Jump to content

Greg Rousseau 5th year option, extension candidate?


Recommended Posts

The Bills have til May 8 to assign the 5th year option which will be for 2025 at about $19.076M.  The number is big for a DE so giving him the option means you have to give him that for 2025 or you need to extend him sooner.  Any chance Beane is trying to do this now where his value is maybe less than it can be after this year?  It would provide a more cost controlled/known cost moving forward.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/lists/cost-buffalo-bills-fifth-year-option-greg-rousseau-nfl/

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We probably should extend him if we can. But it may also be possible his agent tells him to hold out on signing a LT deal due to the massive contracts being handed out to DE's at the moment. Rousseau may be willing to bet on himself in that regard depending on the numbers that would get thrown out there. I do believe it's almost a forgone conclusion we pick up the 5th year option. The Franchise Tag is even more expensive than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Green Lightning said:

Extend him. Elite at setting the edge, run stopper and developing nicely in the pass rush. He reminds me of Phil Hanson. So not a game wrecker but all-around great DE. 

 

Think that’s a very fair assessment. The question becomes how much his agent is asking for him on a long term contract. With the way some of these contracts this off-season have been, it might get pricey. 
 

I mean look at Brian Burns, who I would say is about the production you’re probably going to get if Groot plays 75-90% of the snaps in a season, where you’re getting around 9.5 sacks on the year (for an average). 
 

That guy just collected 5yr/$150m… Now I’m not saying that’s what Groot will get but the expected play time for him is going to increase this year. If he pans out even similar to Brian Burns stats do you pay him something similar?

 

Someone will if that happens. Kid is ultra talented at what you said; defending the run and is still relatively raw to football; 6/7 years of playing the position? A lot of potential in him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

His value is somewhere around 4 years $70+ million right now. 

I would sign up for that but it will probably be higher AAV, what would guaranteed be, like $50M?   The 5th year gives him $19M guaranteed alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buffalo_Stampede said:

His value is somewhere around 4 years $70+ million right now. 


That’s exactly it. Right now that’s high for a situational guy… 

 

Hes easily capable of more. Be that statistical, play time or both. 
 

What if he has a strong season? Guy as it stands averages 40 tackles, 10 TFLs, 6 sacks & 14 QB hits… all on limited use; he’s averaging around 55% of the defensive snaps over 3 years… last year was his highest @ 60%.

 

More playtime is only going to make that price skyrocket… Again, he’s capable of it and still has ways to grow being relatively young in terms of experience at playing the position. 
 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decline the 5th year option.  (That way Agent cannot use it as leverage)

 

Extend this offseason while he is still alot of "unrealized potential"  Eat when he explodes similar to Olivers Contract. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should NOT be signing any 5th year options.  Ever.  The difference between that and a franchise tag is minimal and it gives you ZERO flexibility to do anything.  You either extend or ride it out.  If you get a case like Edmunds, it buys you one more year at more than he was worth before the year, and then departing or you get somebody like EO who never answered if he was worth an extension, so you had to gamble anyway.   If they had just extended Edmunds, he would have been worth ~ 2/3 of what he got paid, you allowed him to re-set his market.  5th year is nothing but a bargaining chip for teams, if the guy is t worth an extension, you ride it out, if he is, sign it before they add more dollars to that contract.  Don’t screw around.  It’s fools gold.

  • Disagree 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt_In_NH said:

The Bills have til May 8 to assign the 5th year option which will be for 2025 at about $19.076M.  The number is big for a DE so giving him the option means you have to give him that for 2025 or you need to extend him sooner.  Any chance Beane is trying to do this now where his value is maybe less than it can be after this year?  It would provide a more cost controlled/known cost moving forward.

 

https://billswire.usatoday.com/lists/cost-buffalo-bills-fifth-year-option-greg-rousseau-nfl/

I would both him and Spencer Brown before they become too expensive.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

You should NOT be signing any 5th year options.  Ever.  The difference between that and a franchise tag is minimal and it gives you ZERO flexibility to do anything.  You either extend or ride it out.  If you get a case like Edmunds, it buys you one more year at more than he was worth before the year, and then departing or you get somebody like EO who never answered if he was worth an extension, so you had to gamble anyway.   If they had just extended Edmunds, he would have been worth ~ 2/3 of what he got paid, you allowed him to re-set his market.  5th year is nothing but a bargaining chip for teams, if the guy is t worth an extension, you ride it out, if he is, sign it before they add more dollars to that contract.  Don’t screw around.  It’s fools gold.

The bolded is a weird position to take, would you also never franchise tag a guy, even a Josh Allen, ever?  Like never ever?   Signing the 5th year option for Edmunds worked out cause it was not that much, it also worked out with Oliver IMO.   But I do understand your argument about leverage...especially in this case where it is a highly paid position like DE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, BBFL said:

 

Think that’s a very fair assessment. The question becomes how much his agent is asking for him on a long term contract. With the way some of these contracts this off-season have been, it might get pricey. 
 

I mean look at Brian Burns, who I would say is about the production you’re probably going to get if Groot plays 75-90% of the snaps in a season, where you’re getting around 9.5 sacks on the year (for an average). 
 

That guy just collected 5yr/$150m… Now I’m not saying that’s what Groot will get but the expected play time for him is going to increase this year. If he pans out even similar to Brian Burns stats do you pay him something similar?

 

Someone will if that happens. Kid is ultra talented at what you said; defending the run and is still relatively raw to football; 6/7 years of playing the position? A lot of potential in him. 

I do so enjoy discussing paying Greg Rousseau for a potential 9.5 sack per year average, when the guy has never had more than 8 sacks ever.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spencer Brown, I feel great about signing him long term.  The jump he made this past year and the fact he's still so raw.  Dude could be special at RT. 

 

Rousseau seems more like we feel we have to given the draft capital, potential and the fact he's good.  But he's not been great (so far) and there's no guarantee he gets there.  

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article is wrong, he won't cost $19M.

 

https://overthecap.com/fifth-year-option-projections

 

OTC is estimating $13,387,000 because he didn't meet the requirements for any of the higher tiers.

 

At that price you definitely pick up the option. He's arguably the best run stopping EDGE in the league and is still very young with a lot of upside as a pass rusher.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

Man, $19M seems steep for what we’re getting from Rousseau.  I know we have a bunch of needs entering the draft, seems like EDGE is right up there with WR and DT.  More reason to land a stopgap FS in FA, so we can focus on these positions in the first 4 rounds of the draft.

The Bills rotate their DE’s a lot.  Rousseau has been a good but far from consistently dominant player.  The Bills defense (especially the front 7) is not predicated on star players.  Other than Milano.  (And they were still good when he went down last year) It is the collective talent of the group as a whole versus individual players that has made them a very good if not great defense under McDermott IMO.  And the secondary has always lead the defense.  
 

Rousseau has not earned a $19-$20 mill per year contract at this point.  I would not give him the 5th year option.  Let him earn that extension on the field through at least the first half of next season.  And if his game has gone to the next level, then give him the big money.  
 

 

1 hour ago, TheBeaneBandit said:

I would both him and Spencer Brown before they become too expensive.

Spencer Brown has had one decent season.  He has a ways to go to become very good, let alone elite.  I am sure if his game continues on an upward trajectory, we will pay him fairly.  

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

 

I do so enjoy discussing paying Greg Rousseau for a potential 9.5 sack per year average, when the guy has never had more than 8 sacks ever.

 

 


Ok. I understand that sentiment which is why I referenced a guy in Brian Burns getting a mega deal who’s not much better but sees a significant amount more in playing time… Groot hasn’t played more than 60% of the snaps in a season and actually has decent production. Give him more playing time those numbers will only increase…

 

Youd be paying him for production and potential. Both have significant upward trends with an increased playing time imo. 
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BBFL said:


Ok. I understand that sentiment which is why I referenced a guy in Brian Burns getting a mega deal who’s not much better but sees a significant amount more in playing time… Groot hasn’t played more than 60% of the snaps in a season and actually has decent production. Give him more playing time those numbers will only increase…

 

Youd be paying him for production and potential. Both have significant upward trends with an increased playing time imo. 
 

 

 

I don’t agree that numbers just go up the more you play. Leonard Floyd had more sacks last year with less playing time than the year before. It doesn’t work that way. 
 

Brian Burns has proven much more as a pass rusher than Greg, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

I don’t agree that numbers just go up the more you play. Leonard Floyd had more sacks last year with less playing time than the year before. It doesn’t work that way. 
 

Brian Burns has proven much more as a pass rusher than Greg, imo.


For a 23 year old? I disagree. You have to factor in the playing time. 
 

Floyd was on the Rousseau stat line, actually less, when he signed that deal with the Rams that worked out around $16m a year. That was 3 years ago… All the while in his career he was playing 80-90% of the snaps and coming away with less production. 
 

The point is if Rousseau is averaging around the same statistics as guys who are playing 20-25% more snaps in a year, why wouldn’t he get paid if he sees more playing time?
He’s a great defender against the run and only sees a portion of the pass rushing snaps… With the way the market is now if he sees more playing time and increases his production he absolutely gets paid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BBFL said:


For a 23 year old? I disagree. You have to factor in the playing time. 
 

Floyd was on the Rousseau stat line, actually less, when he signed that deal with the Rams that worked out around $16m a year. That was 3 years ago… All the while in his career he was playing 80-90% of the snaps and coming away with less production. 
 

The point is if Rousseau is averaging around the same statistics as guys who are playing 20-25% more snaps in a year, why wouldn’t he get paid if he sees more playing time?
He’s a great defender against the run and only sees a portion of the pass rushing snaps… With the way the market is now if he sees more playing time and increases his production he absolutely gets paid. 

Yeah if he produces more he will get paid. But that’s a stretch of projection, imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

 

I do so enjoy discussing paying Greg Rousseau for a potential 9.5 sack per year average, when the guy has never had more than 8 sacks ever.

 

 

I suspect if he played 80% of snaps or more he “could” get up to ten sacks etc, but McDermott seams to not like allowing that much play time for any D - linemen…, 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Yeah if he produces more he will get paid. But that’s a stretch of projection, imo. 


Interesting. How do you perceive that to be a stretch of one? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

That article is wrong, he won't cost $19M.

 

https://overthecap.com/fifth-year-option-projections

 

OTC is estimating $13,387,000 because he didn't meet the requirements for any of the higher tiers.

 

At that price you definitely pick up the option. He's arguably the best run stopping EDGE in the league and is still very young with a lot of upside as a pass rusher.

 

 

Yeah if it were $19M I would pass and just use the tag if it came to it,  which will probably be around $23-$24M.    Just not enough spread in that value versus the tag to justify the injury risk.  

 

But for $13M it's a VERY easy call.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Decline the 5th year option.  (That way Agent cannot use it as leverage)

 

Extend this offseason while he is still alot of "unrealized potential"  Eat when he explodes similar to Olivers Contract. 

 

 

I think his agent knows better than that.

 

His unrealized potential is understood..........that's why he went in round 1...........and entering free agency as a 24 year old DE he could get a $30M aav if he puts up a 10 sack season this year.   Youth gets paid in the NFL.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I think his agent knows better than that.

 

His unrealized potential is understood..........that's why he went in round 1...........and entering free agency as a 24 year old DE he could get a $30M aav if he puts up a 10 sack season this year.   Youth gets paid in the NFL.

That is why IMO you take the Security (5th year option) off the table and get the extension done this offseason after Tre's money frees up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

5th year option, extend after next year is the most likely outcome. But not a slam dunk. 

I don't think he's worth almost 20 million a year. Lets hope he has a breakout year, which he definitely can have. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

I don’t agree that numbers just go up the more you play. Leonard Floyd had more sacks last year with less playing time than the year before. It doesn’t work that way. 
 

Brian Burns has proven much more as a pass rusher than Greg, imo.

 

Floyd is not a fair comparison at all though.  Floyd is a pass rush specialist, where Greg is asked to do a lot more like set the edge.  They don't have the same roles.  With someone like Floyd its not abnormal to have more sacks one year than the next even on fewer snaps.  I mean you are talking about a single play happening once or twice more in an entire 17 game season. 

 

So this doesn't prove that more playing time wouldn't increase his stats, which it clearly would.  More snaps on the field equals more opportunities to make more plays.  

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the reasons why I'm not a big fan of McD's rotate happy D-Lineman philosophy.

 

Rousseau probably deserves a good contract, but can you pay that money knowing he's gonna play 40-50% of snaps? I don't know that you can.  

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

The Bills rotate their DE’s a lot.  Rousseau has been a good but far from consistently dominant player.  The Bills defense (especially the front 7) is not predicated on star players.  Other than Milano.  (And they were still good when he went down last year) It is the collective talent of the group as a whole versus individual players that has made them a very good if not great defense under McDermott IMO.  And the secondary has always lead the defense.  
 

Rousseau has not earned a $19-$20 mill per year contract at this point.  I would not give him the 5th year option.  Let him earn that extension on the field through at least the first half of next season.  And if his game has gone to the next level, then give him the big money.  

 

That is my problem with rotations - if you are being paid to be a big dog you need to be on the field barking except when game results are not in question.  Some players do not want that many snaps but they want the money so they can last longer.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

The Bills rotate their DE’s a lot.  Rousseau has been a good but far from consistently dominant player.  The Bills defense (especially the front 7) is not predicated on star players.  Other than Milano.  (And they were still good when he went down last year) It is the collective talent of the group as a whole versus individual players that has made them a very good if not great defense under McDermott IMO.  And the secondary has always lead the defense.

 

It's difficult to have this discussion without injecting McD's philosophy as such.  

 

 

2 hours ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

Rousseau has not earned a $19-$20 mill per year contract at this point.  I would not give him the 5th year option.  Let him earn that extension on the field through at least the first half of next season.  And if his game has gone to the next level, then give him the big money.  

 

Rousseau's at least a little bit of an enigma to be sure.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

5th year option, extend after next year is the most likely outcome. But not a slam dunk. 

The 5th year option is a slam dunk.  We're talking about a three-down defensive end who can stuff the run and has a ton of upside as a pass rusher.  Remember, Rousseau is only 23-years old...younger than some guys in this year's draft.   

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BBFL said:

 

Think that’s a very fair assessment. The question becomes how much his agent is asking for him on a long term contract. With the way some of these contracts this off-season have been, it might get pricey. 
 

I mean look at Brian Burns, who I would say is about the production you’re probably going to get if Groot plays 75-90% of the snaps in a season, where you’re getting around 9.5 sacks on the year (for an average). 
 

That guy just collected 5yr/$150m… Now I’m not saying that’s what Groot will get but the expected play time for him is going to increase this year. If he pans out even similar to Brian Burns stats do you pay him something similar?

 

Someone will if that happens. Kid is ultra talented at what you said; defending the run and is still relatively raw to football; 6/7 years of playing the position? A lot of potential in him. 

Burns is a good example. I'd rather extend Groot now than let him hit the open market.  Snap percentage is a interesting point. Groot is mid 50's percentage wise. I wonder if he views it as a bonus as it prolongs his career and keeps him fresh for more effort in his snaps -- or if he thinks it's holding him back from better sack totals and higher value?

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mannc said:

The 5th year option is a slam dunk.  We're talking about a three-down defensive end who can stuff the run and has a ton of upside as a pass rusher.  Remember, Rousseau is only 23-years old...younger than some guys in this year's draft.   

 

Yes, sorry I meant that it wasn't a slam dunk that they pick up the option then sign after next season. I agree they will pick up the option. I think most likely they extend him after 2024. But a play out the 5th year isn't impossible.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HappyDays said:

That article is wrong, he won't cost $19M.

 

https://overthecap.com/fifth-year-option-projections

 

OTC is estimating $13,387,000 because he didn't meet the requirements for any of the higher tiers.

 

At that price you definitely pick up the option. He's arguably the best run stopping EDGE in the league and is still very young with a lot of upside as a pass rusher.

He’s definitely better at stopping the run/setting the edge than rushing the passer, but he still wasn’t among the top 10 DEs in run stop win rate. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Floyd is not a fair comparison at all though.  Floyd is a pass rush specialist, where Greg is asked to do a lot more like set the edge.  They don't have the same roles.  With someone like Floyd its not abnormal to have more sacks one year than the next even on fewer snaps.  I mean you are talking about a single play happening once or twice more in an entire 17 game season. 

 

So this doesn't prove that more playing time wouldn't increase his stats, which it clearly would.  More snaps on the field equals more opportunities to make more plays.  

Ya’ll keep saying it “clearly would” when the only evidence is speculation.

 

There’s loads of player who played more snaps and had worse sack totals. 
 

Especially in a guy who hasn’t proven much as a reliable pass rusher.

Edited by FireChans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...