Antwan Odom's base salary jumps in 2009

by Kirkendall on Jan 11, 2009 6:35 PM EST in Contracts Comment 9 comments

The Bengals pass rushing efforts have been well documented, ranging from breaking down schemes to the barroom banter of Biff saying, "it sucks". What's additionally frustrating isn't just that the Bengals were tied with Cleveland as the second-to-worst sack producing defenses; it's the investment the Bengals put into their pass rushers.

In early March, Antwan Odom signed a five-year deal worth $29.5 million, reportedly $11.5 million of it guaranteed. His return investment came in the form of 12 games played, three sacks, and 19 total tackles. Based on momentary investments, he's clearly one of the most disappointing free agents the Bengals have signed in a long time, based on his first season. We also acknowledge that injury caused him to miss time, or play while hurt and that such a word (bust) shouldn't be so freely used when the story has yet to unfold. It's like calling a rookie a bust after eight games.

However, a quick note. Odom's base salary breakdown has significant escalations towards the back of the five-year deal, with only $900,000 handed out this season; basically, $300,000 per sack of his base pay. Next season, that number balloons to $3.4 million. So while his guarantee money can clearly qualify him as a one-year bust, an injury-riddled season where he didn't play at 100% much this year, next season will be critical for Odom -- otherwise, the Bengals will be on the books for $13.2 million over the three years after 2009.

If he has the same output in 2009 as he did in 2008, the Bengals could consider cutting him, based on the history of cutting people that become critical starters for other teams that make the AFC Championship game. Or, maybe they shouldn't hand out expensive contracts to a guy that records a career-high eight sacks the season before, and a career-high 2.0 two seasons before that.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

300,000 dollars per sack seems like a really really good deal

The Ravens paid 8 million dollars for Terrell Suggs and his 8 sacks. That’s 1 million dollars per sack. If we got 300,000 per sack it would’ve been 27 sacks. I’ll take the extra 17 all in the game against Pittsburgh please.

by math_geek on Jan 11, 2009 7:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

note: Suggs did have two extra sacks in the postseason

by math_geek on Jan 11, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Per Sack?" Ooh...I can play this game!

Remember when we (stop me if you’ve heard this one…) franchise-tagged Justin Smith for $8.6 million and he got two whole sacks the entire season??? That’s $4.3 million per sack!

by TheWalrus1971 on Jan 11, 2009 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder

how many tackles for loss, forced fumbles, interceptions, touchdowns, and regular old tackles Suggs had to go along with those 8(or 10) sacks? I wonder how you quantify the pure intimidation of his presence on an opposing offense? I wonder how many additional sacks were accumulated by RayRay, Bart Scott, Jarrett Johnson, Haloti Ngata, Kelly Gregg, and the occasional blitzing defensive back?

While Suggs could have a banner year with zero sacks, Odom was brought in here for that very purpose. That’s all he does. He doesn’t, when healthy, even play every down. You and I could get as much pressure on the QB as he and Geathers got this season. It’s a major problem. I think I would be in favor of a 3-4, with Shirley in the middle flanked by Peko and Sims. Draft Orakpo and have he and Geathers play hybrid OLB/DEs with Rivers and Brandon Johnson in the middle.

by IgnatiusJReilly on Jan 11, 2009 8:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

After the David Pollack experiment...

I’m pretty much through with trying to convert DEs to OLBs. Geathers doesn’t do a bad job at it, though, I guess.

by TheWalrus1971 on Jan 11, 2009 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sacks are a fairly poor indicator of pressure on the QB (strangely enough). The Ravens got 34 sacks this year. We got 32 the year before. No person in the entire universe can convince me the level of pressure on the QB the Ravens got this year and last year was the same.

My point was that the 300,000 per sack bit was a bit silly and I had fun with that. It’s related to the fact that sacks are just a terrible indicator of what a player brings to the field. Argue that Odom doesn’t bring much to the field, and I won’t disagree with you, but judging a defensive player by how many sacks they get is pointless.

by math_geek on Jan 11, 2009 11:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Argue that Odom doesn’t bring much to the field, and I won’t disagree with you"

Only because saying that is a blanket statement, and I don’t expect much people to blindly agree with blanket statements without proof or someway to back it up. When we say that Stacy Andrews stinks, he cited his 9.5 sacks allowed. When we say that Chad Johnson was terrible this year, we point out his career-low numbers (not of his rookie season).

The more convincing argument in sports, is relative to stats based on the position they play. You might not like that, but it is what it is. That’s exactly how players are paid, incentives handed out. And from a Cincinnati perspective, the Bengals have lump sums of money to put into edge rushers who are designed to sack the quarterback. That’s their job. That’s their contract.

The $300,000 part was for fun. If anything else, it proved that his base salary is WAY down, compared to what’s coming up. And that if turns in the same performance, then what now?

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Kirkendall on Jan 12, 2009 9:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, and that’s the problem. Sacks are not a very good statistic, but they are the only statistic we have, so what else are we to do? If we could convince someone to hire people to streamline and provide stats for tackles, penetrations, QB hurries and hits, tackles for a loss, and %double teamed, we’d have much better tools to measure a defensive lineman.

Odom against the pass is a success if he can hurry, hit, or sack the QB, or if he gets double teamed, allowing someone else to get free.

by math_geek on Jan 12, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RE:

Game day typically does QB hurries, and hits. But they don’t accumulate the numbers. Maybe we (aka, me), should go back and chart them all. Better than nothing, I suppose.

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Kirkendall on Jan 12, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs