Bone Head Move Of The Decade Goes To The Ravens

[Yehoodi]

Umm, what does this proves? lol. Flacco had a good game vs the Giants D and Eli has a mediocre game vs the Ravens D so Flacco is better than Eli?

 

Sorry man, I don't think anyone other than a huge Baltimore homer would take Flacco over Eli.

 

I am not a huge Baltimore homer and am not so sure I would take Eli over Flacco or vice versa . . . nor do I hold any grudges against Eli or Peyton  , well maybe one or two .  . . he he

 

but you just reminded me of another point about QB stats and comparison . . . in additions to my points in post 193, supra, where teammates can help the QB, like Randy Moss, also so can who you play as you indicated in the two respective Ds . . . as football being a short 16 games season and one playing 6 games against divisional opponents those 6 games represents a large percentage of the 16 games, and as such, the respective Ds of those division rivals can help or hurt the QB yearly stats . . .

 

if we look at Eli's and Flacco's stats against their respective divisional opponents as compared to their performance against non divisional opponents and also look at the same using each performance against the other division as compared to them playing the rest of the league we can qualify the two's overall stats if say for example the Giants were in the AFC north and Ravens in the NFC East . . . Flaccos numbers among the two divisions are about the same but a tad better against the NFC east, but overall at the lower end as opposed to the rest of the league . . . and Eli's number drop off a great deal against the AFC north and is the lowest for him against any other division . . .

 

So when we look at raw numbers we need to be mindful that they are in part due to who we play and where we play . . .

 

Eli's

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6760/splits?year=career

 

Flacco's

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8795/splits?year=career

[The Old Crow]

Football is the ultimate team game. A QB no more wins a SB by himself just as he does not win league MVP by himself. Last I checked, QBs do not block for themselves or throw for themselves except in Giselle's fantasy world...

 

I agree with you, but we know players get paid because of their ability to win. Because Brady has won three Super Bowls, he has been paid very well, and deservedly so. His first five years incidently are great, with the three Super Bowls. I'm hoping Flacco will restructure similar to Brady in a few years. Knowing how Joe likes to win, I think he will. Just remember though, Brady had two really nice paydays before he did a restructure this time. Nobody in New England ever begrudged Brady his money, because they have always won consistently. Same goes for Flacco. Maybe if he starts losing, only then will it be a bonehead deal. Time will tell.

[Superman]

I'm also not saying Ryan is a bad quarterback either. His regular season record rivals Flacco, and his stats are a bit better. Lets look at it from a fan's point of view, which all of us are. Throw out our respective team biases. Would you rather have a fantasy phenom-type quarterback like Romo, who has all the stats and glitz, but fails year after year in the playoffs, or a guy like Flacco, who puts you in playoff and Championship contention every year ? I'm just saying Flacco is getting a bit disrespected, as he has put up a nice record that any fan of any football team would like to have. A huge intangible is the ability to win. Guys like Bart Starr had it, and if you can win constantly with a guy like that, you have to pay them. One day, Andrew Luck will be backing up a brink's truck to Jim Irsay's office, and guess what, he'll pay it, and all of you will like it.

 

To the bolded, that's my argument against Flacco. Without taking credit away from him for playing well in the playoffs the last two years, I do not think Flacco has put the Ravens in championship contention. He's better than a lot of quarterbacks, but I don't believe that Flacco makes the Ravens go. 

 

Let's assume that Flacco has a certain intangible that someone like Romo doesn't have, and because of it, he helps the Ravens in the playoffs more than Romo would. I would still argue that the Ravens would do just as well in the regular season with Romo as they've done with Flacco. And now, if we take it to the playoffs and we see that Flacco performs better there, then fine, let's give Flacco the edge over Romo.

 

I just disagree with the assertion that Flacco puts the Ravens in contention. He's been exactly what they've needed, especially this last postseason. Credit to him for that; like I said, he moved up quite a bit on my list. But I don't think it's disrespect to say that he benefits from the team and situation he's in, especially in comparison to someone like Romo. The Ravens have had a better offensive line, a better and more consistent defense, better special teams play (save for the missed field goal against the Pats in 2011), and much better coaching. Put Romo on the Ravens in 2009, and they still beat the Patriots in the playoffs. Put Flacco on the Cowboys, and I don't think they even make the playoffs. 

 

That's a hypothetical that we can't have an absolute answer to, but it's the reason why Flacco was always below Romo on my list, up until now.

 

Last thing, I won't have a problem with Luck getting paid, when he does. But I sincerely hope we don't backload his contract like the Ravens did Flacco's.

[Superman]

Perhaps you can sumbit your list to ESPN...

 

Oh that's right, ESPN is the ultimate authority.

[amfootball]

Oh that's right, ESPN is the ultimate authority.

I

No apparently you are.

[Dustin]

I am not a huge Baltimore homer and am not so sure I would take Eli over Flacco or vice versa . . . nor do I hold any grudges against Eli or Peyton , well maybe one or two . . . he he

but you just reminded me of another point about QB stats and comparison . . . in additions to my points in post 193, supra, where teammates can help the QB, like Randy Moss, also so can who you play as you indicated in the two respective Ds . . . as football being a short 16 games season and one playing 6 games against divisional opponents those 6 games represents a large percentage of the 16 games, and as such, the respective Ds of those division rivals can help or hurt the QB yearly stats . . .

if we look at Eli's and Flacco's stats against their respective divisional opponents as compared to their performance against non divisional opponents and also look at the same using each performance against the other division as compared to them playing the rest of the league we can qualify the two's overall stats if say for example the Giants were in the AFC north and Ravens in the NFC East . . . Flaccos numbers among the two divisions are about the same but a tad better against the NFC east, but overall at the lower end as opposed to the rest of the league . . . and Eli's number drop off a great deal against the AFC north and is the lowest for him against any other division . . .

So when we look at raw numbers we need to be mindful that they are in part due to who we play and where we play . . .

Eli's

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6760/splits?year=career

Flacco's

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8795/splits?year=career

The two sample sizes of Flacco vs the NFC East and Eli vs the AFC North are nowhere near large enough to compare.

Eli has played NFC East teams nearly 7x more times than Flacco has.

[amfootball]

I agree with you, but we know players get paid because of their ability to win. Because Brady has won three Super Bowls, he has been paid very well, and deservedly so. His first five years incidently are great, with the three Super Bowls. I'm hoping Flacco will restructure similar to Brady in a few years. Knowing how Joe likes to win, I think he will. Just remember though, Brady had two really nice paydays before he did a restructure this time. Nobody in New England ever begrudged Brady his money, because they have always won consistently. Same goes for Flacco. Maybe if he starts losing, only then will it be a bonehead deal. Time will tell.

Totally agree. I was just stating that because "some" here like to say winning rings are a team accomplishment and that league MVP or QB stats are somehow not. All are team accomplishments. Wins and rings matter in the end. All else is window dressing...

[Superman]

I would rather pay big money on a guy like that, rather than some of the bums the Redskins have signed over the years, that didn't produce.

 

That's not really the question, though. The question is whether you would rather have signed Flacco for five years, $81m, or six years, $120.6m? 

 

That's what Linta is saying. The Ravens decided to wait over a matter of $1m (they were ready for $80m, but not $81m), and the rest is history. They'd have been better off giving him the extra $1m last offseason.

[Superman]

No apparently you are.

 

Took you long enough to come around...

[amfootball]

Took you long enough to come around...

lol. Good one.

[amfootball]

That's not really the question, though. The question is whether you would rather have signed Flacco for five years, $81m, or six years, $120.6m? 

 

That's what Linta is saying. The Ravens decided to wait over a matter of $1m (they were ready for $80m, but not $81m), and the rest is history. They'd have been better off giving him the extra $1m last offseason.

I don't know. I think Ozzie would rather pay the money and have the championship. Flacco clearly played like he had something to prove in the playoffs. Not sure if he had a multi-year deal in place if the Ravens win the SB...

[The Old Crow]

These are two different topics, though. Really three. The discussion about Flacco's contract is two-pronged already. Whether he deserved to be made the highest paid player in the league or not isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about the fact -- assuming Linta's comments are correct -- that the Ravens could have signed Flacco for nearly $40m less last offseason. I would have been shaking my head last year if the Ravens signed Flacco for $16m/year, but that's way easier to defend than the $20.1m/year they just signed him for.

 

Then there's the heavily backloaded nature of the contract that will make it difficult for the Ravens to manage Flacco's cap hit starting in 2016.

 

Separate from all that is the discussion about where Flacco belongs in the NFL quarterback hierarchy. I'm not a Flacco detractor, I just don't think he's as good of a quarterback as the seven guys I list in front of him. I give him plenty of credit for the way he's played in the playoffs the last two years, especially this season. He was probably 13th or 14th on my list before these last playoffs, so trust me, he's getting a bump because of his postseason and his ring. But in my mind, he's still not as good as the seven guys I have in front of him. There's no dislike for Flacco.

 

I just dislike the way the "he's a winner, look at his postseason record" argument is thrown around, as if that's a trump card of some kind.

 

It is a multi-pronged argument, to be sure. Let's take the first topic, and assume Linta was right. Ozzie has been great at getting the right player at the right price. That is why the Ravens win. When you play that game, sometimes you may lose, and a player like Flacco exceeds expectations, and you get hammered. Once we won the Super Bowl, Ozzie was in a no win situation facing Flacco's contract, and rebuilding an aging defense. He backloaded the deal knowing the cap would go up eventually, but also with the understanding that Joe would restructure in a few years, so that he can remain a Raven the rest of his career, assuming he continues to perform at this level. If you've ever watched how the ravens do business, they pay and retain top performers. After the Super Bowl win, Flacco is a top performer. As far as Linta goes, I just think he made a stupid business decision by being a gloating fool. It makes no sense.

 

I agree Flacco isn't in the etop elite ranks yet, but he has many years to move up, and complete his legacy. Like Eli, he's been a very good playoff quarterback, and really, that is the kind of quarterback you want. Everyone has an opinion where he should rank, but I think he has a pretty good track record, and I'd say that even if I wasn't a Raven's fan.

 

His regular season record is also quite good. Remember, he really went to knew heights when Harbaugh finally got rid of boat anchor offensive co-ordinator Cam Cammeron, who many have claim kept Flacco back. Look how he did after Cam was fired !

[Yehoodi]

Like I said, I'm not trying to use that game to say Flacco is a bad quarterback. I'm just saying that when your team can win with the quarterback going 4-10 with 34 yards and a pick, let's pump the brakes on using that win to sing the quarterback's praises. If anything, that game is a testament to how smaller Flacco's role is on his team in comparison with the other quarterback's we've been discussing.

 

Meanwhile, Matt Ryan gets criticized for "losing" to the Niners this year, and he was 30-42, with 396 yards, three touchdowns and a pick. 

 

If Brady went 4-10 with 34 yards and a pick in the playoffs, the Patriots lose. Same for every other high caliber quarterback in the NFL.

 

I agree 100% about praising Flacco for the 2009 win . . . Indeed up till last year I was waiting for Flacco to turn this team south, which might still happen now that he has taken a great deal of the cap money and is in the same position as the big boys and lets see how he does in the big boy neighborhood . . . and was not a fan of his comments to the press about his skill and how they disliked him and if they win is not him and if they lose it is him . . . I thought he should of kept that to himself . . . and up till last year I was not a believer in flacco . . . and thought that he was a product of his team . . .

 

but last year change my view of him and he moved up from the mark sanchez image . . .

 

not to nit pick, I agree with you regarding flacco's role in the first three years and we have other games in which we can show a reflection that in his early years he played a lessor role . . . however, I think that 09 game was so unique that most teams up 24 with a running game will have a QB in the end will not have flashy stats, maybe not 4-10 but maybe 7-14 for 123 yards or something . . .

 

alas with Ryan . . . having not won a playoff game he is under the microscope . . . maybe his bad game against the packers a few years ago doesn't help . . . and it doesnt help that they were up 17-0 (or something at the half) at home and lost . . . from what I remember he was not great in the 2nd half and they were on fire in the first half . . . [nfl.com  - schedules is down now so I cant get any numbers to recall my memory] but I remember a few drives in the second half that stalled, they did not score a point in the second half and so on . . . so to a degree some of his numbers were partly due to the 49ers trying to get the gitters out and then when they calmed down Ryan struggled a tad . . . it just doesn't look good when the last 90 minutes of real time of the game you score no points and have drives that stall . . . fair or not . . . even tho he helped get 24 points in the first half . . . I don't think that he lost that game given that he helped get 24 points in the game . . . but he could of done a tad better in the 2nd notwithstanding his stats . . .

[The Old Crow]

I don't know. I think Ozzie would rather pay the money and have the championship. Flacco clearly played like he had something to prove in the playoffs. Not sure if he had a multi-year deal in place if the Ravens win the SB...

 

They would have still paid him a boatload of money, maybe not as much, even if we hadn't won a Super Bowl. He's at least been a consistent winner. Honestly, would anyone want to go back to the Kyle Boller years ?

[Superman]

I don't know. I think Ozzie would rather pay the money and have the championship. Flacco clearly played like he had something to prove in the playoffs. Not sure if he had a multi-year deal in place if the Ravens win the SB...

 

That's impossible to know. And I doubt that particular line of thinking was part of the Ravens' decision making when they decided not to give Flacco the extra $1m.

 

I'm happy for them, and I'm happy for Flacco. Good on all of them. The agent, too. But it's not out of dislike for Flacco that anyone says "Wow, they gave him that much??? And they could have had him last year for way less?" And then, when you really start looking at the details of the contract, if they want to do something about his cap hit in 2016, it's not as easy as just restructuring and moving on. They will have to recommit more big money and years to him, or be stuck with a nearly $30m cap hit. It's not an enviable situation to be in, moving forward.

[Yehoodi]

I hope you didn't expect me to read that. Better yet, TL;DR

 

to each his own . . . but there is more T-E-A-M in the traditional QB stats that in "personal" stats of other sports or players . . .

[Yehoodi]

The two sample sizes of Flacco vs the NFC East and Eli vs the AFC North are nowhere near large enough to compare.

Eli has played NFC East teams nearly 7x more times than Flacco has.

 

the sizes aren't the best I agree but you can see that both struggle against the AFC North the division in which Flacco has to play 6 of his 16 games each season . . . that we can not overlook . . .

[The Old Crow]

That's not really the question, though. The question is whether you would rather have signed Flacco for five years, $81m, or six years, $120.6m? 

 

That's what Linta is saying. The Ravens decided to wait over a matter of $1m (they were ready for $80m, but not $81m), and the rest is history. They'd have been better off giving him the extra $1m last offseason.

 

Like I said, Ozzie has saved the Ravens a boatload of money over the years getting the right player at the right price. Look how he rebuilt the defense this year. Maybe he did gamble and lost on this one, but a million is a million in the salary cap era. For the money they would have paid Kruger, they got five defensive players, including Dumervil. As a Ravens fan , I'm certainly concerned about the back end of this deal, but I've seen Ozzie come through so many times, I'm confident he'll work things out with Joe. Also, Flacco is a heck of a good guy, good team mate, good to fans, etc. I know he wants to win, and like Brady, I think he'll restructure the deal to make sure the team is competitive. It's not in his nature to be a greedy slob. He wanted to get paid what he thought he was worth. If Ozzie and the Ravens did make a mistake, at least they did it after a second Super Bowl title, and will have at least three more years of easy cap room, before it escalates.

[Superman]

It is a multi-pronged argument, to be sure. Let's take the first topic, and assume Linta was right. Ozzie has been great at getting the right player at the right price. That is why the Ravens win. When you play that game, sometimes you may lose, and a player like Flacco exceeds expectations, and you get hammered. Once we won the Super Bowl, Ozzie was in a no win situation facing Flacco's contract, and rebuilding an aging defense. He backloaded the deal knowing the cap would go up eventually, but also with the understanding that Joe would restructure in a few years, so that he can remain a Raven the rest of his career, assuming he continues to perform at this level. If you've ever watched how the ravens do business, they pay and retain top performers. After the Super Bowl win, Flacco is a top performer. As far as Linta goes, I just think he made a stupid business decision by being a gloating fool. It makes no sense.

 

I agree Flacco isn't in the etop elite ranks yet, but he has many years to move up, and complete his legacy. Like Eli, he's been a very good playoff quarterback, and really, that is the kind of quarterback you want. Everyone has an opinion where he should rank, but I think he has a pretty good track record, and I'd say that even if I wasn't a Raven's fan.

 

His regular season record is also quite good. Remember, he really went to knew heights when Harbaugh finally got rid of boat anchor offensive co-ordinator Cam Cammeron, who many have claim kept Flacco back. Look how he did after Cam was fired !

 

To the bolded, I think we should slow down on the Cam Cameron/Jim Caldwell deal. I'm happy for Caldwell, sure, but let's see what happens next year. Remember, Flacco started the season on fire, on pace for over 5,000 yards passing, before the Ravens kind of hit a wall. I hope he continues to get better, because I like seeing young quarterbacks improve. But he's still got some improving to do. Good track record, yes, but I could nitpick his play for hours.

 

with the understanding that Joe would restructure in a few years, so that he can remain a Raven the rest of his career, assuming he continues to perform at this level.

 

This is what really struck me when this thread started. I hadn't really looked at the details of the contract until then. If Flacco is performing at a level that the Ravens feel is worthy of big money, then they'll extend his contract, not restructure. And that's what gives me pause. They can't just restructure for the sake of cap space, because of the option bonuses that will be triggered in 2014 and 2015. So if they leave the contract as is, if Flacco happens to not be playing at a solid level (I personally think he should be doing more at that point), the Ravens are either stuck with a huge cap hit in 2016, or they are extending a quarterback that isn't really worthy of an extension.

 

I think a lot of people expect that Flacco's contract will just be an easy wave of the magic wand in 2016, and all will be right with the world. But that's not the case. That's why I said earlier in the thread that they ought to be extending guys like Ngata and Suggs now, then reworking Flacco's deal after this season to get rid of the option bonuses and move some of that salary up, and then they'll have more flexibility come 2016. 

 

I like Ozzie. He knows this stuff way better than I do. I'm sure they'll work it out. I'm just saying that a) I don't think Flacco is a $20m/year quarterback, and b) I think the Ravens are going to be in cap trouble come 2016 if they don't address his contract sooner than that.

[The Old Crow]

That's impossible to know. And I doubt that particular line of thinking was part of the Ravens' decision making when they decided not to give Flacco the extra $1m.

 

I'm happy for them, and I'm happy for Flacco. Good on all of them. The agent, too. But it's not out of dislike for Flacco that anyone says "Wow, they gave him that much??? And they could have had him last year for way less?" And then, when you really start looking at the details of the contract, if they want to do something about his cap hit in 2016, it's not as easy as just restructuring and moving on. They will have to recommit more big money and years to him, or be stuck with a nearly $30m cap hit. It's not an enviable situation to be in, moving forward.

 It's going to be tough, but Ozzie is a great GM, and Moriarty is a cap genius. Hopefully, they will work it out like they always do.

[Superman]

Like I said, Ozzie has saved the Ravens a boatload of money over the years getting the right player at the right price. Look how he rebuilt the defense this year. Maybe he did gamble and lost on this one, but a million is a million in the salary cap era. For the money they would have paid Kruger, they got five defensive players, including Dumervil. As a Ravens fan , I'm certainly concerned about the back end of this deal, but I've seen Ozzie come through so many times, I'm confident he'll work things out with Joe. Also, Flacco is a heck of a good guy, good team mate, good to fans, etc. I know he wants to win, and like Brady, I think he'll restructure the deal to make sure the team is competitive. It's not in his nature to be a greedy slob. He wanted to get paid what he thought he was worth. If Ozzie and the Ravens did make a mistake, at least they did it after a second Super Bowl title, and will have at least three more years of easy cap room, before it escalates.

 

See my above post. Restructuring isn't the answer, unless you expect Flacco to give up tens of millions in guaranteed salary in 2016, when he'll be in his athletic prime. I doubt very much that he'll do that; no one ever has, including Brady.

[Superman]

 It's going to be tough, but Ozzie is a great GM, and Moriarty is a cap genius. Hopefully, they will work it out like they always do.

 

They have options now, but those options are reduced if they wait until 2016 and just let the contract play out the way it's currently structured. Those option bonuses are going to be a major issue.

[The Old Crow]

To the bolded, I think we should slow down on the Cam Cameron/Jim Caldwell deal. I'm happy for Caldwell, sure, but let's see what happens next year. Remember, Flacco started the season on fire, on pace for over 5,000 yards passing, before the Ravens kind of hit a wall. I hope he continues to get better, because I like seeing young quarterbacks improve. But he's still got some improving to do. Good track record, yes, but I could nitpick his play for hours.

 

 

This is what really struck me when this thread started. I hadn't really looked at the details of the contract until then. If Flacco is performing at a level that the Ravens feel is worthy of big money, then they'll extend his contract, not restructure. And that's what gives me pause. They can't just restructure for the sake of cap space, because of the option bonuses that will be triggered in 2014 and 2015. So if they leave the contract as is, if Flacco happens to not be playing at a solid level (I personally think he should be doing more at that point), the Ravens are either stuck with a huge cap hit in 2016, or they are extending a quarterback that isn't really worthy of an extension.

 

I think a lot of people expect that Flacco's contract will just be an easy wave of the magic wand in 2016, and all will be right with the world. But that's not the case. That's why I said earlier in the thread that they ought to be extending guys like Ngata and Suggs now, then reworking Flacco's deal after this season to get rid of the option bonuses and move some of that salary up, and then they'll have more flexibility come 2016. 

 

I like Ozzie. He knows this stuff way better than I do. I'm sure they'll work it out. I'm just saying that a) I don't think Flacco is a $20m/year quarterback, and b) I think the Ravens are going to be in cap trouble come 2016 if they don't address his contract sooner than that.

 

You make some good points, it's just hard to see what might happen in three years. Obviously, I'm hopeful that things will work out, but it is a ton of money lying out there. I'm just going by Ozzie's track record, and my belief that Flacco very much cares about winning, and would always do something to help the team's situation ala Brady.

 

On the Cameron deal, he was a bum offensive co-ordinator who cost us a lot of games just like Matt Cananaugh did under Billick. Both Harbaugh and Billick kept those two guys around too long, wasting top defenses of the Ravens in the process. I don't know much about Caldwell, but it was a vast improvement in offensive performance over Cameron. Suggs, with all of his injuries, may not be resigned down the line.

[The Old Crow]

They have options now, but those options are reduced if they wait until 2016 and just let the contract play out the way it's currently structured. Those option bonuses are going to be a major issue.

 

You seem to have a good handle on the cap deal. It's highly possible they may not resign Suggs or Ngata down the line. There are many ways to skin the cat, and the Raven's are pretty adept at knowing when to part with players. It will probably be a combination of many things to get Flacco paid, and remain competitive. Unfortunately, this is now a reality many teams will be facing.

[The Old Crow]

I agree 100% about praising Flacco for the 2009 win . . . Indeed up till last year I was waiting for Flacco to turn this team south, which might still happen now that he has taken a great deal of the cap money and is in the same position as the big boys and lets see how he does in the big boy neighborhood . . . and was not a fan of his comments to the press about his skill and how they disliked him and if they win is not him and if they lose it is him . . . I thought he should of kept that to himself . . . and up till last year I was not a believer in flacco . . . and thought that he was a product of his team . . .

 

but last year change my view of him and he moved up from the mark sanchez image . . .

 

not to nit pick, I agree with you regarding flacco's role in the first three years and we have other games in which we can show a reflection that in his early years he played a lessor role . . . however, I think that 09 game was so unique that most teams up 24 with a running game will have a QB in the end will not have flashy stats, maybe not 4-10 but maybe 7-14 for 123 yards or something . . .

 

alas with Ryan . . . having not won a playoff game he is under the microscope . . . maybe his bad game against the packers a few years ago doesn't help . . . and it doesnt help that they were up 17-0 (or something at the half) at home and lost . . . from what I remember he was not great in the 2nd half and they were on fire in the first half . . . [nfl.com  - schedules is down now so I cant get any numbers to recall my memory] but I remember a few drives in the second half that stalled, they did not score a point in the second half and so on . . . so to a degree some of his numbers were partly due to the 49ers trying to get the gitters out and then when they calmed down Ryan struggled a tad . . . it just doesn't look good when the last 90 minutes of real time of the game you score no points and have drives that stall . . . fair or not . . . even tho he helped get 24 points in the first half . . . I don't think that he lost that game given that he helped get 24 points in the game . . . but he could of done a tad better in the 2nd notwithstanding his stats . . .

 

 

I think for the first couple of years, the Mark Sanchez argument was pretty fair. It was the kind of manage the game, and try not to lose mentality. I think Flacco has gone beyond that, and both he and Ryan have piled up a lot of wins since they were rookies. Obviously, Luck had a great season, and without the constraints that Flacco or Sanchez had on them initially. Both those two quarterbacks came into defensive dominated teams initially. The Ravens have evolved somewhat over the last three seasons.

[dw49]

They have options now, but those options are reduced if they wait until 2016 and just let the contract play out the way it's currently structured. Those option bonuses are going to be a major issue.

 

They are going into cap hell and there is no magic Ozzie "wand " that will help them. Can they still win after 2016 ?.....yea but they better have some very good drafts.

[Superman]

You seem to have a good handle on the cap deal. It's highly possible they may not resign Suggs or Ngata down the line. There are many ways to skin the cat, and the Raven's are pretty adept at knowing when to part with players. It will probably be a combination of many things to get Flacco paid, and remain competitive. Unfortunately, this is now a reality many teams will be facing.

 

My idea about doing something with Suggs and Ngata now isn't about their cap in 2016. It's about creating some cap space in the next couple of years so that they can move some of Flacco's bonuses and future salary into salary for Years 2 and 3. Not having Suggs and/or Ngata in the future will be a percentage of their cap that they won't have to worry about, but they'll have other players to pay. 

 

Ozzie does have a good track record, like you said, but he's never done a contract that has $84m worth of cap hits in the last three years of the deal. It's a tricky deal to navigate.

[The Old Crow]

I was listening to talk radio this morning in Baltimore. Mike Preston of the sun made a good point. Yes , they could have gotten Flacco for 35 million less , but would he have performed how he did and with the same motivation to win a Super Bowl. We don't know for sure , but he got an extra 35 million for winning the Super Bowl , which you will pay every time. The problem , as we have discussed is three years down the line. Ray rice may also be expendable in a few years , as the ravens have Paul pierce. Ozzie's philosophy is to get a younger , less expensive player who is just as good as the veteran who makes more. With most positions that works , but when you have a good quarterback , you have to pay. Joe earned the 35 million , but Ozzie will definitely have to be creative three years hence. Look what he did this year drafting and getting free agents to rebuild an aging defense. I thought we were dead, but then he put together a brilliant plan. If Jerry jones was handling Flacco's salary I would be really scared. However with Ozzie , you know you have a guy with some kind of plan . He always seems to come through.

[mvbighead]

To the bolded, that's only been true in Flacco's last few playoffs games. He's getting a lot of credit for postseason success that he was only along for the ride on.

 

Like I said before, I have Ryan firmly ahead of Flacco, and it's only because of this last postseason that Flacco is even close. 

 

And this whole Super Bowl appearance/win issue is like we're back in 2005 again. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson are ahead of Dan Marino, Warren Moon, etc. Even though the quarterback affects the game more than any other one player (usually), just because a quarterback has a Super Bowl doesn't mean he's better than a quarterback that doesn't have a Super Bowl. 

 

I would agree with your last paragraph.  My point was, Ryan and Flacco are fairly close in terms of regular season stats, with Ryan having the edge in all categories.  One key difference, however, is that Ryan has always had Roddy White, and has often had Tony Gonzalez.  Flacco's receivers have pailed in comparison to that.  Derrick Mason, eventually Anquan Boldin, and now Torrey Smith.  Not to mention, a big part of the Raven's offense has long been Ray Rice, which takes away from what Flacco has to do in games.

 

In any case, when the stats are as close as they are, and you have one guy with a ring and one guy without, you kinda have to give the nod to the guy who got it done.  And even if his only playoff success was this past season, he still did it, and Ryan did not.  End point being, for me, the regular season stats between the two are close enough.  The playoff picture is very much in Flacco's favor because of this past season.

[The Old Crow]

One other thing about this Joe Linta many of you may not know. Flacco is Linta's only large client. He has a few coaches, and other small time clients. This guy is as unprofessional as it gets. I have never seen an agent operate this way. Have you ever seen Scott Boras running off his mouth about how he fleeced the Yankees on A-Rod, or something ? Linta said he put out these statements because people were saying that Flacco's greed led to the Ravens gutting their roster. But here's the deal, Mr. Linta, it was fans, not the Raven's front office saying that ! The Ravens front office likes your client, has agreed to pay him handsomely, and never said anything about Joe's contract gutting the team. I have news for Linta, after these series of gaffes, I don't see him getting many more high profile clients. Thus far, the phone hasn't been ringing off the hook for his services.

[mvbighead]

Going by the last 3 years, Ryan is far more accurate and better under pressure (Especially this last season). Only a few QBs in the league are better than him in those 2 categories (the most important categories imo)

 

Using wins as an indicator of success is such a terrible way to judge QB play. It's completely flawed to give one player credit for a win or a loss when there are 52 other players on the team.

 

If the 2008 draft happened again Ryan would go #1 overall 10 times out of 10.

 

Accuracy and being better under pressure are largely based on impression, and not based on statistical evidence.  One guy sees it one way, another guy sees it another.

 

As for wins as an indicator... Peyton Manning played on a team with one of the worst defenses for over a decade.  The W/L record is important to consider because the majority of those wins came down to what he did.  Suffice it to say, if a team is down 14 points and the QB throws a risky deep ball that is picked, but later drives the team down the field three separate times with rushing goals at the goal line... well, whats more important?  A 0 TD 1 INT 300yd performance with a win, or a 3 TD, 1 INT 300yd performance with a loss?

 

Good QBs put their teams in a position to win games.  It doesn't always come from statistics that are in the QB's favor.  If Flacco gets his team down the field and Rice puts it in the end zone on a run, Flacco gets no statistical credit for what he did to put Ray Rice in a position to score.  Long story short, Flacco has a better record and is barely behind Ryan in most statistical categories. I'm not saying he's the better pure passer, but he certainly can be a better QB without being the best passer.  Hopefully that makes sense.

[amfootball]

That's impossible to know. And I doubt that particular line of thinking was part of the Ravens' decision making when they decided not to give Flacco the extra $1m.

 

I'm happy for them, and I'm happy for Flacco. Good on all of them. The agent, too. But it's not out of dislike for Flacco that anyone says "Wow, they gave him that much??? And they could have had him last year for way less?" And then, when you really start looking at the details of the contract, if they want to do something about his cap hit in 2016, it's not as easy as just restructuring and moving on. They will have to recommit more big money and years to him, or be stuck with a nearly $30m cap hit. It's not an enviable situation to be in, moving forward.

You missed my point. I didn't say that when they walked away from the neg. table that the Ravens were thinking Joe would go on the tear in the playoffs that he did. But looking back now with a SB ring on their fingers, they are happy the way things worked out.

 

While it is impossible to know for sure how Joe would have played, it was clear that he was bugged about not getting a deal done in his contract year and he certainly went into the playoffs with something to prove. Many players in their contract years put up a great season just because they are playing for their next contract.

 

I don't think Ozzie looks at it now and thinks we could have had Joe for less because perhaps they don't have the ring either. If anything with Joe's Montana-like performace he was convinced that Joe is worth the money. I really think it is a win-win as like you always say you have to pay in this league for great QB play. Hard to argue against Joe really and in the end the Ravens are SB champs.

 

The contract itself is a different issue. I am sure Ozzie knows what he is doing. Perhaps he is ok with Joe making this money for three years but wants to see where he will be at age 31/32 to determine what Joe is worth at that point. If Joe does not perform to his salary and the Ravens struggle in the playoffs then Joe will not be paid at the elite level. I think that is what Ozzie has in his back pocket. If Joe does perform and the Ravens continue to have success in the post-season than Ozzie will gladly continue to pay him.

[The Old Crow]

I would agree with your last paragraph.  My point was, Ryan and Flacco are fairly close in terms of regular season stats, with Ryan having the edge in all categories.  One key difference, however, is that Ryan has always had Roddy White, and has often had Tony Gonzalez.  Flacco's receivers have pailed in comparison to that.  Derrick Mason, eventually Anquan Boldin, and now Torrey Smith.  Not to mention, a big part of the Raven's offense has long been Ray Rice, which takes away from what Flacco has to do in games.

 

In any case, when the stats are as close as they are, and you have one guy with a ring and one guy without, you kinda have to give the nod to the guy who got it done.  And even if his only playoff success was this past season, he still did it, and Ryan did not.  End point being, for me, the regular season stats between the two are close enough.  The playoff picture is very much in Flacco's favor because of this past season.

 

 

I think that is a fair assessment. Going back to the Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer Super Bowl deal, I believe these two guys are a bit of an abberation. Both of these guys were so-so quarterbacks, who played with very dominant defenses. None of these guys stats got close to what a Flacco or Ryan have done, although they both managed their teams well to Super Bowl victories. Again, you weigh playoff and Super Bowl success high, but it's not the only criteria. Think about what Elway's legacy would have been without those last two Super Bowls. They were important to him, and his legacy. Peyton Manning his getting ripped for only having one. Team success, and the quarterback that leads it, is critically important in any discussion. We know the O-line, RB's etc., also make the team, but the quarterback is the main cog, especially now in this pass happy league. Having a great quarterback year in , year out, always seems to keep you in the thick of the playoffs. Teams devoid of a great player at this position, always seem to struggle. I like the idea of pulling the QB salary out of the cap, or making some kind of accomidation for that position. This will continue to be a tough situation for all teams, like the Colts had gone through with Manning. He certainly deserved to be paid, but I'm sure it cost the Colts at other positions.

[mvbighead]

Here is Ryan's regular season record :

 

2008 11-5

2009 9-7

2010 13-3

2011 10-6

2012 13-3

 

I've heard Flacco detractors say that he is " just there,' on a good team for the ride. Well, Ryan has been on talented teams just like Flacco, but has only one playoff win , compared to nine, with teams with similar playoff records. It's a dead edge to Flacco. Anyone who dismisses a quarterback being along for the ride in a quarterback/passing league, really is missing the point, especially after Flacco had 11 touchdowns and 0 interceptions this post season. The Ravens also had their worst defense in years, ranked around 17th.

 

Flacco may not have had that great of a game statistically in the first playoff win against the Patriots, but he managed the game well , as usual. Ray Rice ran all over the Patriots that day, so why pass ?

 

Romo's teams the last five years were 9-7, 11-5, 6-10, 8-8 and 8-8. I really think Romo is out of this argument completely. I'm not saying Joe is in the same class as Brady, Manning, or Rodgers yet, but he definately has it all over Matt Ryan. Winning Championships is a huge intangiable, and really the most important one. I'll take a winning quarterback over a fantasy quarterback anyday who has only one playoff win in five years. 1-4 with only one NFC Championship appearance, versus 9-4 in five years, 3 AFC Championship appearances, 1 AFC Championship, and one Super Bowl, make this comparison not even close.

 

This is pretty much what I am getting at.  The support casts around both players has been different, but it all averages out about the same.  I'd say Ryan has had a better offensive supporting cast, and Flacco has long had a better defensive supporting cast.  With that notion, to me, Ryan should be leaps and bounds ahead of Flacco statistically, but he isn't.  When you add up the playoffs, Flacco has the edge.  You take away this post season, and he has far less of an edge.  But since he did do something this season, he has the edge.

 

It's really as simple as saying that Ryan is regular season winner in the debate, but not by much.  Flacco is the post season winner by a long shot.  Put that together, and Flacco has the edge.  I won't say that Flacco is the best passer, but he has more success to his name than Ryan, and he is far from a Trent Dilfer who was simply along for the ride.

 

22/33 287 yds, 3tds, 0ints

[amfootball]

I guarantee you Dan M would give his left arm for a SB RING.

I ran out of likes for all your posts man. I have had this discussion up here many times. Every player plays the game to win rings. It is undisputable. The greats of ANY sport are judged by championships and their performances in those championship games. Marino for all his great play is still referred to as the possibly the greatest QB without a ring. While the other things do come into play mostly for FF owners, ESPN talking heads, and Manning apologists, winning and rings trumps all. It has always been this way and will never change...

[mvbighead]

I think that is a fair assessment. Going back to the Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer Super Bowl deal, I believe these two guys are a bit of an abberation. Both of these guys were so-so quarterbacks, who played with very dominant defenses. None of these guys stats got close to what a Flacco or Ryan have done, although they both managed their teams well to Super Bowl victories. Again, you weigh playoff and Super Bowl success high, but it's not the only criteria. Think about what Elway's legacy would have been without those last two Super Bowls. They were important to him, and his legacy. Peyton Manning his getting ripped for only having one. Team success, and the quarterback that leads it, is critically important in any discussion. We know the O-line, RB's etc., also make the team, but the quarterback is the main cog, especially now in this pass happy league. Having a great quarterback year in , year out, always seems to keep you in the thick of the playoffs. Teams devoid of a great player at this position, always seem to struggle. I like the idea of pulling the QB salary out of the cap, or making some kind of accomidation for that position. This will continue to be a tough situation for all teams, like the Colts had gone through with Manning. He certainly deserved to be paid, but I'm sure it cost the Colts at other positions.

 

I don't think the Colts were put in that bad of a position by the QB salary.  It was primarily due to a bad philosophy.  In the end, the philosophy got us a SB, but we'd paid some guys quite a lot on the defensive side, but we never really had a top tier defense.

 

I believe a large part of that was due to the small speedy players we wanted in our scheme.  However, had we sized are defense similar to say, Chicago, we'd have likely been much more competitive against the run.  Obviously you still want talent at those positions, but a 5-9 220 lb MLB (Brackett never really appeared to be 5-11 or even close), and two 6-0 220lb OLBs just doesn't really knock anyone anywhere but back.

 

Only saying that I wouldn't want to see QBs be able to leave a team to go to the highest bidder and not affect the cap, as you'd then possibly have teams in large markets putting the word out to top tier QBs that you have a very large pie waiting for them when they become a FA.  Indy likely can't match a 30 million/season offer to Luck when the time comes, regardless of whether or not it affects the cap.

[amfootball]

I don't think the Colts were put in that bad of a position by the QB salary.  It was primarily due to a bad philosophy.  In the end, the philosophy got us a SB, but we'd paid some guys quite a lot on the defensive side, but we never really had a top tier defense.

 

I believe a large part of that was due to the small speedy players we wanted in our scheme.  However, had we sized are defense similar to say, Chicago, we'd have likely been much more competitive against the run.  Obviously you still want talent at those positions, but a 5-9 220 lb MLB (Brackett never really appeared to be 5-11 or even close), and two 6-0 220lb OLBs just doesn't really knock anyone anywhere but back.

 

Only saying that I wouldn't want to see QBs be able to leave a team to go to the highest bidder and not affect the cap, as you'd then possibly have teams in large markets putting the word out to top tier QBs that you have a very large pie waiting for them when they become a FA.  Indy likely can't match a 30 million/season offer to Luck when the time comes, regardless of whether or not it affects the cap.

What is interesting is Denver is doing the exact same thing with Manning right now. Putting toys around him on offense and giving him a smallish defense...

[The Old Crow]

You missed my point. I didn't say that when they walked away from the neg. table that the Ravens were thinking Joe would go on the tear in the playoffs that he did. But looking back now with a SB ring on their fingers, they are happy the way things worked out.

 

While it is impossible to know for sure how Joe would have played, it was clear that he was bugged about not getting a deal done in his contract year and he certainly went into the playoffs with something to prove. Many players in their contract years put up a great season just because they are playing for their next contract.

 

I don't think Ozzie looks at it now and thinks we could have had Joe for less because perhaps they don't have the ring either. If anything with Joe's Montana-like performace he was convinced that Joe is worth the money. I really think it is a win-win as like you always say you have to pay in this league for great QB play. Hard to argue against Joe really and in the end the Ravens are SB champs.

 

The contract itself is a different issue. I am sure Ozzie knows what he is doing. Perhaps he is ok with Joe making this money for three years but wants to see where he will be at age 31/32 to determine what Joe is worth at that point. If Joe does not perform to his salary and the Ravens struggle in the playoffs then Joe will not be paid at the elite level. I think that is what Ozzie has in his back pocket. If Joe does perform and the Ravens continue to have success in the post-season than Ozzie will gladly continue to pay him.

 

 

I think it really would have looked more like a bonehead move had they not won the Super Bowl, so I agree with you on that one. How many clubs do we see spending foolishly to win a Super Bowl. Winning one, takes the pressure off the front office for a while, and the 35 million doesn't look as bad , under those circumstances. I know Ozzie kept that cap number down this year, and the next two, so that he could rebuild the defense, and other areas. On paper, he looks to have done that. The defense looks much younger and faster than last year. Frankly, it's amazing the Ravens won last year. I think the 2011 team was better than the 2012 version. At the end, you had a proud, old aging defense, that was of the bend , but don't break, type. Ray still had plenty of heart, but couldn't cover anyone out of the backfield. Ed had an arthritic shoulder and had trouble tackling. Webb was out, Ngata and Suggs banged up, etc. The middle of the defense sucked, and was weak.  Ozzie was faced with this Flacco situation after the Super Bowl win, and knew he needed a few years to re-tool. I'm sure Flacco was involved, or you wouldn't have seen those low cap figures the first three years. Joe Flacco is a good guy, who isn't a greedy slob, so I believe he will work with the Ravens three years hence. He just needs to tell his agent to keep his mouth shut in the press. Linta's bombastic comments are not Flacco's style, at all.  

[Warhorse]

Bonehead move of the decade belongs to A.J. Smith. Firing a 14-2 head coach.

 

How did that work our for you, A.J.?

[The Old Crow]

This is pretty much what I am getting at.  The support casts around both players has been different, but it all averages out about the same.  I'd say Ryan has had a better offensive supporting cast, and Flacco has long had a better defensive supporting cast.  With that notion, to me, Ryan should be leaps and bounds ahead of Flacco statistically, but he isn't.  When you add up the playoffs, Flacco has the edge.  You take away this post season, and he has far less of an edge.  But since he did do something this season, he has the edge.

 

It's really as simple as saying that Ryan is regular season winner in the debate, but not by much.  Flacco is the post season winner by a long shot.  Put that together, and Flacco has the edge.  I won't say that Flacco is the best passer, but he has more success to his name than Ryan, and he is far from a Trent Dilfer who was simply along for the ride.

 

22/33 287 yds, 3tds, 0ints

 

Ryan still has time. Atlanta will be good again, and now he has that first playoff win off his back. The NFC should be brutal, with Atlanta, Green Bay, San Francisco, and Seattle, among others. The AFC is never easy either, but Ryan has a tough task to get to the big dance.