Jump to content
ColtsBlueFL

Bucs sign Suh

Recommended Posts

Ian Rapoport tweet.  Interesting!  Just 1 year!! (I would have bet he was wanting more)

 

And how much, vs. what McCoy would have cost?  Just a swap?

 

giphy.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9.5 million a year and Ballard gave Hankins 10 million. Seems like the Colts missed this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCoy 's hit was $13 mil. for 1 year, so you bet he is looking at 2 years at least, at $10 mil. per at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chad72 said:

McCoy 's hit was $13 mil. for 1 year, so you bet he is looking at 2 years at least, at $10 mil. per at least.

 

 2 years at 19 mil... 1 mil in LTBE incentives (500k / yr)..  another 2 mil in ULTBE incentives (reach SB, achieve SB MVP, etc...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rock8591 said:

Suh >>> McCoy by far.

 

Suh is more versatile and can play many positions on the D line which, IMO, makes him better.  But not 'by far'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably exaggerated a bit there to make a point, since it seems like Suh gets dogged a lot. As a comparison of different aspects of their games...

 

Pass rush - McCoy

 

Run defense - Suh by a landslide

 

Versatility - Suh

 

Durability - Suh

 

(lack of) Penalties - McCoy

 

Character - push (Suh is dirty on the field, but a complete gentleman off the field - read up on him attaining his engineering degree, giving money back to his college, high school) - does not even have a jaywalking ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, rock8591 said:

Character - push (Suh is dirty on the field, but a complete gentleman off the field - read up on him attaining his engineering degree, giving money back to his college, high school) - does not even have a jaywalking ticket.

This response is not directed at you, but at the general thought line that is shared by many.

 

When I refer to Suh as not being a good guy, (I believe I balked at him being called a "good guy" in another thread), does not mean I think he is a bad guy. What I think he is, is a bad example for younger players. He is a bad example by his actions of going from team, to team. If he was a "team" guy, he would not be going to his 4th team in 6 years. Ballard is building a team/family culture. I don't see the benefit to the Colt team culture by his example, let alone the possibility that he might vocally encourage a younger star player to follow his pattern. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

This response is not directed at you, but at the general thought line that is shared by many.

 

When I refer to Suh as not being a good guy, (I believe I balked at him being called a "good guy" in another thread), does not mean I think he is a bad guy. What I think he is, is a bad example for younger players. He is a bad example by his actions of going from team, to team. If he was a "team" guy, he would not be going to his 4th team in 6 years. Ballard is building a team/family culture. I don't see the benefit to the Colt team culture by his example, let alone the possibility that he might vocally encourage a younger star player to follow his pattern. 

Why is he a bad  not team guy if the team he was playing for doesn't offer him a contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blueblood23 said:

Why is he a bad  not team guy if the team he was playing for doesn't offer him a contract?

There is always a reason teams don’t extend certain players. Sure, they could have just been wanting to save money. But also, they could have decided he wasn’t a good team presence and wanted to clean up their stable of players

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blueblood23 said:

Why is he a bad  not team guy if the team he was playing for doesn't offer him a contract?

4 teams in 6 years isn't by default. He is a me first veteran trying to get as much as he can at the end of his career. Again, not saying he is a bad guy, I'm saying that inline with what our GM has been trying to build, that is not the player attitude he likely wants in the building. 

 

Personally, I am glad he signed elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald credits Suh for him being able to have a impact on the field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Colts are trying to build a good locker room of clean players with the right personality, but a veteran with a mean-streak might tear into that, so maybe they figured he wasn't worth the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yep. Up until that neck injury I don’t think manning missed a snap his entire career here.
    • Andrew has had 3 maybe 4 injuries since the beginning of his career, manning only missed one season here. So no worries the bad luck was all Bob's. 
    • that guy is too short, has no wheels, and has to take a time out after every 6 attempts. will never make it.. nice jugs though
    • The facts.. a hung jury (twice) mistrial with most voters having sided for the alleged accuser/victim... both times.     She (prosecution) didn't drop the charges, the school (judge/jury) did.  She wanted round 3.  She wanted a full yes or no vote (4-1 or 5-0) either way, not we're split 3-2 so we'll just call it against the majority vote and designate as "Not Responsible" because it isn't 4 or more votes either way. - 'Case closed'.     There were questions (and other items) from the accuser that were never allowed in or asked in follow up questioning.  I think one of the changes to the Stanford Title IX hearing rules is to also allow an attorney to be not only in attendance but to also perform all duties of representation.  And an outside group determines what is admissible as questions/evidence, follow questions, etc...     At some level, it did, and many things at Stanford were changed after. At the  minimum, it was a mistrial x2, with no conclusive verdict either way. Then school (not prosecution) drops the case.   So she really needed to report this to both the school, and also the Police.  But with what evidence does she have to convince the LEO?  Guess the gals need some hidden body cam w/audio these days, like many folks do with dash cams (like me and my wife's cars...) and be their own TMZ...   Video, apparently the only way things get rectified anymore...     No worries, at least we know each others positions.  All is good.     Except to have (at some level) differing story from a another high achieving Stanford student about another high achieving Stanford student-   https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/california/stanford-university/admission/     We don't even know for certain they ever got the FULL story, but articles I've read suggest that the Stanford Panel repressed/disallowed many/most of her interrogating questions and supplemental follow up inquiries to be asked of the accused.  Unless someone directly asks her directly, how could you answer as to whether her whole story was even heard or not?   If you are not truly interested to fully know those answers, then you don't ask.  At least, that's my perspective.  
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...