between the experimental conditions they had and the motivational structure in pro sports.

 

I think being able to consistently pressure the QB up the middle is something worth taking risk on. I'd be concerned about his age and the length of the contract. I'm not sure the DT position can age as well as say, QB. But even so, I could see him still being relatively productive in his early 30s.

 

Yeah, that's also my only real concern, not his salary or his penchant for getting penalties. Will he age well? If yes, I'm for it. If no, I'm not.

 

Right, the whole thing depends on draft status, which is fine if you are trying to estimate the effect of salary inequality regardless of how that inequality came about. The results may not hold if they just do it for free agents, considering how large an effect draft status has on both inequality and team record (the confound).

 

Getting a player who can jam the middle and get after the QB from there is worth a ton. Sign the man.

 

If it is... then why isn't Detroit a dominant defense, or team?

I would love to sign Suh. However, I don't believe it's in our best interest in doing so considering the multiple area's of need we have yet again on this roster. If you sign Suh to a big deal, you are upping Tannehill's deal in due time. You're going out there now and putting alot of pressure on yourself to draft well at every other position of need in order to stay competitive. We haven't drafted well enough to do so, and probably wont IMO because I have little faith in this front office.

 

Regardless of the merits of signing Suh, Detroit had one of the best defenses in the league, especially against the run (#1 there).

 

At the same time, Detroit doesn't have the edge rushers we do either.

 

Yeah, imagine Suh (which definitely helps plug that run defense hole we ended up with) + Wake.. hard not to salivate at that. Lessens the need for a really good ILB too.

 

It lessens the need for a really good CB opposite Grimes to.

I think that's the point people are forgetting...a DT the caliber of Suh is as important to the D as a QB is to the offense.

Great DTs improve every other unit on defense.

 

Not sure any position is as important in the modern game as the QB is, but in general I agree.

 

Well, I didn't say just the position without quantifying it. I said specifically a DT as good as Suh.

 

That's a good point, which is why Miami, and we as fans should ask - why isn't Detroit paying big money to keep him? If I had to guess it's that they realize that while Suh is a phenomenal player at his position, that position doesn't have a big enough affect on W/L to put that large of a percentage of the salary cap towards it. Not saying the position isn't important, because it absolutely is. But most important? No.

 

Why is the assumption ALWAYS the other team is right? Maybe they are wrong. It is the Lions after all.

Or maybe, they can't afford it.

 

I know.. I still think the average value of a QB to the offense is more than Suh is to a defense. The defense could have dominant players at several positions that could have the effect you're talking about, like DE or MLB. Offense? QB is on its own in terms of value (on average).