Seattle Seahawks: Why Marshawn Lynch's New Contract Was a Big Mistake

Matt SmithContributor IIIMarch 4, 2012

GLENDALE, AZ - JANUARY 01:  Marshawn Lynch #24 of the Seattle Seahawks tries to break a tackle against the Arizona Cardinals at University of Phoenix Stadium on January 1, 2012 in Glendale, Arizona.  (Photo by Norm Hall/Getty Images)
Norm Hall/Getty Images

Just recently, it was announced that the Seattle Seahawks had re-signed stud running back Marshawn Lynch to a new four-year, $31 million contract that includes $17 million in guaranteed money, according to Fox Sports' Jay Glazer.

Now, it was quite clear that the Seahawks weren't going to let Lynch go. Doing that would be unacceptable after they rode him to a number of wins.

If a multi-year contract could not be reached, many expected Seattle to slap him with the franchise tag. The salary for running backs is $7.7 million under this year's tag.

Lynch was a workhorse for the Seahawks, carrying the ball 285 times for 1,204 yards and 12 touchdowns. His production was undeniable.

However, giving Lynch a contract with such a large amount of guaranteed money is simply not worth it.

Lynch is almost 26 and his game is built on tough-nosed running. His game causes a lot of wear on his body and with over 1,100 career carries, Lynch's body could very well break down within the next two years.

Though he doesn't miss much time with injuries, Lynch has also only played one full season in his five years in the NFL.

Up until this year, Seattle's star RB had largely been an underachiever. Prior to this year, Lynch had only topped 4.0 yards per carry once. This year, he didn't even have too high a yards-per-carry average with 4.2.

There are also questions as to why it took Lynch so long to sign a contract that had been on the table for a month.

With all this said, there's a large chance that Lynch won't last all four years on his contract.

Retaining a running back in the prime of his career was a smart move. Giving him that much guaranteed money and that long of a contract was not.