Face it! Sam Darnold is the answer!

[Goode05]

It matters when you pay the guy like an elite QB...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like I just said there's three Elite guys there's like 12 or so $20 million dollar qbs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Goode05]

Look we have talented WR's we may not have a feature top flight guy but few teams do. Flacco also been the league a very long time and at no point has he been elite

We have a good receiver(Maclin)Wallace isn't a good receiver Perriman is hot garbage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RavensBoy52]

Like I just said there's three Elite guys there's like 12 or so $20 million dollar qbs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many times do I have to post this link before people get it through their heads.

https://overthecap.com/super-bowl-ti...-quarterbacks/

No team has won the Super Bowl with their quarterback taking a high percentage of the cap. NONE over 12% of the cap since the first year of the salary cap. Flacco is taking up 15.5% of the cap this year... Only ONE player besides Flacco is over 14%. And Flacco is throwing out games with 28 yards and 2 interceptions and 10 STRAIGHT WITH A PICK WITH THAT KIND OF SALARY CAP HIT. It is unacceptable no matter who is playing oline or catching the ball. There is a difference between paying a quarterback elite money (20 million+) and making your quarterback the highest paid player in NFL HISTORY TWICE!!! WHEN HE HASNT HAD MORE THAN 4 GAMES WHERE HE HAS EARNED THAT CONTRACT.

Look I am completely done with him. I travelled 10 hours and paid 170 dollars to watch that shit performance yesterday. Nothing but check downs and interceptions. I was also at that buffalo game where he threw 5 interceptions to my delight. Can’t forget when I also travelled 10 hours from Canada to watch him get outplayed by Charlie Batch and Blake Bortles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bravens23]

How many times do I have to post this link before people get it through their heads.

https://overthecap.com/super-bowl-ti...-quarterbacks/

No team has won the Super Bowl with their quarterback taking a high percentage of the cap. NONE over 12% of the cap since the first year of the salary cap. Flacco is taking up 15.5% of the cap this year... Only ONE player besides Flacco is over 14%. And Flacco is throwing out games with 28 yards and 2 interceptions and 10 STRAIGHT WITH A PICK WITH THAT KIND OF SALARY CAP HIT. It is unacceptable no matter who is playing oline or catching the ball. There is a difference between paying a quarterback elite money (20 million+) and making your quarterback the highest paid player in NFL HISTORY TWICE!!! WHEN HE HASNT HAD MORE THAN 4 GAMES WHERE HE HAS EARNED THAT CONTRACT.

Look I am completely done with him. I travelled 10 hours and paid 170 dollars to watch that shit performance yesterday. Nothing but check downs and interceptions. I was also at that buffalo game where he threw 5 interceptions to my delight. Can’t forget when I also travelled 10 hours from Canada to watch him get outplayed by Charlie Batch and Blake Bortles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then there's soon going to be about a dozen really good teams that have virtually "no chance" based on this not-really-that-relevant analysis, because the cap hits of a LOT of QBs are going to continue to rise at a higher rate than what the cap does.

Cap hits are manipulable. They go up, they go down. When the get too high, teams always bring them down, and half the time they're propped up by phantom salaries and contracts that are written in pencil.

First it was you can't do it at higher than 10%, and now its 12%. Just a matter of when, not if, that numbers just continues to increase and increase, until the time where there's a serious shift in value within the market place. That clearly isn't happening now or in the short-term future.

Plus we've already been over the catastrophic flaws in this type of analysis, namely the fact that it implies that the only possible measurement of success in this league is a SB victory. Ignore the fact that getting to the SB itself is an unbelievable achievement that many teams have spent decades trying to accomplish (with both highly paid and lowly paid QBs), or the fact that even making it to a Conference Championship game is a great accomplishment for any team, regardless of name.

But naturally, the narrative doesn't fit, so we just ignore all of that and say "if you don't win a SB, you're irrelevant". Yeah, OK skippy. Whenever you're ready to come out of your bubble, let me know.

Also you might want to consider shifting that "elite pay" bar a bit higher like right now. If $20M is the measurement of an "elite" QB, you're about to have elite QBs growing on trees in the next 5 years.

[PerpetuallyBored74]

No defense of Joe... but you can't seriously think our wr are talented ... they are easily the worst group in the nfl

Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk

Taking current injuries into account, there are definitely teams with worse WRs than us. And ours aren't really that good.

Our main 3 WRs have talent, but only one, Maclin, fits the system, and Perriman for all his talent still hasn't developed his skills to where he's even a solid #3.

[bravens23]

Our main 3 WRs have talent, but only one, Maclin, fits the system, and Perriman for all his talent still hasn't developed his skills to where he's even a solid #3.

Don't disagree. I just see teams like the Jets, 49ers, etc. out there, and it could be worse. It could also be a lot better, also.

Like if we're talking strictly WRs, I think our core is as talented overall as like KC's is. KC has a dynamic playmaker, but most people couldn't tell me who the #2 WR on that team is.

Now, they have a dynamic TE also, which we obviously don't have, so that's clearly an advantage.

[WrongBaldy]

Don't disagree. I just see teams like the Jets, 49ers, etc. out there, and it could be worse. It could also be a lot better, also.

Like if we're talking strictly WRs, I think our core is as talented overall as like KC's is. KC has a dynamic playmaker, but most people couldn't tell me who the #2 WR on that team is.

Now, they have a dynamic TE also, which we obviously don't have, so that's clearly an advantage.

KC = OL,WR, TE, RB, OC
Ravens = WR......

hmmmmmm nothing on ravens is even close to KC bro

[RavensBoy52]

Then there's soon going to be about a dozen really good teams that have virtually "no chance" based on this not-really-that-relevant analysis, because the cap hits of a LOT of QBs are going to continue to rise at a higher rate than what the cap does.

Cap hits are manipulable. They go up, they go down. When the get too high, teams always bring them down, and half the time they're propped up by phantom salaries and contracts that are written in pencil.

First it was you can't do it at higher than 10%, and now its 12%. Just a matter of when, not if, that numbers just continues to increase and increase, until the time where there's a serious shift in value within the market place. That clearly isn't happening now or in the short-term future.

Plus we've already been over the catastrophic flaws in this type of analysis, namely the fact that it implies that the only possible measurement of success in this league is a SB victory. Ignore the fact that getting to the SB itself is an unbelievable achievement that many teams have spent decades trying to accomplish (with both highly paid and lowly paid QBs), or the fact that even making it to a Conference Championship game is a great accomplishment for any team, regardless of name.

But naturally, the narrative doesn't fit, so we just ignore all of that and say "if you don't win a SB, you're irrelevant". Yeah, OK skippy. Whenever you're ready to come out of your bubble, let me know.

Also you might want to consider shifting that "elite pay" bar a bit higher like right now. If $20M is the measurement of an "elite" QB, you're about to have elite QBs growing on trees in the next 5 years.

First Off, I am not really sure why I am arguing with you.

Second, 23 year trends are not considered "not-really-relevant-analysis" in any form of business. It may not be concrete but it is far from irrelevant. And like i said many times QB's contracts can keep going up but until these high pad quarterbacks win it will continue to prove my point.

Third, Here is an article about the same thing except calculating the Average per year salary cap percentage of the contracts the quarterbacks had when they won. Guess what? No one broke the 14% threshold and only three have averaged over 10%.

https://overthecap.com/super-bowl-ri...e-quarterback/

Fourth, it was never "you cant do it at 10% and now you cant do it at 12%." The highest ever is 13.1% and the second highest is 11.7%. Besides those two annomally's two other players barely had over 10% and everyone else was 9% or less.

Fifth, which is the dumbest argument of all, winning the superbowl isn't everything. Let me ask you a question.... in 2011 when we lost to the patriots in the AFC championship game were you satisfied with that? Did anyone think that the team deserved to lose that game. Obviously that team had a great year but they deserved to be in the superbowl and I would not consider that a succesfull season because of that. Even the players themselves have said there is no difference between not making the playoffs and losing before the superbowl. The only person who benefits from making the playoffs and not winnning the Superbowl is the owner. The whole reason for the NFL is to see who wins the Superbowl and the whole reason making the Conference Championship game is a great accomplishment is because you have a chance to get to the SB, if that wasnt the case there would be no reason for the SB.

Sixth, How much a QB gets paid doesn't determine if they are elite. You can pay your quarterback 24.6 million and he can be the farthest thing from elite.... 20 million is the lowest teams are paying their "elite" Qb's is what i was saying Skippy.


"If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, why do they keep score?" - Vince Lombardi

[bravens23]

First Off, I am not really sure why I am arguing with you.

Second, 23 year trends are not considered "not-really-relevant-analysis" in any form of business. It may not be concrete but it is far from irrelevant. And like i said many times QB's contracts can keep going up but until these high pad quarterbacks win it will continue to prove my point.

Third, Here is an article about the same thing except calculating the Average per year salary cap percentage of the contracts the quarterbacks had when they won. Guess what? No one broke the 14% threshold and only three have averaged over 10%.

https://overthecap.com/super-bowl-ri...e-quarterback/

Fourth, it was never "you cant do it at 10% and now you cant do it at 12%." The highest ever is 13.1% and the second highest is 11.7%. Besides those two annomally's two other players barely had over 10% and everyone else was 9% or less.

Fifth, which is the dumbest argument of all, winning the superbowl isn't everything. Let me ask you a question.... in 2011 when we lost to the patriots in the AFC championship game were you satisfied with that? Did anyone think that the team deserved to lose that game. Obviously that team had a great year but they deserved to be in the superbowl and I would not consider that a succesfull season because of that. Even the players themselves have said there is no difference between not making the playoffs and losing before the superbowl. The only person who benefits from making the playoffs and not winnning the Superbowl is the owner. The whole reason for the NFL is to see who wins the Superbowl and the whole reason making the Conference Championship game is a great accomplishment is because you have a chance to get to the SB, if that wasnt the case there would be no reason for the SB.

Sixth, How much a QB gets paid doesn't determine if they are elite. You can pay your quarterback 24.6 million and he can be the farthest thing from elite.... 20 million is the lowest teams are paying their "elite" Qb's is what i was saying Skippy.


"If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, why do they keep score?" - Vince Lombardi

1. Yeah but the entire analysis is predicated on the fact that 100% of teams have an expectation of SB or failure in every single season. Obviously, that's the laziest, most illogical analysis ever.

Convenient of course that the one example you pick was for a team that actually did have SB aspirations and didn't meet them. For every one of those, there's a half dozen or more teams that exceed realistic expectations on an annual basis... and they do so without winning a SB.

No realistic Falcons fan looked at last season as a failure. Not one. They can be disappointed with the collapse, but they're not looking at last season and saying "o man, we didn't meet our expectations". Same thing the year before with Carolina... no realistic fan looks at that team as a failure.

That's my point... the analysis is lazy. One team is good every year, and everybody else failed. That's what that analysis represents. The players don't agree with that. The FO personnel don't agree with that. And certainly the Owners don't agree with that (and they're the one's that really matter), since there's plenty of owners who's #1 priority is NOT to win a SB, but rather to maximize profits.

2. If compensation doesn't have anything to do with being elite, then it doesn't matter how much somebody gets paid. Compensation is purely a product of supply/demand. That's all it ever was, and all it ever will be. It doesn't have anything to do with TD passes or how many yards you throw for against Cleveland in October. NFL teams don't make compensation determinations based on those things... only fans do. We've got just example after example after example that just absolutely obliterates those lines of thinking.

3. Like most of these pathetic attempts at analysis, they don't offer any actual problem solving skills. All they do is put some data together and say "o look, you can't win when you pay a single player this much". Even these writers don't have the balls to go out and actually put their little theory into practice, which means when these guys actually get good, and you have to pay them top tier money, you decline. Like literally... after five years of Aaron Rodgers, just walk away. That's what these models are supposed to be driving you towards.

What the models don't take into account, of course, are the three variables that they can't account for... the extreme difficulty in finding even a replacement level QB via the college system, the length of time it takes to find said replacement and the losing seasons that come with that, and most importantly, the risk that decision makers take with these decisions and how they can alter employment status for literally dozens of people.

When somebody actually puts this into an analysis, and then actually shows that the risk/reward pays off, THEN you'll have some analysis that is worth a shit.

And what's most amusing to me is that people put this shit together do so thinking "o these NFL management people don't know anything... they can't possibly do this analysis and realize how stupid they are". No genius, they do this analysis. They also understand the risk that comes with implementing the strategy that this article seems to hint at. Making obvious statements like "quality QBs on rookie deals will continue to be the best roster construction for a SB team". Well no shit Sherlock... you're several years late on that one. When you start showing me the teams that put a competitive product out their on the field every year (like the Packers) by NOT paying their QB more than like $15M a year every year, then this analysis can get past the theory stage.

I also found the second article you posted quite amusing when they claimed that the Patriots figured this out and "reigned Brady back in". Umm no... they actually didn't figure it out, because they gave Brady at least two absolute top of the market contracts in his career, but the public either ignores or forgets that. They were doing the same thing other teams were doing... the difference is after about $150M in career earnings and a decade of being among the highest paid, Brady himself decided to take a little less. Good luck plugging that into the "model".

[Culex]

Sam Darnold anyone?

[Goode05]

You watch him this year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Fanatic]

I wouldn't draft any QB under this coaching staff.