Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 190
  1. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...



    Quote Originally Posted by Terpsfan82 View Post
    Some of it is. To deny that would be disingenuous. I'm just not ready to anoint him as the sole reason, that's all. John Harbaugh has brought a level of consistency with him that we never enjoyed under Billick, who let the inmates run the asylum.
    Yet you'll be the first to blame Flacco if we don't make the playoffs.




  2. #137
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,547
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Incapable of a decent rebuttle.
    Who is more productive and what is fair really has no place in this debate. At the end of the day its about which player can be more easily replaced if your forced to make a choice. The reality is that it will be far easier to find a running back who can step in and do a decent job than a QB. You can win in the NFL without a top flight RB, you cant win in the NFL without a decent starting QB. Flacco is a far far more valuable commodity than Rice. If it comes down to it, there is no question they will let Rice walk and franchise Joe if they had to. Ray will not get the tag if they both are UFA's unless something unforeseen happens.

    Far as Rice is concerned, giving him AP or CJ money would be a stupid move on the part of the franchise. Its debatable who is better (Foster or Rice) but they are close enough in terms of stats and production that Fosters deal or a tad bit more should be were the Ravens should expect to pay.
    A linebacker's job is to knock out running backs, to knock out receivers, to chase the football,
    -Ray Lewis




  3. #138
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,810
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenous1 View Post
    Who is more productive and what is fair really has no place in this debate. At the end of the day its about which player can be more easily replaced if your forced to make a choice. The reality is that it will be far easier to find a running back who can step in and do a decent job than a QB. You can win in the NFL without a top flight RB, you cant win in the NFL without a decent starting QB. Flacco is a far far more valuable commodity than Rice. If it comes down to it, there is no question they will let Rice walk and franchise Joe if they had to. Ray will not get the tag if they both are UFA's unless something unforeseen happens.

    Far as Rice is concerned, giving him AP or CJ money would be a stupid move on the part of the franchise. Its debatable who is better (Foster or Rice) but they are close enough in terms of stats and production that Fosters deal or a tad bit more should be were the Ravens should expect to pay.
    Pretty much sums up how I feel.

    There are certain posters on this board and in this thread who think that Flacco isn't worth the charmin he wipes his butt with though.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  4. #139

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Is is possible another QB comes in and plays better... yes. Is it reasonable to consider... not really. who would you want thats actually attainable? outside Manning Brees Brady and maybe Rodgers i dont think there is another QB that is without argument an upgrade to Flacco, imo. there are QBs id still say are better but not so much as to think its worth getting rid of him for and thats in a fantasy world where other top QBs are available, which they arent and not easily drafted either, certainly when youre always winning and at the end of the rounds.
    Nowhere did I say "get rid of Flacco." What I did say is don't tie up a lot of money in him right now, until there's a better idea as to whether or not last year was an aberration. If he goes from 93.6 rating in 2010 to 80.9 in 2011 back to ~90 or better in 2012... okay, put some money into him, I'll feel like it's worth it. If the 2012 number is ~85 or lower... I don't know, I think you really have to start thinking about how much money you give him in a long-term deal at that point. If the Ravens are going to continue to win games mostly on the backs of having a great defense (as they've been doing, IMO), doesn't it make sense to keep as much of the cap space as possible free to spend on the defensive side of the ball? If Flacco's never again going to perform at a level higher than last year, but the Ravens still win 12 games with that level of performance, why bother spending a lot of money on offense?

    The cap gymnastics dictate that you can't have it all--no team can afford to have a Ray Lewis, an Ed Reed, a Haloti Ngata, a Terrell Suggs, a Lardarius Webb, AND a Payton Manning, an Adrian Peterson, a Calvin Johnson, a Rob Gronkowski, etc. As a team, the Ravens are decisively committed to excellence on the defensive side of the football. I don't know what the cap numbers are for the Ravens, but it would surprise me if more than 50% of the Ravens cap space is not committed to the defense. So if you want to spend big on offense, you're going to take away from that. What level of QB performance is worth not being able to keep Suggs? Webb? Ngata? Forget Reed and Lewis, they're going to be out of here relatively soon anyway, but as a fan base I doubt we accept Joe Schmoes as their replacements. Giving Flacco (or Rice, for that matter) a big deal won't affect that right now, but in a year or two? I'm no cap expert, but I think it would. So you're willing to take that risk, after what you saw out of Flacco last year?

    Not me...




  5. #140

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by redmike34 View Post
    Nowhere did I say "get rid of Flacco." What I did say is don't tie up a lot of money in him right now, until there's a better idea as to whether or not last year was an aberration. If he goes from 93.6 rating in 2010 to 80.9 in 2011 back to ~90 or better in 2012... okay, put some money into him, I'll feel like it's worth it. If the 2012 number is ~85 or lower... I don't know, I think you really have to start thinking about how much money you give him in a long-term deal at that point. If the Ravens are going to continue to win games mostly on the backs of having a great defense (as they've been doing, IMO), doesn't it make sense to keep as much of the cap space as possible free to spend on the defensive side of the ball? If Flacco's never again going to perform at a level higher than last year, but the Ravens still win 12 games with that level of performance, why bother spending a lot of money on offense?

    The cap gymnastics dictate that you can't have it all--no team can afford to have a Ray Lewis, an Ed Reed, a Haloti Ngata, a Terrell Suggs, a Lardarius Webb, AND a Payton Manning, an Adrian Peterson, a Calvin Johnson, a Rob Gronkowski, etc. As a team, the Ravens are decisively committed to excellence on the defensive side of the football. I don't know what the cap numbers are for the Ravens, but it would surprise me if more than 50% of the Ravens cap space is not committed to the defense. So if you want to spend big on offense, you're going to take away from that. What level of QB performance is worth not being able to keep Suggs? Webb? Ngata? Forget Reed and Lewis, they're going to be out of here relatively soon anyway, but as a fan base I doubt we accept Joe Schmoes as their replacements. Giving Flacco (or Rice, for that matter) a big deal won't affect that right now, but in a year or two? I'm no cap expert, but I think it would. So you're willing to take that risk, after what you saw out of Flacco last year?

    Not me...
    Are you seriously willing to put so much faith in QB rating that you'll decide whether to re-sign Flacco based on 10 points of variance from year to year? I'm sorry, but for as logical and intelligent as you sound, the core of your argument is very dubious.

    Prognosticate over 10 points worth of QB rating as much as you want, but here's a simpler explanation: 1) a given player's performance doesn't exist in a vacuum, 2) because of that fact, a certain degree of variance one way or the other is COMPLETELY unavoidable, 3) you can't be sure that variance is due entirely or mostly to the player himself.

    Case in point: as I said earlier, 5 (or possibly 6, depending on how you want to define it) of Ray Rice's rushing TDs in 2011 came as a result of a long pass play downed within the 10 yard line or a DPI in the end zone. If those 5 TDs are passing TDs, Flacco's QB rating goes up almost 5 points.

    Does that "really" mean he was 5 points better? I think we can all agree that is not necessarily the case.

    You can play with the numbers however you want, but to pin all your hopes on QB rating is, in a word, hopeless. I don't care what Flacco's QB rating is in 2012 if he's helping his team win, particularly when the chips are down and no one else seems to be stepping up. He did exactly that often enough to convince me last year.

    And I'm not an anti-stats guy. I'm actually pretty big on stats in a lot of respects. But you'll never see a Cam Cameron passer post gaudy stats under ANY circumstances. Drew Brees has been the most consistently excellent passer of the last 5 years, and even he only broke a 90 QB rating once under Cam, in 2004. His average QB rating in San Diego was an 84.9, slightly lower than Joe's career average, and he was a worse passer on the whole in San Diego. Do you think that's a coincidence? I don't, and I think it further illustrates why pinning all your hopes on 1 stat is a mistake.




  6. #141

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by redmike34 View Post
    Nowhere did I say "get rid of Flacco." What I did say is don't tie up a lot of money in him right now, until there's a better idea as to whether or not last year was an aberration. If he goes from 93.6 rating in 2010 to 80.9 in 2011 back to ~90 or better in 2012... okay, put some money into him, I'll feel like it's worth it. If the 2012 number is ~85 or lower... I don't know, I think you really have to start thinking about how much money you give him in a long-term deal at that point. If the Ravens are going to continue to win games mostly on the backs of having a great defense (as they've been doing, IMO), doesn't it make sense to keep as much of the cap space as possible free to spend on the defensive side of the ball? If Flacco's never again going to perform at a level higher than last year, but the Ravens still win 12 games with that level of performance, why bother spending a lot of money on offense?

    The cap gymnastics dictate that you can't have it all--no team can afford to have a Ray Lewis, an Ed Reed, a Haloti Ngata, a Terrell Suggs, a Lardarius Webb, AND a Payton Manning, an Adrian Peterson, a Calvin Johnson, a Rob Gronkowski, etc. As a team, the Ravens are decisively committed to excellence on the defensive side of the football. I don't know what the cap numbers are for the Ravens, but it would surprise me if more than 50% of the Ravens cap space is not committed to the defense. So if you want to spend big on offense, you're going to take away from that. What level of QB performance is worth not being able to keep Suggs? Webb? Ngata? Forget Reed and Lewis, they're going to be out of here relatively soon anyway, but as a fan base I doubt we accept Joe Schmoes as their replacements. Giving Flacco (or Rice, for that matter) a big deal won't affect that right now, but in a year or two? I'm no cap expert, but I think it would. So you're willing to take that risk, after what you saw out of Flacco last year?

    Not me...
    I see what youre saying. I personally think last year was an aberration and i believe the previous two years suggest that. I think what we did as an offense and him in particular did with basically an entirely rookie corps outside Boldin was impressive, not a disappointment. I dont think overly investing on either side of the ball is the best thing for the team, which is in part why we didnt win as much as we should have with a top defense all those years. the team that wins it all usually is a well rounded team and those teams that arent seem to be getting exposed in the playoffs (GB NE SF NO etc). right now we have the majority of our money in defense and the league is obviously going to an offensive league. I do think Joe has shown enough to warrant that investment as finding his replacement wouldnt be easy. as a fan i dont ever want to lose that elite defensive mentality, but its certainly something that could be sacrificed somewhat in the future to get the best overall team. I think theyre going to spend that money on flacco regardless and need to because he is the key piece to it. if anything since his stats went down this past year it gives the team more leverage, as opposed to letting him play and coming off a better year. They know what he is, and with all the variables to last year i think its smart they sign him now because i do believe he will have a better year statistically just based on the growth of our young players. which you may be hopeful for but obviously dont believe he will.
    -JAB




  7. #142
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    section 132
    Posts
    2,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Flacco had a great season last year...what the hell are you guys talking about? And he did it with a cast of rookie and 2nd year receivers (who probably led the league in dropped passes). He is going to get $100 million...and he is worth it.




  8. #143

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Lots of back and forth here. This thread went from "Flacco's deal update" to "Is Flacco worth a big deal". Give him a deal somewhere between Kevin Kolb/Tom Cassell and Eli Manning/Phillip Rivers.
    Some ravens fans forget what our QB history looked like in the 12 years before Joe arrived. Maybe we've forgotten what good QB play looks like given the recent of history of bad QB play. Flacco is the real deal. Surround him with a little more talent and creativity (Cam are you listening?) to suit his strengths he will take us to next level.




  9. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    8,164
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Originally Posted by BcRaven
    Are you talking about the Ravens or the Browns? It seems like you'd like to see the Ravens fail so you could jump on Flacco with both feet, but it hasn't happened yet. You're gonna have to wait some years for that IMO... Bc

    Quote Originally Posted by Terpsfan82 View Post
    Mind reading fail. When you assume.....fill in the rest.
    Excellent comeback for a 3rd grader... Bc




  10. #145

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    No way Flacco has earned a Rivers/Eli/BenR type of contract. That said, you won't get him to agree to a deal anywhere near a Kolb or Cassel deal, even if they were egregiously overpaid. Plus QB is the one position where a failure to get an average or slightly above-average player at minimum, guarantees failure (barring a time-machine and an all-time great defense). So you hope to sign him in between these two levels, but would be forced to sign him at the higher level if push came to shove.

    From that point, if Flacco keeps improving, you signed a fair to eventually-cheap deal; if Flacco fails to develop and plateaus at around where he is, you overpaid at the position fairly significantly.

    If Flacco insists on a deal that is bigger than Rivers/Eli/Ben then I think you make him wait until 2013 and take your chances.




  11. #146
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    No way Flacco has earned a Rivers/Eli/BenR type of contract. That said, you won't get him to agree to a deal anywhere near a Kolb or Cassel deal, even if they were egregiously overpaid. Plus QB is the one position where a failure to get an average or slightly above-average player at minimum, guarantees failure (barring a time-machine and an all-time great defense). So you hope to sign him in between these two levels, but would be forced to sign him at the higher level if push came to shove.

    From that point, if Flacco keeps improving, you signed a fair to eventually-cheap deal; if Flacco fails to develop and plateaus at around where he is, you overpaid at the position fairly significantly.

    If Flacco insists on a deal that is bigger than Rivers/Eli/Ben then I think you make him wait until 2013 and take your chances.
    Reasonable thoughts.




  12. #147

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Y
    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    About what?

    U think we are getting flacco for substantially less then 6/100? Good luck with all of that.
    No way he gets 6/100 from the Ravens when Manning got around 5/96. I don't need good luck. I can see if joe carried this offense but the offense is ran thru RR
    WE DON'T NEED YOUR RESPECT BUT WE WILL BEAT UP ON YOU AND TAKE YOUR SOUL!!!!!!!




  13. #148

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Noway hes worth rivers money? I realize eli and ben won SBs but at the same point in their respective careers theyre all arguably similar players even statistically. Wanting more isnt necessarily below market price with inflation and considering his age. I believe, may be wrong, but eli has the latest deal and it was signed in 2008? If he was asking to be paid brady or brees money id agree youre better off waiting him out but those deals those guys signed were young qbs you believe will take the next step and can lead your team which i believe he falls under.
    -JAB




  14. #149
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cockeysville, MD
    Posts
    4,501

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Excellector View Post
    I can understand where RedMike is coming from. What's going here, in my opinion, is that the defense has long been establishing, while the offense is trying to establish itself. So, the coaching staff and front office have chosen the strategy of leaning on the established side of the ball, while they methodically develop the offense. It's not easy to develop any particular side of the ball. It took the Ravens four years to develop the defense into the type of unit that set the foundation for its current reputation.
    I agree. But if you think back to how they developed the defense, they drafted Lewis, Boulware, Sharper, McCallister and Starks. Then they added key veteran free agents. Quality players who still had siomething left in the tank and were itching for a ring (or at least some semblance of success). They haven't quite done that on the offensive side of the ball. They have a solid nucleus, but the ballsy free agent acquisitions have not taken place yet, IMO.




  15. #150
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,717
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Flacco Deal Update...

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    No way Flacco has earned a Rivers/Eli/BenR type of contract. That said, you won't get him to agree to a deal anywhere near a Kolb or Cassel deal, even if they were egregiously overpaid. Plus QB is the one position where a failure to get an average or slightly above-average player at minimum, guarantees failure (barring a time-machine and an all-time great defense). So you hope to sign him in between these two levels, but would be forced to sign him at the higher level if push came to shove.

    From that point, if Flacco keeps improving, you signed a fair to eventually-cheap deal; if Flacco fails to develop and plateaus at around where he is, you overpaid at the position fairly significantly.

    If Flacco insists on a deal that is bigger than Rivers/Eli/Ben then I think you make him wait until 2013 and take your chances.
    Really they're all around the same all 100+M contracts which meanbs jacksquat, GUARNTEE'D money is where it at:
    Rivers 6 years 39Guarntee
    Ben 8 years 36 G
    Vick 6 years 37 G
    Eli 7 35G
    Peyton is under the 100M club but his guarntee'd money is about the ame with 5 years 35G.

    Personally I think Flacco is in the land of 7 years 100M(with all the incentives) and about 32G. Incentive laden more than the others, considering he hasn't had the level of success(even at this point in his career) as the others besides Rivers. But personally I don't think Rivers is very elite either. Give Joe a pair of 6'6' and fast damn receivers(who can also catch), along with Gates and a decent running game and I bet he puts up far better stats. They've handed Joe a washedup short Mason, a possesion guy in Boldin, a beatup end of career Heap(thanks to Boller) and scrubs elsewhere, until T.Smith. And a unimaginative bum of a OC who shouldn't even be coaching HS ball let alone the NFL.




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