The value of Grubbs and the Right side...

**wickedsolo** · 09-21-2011, 09:48 PM

Grubbs already has to know that he can get some major coin. Look at what Chester got with the Skins and he's mediocre at best.

It's going to come down to whether or not Grubbs wants to stay in Baltimore and have a chance at a Super Bowl while making a handsome amount of money, or go somewhere like Washington and make a king's ransom, but rarely ever be on a playoff contender.

**Jeremiah W** · 09-21-2011, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Grubbs already has to know that he can get some major coin. Look at what Chester got with the Skins and he's mediocre at best.

It's going to come down to whether or not Grubbs wants to stay in Baltimore and have a chance at a Super Bowl while making a handsome amount of money, or go somewhere like Washington and make a king's ransom, but rarely ever be on a playoff contender.

I think the Ravens have proven they will pay the players they want to keep a fair price, and not all of them were top 10 at thier position. Guys like JJ, Mason, Rolle and Heap got good second contracts.

They did get outbid for guys like AD, Brown and Bart Scott, all I suspect they would have wanted to keep at lower prices. Even Chester likely got a reasonable offer, just not nearly the coin he got from the skins.

At the end of the day I doubt many players would be willing to take much of a winning team discount on thier second contract.

I think Grubbs will fall into the first group that gets good money to stay, Yanda money, which I think they will be able to afford because they are not paying huge money to the tackles and Birk will likely retire.

**houstonravensfan** · 09-21-2011, 11:45 PM

It isn't a question of whether Grubbs is worth paying -- he is. The problem is the cap. How many top players can we keep? Where can we afford to cut corners? One area where we definitely need to allocate some $ is the LB group. Can we give up JJ? When do we get a quality ILB next to Ray? When do we get someone to step in for Ray? UDFA college DEs are NOT the answer. Is Grubbs more valuable than a top quality pass rusher to help Suggs. I'm a Grubbs fan, but I don't expect him to have a long career here.

**bacchys** · 09-21-2011, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by lloyd christmas

I disagree. I thought Grubbs' absence was felt early and often. LeVoir couldn't keep his man at bay. The Titans constantly sent pressure to his side in passing situations. McKinnie also struggled at times, which I thought was interesting since he's made several comments about how Grubbs had been doing a great job communicating with him & keeping him in line. It looked like the whole left side was out of sync, but that was just my impression.

I hadn't heard McKinnie's comments, but I had wondered how much Grubb's absence affected him. His level of play was considerably less compared to week 1, which was the opposite direction I thought it would take. Like most, probably, I thought he'd have a rough start and improve over the course of the year as he became more familiar with the offense and his line mates and his conditioning improved.

LeVoir didn't look good at all. No push on running plays and he was knocked around in pass plays. The Titans were getting pressure with just their front four.

**Beau Petard** · 09-22-2011, 08:16 AM

HK--
Thanks for that perspective, I hadn't considered, for example, that the TE might be lined up on the other side and they can't have 10 guys in motion during a play! :o ;)

I WILL bitch a bit here, though, about a guy who is not capable of handling the overload -- it's telling when a player is paid 100's of 1000's, or millions, and can't execute a block!

I kinda live in my own little dream world, where every player at that level ought to understand and be able to perform the basics...

mommathur--
You said, "I think Ravens need to get rid of players who are overpaid on the roster or restructure contracts so we can keep a decent o-line..."

Forgive me, this is not a SunSpot type of attack, but I have to wonder if that's not a fantasy football league approach v. the real world. As an example, I know many have concerns about Foxworth, who apparently is a significant CAP factor this year but who is not producing at a commensurate pace. But my understanding is also that cutting him would have negatively impacted the 2011 CAP, leaving little(?) or LESS ability to address the O-line or other needs.

From an overall CAP perspective, which players exactly would you "get rid of...who are overpaid on the roster or restructure contracts..."? How much CAP space would that free up? How would you then allot the money and who would you keep/trade for/sign as FA on the O-line (and how would this fit into the overall CAP picture for the offense, defense and STs)?

Thanks...

**wickedsolo** · 09-22-2011, 08:25 AM

Beau - I was also pondering the cutting bait with overpaid players...I'm trying to think of who they might be considering. They cut bait with Heap, Mason, & McGahee back in July/August.

Who is really overpaid other than Foxworth?

Especially considering that within 2 years guys like Matt Birk, Ed Reed and Ray Lewis will likely be coming off the books, which would open up a significant amount of cap room.

**Iscull** · 09-22-2011, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Beau - I was also pondering the cutting bait with overpaid players...I'm trying to think of who they might be considering. They cut bait with Heap, Mason, & McGahee back in July/August.

Who is really overpaid other than Foxworth?

Especially considering that within 2 years guys like Matt Birk, Ed Reed and Ray Lewis will likely be coming off the books, which would open up a significant amount of cap room.

If Ray and Birk retire at the end of the year, does it save us any money?

**Beau Petard** · 09-22-2011, 08:44 AM

Wicked-
Yeah, I don't have as great a command of the CAP as B-ravor does, but I can't recall many (if any) other names bandied about as being an excessive drag on the CAP. As someone posted either earlier in this thread or in another, you can't pay top $$$ to every guy on the roster. It's easy (and likely true!) that the O-line needs some work, given the injuries, lack of time to work together, questions about depth, etc., and I can respect others' opinions on how to manage the team, but I need to be educated on the details. The other thing is, it's fine to say that more CAP needs to be allocated to the O-line, but that needs to be considered within the entire CAP structure - who on the offense beside the O-linemen AND the defense AND the special teams players do you "save" money on in order to re-program that money?

**wickedsolo** · 09-22-2011, 08:55 AM

Beau -

Like you said, you can't pay top dollar at every position. That's why the positions that you do pay top dollar to need to be difference makers every game. So, when you've got top dollar going to someone like Foxworth and he's still gimpy it's entirely frustrating to watch knowing that he's making all of that money and only able to give maybe 60-70% effort.

I think the Titans game was more of an anomaly than anything, so I won't harp on that too much. Ultimately, the coordinators need to do a better job of game planning and getting those "difference makers" involved.

**Beau Petard** · 09-22-2011, 09:12 AM

Isc--
I have no idea of the accuracy of this info, but I found the following for Birk and Lewis --

Birk -- UFA in 2012

Lewis -- $4,950,000 in 2012

**Bhcforlife** · 09-22-2011, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

That seems to be a poular opinion, but I do not see any proof to back it up.

The OL looked a lot worse without Grubbs, and what a player is worth, and how much the team should pay is really above the fan's head. Yanda played like a guy the team should try to keep, and so has Grubbs.

It's one game. If it becomes a trend where the OL stinks continually with Grubbs out, I'll buy he's more important than I thought. But I'm not ready to base that off one game. For everyone saying "it's just one game" in regards to how the team looked, a lot of people are putting a lot of value into that "one game" when it comes to Grubbs...

**jonboy79** · 09-22-2011, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Gotta be honest with you HK. I was one of the guys advocating that we should let Grubbs walk at the end of the season, but honestly...I don't know if I think that's the best idea anymore. It is true that he is a good OL'men. No offense to Filmstudy, but I think posts like that and sources like that have allowed us to believe that Grubbs really isn't all he's cracked up to be. The proof is in the pudding. Our OL is better with him in there and to me, that seems to be the most important element that many don't really talk about.

Replacing Birk at the end of the year is a must and will likely be taken care of in the draft. Replacing Birk AND Grubbs is a lot more difficult.

I'm changing my tune. We definitely should do what we can to keep Grubbs.

Paying Grubbs $50m will not allow us to address Flacco and Rice. It's no slight to Grubbs, simply that he will outprice himself from this team.
I don't think there is anyone that thinks he's no good, but I'd MUCH rather have Yanda for $30m then Grubbs for $50m.