Dilfer was treated indefensibly

**rbnn** · 01-10-2009, 07:20 AM

As the Ravens conclude their best season since they fired Dilfer, once again showing the importance of a good defense, it is time to reflect on whether Dilfer was fired appropriately and, if he was fired unfairly, what to do about it.

One fact stands out here: No starting quarterback other than Dilfer has ever been released after leading his team to the championship in NFL history.

Never, in any major sport, has it happened that the person who lead or co-lead the team to the national championship was released before the next season (unless perhaps for budgetary reasons or injury).

What was so terrible about Dilfer he had to be fired? Was he not important to the team?

Nonsense! Dilfer's contributions to the team were substantial:

He kept turnovers to a minimum and increased possession time, which helped the defense which was critical to the Ravens success.
He did not make errors.
He was a great team leader, which is critical in a defensively based team where the offense still has to do a good job even if it is not in the spotlight.
His play was smart and widely respected, even if he didn't make ESPN highlight reels. (In fact maybe his edge was he wanted to WIN THE GAME not make the highlight reels).
He fit in perfectly into the Ravens defense-oriented posture.

So he was great for the Ravens. Maybe he was declining? No. He had just won 11 straight games with the Ravens (and he subsequently won a bunch of straight games with his new team)

In fact, firing Dilfer might well be the single most indefensible management decision in NFL history, maybe sports history:

A quarterback is healthy, popular, inexpensive, intelligent, error-free, makes minimal turnovers, has just won 11 straight games;
He has just led the team with one of the best defenses in history to a championship;
He helped change the whole way the game is played by showing how defense can lead a team victory if the quarterback is solid; and
It is no more expensive to sign him than it was to have signed Grbac.

Most important, I think it is demoralizing to everyone on the team to see the quarterback kicked out for no reason like that:

It is demoralizing to the offense, who felt they were working hard for him and to see their work dissed like that.
It is demoralizing to the defense, who did a spectacular job but now had to learn to deal with another quarterback who could not adjust to the defense-oriented strategy (no turnovers, increase time of possession, etc.).
It is demoralizing to the fans, who had been led to believe Dilfer and the Ravens accomplished their goal of winning the Superbowl, only to see him not rewarded for that.
It is demoralizing to the coaches, who have to tell their players to "take one for the team" and help the team win even though this behavior is not rewarded.
Last but not least: It is unfair to Dilfer. Had Dilfer been re-signed, in fact, he very possibly could have won another couple of championships, since his style fit in so perfectly with the Ravens defense. What the Ravens did did not just mess up the franchise for 8 years - it destroyed Dilfer's career. This is wrong.

In conclusion, firing Dilfer was wrong. It is even more clear now but it was also clear then. It was wrong strategically. It was wrong tactically. It was wrong to the fans, to the players, and to Dilfer himself. It was worse than a mistake, it was despicable.

Thus, I believe the Ravens organization owes Dilfer an apology for the way he was treated. And frankly, the fans probably owe Dilfer an apology too for not defending him more strongly when this happened.

**raven2112** · 01-10-2009, 07:25 AM

Trent?

**RavenDavey** · 01-10-2009, 07:37 AM

Living in the past are we??

Different time and place.

This is a business and yes Trent won us a Superbowl, but why dredge this story up now??

There are certain fans that owe Boller an apology for cheering him being injured, but the fans don't have to apologize for an orginization who runs a business...

**sailorsam** · 01-10-2009, 08:25 AM

impossible to say whether releasing him was right or wrong. he certainly didn't light it up elsewhere. he was apparently well regarded by his teammates.

**highwater** · 01-10-2009, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by rbnn

As the Ravens conclude their best season since they fired Dilfer, once again showing the importance of a good defense, it is time to reflect on whether Dilfer was fired appropriately

No, actually it's not time to reflect on this old issue. In fact, it's laughable that you think the Ravens and the fans should apoligize to Dilfer in 2009 for not re-signing him in 2001.

Seriously, where did this essay come from? "The single most indefensible management decision in NFL history, maybe sports history?"

Even Dilfer would likely not agree with this over-the-top analysis.

**RustonRifle** · 01-10-2009, 08:58 AM

Why in the heck would a Ravens fan feel compelled to talk about this issue on a huge day such as today?

**RavinDonnie** · 01-10-2009, 09:00 AM

"single most indefensible management decision in NFL history," If this was about Ozzie's decision to extend Boller I would agree. That clown doesn't get hurt and the Ravens are watching football at home this week.

**jaydee414** · 01-10-2009, 09:07 AM

it's nice to see that Trent's Mom is learning how to use a laptop.

**The Fanatic** · 01-10-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by RustonRifle

Why in the heck would a Ravens fan feel compelled to talk about this issue on a huge day such as today?

Makes you wonder whether this person really is a Raven fan.

There is no way in hell a real Raven fan would have the Trent Dilfer issue on their mind right now, today!!

No Freakin' Way!!!!

**festivus** · 01-10-2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by jaydee414

Trent's Mom

Welcome to the board, newbie.

You sure put a lot of time into that post, or put a lot of time into finding the post from a 2001 thread, and copying it here.

**festivus** · 01-10-2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by rbnn

And frankly, the fans probably owe Dilfer an apology too for not defending him more strongly when this happened.

For those, like myself, who did not actually read this whole lecture, you may have missed this especially amusing conclusion. Yes the *fans* owe an apology, because they were not sufficiently critical of the FO's decision to part with Trent.

Funny, that's not how I remember it. . .

**btarr8** · 01-10-2009, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by festivus

You sure put a lot of time into that post, or put a lot of time into finding the post from a 2001 thread, and copying it here.

Oh shnap!!!

The bottom line is that the dude won the Super Bowl and wanted to be paid like a starting QB who just won the Super Bowl. Given our defense of the Super Bowl year, I'm pretty sure the organization felt that a helper monkey could have played behind center and won.