Great job Michael. Thanks for the plug. Power Of Ten thanks you much. 
That was a nice little snippet at the end of the article about Mora being on his second job and the other coaches that have enjoyed big time success with that second chance. That might be the susbstance of another follow on article.
Mora certainly has learned a lot from that first stint with Atlanta and it sure didn't hurt to have tutored on the staff of a master like Holmgren for a couple of years while regrouping and reflecting on how to approach it the second time around.
Mora was said to have gotten too close to his players in Atlanta which made it difficult to make decisions about players he considered close friends. It's hard to enforce discipline with players who consider you to be one of the guys and not the authority figure a Head Coach must become.
Apparently, he and Ruskell have talked about those issues (remember they were both there in Atlanta) and he's going to be looking to handle his player relationships differently when he takes over next year. It seems certain that he will be a much more seasoned coach when he steps into his second Head Coaching job. It's always with a lot more insight that you step into your second chance at leading an organization and a lot of mistakes made during the first go around are eliminated or minimalized. I can't stress enough how much of an impact watching Holmgren operate as a Head Coach should have on Mora when he takes control next season. That experience might very well spell the difference between taking a couple of years to get it going with his second chance and stepping right in and getting things off the ground right away.
I think he has a chance to come out of the chute with a very strong team that is unusually unified for the first year under a new HC. If he makes the right decisions on who to hire as his DC and OC, the turnover will be smooth and seamless. Ruskell will prove once again that he can make very good personnel choices and the Seahawks will continue on without a bump in the road.
A note of caution though. If Mora doesn't hire an OC and DC that can keep team unity and decides to bring in outsiders with a new schemes and wants to weed out players that he doesn't consider his type of player and bring in new players to build the team to his specifications, we could see the Seahawks go into a tailspin untill it all sorts itself out and we can build ourselves up again by everyone getting back on the same page and becoming experienced in the new schemes.
I'm hoping that's another issue that Mora and Ruskell have discussed and they can see that the way to keep the Seahawks on track is to make as little change as possible at the initial turnover and if they do decide to change things around afterwards, they do it gradually while maintaining a divisional winner in the process.
Of course this discussion is really best kept until next offseason but I'm sure it's already on the minds of Mora and Ruskell.
The comment above this one was supposed to be posted in the "Super Bowl Is Wide Open" discussion. Somewho it ended up here but that's where it should have gone and what it's referring to.
My apologies.
Michael,
To your knowledge is it because of the player/agent that mid rounders are signing 2 year deals or the ballclub?
It would seem to me for example that if they are pretty sure Owen Schmitt is going to work out as our fullback of the future, the Seahawks would want to sign him to a 4 year deal rather than face a greatly increased contract negotiated after two years of his rookie contract and another year of restricted free agency when other teams will be after him too. That 2 year deal would seem to be a better deal for Owen that say Red Bryant gets by signing a 4 year deal that keeps him off the market for at least a year longer (or does a player signing a 4 year contract still have a year of restricted free agency to go through at the end of his contract in which case Bryant will have to wait two years longer than Schmitt to get to free agency)?
You're showing that we'll sign our long snapper to a 4 year deal so it looks as if it's psosible to sign mid to late round picks to longer contracts. I'm just wondering if that's at the Seahawks discretion when they think they have a player that they will definately want to be a part of the team long term and want to lock up or if they are unsure of a player and want to see his performance over the course of a couple seasons before deciding on a long term deal they will offer only a two year deal as a sort of trial period.
Do the players and their agents have much say about length of contracts? I would imagine a player who feels that he will be making a big impact will want a shorter contract so he can hit free agency and let the teams fight over his services to get to the big payday of a second contract.
Could you please tell me what you know about the inter-workings of rookie contracts with respect to length and how that's determined? It's an interesting subject Michael. Thanks for bringing it up.
Is there any truth with the seahawks being interested in Roy Williams?
No Nick, not a shred of truth. It was proven that the guy who was spreading those rumors had completely fabricated them.
I think it is a lot of what the teams and the agents come to an agreement on.
A player becomes a RFA if there contract expires after 3 years, and an UFA if they have 4 or more years of service.
So the mid rounders often like deals that allow them the chance at a big bump in pay because they miss out on the big signing bonuses. When they get that high tender, they are making more in one year than they have in their career.
If the team can lock them up they try, but it depends on the how the negotiations go. For some reason 7th rounders often sign longer deals, which I really don't have an answer for.
With the Hawks, I would think they will try to lock in the late picks this year for longer deals, only because they expect them to be playing for us. Many teams see late round picks as 50/50 shot to make the team. The Hawks scooped up guys they think will fill needed spots for years.
Part of the reason that teams will agree to the short deals with any player is because they are given the choice on a draft pick, in a way. If they have a player who is an 4th or 5th round RFA, they can decide if they want the player or the pick if somebody signs them. So in a way, the team is covered, and the player has a carrot dangling in front of them for three years.
Hope some of that makes sense and sheds light on the situation.
Yeah, it does. I really pretty much knew all that but I just wondered if there were any NFL rules guiding contract length that were different based on round selected. It was puzzling to me that mid rounders were projected to get 2 year deals and late rounders were back to 4 year deals. I've never really paid much attention to contract length as it's related to round selected before. I was surprised that they would apparently only sign someone like Owen Schmitt to a 2 year deal. I assumed that they would sign all their draft choices to a 4 year contract unless there was another factor involved. Apparently there is if you think about it.
I'll try and lay it out as I understand it to be so everyone can jump in and participate. Please anyone, jump in and add anything to the explanation of the process I may miss. I'm kind of thinking out loud here.
If I understand correctly, there are no rules for signing any player that are different because of which round they're drafted in so eveything is open to negotation between the team and the player's agent and what is agreed upon is governed by the NFL rules common to all players.
The contracts are a negotation as far as term is concerned. The team will probably insist on a 4 or 5 year contract if they're laying out a considerable bonus to the player so they can spread the bonus against the cap over the longer term for one reason. These will be the top draft picks so they will want the player locked up as long as possible at a reasonable salary. Somewhere it sticks in my mind that there was a NFL mandated maximum length to contracts that was recently lowered by a year from what it was previously so maybe the max is 4 years now. Does anyone remember what the rule change was? I'm too lazy to research it right now (Mother's day dinner).
Anyway, for a mid round pick and lower, if there's not much up front money involved, the player will most likely insist on a 2 year contract so he can get tendered in his third year (hopefully for him at a much higher rate than the second year of his contract was for) and/or try and get another team to sign him at a big salary increase whereby the Seahawk's would get their pick back if they declined to match the offer or they could match it and retain the player.
I would think in some cases, the Seahawks would be the ones insisting on a 2 year contract because they aren't sure the player will prove up and they can release him after two years if he doesn't. I guess that a four year deal actually serves the same purpose.
Overall, it sounds like the two year deal is a players deal and gets them to free agency and the opportunity to cash in for the big contract sooner. The 4 year deal benefits the team because they spread the bonus coast out over a longer time and they retain the player at a much more reasonable cost for a longer term considering that when the player hits free agency, particularly if they're a good player, their cost is going to go up dramatically.
It would seem to me that it depends on who has the most leverage when it comes to deciding who among the mid to bottom picks will be successful in insisting on a two year contract and getting the Seahawks to agree. With a mid round pick who is a promising player, the player would have some leverage in demanding a two year contract if the team doesn't want to put up a large enough bonus. When the team offers a large enough signing bonus, they can insist on the 4 year deal as a condition of receiving the up front money. With little or no up front money, there isn't an incentive to sign a 4 year deal and the player has the leverage. A lower round player wouldn't expect to get a large bonus anyway and because they're a bigger longshot to make the team, would have less leverage to be able to negotiate a 2 year deal. They probably accept pretty much whatever is offered. A minimum salary contract with a low bonus and a 4 year deal probably so if he does make the team, he's a real bargain for the whole 4 years and if not, we're losing nothing by cutting him.
I would guess that every player falls somewhere in line between those considerations and whoever can use their leverage to best advantage will negotiate the most advantageous contract in terms of contract length, bonus, and salary.
I never considered how the mid-round picks would have leverage to be able to sucessfully compel the Seahawks to agree to a 2 year deal so they can make some of the money back they didn't get as a bonus in that 3rd year when the tender amount should be higher than a salary would have been and their second contract negotiation arrives a year earlier. That's the big revelation for me out of this topic. Thanks for bringing it up Michael. I love learning something new about the inter workings of the league. It's a part of football that I'll be aware of from now on and watching with interest how it comes down.
NFL salaries strike me as relatively low in comparison to some other sports. Especially when it's the only show in town.
Just doing some very rough maths an average footballer (on say £15k a week) in the English Premier League makes a lot more than a first round pick. And all that money is guaranteed!
You'd have to go way down the football pyramid before you'd find someone earning a 7th round NFL wage.
Does the NFL compare well with other American sports?
Maybe it's just my maths though.
Rookie contract misc:
The maximum length of contracts for a rookie drafted in the first 16 selections in the first round is six years. The maximum contract for a rookie selected in picks 17 to 32 is five years. Players taken in rounds two through seven can't be given a contract longer than four years. Teams have tried to force rookies taken in the second day of the draft to sign five-year deals.
A rookie contract cannot be renegotiated in the first two years. Any renegotiation of a rookie contract has to be done in the third year or beyond.
I agree with BillT comments. Seem like if you were a bubble guy in the late rounds trying to make it on special teams you would want a longer deal just so you would have a fixed cost to the team. Then you have been around in the system and they know exactly how much they are going to have to pay you. If you were a fringe player and your contract was up in my mind that would just draw attention to you and the GM might say, well his deal is up, lets take another rookie late and see if we can do better. Plus for the team as you said they can always just release a guy if he doesnt work out and not really lose anything because the contract amounts are so small.
realspd,
Thanks so much for clearing up that there is a different set of rules governing contract length depending on where you were drafted.
I thought there was something agreed upon recently where the six years maximum was being lowered to five years but it might have been something to do with the number of years you can pro rate bonus money over that was being reduced.
As far as you know realspd, can you pro rate the bonus over the entire length of the contract (6, 5, or 4 years) or does that also vary with your draft position?
Commenting by HaloScan
