Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web

Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?

blog advertising is good for you


16 Feb 2011

Raiders Sign Richard Seymour to Extension

The Raiders have locked up Richard Seymour with a two-year deal that will, according to Adam Schefter, make him the highest-paid defensive player in football.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 16 Feb 2011

19 comments, Last at 22 Feb 2011, 3:24pm by commissionerleaf

Comments

1
by jklps :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 2:38pm

No wonder Albert Haynesworth been so mad lately...

2
by battlered90 (not verified) :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 2:58pm

Of course they did. Don't tell Nnamdi.

3
by peachy :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 3:08pm

That's my default reaction to all Raiders' decisions, right there - "Of course they did."

4
by Bobby Wommack (not verified) :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 3:20pm

The last time Seymour got a big contract from the Pats, he came into camp fat and out-of-shape three years in a row. Congrats Raiders!

5
by tuluse :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 3:42pm

I wonder what this contract looks like.

If there is no football next year, would it cancel out the first year or would it come into effect fully on the next year games are played?

6
by JonFrum :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 6:35pm

Good question - if there's a lockout, players don't get paid. That's the whole point. So what does it mean to have a guaranteed contract?

11
by dbostedo :: Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:00am

There are no guaranteed contracts in the NFL. Still not sure what signing a contract right now means though.

13
by Noah of Arkadia :: Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:02pm

There are no guaranteed contracts, but there is a bonus. Whatever he got up front, he keeps no matter what.

18
by Mr Shush :: Sun, 02/20/2011 - 12:36pm

Well, there's no reason an NFL contract couldn't be entirely guaranteed for anything and everything, and it's certainly very common these days to see elements guaranteed for some things but not others - injury but not skill, for example. If a player wanted to negotiate a contract that was guaranteed against a lockout, and was prepared to make sufficient concessions in other areas (lower bonus, less overall money, whatever) there's no reason I can think of why such a thing couldn't be devised.

12
by dryheat :: Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:22am

The details out now are 2 years at 15M / year.

7
by big_jgke :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 7:36pm

You can't not admire the Raiders in a way. They have a system and they stick to it. I'd sort of rather my team (The Bills) operated like this instead of the constant floundering.

8
by BSR :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:42pm

This can't be true. Everyone in the Manning thread says that its impossible to come to some sort of contract extension right now.

9
by dmstorm22 :: Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:02pm

For Al Davis, many things are possible.

10
by coboney :: Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:00am

Basically what the issue is that the 30% rule is in effect still for contract extensions. So it might be causing issues for manning based on what his base salary was (Not sure) but Seymour's was high enough that they could give him a ridiculous contract like this.

14
by Noah of Arkadia :: Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:05pm

About the 30% rule, we've seen how teams can get around it throughout the season thanks to Mr. Halsell. I don't think it's a big deal.

15
by Anonymouse (not verified) :: Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:54pm

Richard signed a franchise tender last year for $12.4 million;

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/06/19/richard-seymour-signs-tender/

Guess that is one of the joys of being a franchise player, and maybe a reason players are not too upset about it this year. The 30% rule really does not become a factor if you were getting an average of the top 5-10 players at your position the prior year.

16
by Toby (not verified) :: Fri, 02/18/2011 - 4:29pm

Does it suck, living in your black and white world?

17
by ChicagoRaider :: Fri, 02/18/2011 - 9:11pm

I guess the real question is: was it worth it? If it is incentive-laden, then maybe Seymour feels like being a total beast on every play. If it keeps the front 4 of that defense on an improving track, absolutely worth it.

Al loves loyalty. And I don't often see players going as over the top for their team as Seymour's comments. "Life-long dream"? From the article:

"It's a great place to play," he said last December. "The fans are unlike any others in the league. They're definitely committed, and they want the same type players to play in this organization. The history of being here, the mystique of putting that silver and black on and representing the Raiders, it's been a lifelong dream for me and, hopefully, it continues."

If he keeps that coming out, that has to be worth at least a million a year.

19
by commissionerleaf :: Tue, 02/22/2011 - 3:24pm

Funny comment by Seymour, given how mad he was that he was traded from the perennially contending Patriots to the lowly Raiders. However, he had a good year, and he's being paid better than he deserves (although the amounts are not entirely silly). He's one of the better players in the league at his position, and he's being paid like he's the single best.

That's the Raider way; it's too bad they only draft workout warriors with no ball skills, or they'd be a lot like the Colts*.

[* - Only the Raiders have -good- defensive players to overpay, instead of Gary Brackett and Bob Sanders.]