Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 87
  1. #73

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?



    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    The [money] saved from Boldin's trade was used for bigger fish - Dumervil, Huff - and to have surplus Cap space...
    How about different fish?

    The FO had strategies for the offseason and 2013. Boldin at his figure wasn't part of the strategy on offense. He wasn't traded to free $ for any one in particular at the moment they traded him. But when Dumervil freakishly became available, Q's contract was one less thing to have to calculate when jumping on Elvis. Ditto when approaching Spears, Canty, Huff, and D. Smith And the call on Q was made before the early underwhelming performance from carry-over youngbloods (Doss, Thompson, Streeter). Money also was available to move on Clark & Stokely (a.in time to integrate into the offense; and, b. before someone else did) addressing some of the possession offense that inarguably left with Q.

    The bills weren't marked. I'm not sure we can identify exactly where Q's $6 mil went.




  2. #74

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Money227 View Post
    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.
    Since his injury occurred in the prior season, McClain could have been - and still could end up being, until the final cutdown - released with a "failed physical" designation. The key is that it's a injury that has occurred in a prior season that is making him still unable to play.

    It's no different than what they did with Domonique Foxworth in the Spring of 2012.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  3. #75

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    Since his injury occurred in the prior season, McClain could have been - and still could end up being, until the final cutdown - released with a "failed physical" designation. The key is that it's a injury that has occurred in a prior season that is making him still unable to play.

    It's no different than what they did with Domonique Foxworth in the Spring of 2012.
    Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!




  4. #76

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    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.
    OK, well, I'm certainly not saying it was the only way nor do I think Ozzie was either.

    I do think, however, that when you are tight against the Cap and looking to create a decent amount of Cap space, most FO's are going to look to find it in a single spot, if possible (and ideally a guy in the last year of his contract, because there's less dead money to eat into the savings). That, unfortunately, likely means a better player, because releasing a bunch of lesser players just means more and more players that you've got to release because the net savings just isn't that big.

    That's why it was Boldin this year and that's why I mentioned Suggs as a possibility next year. It's the biggest single place to find Cap savings, without having to release a bunch of guys to create that much space.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  5. #77

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker: M&T Sec 527 View Post
    The bills weren't marked. I'm not sure we can identify exactly where Q's $6 mil went.
    Totally agree and have basically been saying that (or been trying to say that).
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  6. #78

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    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.
    Well, the depth at the time was McClain, Bynes and McClellan. We knew they were going to draft a LB, but that was it.

    IMO, McClain has very solid years in 2010 and 2011. Neither Bynes nor McClellan, granted in small samples, having come close to showing that they could put together years as good.

    Lastly, they did try to re-sign Ellerbe (which if they had stuck to their guns would probably have meant no Dumervil, given the years and price of those deals), in which case, I think they may have released McClain, but I really didn't think they were going to go into the draft without at least one true starter quality guy at ILB, which I don't think Bynes or McClellan are yet. Given that they've kept McClain, drafted Brown and signed Smith, I don't think the Ravens think so either.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  7. #79

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    OK, well, I'm certainly not saying it was the only way nor do I think Ozzie was either.

    I do think, however, that when you are tight against the Cap and looking to create a decent amount of Cap space, most FO's are going to look to find it in a single spot, if possible (and ideally a guy in the last year of his contract, because there's less dead money to eat into the savings). That, unfortunately, likely means a better player, because releasing a bunch of lesser players just means more and more players that you've got to release because the net savings just isn't that big.

    That's why it was Boldin this year and that's why I mentioned Suggs as a possibility next year. It's the biggest single place to find Cap savings, without having to release a bunch of guys to create that much space.
    It certainly won't be Ngata. He's a $16mil hit next year, but they would only save a whopping $1mil if they cut him.

    The missing piece to the puzzle is how much the cap will be raised next year. I don't think it will be much.
    Last edited by Money227; 08-13-2013 at 04:07 PM.




  8. #80

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    Well, the depth at the time was McClain, Bynes and McClellan. We knew they were going to draft a LB, but that was it.

    IMO, McClain has very solid years in 2010 and 2011. Neither Bynes nor McClellan, granted in small samples, having come close to showing that they could put together years as good.

    Lastly, they did try to re-sign Ellerbe (which if they had stuck to their guns would probably have meant no Dumervil, given the years and price of those deals), in which case, I think they may have released McClain, but I really didn't think they were going to go into the draft without at least one true starter quality guy at ILB, which I don't think Bynes or McClellan are yet. Given that they've kept McClain, drafted Brown and signed Smith, I don't think the Ravens think so either.
    I think ILB is one of the least important positions there is, on either side of the ball. The relative weight of the position itself lessens the impact of possible moderate 'gains' at the spot, imo.

    And I also don't think the difference between McClain and Bynes or McClellan would not be all that big. Or even really the difference between Smith and Bynes/McClellan/Brown, or any other vet minimum FA (like a Nick Barnett).

    You can take the same argument and apply it to WR, i.e. depth, who is going to start, etc., and WR is more important than ILB, imo.

    I am not saying Ozzie's thinking was foolish. I also don't think he took the decision to trade Boldin lightly, he did try to keep him for a bit cheaper after all. I am just addressing the constant meme that if we had kept Boldin we would have had to stand pat after that.




  9. #81

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    I think ILB is one of the least important positions there is, on either side of the ball. The relative weight of the position itself lessens the impact of possible moderate 'gains' at the spot, imo.

    And I also don't think the difference between McClain and Bynes or McClellan would not be all that big. Or even really the difference between Smith and Bynes/McClellan/Brown, or any other vet minimum FA (like a Nick Barnett).

    You can take the same argument and apply it to WR, i.e. depth, who is going to start, etc., and WR is more important than ILB, imo.

    I am not saying Ozzie's thinking was foolish. I also don't think he took the decision to trade Boldin lightly, he did try to keep him for a bit cheaper after all. I am just addressing the constant meme that if we had kept Boldin we would have had to stand pat after that.
    As long as he stays healthy, Smith is going to make a huge contribution to this year's team. He is the perfect example why Ozzie didn't budge on the $2mil difference with Boldin. As far as comparing the positions. I wonder if you look at the top 10 ILBs and then top 10 WRs and what teams they are on...which teams were more successful last year?




  10. #82

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Excellector View Post
    Brandon Stokely can give you the regular season production that Boldin gave you, especially with Caldwell calling the plays, at a small fraction of the price.
    I admit Boldins regular season numbers was not that great but really?

    Only once did Stokley have a similar kind of production and even then he was a less factor than Boldin, and lets not forget that Stokley was playing with Peyton anno 2004.

    Stokley at 37 will not replace Boldin, and Caldwell may be a good playcaller.. this will be his first year as such.

    Btw not defending Boldins departure, I am ok with that. Still hoping that Deonte or Doss will step up.




  11. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Where Ravens Fans Roam Free
    Posts
    1,918

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Suggs looks great so far. If he has a great season, why wouldn't the Ravens just extend him to get cap relief next year? The reason I don't think they will extend Ngata is because he has talked about retiring in the next few years.




  12. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,281

    Re: Boldin Replaced by Durmervil and Huff?

    Quote Originally Posted by elland View Post
    I admit Boldins regular season numbers was not that great but really?

    Only once did Stokley have a similar kind of production and even then he was a less factor than Boldin, and lets not forget that Stokley was playing with Peyton anno 2004.

    Stokley at 37 will not replace Boldin, and Caldwell may be a good playcaller.. this will be his first year as such.

    Btw not defending Boldins departure, I am ok with that. Still hoping that Deonte or Doss will step up.
    It's the combo of Stokley and Clark that's going to replace Boldins production.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




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