Honest Thoughts about Flacco's Contract in 2013?

[Trackmaster]

I think that people are thinking too small on here. It may have been a PR nightmare and an embarrassment, but I don't think that we necessarily had to sign Flacco, but I can see why we did it. Sure, the assumption in the NFL is that you re-sign your starting QB and HC if you're happy with them, but I still think that you have to consider the right player for the right price. Winning takes 53 strong players, and if you think that paying one player too much will impede your ability to sign 52 other players, then you have to consider that. There has to be a limit.

Yes, its an unwritten rule that you move heaven and Earth to re-sign your QB and that you don't think of the QB position as an interchangeable part. But, my philosopher is that you don't beat other teams regularly and win championships by following the rules, and playing everyone else's game. If every team did that, every team would be 8-8. You try to gain an advantage, and outsmart other teams. If 26 teams are getting in endless bidding wars for mediocre QBs who man the position but are nowhere near the value of the top four QBs (who this QB is nowhere close), maybe you dip out, and use the significant cap space on building a great supporting cast that a young game manager who isn't that much worse than that QB can compete with.

I think that knowing what we know now, you'd have to be a Flacco homer to argue that he was worth $20M+ a year when statistically he lost us more games than he won, and was one of the worst QBs in the league over that period of time. If you don't like stats, you probably don't like that we didn't win a division once in that period of time, and only went to the play-offs once. So you'd have to be pretty stubborn to say you couldn't hit the undo button if you could. You could say, "Well we didn't have the benefit of hindsight" but in my opinion, I saw this as a real possibility. I'm not saying that I would have walked away from the table if I were Ozzie, but I would have played some hardball at least. I would have reminded him that he wasn't extended before like most QBs tend to be because his offer was pulled previously due to inconsistency and lack of individual, non-team oriented accomplishments.

[Jamauler2066]

Let's flashback to 2013. It's March, and news had just broke that we had re-signed Flacco. The details of the deal come out, and it turns out that it will be the biggest contract in NFL history at $20mil a year for six flags. Half to be paid out in the first two years, most of that guaranteed. Then we see the mass exodus that it caused and how we were pushed up against the cap.

What were your honest reactions back then? Were you relieved that Flacco was re-signed? Were you hopeful that he would grow into his contract and ride his play-off performance to multiple Pro Bowls and future Super Bowls? Were you worried about the team getting in cap hell due to the deal? Were you like "WTF, giving the biggest contract in the league to somebody who hasn't made a Pro Bowl?" Did you get made fun of at work by non-Ravens fans?

I think that we all know now that the original deal and the re-structure were both lemons. But maybe back then it was a reasonable gamble to take. Thoughts? I want honest answers about what was actually running through your mind in 2013.

I'm one of the biggest Flacco apologists you'll meet among Ravens fans, so...
To start with, I had already been thrilled that we had been enjoying 5 straight years of consistently competing while getting steady, even if not world beating play at QB. The days of Boller, Wright, Banks, Redman and whoever else were in the rear view mirror. There is a value to consistency. You can win a lot of games with 3800 yards of passing and usually keeping your TDs well enough above your INTs. Then he went on that run. I wasn't foolish enough to think that was sustainable, but I knew it was going to force us to back up the Brinks truck and I was okay with that. It's the most important position on the field and if you want a QB you can depend on, that's the price they command. Guys who have accomplished less are making that kind of money or more now. At the time, I most shrugged my shoulders and trusted our front office was going to make the rest of it work. So yeah, I was relieved. I would never assume that my team is going to run off multiple championships. It's hard to sustain success like that in the NFL. I didn't really care if he played like a Pro Bowler so much as trusted that, when necessary, he would. No non-Raven fan I knew had the stones to get into a shit-talk showdown with me with us just coming off that Super Bowl, so I was in good shape there.
I'd have liked to have seen the deal structure so it counted less by percentage of the salary cap as it aged rather than having it back loaded. I'm no GM, so I can't speak on why that wasn't the case. As I mentioned, I had a lot more faith than maybe I should have in the front office to be able to not just work around Flacco's cap hit, but to also replace guys like Reed, Lewis, Boldin, Pitta and Rice. They have yet to do any of that except with some aging stop-gaps. I'm the first to argue that skill position players are overvalued as long as the QB is good, but jesus, we have had little more than trash. They don't need to be pro bowlers, but they also can't be an active detriment either. I think what has me most riled up about post Super Bowl Flacco, and more broadly, our offense, is watching other teams get guys like Doug Baldwin, Juju Smith Schuster, LeGarrett Blount or Julian Edelman for mid round draft picks or as low priced free agents while we add Breshad Perriman and Terence West.

[Jamauler2066]

I think that people are thinking too small on here. It may have been a PR nightmare and an embarrassment, but I don't think that we necessarily had to sign Flacco, but I can see why we did it. Sure, the assumption in the NFL is that you re-sign your starting QB and HC if you're happy with them, but I still think that you have to consider the right player for the right price. Winning takes 53 strong players, and if you think that paying one player too much will impede your ability to sign 52 other players, then you have to consider that. There has to be a limit.

Yes, its an unwritten rule that you move heaven and Earth to re-sign your QB and that you don't think of the QB position as an interchangeable part. But, my philosopher is that you don't beat other teams regularly and win championships by following the rules, and playing everyone else's game. If every team did that, every team would be 8-8. You try to gain an advantage, and outsmart other teams. If 26 teams are getting in endless bidding wars for mediocre QBs who man the position but are nowhere near the value of the top four QBs (who this QB is nowhere close), maybe you dip out, and use the significant cap space on building a great supporting cast that a young game manager who isn't that much worse than that QB can compete with.

I think that knowing what we know now, you'd have to be a Flacco homer to argue that he was worth $20M+ a year when statistically he lost us more games than he won, and was one of the worst QBs in the league over that period of time. If you don't like stats, you probably don't like that we didn't win a division once in that period of time, and only went to the play-offs once. So you'd have to be pretty stubborn to say you couldn't hit the undo button if you could. You could say, "Well we didn't have the benefit of hindsight" but in my opinion, I saw this as a real possibility. I'm not saying that I would have walked away from the table if I were Ozzie, but I would have played some hardball at least. I would have reminded him that he wasn't extended before like most QBs tend to be because his offer was pulled previously due to inconsistency and lack of individual, non-team oriented accomplishments.

This is a damn good post and spot on as far as the way you have to separate yourself in a league that is rigged for everyone to finish 8-8. That's also where I had to shake my head because I know our team has failed to do that at almost every step since 2012/13. I'd have been scared as hell, but I'd have at least respected the brass balls it would have had to take to play hardball with a guy who just won you a Super Bowl. If Flacco can bet on himself, our front office also could have bet on themselves, but they didn't, so they've spent five years pointing at his cap hit to distract from the fact that they have also been a huge disappointment over the last five seasons.

[Coram_Nobis]

Meh.

It's simply the cost of doing business.

The most lucrative contract at the time. Wait six months for the headline to change.

They weren't paying merely what Flacco deserved; they were paying to avoid the non-Flacco alternative. That abyss could be as deep as the Browns or as deep as Kyle Boller. It's difficult to convince your fans that you care about winning if you let the winningest QB walk. It also sends a bad message to the locker room if you don't reward success.

Again, a meh. You have to spend money to make money.

Now, what didn't make sense was the Boldin trade......

[mdduckman]

What are you going to do, let him walk after a SB MVP performance and an all time post season run? Nope.

I have zero issue with it then nor now, it was market value at the time and he bet on himself, won. I have an issue with the FO trading away his go to WR and not replacing him. Then Pitta gets hurt. Rice gets hurt. My main issue has always been the FO and not giving him weapons

This.

Completely agree - no way were they going to let him walk. Was it a ton of money? Yes but he had just won the Super Bowl AND the MVP. They had no choice. Over the years you can debate how effective Joe has been and whether the team's success or lack of it is due to him or other factors. But that wasn't a crazy contract for what he had done and for QB's in general. The $ just keeps going up and up and up. And letting Boldin go (which had nothing to do with his contract) hurt us quite a bit plus from what I can recall an offensive line that didn't play at a high level the following year. I have no problem with that contract then or now. Just my opinion - I know others will disagree and that's totally ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jfoh]

I had no problem with his contract. What I was pissed about was dumping Boldins over two million a year. Ability and attitude they did not replace until SSSr. Then Pita became a black hole for money because of a freak injury, three times.

[BcRaven]

I had no problem with his contract. What I was pissed about was dumping Boldins over two million a year. Ability and attitude they did not replace until SSSr. Then Pita became a black hole for money because of a freak injury, three times.

Me too! Not only did Boldin have so many important catches, and was one of Flacco's prime go-to guys, but IIRC 2013 was the last year of his contract anyway. Ozzie shouldn't have insulted him with a pay cut, and deprive us of one of the few dependable offensive threats we had... Bc

[moviemaniacx]

Me too! Not only did Boldin have so many important catches, and was one of Flacco's prime go-to guys, but IIRC 2013 was the last year of his contract anyway. Ozzie shouldn't have insulted him with a pay cut, and deprive us of one of the few dependable offensive threats we had... Bc

[Ravenswintitle]

Sporting News ran a story today about the worse NFL contracts measured by pay vs production. Guess who is #1?

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/list...dtp1c/slide/32

[Trackmaster]

I had no problem with his contract. What I was pissed about was dumping Boldins over two million a year. Ability and attitude they did not replace until SSSr. Then Pita became a black hole for money because of a freak injury, three times.

Which happened because of Flacco's contract. It wasn't $2M, it was $6M.

[Trackmaster]

Sporting News ran a story today about the worse NFL contracts measured by pay vs production. Guess who is #1?

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/list...dtp1c/slide/32

Yeah, I care more about productivity vs. cost, not some "We have to sign this guy because everyone else would" nonsense. You could call this is a very a priori statement to make, but the Ravens had seen Flacco practice and play up close for five years. They had to know what he was capable to the finest detail. They knew what he could do and couldn't do, and they still gave that contract probably for PR and marketing reasons, not football reasons. Some people argue that Flacco had bad years because he had no weapons. But then it comes back to "Why give a QB who needs weapons a contract that will take away the cap space that we need for the weapons?"

[BcRaven]

Which happened because of Flacco's contract. It wasn't $2M, it was $6M.

Track, it was $2 mil. Boldin was supposed to receive $6 mil. in 2013, but Ozzie tried to low-ball him into taking $4 mil. instead. Boldin didn't bite... Bc