Earl Thomas is holding out for a contract extension. The Seahawks expect him to honor the contract he has. Is either side right?
This is probably the fiftieth article we’ve written about Earl Thomas and his contract situation. The actual number is nineteen, but it is the second of the day. You tend to write about the potential loss of a likely Hall of Fame player, especially when he’s the linchpin of your defense. My question isn’t whether the Seahawks will miss Thomas – you can get a much better answer here – but to ask who’s right in this issue? Or more importantly, can either side be wrong?
Thomas has been a phenomenal force for the Seahawks defense. We may have written about his contract a lot, but we’ve written much more about his greatness. It’s generally understood far beyond the boundaries of the 12s that Thomas is a great player. Take this article by Steven Ruiz for USA Today’s For The Win site. As Ruiz says, he used a really small sample size for his chart – one half – but it shows the incredible difference between a good safety – Atlanta’s Ricardo Allen – and a great safety like Thomas.
More from 12th Man Rising
- 4 prospects Seahawks could reach for at No. 20 in 2023 NFL Draft
- Seattle Seahawks Mock Draft: Post-first wave of free agency
- Seahawks podcast: A review of the first week of free agency
- 4 experiments the Seattle Seahawks could cut short in 2023
- 3 pros and cons of Seattle Seahawks drafting Anthony Richardson
Thomas has so much range, he almost plays a different position than anyone else in the league. No one covers as much ground as Thomas. As Ruiz writes, both his instincts – I’d say his football IQ – and his blazing speed get him to the ball far more often that not. He certainly allows the Legion of Boom to play differently. Or at least has to this point.
Here’s a great look at the value Thomas could give the Seahawks in the future. Not what he’s already done – and six Pro Bowl seasons is a lot – but what he could be expected to do. Of all places, we return to Forbes magazine and their exceptional writer Matt Ufford. Ufford argues that Thomas has been drastically undervalued by the Seahawks. To be more precise, he argues that Seattle is underestimating his future value. I mean, it’s right there in the title. Go read it. It’s a great read, and I don’t mind waiting. I’ll get a beer while you’re away…
The top ten safeties played pretty well in their thirties
Okay, for those maniacs who just watch the NFL Red Zone and want everything cut to the bone, here’s Ufford’s case. He compares Thomas to the ten safeties with the highest career value since 1980. Don’t worry what he based it on; you just wanted the bare bones, remember? Ronnie Lott is number one and Steve Atwater is number ten. That should tell you it’s a legitimate group. For the full chart and some great comments, go read his article. As Ufford writes, “The number of excellent seasons for safeties in their 30s is staggering.” He goes on to list the accomplishments of Lott and Ed Reed after the age of thirty:
"At age 32, in his first season with the Raiders, Ronnie Lott led the league in interceptions and posted an AV of 13. At age 34, he recorded 123 tackles and had an AV of nine. From age 28 to age 34, Ed Reed posted seven consecutive seasons with an AV of at least 11, leading the league in picks at age 30 and 32."
It’s worth noting that both Lott and Reed missed big chunks of two seasons and came back to finish strong. Lott missed 18 games over four seasons, then missed just one of his last four years in the league. Reed missed 10 games in two years, but bounced back to play in every game over the next to seasons. That’s a factor that supports his position that the Seahawks are overthinking Earl Thomas and his recent injuries.
However, Troy Polamalu is just as valid a case study for Seattle. He missed 11 games at the age of 28, and two more the following year. He had one of his best seasons ever at age thirty – and had one good season out of his final three. John Lynch had one of his best seasons at age 31, and came nowhere close to that performance the following five seasons. He made the Pro Bowl in four of those years, but his average value (AV) – which is the basis of Ufford’s ratings – was about half of his peak years. He wasn’t nearly as effective after the age of 31.
Here’s the problem: you can’t start at age 29 for Thomas
I don’t agree that the number of excellent seasons for safeties in their thirties is staggering at all. Based on Ufford’s cut-off of an average value of 10, half of his ten players had two or fewer excellent seasons. It makes perfect sense to compare Earl Thomas to this group, the best of the best. And yet, if Thomas performs like the half that fell off, the Seahawks would be grossly overpaying him. And of course Seattle has a painfully visible reminder of how quickly careers of the greatest players can end.
Let’s assume Thomas wants a four year extension. That would give him four years at age 30 and over. There’s one flaw in Mr. Ufford’s numbers, as it applies to Earl Thomas and the Seahawks. His chart lists the players who had seasons with an average value of 10 or more from age 29. Earl doesn’t need an extension to play at age 29. He’ll be 30 if he gets his contract redone. That changes things significantly. For instance, Lott had three seasons above 10 AV at age 30 and up, not four. Lynch had one. Reed had five, because he’s Ed freaking Reed, but it’s still five, not six.
The chart shows a total of 29 seasons of average values of ten or above among the ten players. But, that includes age 29, which is irrelevant in the case of an extension for Earl Thomas. From age 30 on, there were 22 seasons at that level, not 29. That’s an average of 2.2 seasons of excellent production, not 2.9. That’s a huge difference, the difference between getting three good years and two. I’d say an average value of 10 as a measure of excellence is pretty generous, too. For a point of reference, 10 is the value Earl Thomas earned for the 2015 and 2017 seasons. His peak seasons, 2012 and 2013, he earned scores of 14 each year.
I’m sure the Seahawks would take four more years – five counting the year for which he’s already under contract – of the 2017 version of Earl Thomas. Again, consider that not even Ronnie Lott could pull off the magic act of playing at the highest level. Lott had the best season of any safety at 30 or over, and it was his third best year. No player had their best season after the age of 29. As the saying goes, Father Time is undefeated in all contests. With a look back at Kam Chancellor, the Seahawks are betting on Father Time.
All that being said, I completely understand Earl Thomas. He explained his reasons for the holdout in his article for the Players’ Tribune. He makes it clear that he wants to stay with the Seahawks. As he says, he loves Seattle. That emphasis is all his. Ah, but you’re wondering if he loves Seattle, why is he holding out? What happened to Chancellor is a pretty big reason:
"Later on, Kam walked off the field and he said he had a funny feeling in his neck. Just a funny feeling — and, man, Kam is a warrior. A warrior. We’ve been through a lot together. So of course I thought he’d be fine. But then after the game, it’s crazy … he found out the injury was career-threatening. A few weeks ago, he announced his retirement."
And Thomas is right. As I’ve written before, he’s underpaid by the standards of the NFL. And please, stop comparing your paycheck to his. He’s helping generate a lot more revenue than you are. He’s certainly generating more than me! The real comparison is paychecks of guys like Thomas to the NFL owners. According to Forbes, the Seahawks revenue was $399 million in 2017. The team is valued at $2.4 billion. Paul Allen is a great owner, but there isn’t much chance his career could be over at any moment, unlike Cliff Avril, Kam Chancellor, or for that matter, Earl Thomas. So Thomas has some very valid points as well.
As our site co-expert (make that the true expert) Lee Vowell wrote recently, Earl Thomas is under contract. By any normal standards, the standards under which you and I live, he should honor it. But the NFL is a different world. This is a world where owners like the Rams’ Stan Kroenke blackmail cities into building new stadiums, or else they just leave. St. Louis still owed $100 million on the Edward Jones Dome when the Rams bailed. And by St. Louis, I mean the taxpayers. Paul Allen is in no way like Kroenke, let me be very clear about that. The point remains, the NFL owners have a lot more in their wallet than the players. Thomas has a very short window to earn his money, unlike the virtually perpetual timeline for the league owners.
The thing is, I definitely see the Seahawks position too. They’re concerned about the decline in performance that every one of the top safeties in the past thirty years has shown. Remember, the cut-off AV was 10, quite a bit below the peak value of the players. They’re also worried about the injury risk that they’ve already seen happen to the other great safety that manned the Legion of Boom. If I were the Seahawks, I’d expect Thomas to honor his contract. But I also would have started negotiating with him long before there was any chance of a holdout. I wouldn’t have much money in the way of an injury guarantee, either. And that could ultimately be the sticking point between Thomas and Seattle, two sides of one very complicated issue.