I'm kinda surprised this thread has managed to make it to four pages.

I don't think my opinion differs a lot from the consensus here. Leach is the best Fullback in the NFL. That's fact---and confirmed by the respect among his peers in tonight's vote.

Do the Ravens absolutely need him to be successful? Of course not. A lot of teams are successful without even using a fullback.

Does having Vonta Leach on your roster give you more ways of beating your opponent? Most certainly. Even if you ignore the intangible part of the equation that Leach brings on to opposing defenses through wear-and-tear factor, he brings a blocking presence that gives a bit more of a dimension to the Raven offense. That dimension is underused by a lot of teams right now to the point where it's assumed that it's no longer necessary. Yet, for a team playing in the AFC North, I think having a fullback like Leach makes you more potent down the stretch of games, where running the ball to maintain possession and milke the clock is crucial. I think back to the game in Cincinnati to finish our season, and my assessment of Leach's value is finalized there.

I will break away from the consensus here in terms of Leach's value to the salary cap. I'm perfectly okay with Leach's contract value. Leach is the best fullback in the NFL. Just because it's a devalued position overall doesn't mean that his specific value in terms of ability should be devalued. In the end, a player's salary is designed to do one thing....help you produce more wins. I guess you have to ask yourself this question. If the Ravens did not have Vonta Leach last year and would have had a Hynoski or Vickers in his place, would they still have been a 12-4 team? In my humble opinion, they would have not. I think to the regular season Houston game and how well he opened up holes for RR against a very stout Texans defense. I think about the Cards game and both Cincy games and think how big runs shaped the momentum surges of those three contests. Without Leach, we are an 11-5 team, and in Denver for Wild Card weekend. So, even if Leach's salary was $5 million a year, I think the quality of play from his position he brought the Ravens would be well worth it.

Leach took up less than 3% of our total 2012 salary cap. It's not as if his contract was standing in our way of getting over the top. With the money committed to Leach last offseason, what could the Ravens have done instead? The Ravens 2012 roster had no holes. The only two positions of need during the entire season (WR and MLB) were only brought on by injury. It's not as if the Ravens missed out on an opportunity to sign a good player to fill a vital role due to the money they gave to Leach. The type of money they gave Leach, had they redirected it to another positon, would have gone to sign a depth player on the O-line, D-line, or LB positions. I'm sorry, but I don't think that any player at any of those positions (in theory) would have provided the Ravens with more win value than Leach did. Again, we are talking about the #1 fullback in the NFL. The #1 fullback in the NFL probably gets paid the same in free agency as the #90 WR in the NFL or the #120 O-lineman or linebacker. There is no argument that you can ever make that would entice me to believe that the best player in the entire league at his position (excluding long snapper or maybe punter) would bring less win equity to a team than a middle-of-the-road player at another position. The Ravens won games last year due to Leach's ability. There is no assurances that the same amount of money redirected to another position would have even come close to replicating the extra tangible value Leach brought.