PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Tannehill at 11 making less cents


Okie_Apparition
04-20-2012, 03:29 PM
Fifth-year contract formula could push Tannehill out of top 10

Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2012, 5:15 PM EDT

With the top two quarterbacks in the 2012 rookie class destined to be the first two picks in the 2012 draft (barring something entirely unexpected in the next six days), the player to whom the most uncertainty and intrigue attaches for round one is Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill.

He could go anywhere from No. 3 (if the Vikings trade down) to No. 15 (if the Eagles take him or trade down). Seahawks G.M. John Schneider recently has said he expects Tannehill to be gone by the time Seattle exercises the 12th pick in the draft. However, there’s one specific factor that could push Tannehill out of the top 10.

Under the new CBA, a team may sign its first-round pick to a four-year contract with an option for a fifth year. The salary for the fifth year is based on a formula that hinges on whether the player is picked in the top 10 or the next 22.

For the top 10, the salary is determined by calculating the average of the 10 highest-paid players at the pick’s position in the prior season. For the next 22, the number is determined by calculating the average salary of the third-highest paid player at the position through the 25th highest paid player at the position in the prior season.

It’s a potentially huge difference, especially at the quarterback position. And, by 2016, it could be a gigantic number for Tannehill, given that the 10 highest-paid quarterbacks make considerably more money than No. 3 through No. 25 on the cap-number list.

And so, after Tannehill’s fourth season in the NFL, a team that takes him in the top 10 would have to be ready to give him elite quarterback money in year five, regardless of whether he’s playing at an elite level. Complicating matters is the possibility that Tannehill, a converted receiver, will need a year or two on the bench before being ready to play, giving a top-10 team even less time to assess whether Tannehill deserves top-10 quarterback money for 2016.

This year, the Chiefs hold the No. 11 selection in round one, and G.M. Scott Pioli recently pointed out the value that comes from the shift in the fifth-year calculation that applies at that spot. I also addressed the situation during Friday’s PFT Live, and I misspoke regarding the precise difference between the top 10 picks and the next 22. I incorrectly said that the top 10 players get the franchise tender under the fifth-year option. It’s actually the transition number.

Tannehill also appeared on PFT Live today. And I didn’t get into these nuances with him; it wouldn’t be good for the guest to fall asleep during the interview.

Still, it’s an important factor that could cause a team in the top 10 to ultimately pass on Tannehill. If a team in the top 10 still takes him, that team is buying itself a potentially significant dilemma for the 2016 season.

Titty Meat
04-20-2012, 03:31 PM
Made up bullshit

O.city
04-20-2012, 03:31 PM
Good news for us.

Okie_Apparition
04-20-2012, 03:31 PM
Nice spot for a trade

xztop12
04-20-2012, 03:36 PM
so we have the best pick after # 3 in the draft then? i dont understand or care to really

Tombstone RJ
04-20-2012, 05:58 PM
#11 pick is a great pick to have, lots of flexibility.

whoman69
04-20-2012, 06:28 PM
Made up bullshit

Pioli was talking about it in the pre-draft presser.

Hydrae
04-20-2012, 06:37 PM
#11 pick is made for the Chiefs. Top cheap pick in the draft.

Okie_Apparition
04-20-2012, 06:41 PM
The Browns are runny with envy

Frankie
04-20-2012, 06:49 PM
Made up bullshit

Actually this theory seems to be true. One of the guys on the NFL network (an ex-GM) was saying a similar thing comparing "top ten" contracts to the 11 and on.

Frankie
04-20-2012, 06:51 PM
BTW, this is one of the reasons I have always maintained that the chances of Miami drafting Tannehill is no more than 50-50. The same for chances of Pioli trading up for him.

jspchief
04-20-2012, 06:57 PM
If after 4 years, if he's not top 10 at his position, don't exercise the option.

BossChief
04-20-2012, 10:23 PM
This detail absolutely plays into the big picture of us drafting Tannehill.

That would scare me a little if I am Miami.

You either pay that or lose him and four years likely won't be enough time to make that big of a decision after only 4 years.

This isn't accurate, just an educated guess, but we are probably talking an 8 million dollar fifth year or a 15 million dollar fifth year and ours is the first "cheap year".

This raises the probability that he drops to our pick and makes sense why quarterbacks went 11 (Gabbert) and 12 (Ponder) last year.

rico
04-20-2012, 10:34 PM
It kind of lightens the weight of the Sherman connection.

Chiefshrink
04-20-2012, 10:42 PM
This raises the probability that he drops to our pick and makes sense why quarterbacks went 11 (Gabbert) and 12 (Ponder) last year.

Good point.:thumb:

Frankie
04-20-2012, 10:48 PM
Actually if Pioli is not really serious about taking Tannehill at all we will most certainly have trade suitors who'll want to get in front of Seattle. Sounds like 11 is a pretty damn good place to be.

KCrockaholic
04-20-2012, 10:55 PM
Fuck it. Just trade down.

007
04-20-2012, 10:58 PM
Actually if Pioli is not really serious about taking Tannehill at all we will most certainly have trade suitors who'll want to get in front of Seattle. Sounds like 11 is a pretty damn good place to be.

Yep. Looking like we are going to try and steal some picks from somebody.

Bump
04-20-2012, 11:00 PM
it sure doesn't make any cents to me either

Frankie
04-20-2012, 11:02 PM
Yep. Looking like we are going to try and steal some picks from somebody.

I'm leaning toward picking the guy at 11, unless we can royally rape someone out of some nice picks.

Miles
04-20-2012, 11:13 PM
Seems like a very minor issue at best, particularly considering the prior rookie pay contracts for highly drafted QBs. By year four a team should know what they have or at least think a QB is progressing to the point in which that pay structure is completely acceptable for a one year deal.

BossChief
04-20-2012, 11:31 PM
it sure doesn't make any cents to me either

Did you even read the op?

The Dawg
04-20-2012, 11:47 PM
I was very confused reading the title of this thread. I was wondering who he was making 11 less cents than. Tricky thread name.

Hog's Gone Fishin
04-21-2012, 12:57 AM
If a team is going to pick him in the top 10 it's because they think he's a franchise Quarterback. The money for year 5 won't scare that team off because they can restructure his contract anyway.

jspchief
04-21-2012, 04:42 AM
pro thread title

milkman
04-21-2012, 07:46 AM
You either pay that or lose him and four years likely won't be enough time to make that big of a decision after only 4 years.

I disagree.

I think you should know by year 3.

Dayze
04-21-2012, 03:09 PM
I'm confident how ever it plays out, that the Chiefs will end up screwing it up.

Bump
04-21-2012, 03:11 PM
Did you even read the op?

I began to, but didn't find it interesting so I stopped.

BossChief
04-21-2012, 03:31 PM
I disagree.

I think you should know by year 3.

It would be a tough call to give A guy 18 million dollars after only 4 years and in Tannahills case, probably 2 1/2 years starting.

Would you give Sanchez 18 million based on still unrealized potential after three years starting?

J Diddy
04-21-2012, 03:33 PM
I disagree.

I think you should know by year 3.

I agree. In my opinion, year one is acclimating to the nfl, year 2 is playing time with learning mistakes, year 3 is balls to the wall.

BossChief
04-21-2012, 03:48 PM
All in all, we aren't winning a damn thing without a big upgrade at quarterback, so I'd still be ok giving draft chart value to move up to 7 to get in front of Miami to take the kid.

His ceiling is super high and us drafting him would be a perfect fit.

Pioli gets one more year to FAP to his "pro bowl quarterback"...maybe two
Tannehill isn't rushed into the starting role
Ryans strengths fit well with our offense