Why The Colts will Win A SB Within 5 Years

[Jules]

Brady is on his final year of his contract too. Heh.

 

I get where the OP is coming from in terms of the general landscape of the current AFC in terms of quality of competitions/money tied up at QB/age of the best two QBs.

 

We have to keep building upon what we currently got though in order to break on through to the other side......yeah.

[Superman]

I don't even remember what our issue was with the 60 mill contract Brady signed way back then. First of all the market is so much higher now than then. Secondly it's now such a QB driven league that teams can't even think about contending for a SB without a top notch QB.

 

As far as how you view Flacco , I'm won't even bother to debate you on that. I do know that the Ravens should have beat the Pats last year as well as this year. The guy has played well in the playoffs .. no question about that. Is he a top 3-4 QB or what ever it is that you consider "elite ? " It doesn't matter as far as our discussion goes. You say he gets around 6 years 65 mill. I say minimum of 17 mill a year. I said in another post in this thread "when is the last time you saw a QB lose one of these negotiation battles. " So I'll stick with the statement that I'm 100% sure that he gets far more than 12-13 mill a year. 17 min and maybe close to the 20. Not saying good deal , bad deal , fair or stupid deal. He's going to get his money.

 

I also said that I can't remember the last time the "transition tag " was used in this type situation. I think you are confused big time on how the transition tag works. Were you around when the Colts put it on Quentin Coryatt ? Pretty sure they used it on him and ended up matching the Jags offer sheet. Anyway , here is how that tag works...

 

 

 

• A transition player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no compensation. Transition players can be signed from March 3 through July 22."

 

Board software is acting up. I just lost my response. Ugh.

 

1) The Brady contract isn't relevant as far as value. My point was that the quarterback with the most postseason success in the league at that point, fresh off three Super Bowl wins in four years, still wasn't made the highest paid player in the league. If Flacco is looking for $20m/year, he doesn't really have precedent to demand that, nor do I think he has the leverage. I'm not suggesting the Ravens would consider letting him walk, but I do think they can balk at that particular request.

 

2) I suggested Flacco should get six years, $75m. Would make him 9th highest paid quarterback in the league, pending Vick's release/renegotiation. Maybe he wants to be top five, which puts him into the $15m/year range. I do think that's too high for a player of his caliber, but that's still a far cry from $20m/year. Perhaps you're being more pragmatic than I am. I'm just saying that I don't think Flacco should be one of the highest paid players in the league. His resume doesn't support that kind of demand. There's no way he'd get that kind of offer in an open market.

 

3) The transition tag as it existed in 1995 has no bearing on the transition tag now. I believe your quoted excerpt is outdated. There's no link, so I couldn't trace it back, but it says the tagging team has 7 days to match an offer sheet. The CBA states 5 days, with special language in there pertaining to the draft.

 

4) I always confuse the transition tag with the RFA tags; that's where I got the draft pick compensation from. As far as I can tell, there's no draft pick compensation with the transition tag. (See Article 9 and Article 10) http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf

 

5) It's still a viable option, however. The CBA uses pretty broad language to nullify any poison pills, so a team signing a transition tagged player can't stipulate that his contract value doubles if he plays more than ten games in Baltimore (essentially what the Vikings did with Steve Hutchinson way back when). And the tagging team has five days to match any offer sheet. If they decline to match, the player leaves, and the team gets nothing more than a potential compensatory pick in the next year's draft. But with the poison pill gone, I think the transition tag can become a more useful tool.

 

More about the practicality of the Ravens using the transition tag on Flacco, there's no better way to determine a player's true market value than to let him hit the market. And unlike the exclusive tag, the transition tag has the potential to be converted into a long term contract without the exclusive negotiations. You basically let another team work out the terms of the deal, and then you match them. As I said earlier, the market won't bear $17-20m/year for Flacco (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am).

 

If you use the exclusive tag, you then go back into your bunker and wait for negotiations to be fruitful. And if you don't reach terms, then he plays the year on the tag, and you do it again next year. Only it costs you more money.

 

If the Ravens are really willing to pay him $20m/year or something close to it, then there's really no downside to the transition tag. If he signs an offer sheet, you match it, and now you have a long term deal. If he doesn't sign an offer sheet, you still have until July 15 to negotiate a long term deal.

 

And setting aside the transition tag, they can still use the exclusive tag at $15m. And if they don't reach terms before free agency starts, they absolutely will tag him.

[dw49]

Board software is acting up. I just lost my response. Ugh.

 

1) The Brady contract isn't relevant as far as value. My point was that the quarterback with the most postseason success in the league at that point, fresh off three Super Bowl wins in four years, still wasn't made the highest paid player in the league. If Flacco is looking for $20m/year, he doesn't really have precedent to demand that, nor do I think he has the leverage. I'm not suggesting the Ravens would consider letting him walk, but I do think they can balk at that particular request.

 

2) I suggested Flacco should get six years, $75m. Would make him 9th highest paid quarterback in the league, pending Vick's release/renegotiation. Maybe he wants to be top five, which puts him into the $15m/year range. I do think that's too high for a player of his caliber, but that's still a far cry from $20m/year. Perhaps you're being more pragmatic than I am. I'm just saying that I don't think Flacco should be one of the highest paid players in the league. His resume doesn't support that kind of demand. There's no way he'd get that kind of offer in an open market.

 

3) The transition tag as it existed in 1995 has no bearing on the transition tag now. I believe your quoted excerpt is outdated. There's no link, so I couldn't trace it back, but it says the tagging team has 7 days to match an offer sheet. The CBA states 5 days, with special language in there pertaining to the draft.

 

4) I always confuse the transition tag with the RFA tags; that's where I got the draft pick compensation from. As far as I can tell, there's no draft pick compensation with the transition tag. (See Article 9 and Article 10) http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf

 

5) It's still a viable option, however. The CBA uses pretty broad language to nullify any poison pills, so a team signing a transition tagged player can't stipulate that his contract value doubles if he plays more than ten games in Baltimore (essentially what the Vikings did with Steve Hutchinson way back when). And the tagging team has five days to match any offer sheet. If they decline to match, the player leaves, and the team gets nothing more than a potential compensatory pick in the next year's draft. But with the poison pill gone, I think the transition tag can become a more useful tool.

 

More about the practicality of the Ravens using the transition tag on Flacco, there's no better way to determine a player's true market value than to let him hit the market. And unlike the exclusive tag, the transition tag has the potential to be converted into a long term contract without the exclusive negotiations. You basically let another team work out the terms of the deal, and then you match them. As I said earlier, the market won't bear $17-20m/year for Flacco (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am).

 

If you use the exclusive tag, you then go back into your bunker and wait for negotiations to be fruitful. And if you don't reach terms, then he plays the year on the tag, and you do it again next year. Only it costs you more money.

 

If the Ravens are really willing to pay him $20m/year or something close to it, then there's really no downside to the transition tag. If he signs an offer sheet, you match it, and now you have a long term deal. If he doesn't sign an offer sheet, you still have until July 15 to negotiate a long term deal.

 

And setting aside the transition tag, they can still use the exclusive tag at $15m. And if they don't reach terms before free agency starts, they absolutely will tag him.

 

 

My major point as far as the transition tag was that there is no compensation. I was just checking to make sure and posted the link I found. I don't think the length a team has to match the offer has much to do with our dicussion. I could have just said 'they don't get compensation." In any event , the reason teams don't use that tag much is that it really doesn't accomplish much other than have teams throw offers at the guy you want to keep. If the Ravens are sure that his market value is far less than what he's asking for might make this option make a little sense. However , the offer they might have to match could really cause havok with their cap , while it might not be viewed as a "poison pill. "

 

That Brady contract in 2005 still made him one of the NFLs highest paid players. It should also be noted that it voided the last two years of his existing contract. That has a pretty big effect on getting a discount. This is how GB managede to wrap Rodgers up somewhat under market value. Players have to sacfrifice a bit if they want to ditch an existing deal for a more lucrative new one. 

 

 

Anway , when he signs the deal for 17 mill or more , are you going to claim you were right anyway and say he would have never received that on the open market ? Not trying to be a wise guy , just rying t understand your position here. If that's the case , then I'll say Ozzie Newsome has been nothing short of brillient in his stay at balt. He is no fool. He is not going to put the franchise tag on Flacco for 15.5 mill nd then sign him to a long ter deal for 17+ mill if his market value is 12-13 mill has you contend. If that's the case , he'll absolutey use the tag that let's teams negotiate with Flacco. It's cheaper and it would prove to he Flacco side that their demands are not realistic. I'll stick to my guns and say I'll be shocked if they don't use the more expensive (exclusive) Franchise tag.

 

If I'm wrong about this , I would like to be called the forum donkey.

[Superman]

My major point as far as the transition tag was that there is no compensation. I was just checking to make sure and posted the link I found. I don't think the length a team has to match the offer has much to do with our dicussion. I could have just said 'they don't get compensation." In any event , the reason teams don't use that tag much is that it really doesn't accomplish much other than have teams throw offers at the guy you want to keep. If the Ravens are sure that his market value is far less than what he's asking for might make this option make a little sense. However , the offer they might have to match could really cause havok with their cap , while it might not be viewed as a "poison pill. "

 

That Brady contract in 2005 still made him one of the NFLs highest paid players. It should also be noted that it voided the last two years of his existing contract. That has a pretty big effect on getting a discount. This is how GB managede to wrap Rodgers up somewhat under market value. Players have to sacfrifice a bit if they want to ditch an existing deal for a more lucrative new one. 

 

 

Anway , when he signs the deal for 17 mill or more , are you going to claim you were right anyway and say he would have never received that on the open market ? Not trying to be a wise guy , just rying t understand your position here. If that's the case , then I'll say Ozzie Newsome has been nothing short of brillient in his stay at balt. He is no fool. He is not going to put the franchise tag on Flacco for 15.5 mill nd then sign him to a long ter deal for 17+ mill if his market value is 12-13 mill has you contend. If that's the case , he'll absolutey use the tag that let's teams negotiate with Flacco. It's cheaper and it would prove to he Flacco side that their demands are not realistic. I'll stick to my guns and say I'll be shocked if they don't use the more expensive (exclusive) Franchise tag.

 

If I'm wrong about this , I would like to be called the forum donkey.

 

1) The offer sheet could be frontloaded in a way that makes it difficult for the Ravens to absorb the cap hit in 2013. I don't think that would be considered a poison pill. That's a good point.

 

2) I don't really agree that the player is sacrificing anything by agreeing to a contract that voids the final year or two of the current contract. Technically, they're sacrificing their free agency, but in Brady's case, that was still two years away. He got a raise in those two years. It could be argued that he sacrificed money in the three years after before the current extension was done in 2010. But he still got a significant pay increase and some guaranteed money.

 

3) I'm not interested in being right. If Flacco signs for $17m/year, regardless of the mechanics, I'll think it's ridiculous. I don't think he'd get that on the open market; I think the only team that he's anywhere near that valuable to is the Ravens.

 

4) As you say, the franchise tag is usually not a tenable option for the team. Look at Manning in 2011, or Brees in 2012. Neither team wanted to carry the player with a $23m cap hit for one season. Both eventual long term deals significantly reduced that Year 1 cap hit, and both came in at a lower yearly average. That's why I think it's more favorable for the Ravens, even the exclusive tag, than just caving to Flacco's demands for $20m/year. They can tag him this year at $15m, then tag him again in 2014 at $21.6m, and they'd still have paid him less than $20m/year. That's why I said the team has the leverage in this case.

 

It's much more likely that they use the exclusive tag, as it precludes any other team from messing with their cap management or driving Flacco's price up (the Bengals have a ton of cap space, they could offer Flacco $25m/year, knowing the Ravens would match). You're right about all of that. I just think that, in Flacco's case, it might be worth the risk of letting him negotiate with other teams, and then you're not paying him $17-20m/year solely in the name of paying your quarterback top three money. Like I said, I don't think his resume supports these demands.

[dw49]

1) The offer sheet could be frontloaded in a way that makes it difficult for the Ravens to absorb the cap hit in 2013. I don't think that would be considered a poison pill. That's a good point.

 

2) I don't really agree that the player is sacrificing anything by agreeing to a contract that voids the final year or two of the current contract. Technically, they're sacrificing their free agency, but in Brady's case, that was still two years away. He got a raise in those two years. It could be argued that he sacrificed money in the three years after before the current extension was done in 2010. But he still got a significant pay increase and some guaranteed money.

 

3) I'm not interested in being right. If Flacco signs for $17m/year, regardless of the mechanics, I'll think it's ridiculous. I don't think he'd get that on the open market; I think the only team that he's anywhere near that valuable to is the Ravens.

 

4) As you say, the franchise tag is usually not a tenable option for the team. Look at Manning in 2011, or Brees in 2012. Neither team wanted to carry the player with a $23m cap hit for one season. Both eventual long term deals significantly reduced that Year 1 cap hit, and both came in at a lower yearly average. That's why I think it's more favorable for the Ravens, even the exclusive tag, than just caving to Flacco's demands for $20m/year. They can tag him this year at $15m, then tag him again in 2014 at $21.6m, and they'd still have paid him less than $20m/year. That's why I said the team has the leverage in this case.

 

It's much more likely that they use the exclusive tag, as it precludes any other team from messing with their cap management or driving Flacco's price up (the Bengals have a ton of cap space, they could offer Flacco $25m/year, knowing the Ravens would match). You're right about all of that. I just think that, in Flacco's case, it might be worth the risk of letting him negotiate with other teams, and then you're not paying him $17-20m/year solely in the name of paying your quarterback top three money. Like I said, I don't think his resume supports these demands.

 

 

2) I think we actually agree on the Brady contract. My point was that he may have signed a more lucrative deal if the 2005 contract didn't void the last two years of an existung contract. Thats what I was trying tosay anyway.. maybe I wasn't clear or maybe Im not understanding when you say .... It could be argued that he sacrificed money in the three years after before the current extension was done in 2010. But he still got a significant pay increase and some guaranteed money.

 

4) You might be right about all that. One could argue that he outplayed Brady twice in the 2 games that mattered most. He has won more road plaoff games than anyone else ... and he's still in his first deal. It should be researched how many road playoff games guys like Montana , Bradshaw and Brady played. I don't feel like doing it but those teams were good so probably most playoff games were home. In any event , I'm not saying where Flacco falls in today's QB ratings. Maybe you are right and it equates to a lower figure than 17-20 mill. Maybe your not right on that ... dunno. What I do know is in today's game , Flacco has almost all the leverage and the Ravens are going to wish they locked him uo last year at around 13-14 mill per year. I'll ask one more time to anyone out there. When is the last time an NFL team "won" the negotiations with even a better than average QB ? 

[buccolts]

As long as the Colts are the only team to improve over the next 5 years, I suppose Flacco's contract could have an impact on the Colts winning it during that period.

 

However, what everyone seems to be over-looking is Flacco's REAL influence in us winning the SB real soon.

 

If the Ravens win the SB this year, we only need to scheme to make sure two things happen:

- a media type asks Andrew if he thinks he's an elite QB in the NFL.

- Andrew says yes.

 

Eli did it last year.

Flacco would have done it this year.

It's a trend.

[Qwiz]

As long as the Colts are the only team to improve over the next 5 years, I suppose Flacco's contract could have an impact on the Colts winning it during that period.

 

However, what everyone seems to be over-looking is Flacco's REAL influence in us winning the SB real soon.

 

If the Ravens win the SB this year, we only need to scheme to make sure two things happen:

- a media type asks Andrew if he thinks he's an elite QB in the NFL.

- Andrew says yes.

 

Eli did it last year.

Flacco would have done it this year.

It's a trend.

Nah, Schaub is next in line. 12 can do it in 2014 though.

[Vance]

I'm Elite, Says Joe

Gets His Team To Super Bowl

A. Luck? Slow Your Roll

[buccolts]

Nah, Schaub is next in line. 12 can do it in 2014 though.

 

Perhaps, but Schaub has to be asked the question first,

Then he has to answer it properly.

If not, back of the line.    

[Qwiz]

Perhaps, but Schaub has to be asked the question first,

Then he has to answer it properly.

If not, back of the line.    

And knowing Schaub he will mess up answering the question...alright, you're right, Luck's next

[buccolts]

And knowing Schaub he will mess up answering the question...alright, you're right, Luck's next

 

I don't know. Andrew may need prepping first.

Without it, I can see him answering the question something like 'Yeah, well, I don't know. I don't really get into comparing myself to other QBs. It's not fair to anyone. It's really hard. So, yeah, no'.

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

We have Andrew Luck for the next 4 years at around 5 million per year. Here is an example of what some of the good teams are now facing....

 

 

 

 NFL Network's Ian Rapoport reported on Total AccessMonday night that Joe Flacco intends to target more money than Peyton Manning in contract talks with the Ravens.

Per Rapoport, Flacco and the Ravens will resume negotiations immediately after the Super Bowl. "I'm told his camp believes he is playing better than Peyton Manning," Rapoport reported. "Manning makes ($19.2M) a year; expect them to shoot higher than that." The $20 million-per-year figure is clearly Flacco's goal. The Ravens ought to be kicking themselves for not locking up Flacco when his asking price was more reasonable late last offseason.

 

 

 

 

LOL  Clearly the kool-aid  is spiked with pyschadelics in baltimore , I will say this Joe Flacco is better than Jim Sorgi  &  Dan Orlovsky   Maybe if he wants big money he needs a commercial say a Kool-Aid commercial, He can wear a suit and bust thru the fence with a pitcher full . Or a Depends commercial he is definetly full of it .

[Malakai432]

I didn't take this article clip seriously after I read flaco wants more then manning .. Not even close to te same caliber player .. One good seasons Dosent put you in league with one of the best qbs every .

If Flacco thinks he's the best QB in the league he may just target that much.

[FalseStart]

Lock up the O-Line and defense... 2 SBs might be a possibility. 

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

First off  Joe Flacco is a newer more accurate  Trent Dilfer only without the ring  & a slighty better arm .

 

Now the OP was how & why I think the Colts  will win a SB in the next 5 years , I do believe ??? I'll give it a shot ,

 

I was pretty happy with Bruce Arians & the deep passes but with the O-line we had Andrew Luck took way to much abuse .

 

Ryan Grigson will fix & acquire the offensive line personnel to implement Pep Hamilton's WCO , The Run game will be reborn in Indy , power running down the throat of the defense , with some dink & dunk passing Tom Brady style with the long ball always available . For me its the new OC who with the drive & determination & knowledge of the game as well as his star student #12 with some great up and coming young offensive players that will win it for the Colts . Fresh faced & eager to make there mark .

 

As alway's Offense draws crowds - Defense wins games .  It rings in my head every year . Our 2006 defense was the worst regular season D to win a SB , It won't happen again . Unless we want the Andrew Luck era full of early outs in the playoffs .

 

So the running game on both sides of the ball fixed . Chuck Pagano IMO will field a defense worthy of a playoff berth with new secondary & a couple of new OLB'ers  . Colts win the SB in 2 years .

[JWF]

Flacco is better t

First off  Joe Flacco is a newer more accurate  Trent Dilfer only without the ring  & a slighty better arm .

Flacco is much better than Dilfer ever was and Flacco has a chance to move himself up into the crop of the best young QBs in the game. Dilfer was barely a serviceable QB who just happen to have one of, if not the greatest defenses in NFL history carrying him to a ring.

The Ravens defense on this year's team is no where close to what they've been in the past. Flacco absolutely was a huge part of their run this year.

He isnt Peyton Manning but he's a good QB. He deserves to be paid but not 20 million.

[Superman]

4) You might be right about all that. One could argue that he outplayed Brady twice in the 2 games that mattered most. He has won more road plaoff games than anyone else ... and he's still in his first deal. It should be researched how many road playoff games guys like Montana , Bradshaw and Brady played. I don't feel like doing it but those teams were good so probably most playoff games were home. In any event , I'm not saying where Flacco falls in today's QB ratings. Maybe you are right and it equates to a lower figure than 17-20 mill. Maybe your not right on that ... dunno. What I do know is in today's game , Flacco has almost all the leverage and the Ravens are going to wish they locked him uo last year at around 13-14 mill per year. I'll ask one more time to anyone out there. When is the last time an NFL team "won" the negotiations with even a better than average QB ? 

 

He did outplay Brady in two big games, no question in my mind. But he's not as good as Brady, despite those results. I don't think anyone would say he is. And he has won a lot of playoff games on the road, but he's also played on a pretty good team his entire career. I pointed out in another thread how he has a road playoff win in a game where he was 4/10 for 38 yards and a pick. So I'm not one who thinks his record -- to the positive or the negative -- should dictate where he falls in the QB hierarchy.

 

Of course, my opinion isn't really relevant. You're right; he's going to get his money. I just don't think he's worthy of top five QB money, and certainly not top two QB money (Drew Brees is the highest paid quarterback, at $20m/year).

 

Flacco certainly has more leverage now than he did last year. The Ravens probably should have locked him up then, but I didn't think he was worth $13-14m/year then either. And now, it seems like a discount to a lot of people.

 

Speaking to your question about a team "winning" these negotiations, that's a hard question to answer. I think the Packers "won" with Aaron Rodgers, but that was a unique situation. They hadn't even won a playoff game with him yet; they won the Super Bowl two seasons later. But, in my mind, he was already a better quarterback then than Flacco is now. His numbers were certainly better.

 

Brees and Manning wound up getting what they wanted from the Saints and Colts, but the teams' use of the franchise tag certainly held those numbers down. Bud Adams reportedly was willing to offer Manning $25m/year after his injury. Imagine if the Saints didn't franchise Brees, what kind of offers he might have gotten from the Titans, Dolphins, Cardinals, etc. It's hard to define a "win" for the team in this case, but the tag certainly helped their cause. And that's why I think the Ravens will tag Flacco, and take every day they can -- just like the Saints did -- to finalize a long term deal. Maybe it won't be a "win"; maybe they still give up $17m/year or more, but the tag will help. And if it were me, I think I'd use the transition tag in Flacco's case for the extra impetus.

[John Dee]

The Ravens could have had Flacco locked up any time in the last year for 12-14m per...   But Noooo...    Now they get to pay top dollar for his services.   hehehe...   Danged if you do,...  danged if you don't...   And I do not think he is worth top dollar QB money.

 

Heck I am happy Balt is under the gun money wise ... they have some attractive players that will want paid and afte Balt pays Flacco they will be near the cap limit.     They are going to lose some nice talent.

 

I would not be surprised at all to see a couple of Ellerbe (LB), Kruger (LB), Williams (CB), or Jones (DE) wearing Colt unis nest seaason.     Maybe All????

 

Ed Reed?   if the price is right...     but someone will vastly over pay for his services.

[ColtsBTM12]

The way they shocked so many people this year by going 11-5 after the 2-14 2011 campaign, why not win it all in the next 5 years. They have a great future with lots of young talent. I am just really exited to see what the Colts do this off season. Grigson will be agressive in free agency

[southwest1]

Ed Reed?   if the price is right...     but someone will vastly over pay for his services.

Can you say NE & Bill Belichick?   

 

http://youtu.be/zrWIuXkF90Q

 

http://youtu.be/8uOUkQWyRPg

[John Dee]

Yep, I think NE will definately make a strong run at him.

[southwest1]

Yep, I think NE will definately make a strong run at him.

Bill Belichick would go bananas if he got ED Reed.  Their secondary would dramatically improve for the better almost overnight & turnovers will skyrocket too. 

[John Dee]

Bill Belichick would go bananas if he got ED Reed.  Their secondary would dramatically improve for the better almost overnight & turnovers will skyrocket too. 

If NE were to add a Ed Reed and another pass rusher....     "FREENEY"???

 

They become an instantly better team.      And they are really good now.    Too bad they lost their starting CB and S in the first Q of the Raven game.     Oh and Gronk not being able to play.......  AGAIN.  I think he would have helped in those red zone trips.

 

The Ravens are just a very lucky team right now.     Every break is going their way.

 

But.. as a wise man once said....  "I'd rather be LUCKy than good" ...  

[willysp]

Flacco is better tFlacco is much better than Dilfer ever was and Flacco has a chance to move himself up into the crop of the best young QBs in the game. Dilfer was barely a serviceable QB who just happen to have one of, if not the greatest defenses in NFL history carrying him to a ring.

The Ravens defense on this year's team is no where close to what they've been in the past. Flacco absolutely was a huge part of their run this year.

He isnt Peyton Manning but he's a good QB. He deserves to be paid but not 20 million.

There is not a single jock in the known universe that deserves anything even remotely close to $20M per year. It would have taken my dad 400 years of hard work to earn that kind of money.

But, I am grateful to fans who are willing to pay this kind of silly $ so that I can watch from home for free.

[JWF]

There is not a single jock in the known universe that deserves anything even remotely close to $20M per year. It would have taken my dad 400 years of hard work to earn that kind of money.

But, I am grateful to fans who are willing to pay this kind of silly $ so that I can watch from home for free.

Define deserves....its like you said...people will pay to go to the games. Teams will pay to keep the QB there to keep people coming to the games.

As long as youre not doing illegal or morally questionable tactics to leverage your position, then you should go after every dollar someone is willing to pay you. You'd be a fool not to. As long as fans are willing to keep paying the increasing ticket and merchandise prices then there is no reason for the NFL not to keep asking for those prices and for the players to ask for large salaries.

[dw49]

He did outplay Brady in two big games, no question in my mind. But he's not as good as Brady, despite those results. I don't think anyone would say he is. And he has won a lot of playoff games on the road, but he's also played on a pretty good team his entire career. I pointed out in another thread how he has a road playoff win in a game where he was 4/10 for 38 yards and a pick. So I'm not one who thinks his record -- to the positive or the negative -- should dictate where he falls in the QB hierarchy.

 

Of course, my opinion isn't really relevant. You're right; he's going to get his money. I just don't think he's worthy of top five QB money, and certainly not top two QB money (Drew Brees is the highest paid quarterback, at $20m/year).

 

Flacco certainly has more leverage now than he did last year. The Ravens probably should have locked him up then, but I didn't think he was worth $13-14m/year then either. And now, it seems like a discount to a lot of people.

 

Speaking to your question about a team "winning" these negotiations, that's a hard question to answer. I think the Packers "won" with Aaron Rodgers, but that was a unique situation. They hadn't even won a playoff game with him yet; they won the Super Bowl two seasons later. But, in my mind, he was already a better quarterback then than Flacco is now. His numbers were certainly better.

 

Brees and Manning wound up getting what they wanted from the Saints and Colts, but the teams' use of the franchise tag certainly held those numbers down. Bud Adams reportedly was willing to offer Manning $25m/year after his injury. Imagine if the Saints didn't franchise Brees, what kind of offers he might have gotten from the Titans, Dolphins, Cardinals, etc. It's hard to define a "win" for the team in this case, but the tag certainly helped their cause. And that's why I think the Ravens will tag Flacco, and take every day they can -- just like the Saints did -- to finalize a long term deal. Maybe it won't be a "win"; maybe they still give up $17m/year or more, but the tag will help. And if it were me, I think I'd use the transition tag in Flacco's case for the extra impetus.

 

 

 

Lol.. we are going back and forth and we really mostly agree. In my case , I thought you were the poster that said Flacco would end up with a 6 year deal at about 75 mill. As I look , that was another poster.So I was trying to convey to you that you wre dead wrong about that number. I think you agree that he more than likely is going to get a min of 17 mill. On the other hand you are trying to say that I think he deserves 20 mill a year and he was as good as Brady. Never said that , all Ive done is state the case he has for the big contract. To be perfectly honest , I really don't have a strong opinion on just how good he is. I don't feel he is a top 4QB (Brady Manning Rodgers and Brees) . Is he there with Rothlesbuger ? Dunno and really don't care. As far as he Rodgers deal , if you look back , and If I were you , I wouldn't bother ... I did mention this case as maybe where the team one. But as I pointed out and you make reference to ... Rodgers voided the last two years of a 5 year 7.7 million $ contract. So he pretty much had to take a deal that guaranteed probably 15+ mill rather than play out 2 years at a base of around 1.5 mill per season. Plus I don't think Rodgers was "lights out " when he signed this deal. I think (coud be wrong here) he had one very nice year before signing that deal.  If he waited a year , probably hugely different. But thgen again , what if he had a crap year or tore a knee up waiting that year.Really a "win - win" deal when it was done. Someone always get's he better end of a deal like that but in the end Rodgers will make up for it.  Anyway , I'm thinking we are both in agreement that Flacco gets his.

[dw49]

Just for the record here's how the guy that has to pay Flacco says things were and are. So if the quote is accurate , many in this thread were way off as far as what is value was , what he was offered last year and what is value is now.... according to the guy writting the check.  Could say that Ozzie Newsome is stupid enough to even suggest that the Ravens would have offered that kind of maney last year if his value was only 10-11 mill. Nor is he dumb enough to give 20 this year if his value is 12-13 mill. 

 

 

 

According to CBS' Jason La Canfora, Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti acknowledges impending free agent Joe Flacco "boosted his leverage" this season, and that his upcoming extension will "probably cost (Baltimore) a couple players."

Bisciotti says the Ravens offered Flacco an annual $16 million "or so" before the season, but sounds resigned to the fact he's going to push for $20 million or more this winter. Some of the players Flacco could "cost" the Ravens are impending free agents CB Cary Williams and OLB Paul Kruger, and perhaps even veteran wideout Anquan Boldin.

 

[Godeepreggie]

The ravens will have to overpay for flacco he is really really solid but not an elite qb but he now has all the leverage

[dw49]

The ravens will have to overpay for flacco he is really really solid but not an elite qb but he now has all the leverage

 

 

This" leverage" thing, IMO ,is really over stated. Most teams over pay to keep their good players and also over pay signing free agents. Very few teams have a great QB sitting on the bench . That would be the only way a very good QB would not have the "leverage" after playing out his contract. Maybe you could make a case for a team with a very bad roster figuring they can't win even if their QB resigns. But chances are some team like Minn. ,Cleve or KC might give him a huge contract anyway. This is the nature of the NFL. The "bar" is always being reset. It's either done by say a guy like Rodgers being extended for maybe 23 mill per year or a guy like Flacco getting Drew Brees money when he is a notch below Brees. 

[04DarkShadowGT]

I hope Baltimore cuts Boldin, he is a beast, would love him in Indy.

 

 

Oh and to those saying Flacco isnt elite, dude just won the SB while throwing 10 or so tds and zero picks.  That is elite my friends.  Manning has never done that.

[JWF]

I hope Baltimore cuts Boldin, he is a beast, would love him in Indy.

 

 

Oh and to those saying Flacco isnt elite, dude just won the SB while throwing 10 or so tds and zero picks.  That is elite my friends.  Manning has never done that.

I wouldnt rush to say he's "elite" just yet. He's had an incredible playoff run but consistency is the key to being elite. I do think, and already thought he was one of the better younger QBs in the league (like top 5 of the young guns). He's certainly bolstered his case.

Btw he had 11 TDs and 0 INTs and tied Montana and Kurt Warner for most TDs in a single post season.

Baltimore pretty much is going to have to pay him elite money now though because Flacco has all the leverage (won them a SB and will cost alot even if they franchise tag him and they cant afford to let him walk).

This bodes well for the Colts.

[Malakai432]

As long as youre not doing illegal or morally questionable tactics to leverage your position, then you should go after every dollar someone is willing to pay you.

What people percieve as being immoral and questionable are all in the eyes of the beholder. There have been many people who have gained wealth and fortune by doing things that people may not perceive as being right but yet they were within the boundary of laws. I'm not sure how much that applies with regards to football though.

Hence Hugh Hefner!

[JWF]

What people percieve as being immoral and questionable are all in the eyes of the beholder. There have been many people who have gained wealth and fortune by doing things that people may not perceive as being right but yet they were within the boundary of laws. I'm not sure how much that applies with regards to football though.

Hence Hugh Hefner!

Very true.

But I guess my point was is the NFL is pretty transparent. They arent like alot of big banks and other shady business that strategically attempt to hide information about their products or services (IE small print clauses, hidden fees, etc...) to make an extra buck.

NFL Ticket prices and merchandise prices are about as transparent as air and yet people still pay it. The NFL will and should keep charging those prices as long as people keep lining up to pay it.

[Malakai432]

Very true.

But I guess my point was is the NFL is pretty transparent. They arent like alot of big banks and other shady business that strategically attempt to hide information about their products or services (IE small print clauses, hidden fees, etc...) to make an extra buck.

NFL Ticket prices and merchandise prices are about as transparent as air and yet people still pay it. The NFL will and should keep charging those prices as long as people keep lining up to pay it.

You got that right!!! I've paid a lot for memorabilia... Much of what I buy is based on how much that buyer wants to pay for it though. I don't have many jerseys, typical merchandise.

[Superman]

I hope Baltimore cuts Boldin, he is a beast, would love him in Indy.

 

 

Oh and to those saying Flacco isnt elite, dude just won the SB while throwing 10 or so tds and zero picks.  That is elite my friends.  Manning has never done that.

 

He actually threw 11 touchdowns this postseason. He played at an elite level level during significant moments this year in the playoffs, and he deserves major credit for that. I'm not trying to sell him short. 

 

But four games in the playoffs doesn't outweigh the past four months of mediocrity, and it certainly doesn't outweigh the past five years of his career. Winning the Super Bowl is awesome, and I'm happy for him. He really played well. But having an elite postseason doesn't make you an elite quarterback. Sorry.

[Superman]

Just for the record here's how the guy that has to pay Flacco says things were and are. So if the quote is accurate , many in this thread were way off as far as what is value was , what he was offered last year and what is value is now.... according to the guy writting the check.  Could say that Ozzie Newsome is stupid enough to even suggest that the Ravens would have offered that kind of maney last year if his value was only 10-11 mill. Nor is he dumb enough to give 20 this year if his value is 12-13 mill. 

 

 

 

According to CBS' Jason La Canfora, Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti acknowledges impending free agent Joe Flacco "boosted his leverage" this season, and that his upcoming extension will "probably cost (Baltimore) a couple players."

Bisciotti says the Ravens offered Flacco an annual $16 million "or so" before the season, but sounds resigned to the fact he's going to push for $20 million or more this winter. Some of the players Flacco could "cost" the Ravens are impending free agents CB Cary Williams and OLB Paul Kruger, and perhaps even veteran wideout Anquan Boldin.

 

 

 

The more I read and the more I hear, I'm starting to believe that Flacco will get his $20m/year. I don't think he should, and I definitely don't think he'd command that in free agency. And to reiterate what I said before, if I were the Ravens I consider tagging him (probably exclusive at this point, $15m in 2013) and wait it out. Even if he plays 2013 under the tag, and has a great year, you got a one year discount. The problem with tagging him is that it probably costs the Ravens more cap space in 2013, and they're already in cap trouble.

 

But being realistic, it's looking like he'll get what he wants. I wouldn't be surprised at this point to see six years, $120m, with $50m in guaranteed money over the first three years. And that contract is going to the take the quarterback market through the roof over the next three years, eventually costing the Colts a fortune when Luck's contract is being negotiated. There's still Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Colin Kaepernick. Maybe Sam Bradford, Josh Freeman, Cam Newton. And I'm probably leaving out five or six guys who belong in this discussion.

[Dustin]

I hope Baltimore cuts Boldin, he is a beast, would love him in Indy.

 

 

Oh and to those saying Flacco isnt elite, dude just won the SB while throwing 10 or so tds and zero picks.  That is elite my friends.  Manning has never done that.

 

A 4 game stretch doesn't make up for 5 years of mediocrity.

[Balzer40]

A 4 game stretch doesn't make up for 5 years of mediocrity.

 

 

I agree 100% and it goes to show how little many really pay attention. Boldin has been a forgotten memory of good WR's since he was traded from Arizona. 

[dw49]

The more I read and the more I hear, I'm starting to believe that Flacco will get his $20m/year. I don't think he should, and I definitely don't think he'd command that in free agency. And to reiterate what I said before, if I were the Ravens I consider tagging him (probably exclusive at this point, $15m in 2013) and wait it out. Even if he plays 2013 under the tag, and has a great year, you got a one year discount. The problem with tagging him is that it probably costs the Ravens more cap space in 2013, and they're already in cap trouble.

 

But being realistic, it's looking like he'll get what he wants. I wouldn't be surprised at this point to see six years, $120m, with $50m in guaranteed money over the first three years. And that contract is going to the take the quarterback market through the roof over the next three years, eventually costing the Colts a fortune when Luck's contract is being negotiated. There's still Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Colin Kaepernick. Maybe Sam Bradford, Josh Freeman, Cam Newton. And I'm probably leaving out five or six guys who belong in this discussion.

 

 

For sure he's going tgo get his 20 mill if he was offered 17 last year. This is one of the two ways the "bar is raised." You have a guy a notch below say the top 4 QBs getting the same money. So the next elite guy to sign a new contract sets the "new bar." Probably it will be Aaron Rodgers and the starting figure is now way over 20 mill as Flacco gets that. I'm sure that Rodgers agent won't consider a new contract until Flacco's numers come in. As far as the question of how big a contract he deserves , I think there are two sides to that one. He doesn't put up elite numbers year in and year out , but he performs very . very , very well in big games. 

 

Here's something I found in pro football talk. We were figuring around 15 mill to franchise Flacco . Could it be more ?

 

 

From PFT....

 

 

 

Now, it’s a no-brainer that the Ravens will apply the franchise tag to Flacco, if the two sides can’t work out a long-term deal soon.  But if the Ravens win the Super Bowl and if Flacco has a big game, the Ravens would be taking a huge risk by using the non-exclusive version of the tag, since a quarterback-needy and cap-rich team could be very tempted to give up two first-round picks for a crack at Flacco.

So the Ravens may have to use the exclusive version of the franchise tag, which would prevent him from talking to other teams and which would pay Flacco the average of the five highest quarterback cap numbers for the 2013 league year.  The tentative numbers are, according to a source with access to the information, $21.55 million for Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, $20.82 million for Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford, $20.35 million for Giants quarterback Eli Manning, $20 million for Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning, and $19.6 million for Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.

That equates to an average of $20.464 million.But here’s the caveat.  Restructurings aimed at reducing those cap numbers would drop the average, pulling Flacco’s exclusive franchise tender lower.  Still, the final number will be significantly higher than $14.6 million, and the higher number will be the starting point for talks on a long-term deal.

[Superman]

For sure he's going tgo get his 20 mill if he was offered 17 last year. This is one of the two ways the "bar is raised." You have a guy a notch below say the top 4 QBs getting the same money. So the next elite guy to sign a new contract sets the "new bar." Probably it will be Aaron Rodgers and the starting figure is now way over 20 mill as Flacco gets that. I'm sure that Rodgers agent won't consider a new contract until Flacco's numers come in. As far as the question of how big a contract he deserves , I think there are two sides to that one. He doesn't put up elite numbers year in and year out , but he performs very . very , very well in big games. 

 

Here's something I found in pro football talk. We were figuring around 15 mill to franchise Flacco . Could it be more ?

 

 

From PFT....

 

 

 

Now, it’s a no-brainer that the Ravens will apply the franchise tag to Flacco, if the two sides can’t work out a long-term deal soon.  But if the Ravens win the Super Bowl and if Flacco has a big game, the Ravens would be taking a huge risk by using the non-exclusive version of the tag, since a quarterback-needy and cap-rich team could be very tempted to give up two first-round picks for a crack at Flacco.

So the Ravens may have to use the exclusive version of the franchise tag, which would prevent him from talking to other teams and which would pay Flacco the average of the five highest quarterback cap numbers for the 2013 league year.  The tentative numbers are, according to a source with access to the information, $21.55 million for Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, $20.82 million for Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford, $20.35 million for Giants quarterback Eli Manning, $20 million for Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning, and $19.6 million for Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.

That equates to an average of $20.464 million.But here’s the caveat.  Restructurings aimed at reducing those cap numbers would drop the average, pulling Flacco’s exclusive franchise tender lower.  Still, the final number will be significantly higher than $14.6 million, and the higher number will be the starting point for talks on a long-term deal.

 

I believe the tag value is based on the average salary of the top five players at the position from the previous league year. So if Flacco is tagged for 2013, that tag is based on the salaries from 2012. And that makes sense, because salaries for the top five could change in 2013, since the tag is applied before free agency.

 

This PFT post is saying the tag value would be based on the top five players salaries in 2013, and I don't think that's accurate.