Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 87
  1. #61

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?



    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post

    BTW, I don't think Ozzie is attempting to establish any sort of argument - he's simply stating what they set out to do and why they did it. They needed Cap space, they weren't going to pay Boldin $6M and he was the best place to start looking for the needed Cap space. They still wanted to keep him - and tried - and had they been able to do so, they would have looked elsewhere for that needed Cap space (Leach, IMO), but once Boldin balked, they moved on and got the space they need to do what they wanted (and then Dumervil fell into their laps).

    I certainly understand that people disagree with the plan, but I don't understand anyone saying that they are some how covering their tracks now, or whatever.

    I think it's pretty clear that they felt they needed to fix the D and needed money from the O to do so. Given his age and high base salary, Boldin (like Suggs is going to be in 2014) was the single easiest place to start.
    I didn't read the full interview just the parts GOTA quoted, but it sounds like he is making an argument to me. And he is doing it to respond to people who are second-guessing the Boldin trade. And he is arguing against the same fictitious complaint that people around here are arguing against which is that people would rather have Boldin than Dumervil + Huff, as if there is no possible way we could have had all 3 (not sure what he means by Canty and Spears and Smith "were helped by the savings"). When he mentions these names specifically vs. simply saying that "if we kept Boldin we would have had to find that space elsewhere to sign all the guys we signed," then he is implying that without one we could not have had some/any of the others.

    I don't think Ozzie is "covering any tracks." I think he is explaining his thought process, but in doing so he is being a bit defensive. The defensiveness appears when he makes some questionable implications (making it seem like his choices were simple and limited to A or B, and listing the A and the B). That, or he is truly confused about the question he is apparently addressing (regarding Boldin).

    Here is a non-defensive explanation from Ozzie: "We didn't think Boldin was worth that salary and we were not going to pay it under any circumstance. And if we had decided to pay it, we would have had to either find that money somewhere else and/or signed a few less free agents." Short sweet, to the point, and accurate. No implied "I guess you guys don't like Dumervil and Canty signings because without Boldin they are impossible to sign" defensiveness.

    "Needing cap space" is a relative term/idea. As is "best place to start looking for" cap space. People are quibbling over the extent of the former and the location of the latter. That is all they are quibbling with. And nothing Ozzie said clears up the issue, though it obviously explains his thinking. I suppose there might be someone out there that doesn't know there is a salary cap and thinks Ozzie simply did not want Boldin on the team even if he could have chosen to have him and everyone else currently on the team, but I haven't seen that person, and therefore Ozzie's explanation isn't very enlightening. We know he saved money; we know he spent the money.

    As for Suggs in 2014, you will get the same grumblings if he cuts Suggs to keep the equivalent of guys like Jameel McClain and sign back-up depth at other positions. Especially if we are coming off of a title where Suggs plays an instrumental part.




  2. #62

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    I didn't read the full interview just the parts GOTA quoted, but it sounds like he is making an argument to me. And he is doing it to respond to people who are second-guessing the Boldin trade. And he is arguing against the same fictitious complaint that people around here are arguing against which is that people would rather have Boldin than Dumervil + Huff, as if there is no possible way we could have had all 3 (not sure what he means by Canty and Spears and Smith "were helped by the savings"). When he mentions these names specifically vs. simply saying that "if we kept Boldin we would have had to find that space elsewhere to sign all the guys we signed," then he is implying that without one we could not have had some/any of the others.

    I don't think Ozzie is "covering any tracks." I think he is explaining his thought process, but in doing so he is being a bit defensive. The defensiveness appears when he makes some questionable implications (making it seem like his choices were simple and limited to A or B, and listing the A and the B). That, or he is truly confused about the question he is apparently addressing (regarding Boldin).

    Here is a non-defensive explanation from Ozzie: "We didn't think Boldin was worth that salary and we were not going to pay it under any circumstance. And if we had decided to pay it, we would have had to either find that money somewhere else and/or signed a few less free agents." Short sweet, to the point, and accurate. No implied "I guess you guys don't like Dumervil and Canty signings because without Boldin they are impossible to sign" defensiveness.

    "Needing cap space" is a relative term/idea. As is "best place to start looking for" cap space. People are quibbling over the extent of the former and the location of the latter. That is all they are quibbling with. And nothing Ozzie said clears up the issue, though it obviously explains his thinking. I suppose there might be someone out there that doesn't know there is a salary cap and thinks Ozzie simply did not want Boldin on the team even if he could have chosen to have him and everyone else currently on the team, but I haven't seen that person, and therefore Ozzie's explanation isn't very enlightening. We know he saved money; we know he spent the money.

    As for Suggs in 2014, you will get the same grumblings if he cuts Suggs to keep the equivalent of guys like Jameel McClain and sign back-up depth at other positions. Especially if we are coming off of a title where Suggs plays an instrumental part.
    I'm sorry, but what would such an accomplished GM as Ozzie (coming off a Super Bowl winning year) possibly feel "defensive" about??? Also, if anyone thinks his answer was too simplistic, they should remind themselves of who the target audience was. Does anyone really think he should map out his entire thought process to help ease the pain of those who are sad they lost one of their favorite players?




  3. #63

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    I didn't read the full interview just the parts GOTA quoted, but it sounds like he is making an argument to me. And he is doing it to respond to people who are second-guessing the Boldin trade. And he is arguing against the same fictitious complaint that people around here are arguing against which is that people would rather have Boldin than Dumervil + Huff, as if there is no possible way we could have had all 3 (not sure what he means by Canty and Spears and Smith "were helped by the savings"). When he mentions these names specifically vs. simply saying that "if we kept Boldin we would have had to find that space elsewhere to sign all the guys we signed," then he is implying that without one we could not have had some/any of the others.

    I don't think Ozzie is "covering any tracks." I think he is explaining his thought process, but in doing so he is being a bit defensive. The defensiveness appears when he makes some questionable implications (making it seem like his choices were simple and limited to A or B, and listing the A and the B). That, or he is truly confused about the question he is apparently addressing (regarding Boldin).
    He's answering Peter King's questions. Sorry, I don't see any defensiveness to it. He explains his thought process and how they looked at the need to create Cap space and where they felt it was best to find it. They clearly were not going to do anything that would hurt the future of their Cap. This appears to be the key part of what Ozzie is saying.

    Reading it again, he seems to be saying, at least to me - We had a plan. We would have liked for Anquan to stay, but within our initial plan (guys like Canty and Spears were part of that plan). When he didn't, we traded him. With the additional savings, we were able to sign Dumervil and Huff. Again, we weren't going the mortgage to future to sign anyone, so had we not had the additional savings from Anquan, we would not have signed Dumervil or Huff (ie "the direct result of the money we saved").
    Last edited by B-more Ravor; 08-13-2013 at 11:16 AM.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  4. #64

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    Reading it again, he seems to be saying, at least to me - We had a plan. We would have liked for Anquan to stay, but within our initial plan (guys like Canty and Spears were part of that plan). When he didn't, we traded him. With the additional savings, we were able to sign Dumervil and Huff. Again, we weren't going to mortgage to future to sign anyone, so had we not had the additional savings from Anquan, we would not have signed Dumervil or Huff (ie "the direct result of the money we saved").
    And to anyone that has followed Ozzie over the years, and especially has heard him comment on "The Purge of 2002", this should come as a surprise to no one.

    To suggest that he is saying this defensively as a reaction to "the fans" is just not in keeping with what he's been saying and doing over the last 10 years.




  5. #65

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    As for Suggs in 2014, you will get the same grumblings if he cuts Suggs to keep the equivalent of guys like Jameel McClain and sign back-up depth at other positions. Especially if we are coming off of a title where Suggs plays an instrumental part.
    Well, obviously, it depends on how he plays, but I've been saying for awhile that he's not going to be playing 2014 as a Ravens under the present terms of his deal. This is a big year for him - which based on the shape he arrived me, he clearly seems to appreciate - because he's either going to get an extension here or be playing somewhere else next year IMO.

    You keep focusing on back-up depth, mentioning David Reed several times in the past, but those guys are a dime a dozen and aren't part of the money equation because they cost so little against the Cap (when compared to the cost of what their replacement would make). I have not doubt that whatever they did with Boldin - kept him on original deal, restructured him (or someone else), extended him, released others - that Reed still would have been re-signed because he's an inconsequential blip on their Cap.

    The move saved from Boldin's trade was used for bigger fish - Dumervil, Huff - and to have surplus Cap space to sign their draft picks. Yes, some was used as just surplus space, but guys like David Reed are simply inconsequential.

    Lastly, they kept McClain because they expected him to have recovered by now and be one of their starting ILB. Not sure why, when you're trying to fix your defense, you would get rid of a guy who you feel is a starter? Much like with the Pitta injury, McClain's lack of availability just makes this look worse, but last offseason, when McClain was being re-signed to a 3-year deal, very few around here had any complaints about him.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  6. #66

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    McClain was being re-signed to a 3-year deal, very few around here had any complaints about him.
    To to specific point I certainly hated that signing at that point.

    He has always been a replacement level LB IMHO whom the team feel in love with his work ethic.

    He got virtually zero interest on the market and I highly doubt he had a single firm offer from any other team. Is unfortunate that Ellerbe got himself in the doghouse because he is/was the clearly better player.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.




  7. #67

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    I am honestly not sure what the point of your post is. My apologies.
    Past production does not indicate future production. Saying we don't win the Super Bowl without Boldin is pointless - we had Boldin and we did win the Super Bowl, and that will never change. If we're going to make a case for keeping him, that shoul have nothing to do with it.




  8. #68

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn View Post
    To to specific point I certainly hated that signing at that point.
    Fair enough, as I said very few.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  9. #69

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle View Post
    I saw this earlier today and my first thought was... what else is he gonna say? What's done is done
    TRUE DAT!! This would be my spin:

    Are you guys ready for some old-fashioned Ravens' defensive dominance??
    Cause we went out and fixed what was broke. Graham/Smith/Webb beats Smith, Williams, Graham, and there is still Chykie on the sideline. The DL is bigger, badder, deeper. Step away from the bolt of lightning as I say in terms of everything but leadership/brain trust, Huff over Reed; and D Smith, Bynes, Brown, Mac Clain (if he can go) over Ray are upgrades. Elvis? Elam? Gonna be tougher to score on the Ravens this season vs last, esp. in 4Q.

    Now you have the proper context in which to examine Baltimore offense 2012 vs. 2013.




  10. #70

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by GaTechRavens View Post
    Past production does not indicate future production. Saying we don't win the Super Bowl without Boldin is pointless - we had Boldin and we did win the Super Bowl, and that will never change. If we're going to make a case for keeping him, that shoul have nothing to do with it.
    Again, I don't see what you are exactly saying? If we're going to make the case for keeping him and we can't talk about the past, and we don't know the future, what exactly would such a case look like?

    I am not sure how you thought I was worrying about someone taking away our SB XLVII title.

    Saying we don't win the SB without Boldin (his production) is not any more 'pointless' than saying we don't win the SB without Flacco...or Harbaugh, etc., when arguing against a person who thinks we should let them go. It isn't meant to be taken precisely literally; of course it is possible if we assume we get the same production from other players, or we get less production from that spot and make up for it elsewhere, etc., etc., but we are talking about assessing probabilities.

    Obviously asserting certainty is standard hyperbole. Even if I stated there is a 0% chance the Ravens win the SB if you were playing QB instead of Flacco, it wouldn't be provably true. If the defense shut them out, you handed off to Rice who one time broke a run into Tucker FG range, we could win.

    Anyway, most people understand my point. And it wasn't that without Boldin in 2013 we cannot win the SB. Nor was it that I thought Boldin would exactly duplicate that effort in the 2013 playoffs. Nor was it literally, that under no possible scenarios, no matter how improbable, we could not have won the SB without Boldin playing the playoffs.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 08-13-2013 at 01:03 PM.




  11. #71

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    Well, obviously, it depends on how he plays, but I've been saying for awhile that he's not going to be playing 2014 as a Ravens under the present terms of his deal. This is a big year for him - which based on the shape he arrived me, he clearly seems to appreciate - because he's either going to get an extension here or be playing somewhere else next year IMO.

    You keep focusing on back-up depth, mentioning David Reed several times in the past, but those guys are a dime a dozen and aren't part of the money equation because they cost so little against the Cap (when compared to the cost of what their replacement would make). I have not doubt that whatever they did with Boldin - kept him on original deal, restructured him (or someone else), extended him, released others - that Reed still would have been re-signed because he's an inconsequential blip on their Cap.

    The move saved from Boldin's trade was used for bigger fish - Dumervil, Huff - and to have surplus Cap space to sign their draft picks. Yes, some was used as just surplus space, but guys like David Reed are simply inconsequential.

    Lastly, they kept McClain because they expected him to have recovered by now and be one of their starting ILB. Not sure why, when you're trying to fix your defense, you would get rid of a guy who you feel is a starter? Much like with the Pitta injury, McClain's lack of availability just makes this look worse, but last offseason, when McClain was being re-signed to a 3-year deal, very few around here had any complaints about him.
    A few inconsequential extra few hundred thousand dollar blips and we are suddenly talking about a million. And we were apparently hell bent on squeezing a couple million from Boldin. I keep mentioning Reed because he got signed around the same time and he got signed with guaranteed money, and I completely question the relative value to the team.

    As for McClain, I wasn't happy about that contract at all. Mainly because it is a position we have been able to fill with undrafted guys and/or inexpensive draft picks. Ellerbe and McClain, for example. Bynes and McClellan are solid enough to be inserted at the least-crucial spot on the defense, imo. And frankly, while McClain's play was obviously pretty good, it wasn't really earth-shattering to me.

    As for "trying to fix the defense," McClain was on that same defense and started 13 games. And again, the whole idea of "trying to fix the defense" instead of "trying to fix the team" or "field the best team possible" is a strange one. We could have fixed the hell out of the defense if we let Boldin and Flacco go and started Doss and Tyrod.

    Even if McClain was going to start, I don't think an ILB on a team deep in LBs is as valuable as very productive (under Caldwell) WR on a team shallow in WRs.

    And this is losing focus of what we are talking about anyway. Let's say we keep Boldin and have McClain, are you saying once Dumervil comes available, we still think a starting McClain > Dumervil in terms of "fixing our defense?" That we couldn't have then decided to take some measure to get Dumervil?

    The bottom line is and always has been, we had a lot more flexibility than many people are implying. It comes down to differing opinions as to the relative value of the players, Boldin, McClain, Spears, Dumervil, etc. That is all it comes down to. I understand your descsiption of Ozzie's thinking, but it cannot be qualified as "the only way we end up with X, Y, Z" is to trade Boldin. That is the only thing I am arguing about. That argument/implication.




  12. #72

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    I think the Ravens were obviously hopeful with McClain, but even if they weren't, they couldn't release him (unless they were able to reach an injury settlement).

    Keeping Boldin and cutting McClain to sign Dumervil was never a possibility.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland