ESPN ranks Ricky Jean Francios #3 overpaid player

[atapcl]

Who determines what is overpaid. I thought the market always determined what the value was. Is a Detroit autoworker overpaid at $20/hr if the same skilled person in Thailand makes $4/hr? Is Kobe Bryant overpaid at 30 million/yr if he brings in 1 billion in revenues for the NBA. Luck will someday make more than 20 mil/yr and will we then say he is overpaid?

[smittywerb]

Manning got a lock of flack for not being clutch and often being one and done in the playoffs.

 

 

Many people, including us Colts fans, know why.  Manning really never had a complete team.  Most of his teams were 1-dimensional.  Can't blame the man for that.  Joe Flacco for most of his career has been blessed with a stout defense.  Once Newsome gave him tools in Rice, Boldin, Smith, Pitta, and a good line, all he had to do was put the ball where it needed to be.

[OffensivelyPC]

Who determines what is overpaid. I thought the market always determined what the value was. Is a Detroit autoworker overpaid at $20/hr if the same skilled person in Thailand makes $4/hr? Is Kobe Bryant overpaid at 30 million/yr if he brings in 1 billion in revenues for the NBA. Luck will someday make more than 20 mil/yr and will we then say he is overpaid?

Well of course the market determines value.  And the question is, where does your value correlate with your production.  Certainly this past year, Flacco deserved a big pay day.  Whether or not how much he is paid correlates with his value in say, year 3 of the contract, is a different story.  Who knows?  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  All the really matters is how the Owner and to some extent, the GM, values a particular player.  We can argue all day on what QBs are overpaid and which ones are underpaid, it's all in teh eye of the beholder at that point. 

[OffensivelyPC]

Many people, including us Colts fans, know why.  Manning really never had a complete team.  Most of his teams were 1-dimensional.  Can't blame the man for that.  Joe Flacco for most of his career has been blessed with a stout defense.  Once Newsome gave him tools in Rice, Boldin, Smith, Pitta, and a good line, all he had to do was put the ball where it needed to be.

Yeah, but the flipside to that is, I can blame manning for throwing an interception in the Colts/Saints superbowl to seal the Saints win.  Did other things go wrong in that game too?  Absolutely.  No one person is ever at fault and it's on the entire organization from the players to the GM and owner.  GMs don't choke in teh offseason, coaches can't make players make the big plays, and players can't compensate for other players weaknesses or take back mistakes.

[mvbighead]

Many people, including us Colts fans, know why.  Manning really never had a complete team.  Most of his teams were 1-dimensional.  Can't blame the man for that.  Joe Flacco for most of his career has been blessed with a stout defense.  Once Newsome gave him tools in Rice, Boldin, Smith, Pitta, and a good line, all he had to do was put the ball where it needed to be.

 

While I know that, I also can acknowledge that Flacco's offense was primarily based on has beens and not yet developed talent.  He didn't enter the league throwing to Roddy White, Tony Gonzalez, and handing off to Michael 'The Burner' Turner.

 

As a result, his statistics are not gaudy.  All he had to do was not lose games, which he did.  There are two sides to this coin.  Ryan has had more help offensively, which results in better numbers.  Flacco has had more help defensively, which results in a better W/L record.

 

But all in all, I cannot agree with adding a guy like Flacco to the overpaid players list when he just completed the ultimate goal.  Sanchez, on the other hand... he would be at the tippity tip top of such a list.

[Gavin]

He's definitely a 2nd tier QB.  

2nd yep Ill give him that

[atapcl]

Well of course the market determines value.  And the question is, where does your value correlate with your production.  Certainly this past year, Flacco deserved a big pay day.  Whether or not how much he is paid correlates with his value in say, year 3 of the contract, is a different story.  Who knows?  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  All the really matters is how the Owner and to some extent, the GM, values a particular player.  We can argue all day on what QBs are overpaid and which ones are underpaid, it's all in teh eye of the beholder at that point. 

Agreed for the most part but other owners and GMs are also competing driving up the price. If RJF starts and makes the pro bowl will we then say the pundits were wrong and he is worth his contract? I believe if he starts and helps this team win he will be worth it or he will soon be replaced.

[The Old Crow]

There are two ex- Ravens on the list which is why they are ex- Ravens.

[Superman]

They can always restructure, but it would depend on other offseason moves, i.e. cutting other players and making Flacco's contract back loaded. You can be over the cap in subsequent seasons as long as you get under the cap prior to that season's start date (forget the exact date, but think it's in March).

This is generally true, but Flacco's contract is already severely backloaded.

[mvbighead]

Many people, including us Colts fans, know why.  Manning really never had a complete team.  Most of his teams were 1-dimensional.  Can't blame the man for that.  Joe Flacco for most of his career has been blessed with a stout defense.  Once Newsome gave him tools in Rice, Boldin, Smith, Pitta, and a good line, all he had to do was put the ball where it needed to be.

 

Isn't this what every QB does?

[OffensivelyPC]

This is generally true, but Flacco's contract is already severely backloaded.

Eh, just give him a Tom Brady "restructure."  lol.  In Flacco's case, yeah, you are right.  There may be ways around it, but if he all the sudden starts to play terribly on a consistent basis, the Ravens have an even more severe problem than the Jets do with Sanchez salary cap wise.  Cutting him sets you back at least 2 years, he has no trade value because no one would want htat contract, and keeping him hurts you almost as bad if not more than if you were to cut him.

 

As most are in agreement, this is very unlikely, but still interesting to discuss nonetheless.

[OffensivelyPC]

Agreed for the most part but other owners and GMs are also competing driving up the price. If RJF starts and makes the pro bowl will we then say the pundits were wrong and he is worth his contract? I believe if he starts and helps this team win he will be worth it or he will soon be replaced.

hey, any time I can tell Forbes that they are full of it, i'll jump on the opportunity lol. If RJF isn't worth his contract, he'll get cut, but the loss to the Colts won't be that big of a deal money-wise.  Colts were wise in how they structured the deals this offseason - i.e. dead money is minimal.  low risk high reward for players that, at bare minimum, were an improvement and at most, solid starters with a few potentially being pro bowl caliber (i.e. bradshaw, landry).

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

The bottom line is this.  The Colts had holes at all 3 spots on the D-line. RJF is one of the few  in the league that can play all 3 effectively.  That alone makes him worth at least half his contract.  If he can be an effective starter he's well worth his deal.  If he can be a truly disruptive player and make noise than we got him cheap.  We don't know yet, but that's my two cents.

[Tark The Shark]

Yeah with Fitzgerald being on the "over-paid" list, this thing makes no sense.

 

Romo is definitely the most over-paid player in the league.

[Superman]

Eh, just give him a Tom Brady "restructure."  lol.  In Flacco's case, yeah, you are right.  There may be ways around it, but if he all the sudden starts to play terribly on a consistent basis, the Ravens have an even more severe problem than the Jets do with Sanchez salary cap wise.  Cutting him sets you back at least 2 years, he has no trade value because no one would want htat contract, and keeping him hurts you almost as bad if not more than if you were to cut him.

 

As most are in agreement, this is very unlikely, but still interesting to discuss nonetheless.

I think they should restructure it before the end of the season. They should move some of his future money into this year and next, get rid of the option bonuses due in 2014 and 2015, and balance the overall structure out so that it's not so backloaded. As it stands right now, 70% of the cap hits are in the last three years of the deal. That's nuts for any contract, and it will especially hurt the Ravens if Flacco isn't as good as they hope he is.

Restructuring a contract so soon after it's signed is rare, but so long as the money works in the player's favor, it should be doable. It just would have to be done before the final regular season game in 2013. Otherwise, the $15m option bonus due in 2014 can't be restructured, and it further messes up their future cap.

I don't think Flacco is worth this much, but the bigger problem I have is with the structure, as you can see from my comments.

[OffensivelyPC]

I think they should restructure it before the end of the season. They should move some of his future money into this year and next, get rid of the option bonuses due in 2014 and 2015, and balance the overall structure out so that it's not so backloaded. As it stands right now, 70% of the cap hits are in the last three years of the deal. That's nuts for any contract, and it will especially hurt the Ravens if Flacco isn't as good as they hope he is.

Restructuring a contract so soon after it's signed is rare, but so long as the money works in the player's favor, it should be doable. It just would have to be done before the final regular season game in 2013. Otherwise, the $15m option bonus due in 2014 can't be restructured, and it further messes up their future cap.

I don't think Flacco is worth this much, but the bigger problem I have is with the structure, as you can see from my comments.

Agreed.  The 70% in cap hits usually isn't quite so crazy when it's a franchise player and front loaded, but here, you're right.  If Flacco pans out, they'll have to cut some excess fat and restock in the draft with the friendly rookie wage scale, but that's putting a lot of risk on the franchise.  Then again, this is the contract that they must reap and sow.  Glad its not our problem (yet anyway) 

[Superman]

Agreed.  The 70% in cap hits usually isn't quite so crazy when it's a franchise player and front loaded, but here, you're right.  If Flacco pans out, they'll have to cut some excess fat and restock in the draft with the friendly rookie wage scale, but that's putting a lot of risk on the franchise.  Then again, this is the contract that they must reap and sow.  Glad its not our problem (yet anyway)

Yeah, typically is frontloaded, not backloaded, that way you have cap flexibility moving forward, not to mention cash. Manning's 2011 contract with the Colts was heavily frontloaded, with about 76% hitting in the first three years, leaving minimal cap hits in the final two years. Of course, that contract was terminated after one year, due to the option bonus. It's neither here nor there, but in hindsight, we'd have been better off leaving him on the franchise tag, both in terms of cash and cap.

Based on the way our free agent contracts were done this year (and the way we structured Robert Mathis' contract last year), I highly doubt Luck's next contract looks anything like Flacco's contract, in terms of structure. I expect something more like Aaron Rodgers' contract, nice and even over the life of the deal.

[Gavin]

Yeah, typically is frontloaded, not backloaded, that way you have cap flexibility moving forward, not to mention cash. Manning's 2011 contract with the Colts was heavily frontloaded, with about 76% hitting in the first three years, leaving minimal cap hits in the final two years. Of course, that contract was terminated after one year, due to the option bonus. It's neither here nor there, but in hindsight, we'd have been better off leaving him on the franchise tag, both in terms of cash and cap.

Based on the way our free agent contracts were done this year (and the way we structured Robert Mathis' contract last year), I highly doubt Luck's next contract looks anything like Flacco's contract, in terms of structure. I expect something more like Aaron Rodgers' contract, nice and even over the life of the deal.

I just dont see why teams dont evenly distribute the contract hit through the length of the contract instead of front loading or back loading with a lot of incentives for players to earn along the way

[OffensivelyPC]

I just dont see why teams dont evenly distribute the contract hit through the length of the contract instead of front loading or back loading with a lot of incentives for players to earn along the way

That's because players want the guaranteed money and as much of it as possible as quickly as possible.  If the team could average out the contract years for every player they would and I would suspect this is how it was done before free agency and the salary cap (or closer than it is now).  Players like guarantees, and when guarantees are back loaded (which most players other than QBs don't like it that way), they can get injured, stick out the season and get cut and not get the full amount guaranteed by the contract (i.e. the likely to be earned portion of contracts).

[Superman]

I just dont see why teams dont evenly distribute the contract hit through the length of the contract instead of front loading or back loading with a lot of incentives for players to earn along the way

You frontload so that you have cap flexibility later on, especially when dealing with an older player like Manning. You backload so that you have cap flexibility now, and if you release the player later on, you save more cash.

Ideally, you'd balance it out as much as possible, but the Ravens didn't have the cap space to carry Flacco at anywhere near $20m this season. That's fine, that's why signing bonuses are prorated. But what's dumb to me is the option bonuses for 2014 and 2015, which further backload the deal, even though it's cash heavy upfront. I just don't like the structure moving forward.

[smittywerb]

Isn't this what every QB does?

 

 

It's a difference b/w "Flacco making plays" and "Manning making plays".

[smittywerb]

I know a lot of people responded to my Manning comment.  To put it as simple as possible, if you were to put Manning on one of those Ravens teams, Manning would have won his ring a lot sooner than later.  If it weren't for the Broncos D laying a dud, Manning might have been going to another SB.  I'm not a Manning apologist, but dude never really had defense to play with (except for the 06 playoff team).  Manning WAS the defense essentially.  

[GoColts8818]

I know a lot of people responded to my Manning comment.  To put it as simple as possible, if you were to put Manning on one of those Ravens teams, Manning would have won his ring a lot sooner than later.  If it weren't for the Broncos D laying a dud, Manning might have been going to another SB.  I'm not a Manning apologist, but dude never really had defense to play with (except for the 06 playoff team).  Manning WAS the defense essentially.  

Odds are if Manning was on one of those Ravens teams they wouldn't have had all the other players on those teams that they did have.  It wouldn't have been as simple as take Manning and his contract and move him to the Ravens, if you did that the Ravens would have had to give up some pretty good players to make room for him. 

[Gavin]

You frontload so that you have cap flexibility later on, especially when dealing with an older player like Manning. You backload so that you have cap flexibility now, and if you release the player later on, you save more cash.

Ideally, you'd balance it out as much as possible, but the Ravens didn't have the cap space to carry Flacco at anywhere near $20m this season. That's fine, that's why signing bonuses are prorated. But what's dumb to me is the option bonuses for 2014 and 2015, which further backload the deal, even though it's cash heavy upfront. I just don't like the structure moving forward.

Anyway you could possibly look at it the whole Flacco deal is obsurd, The Ravens better hope he channels is inner Peyton Manning and covers up for some of his teams shortcomings...The Ravens are still a talented team but not close to what they were just as of last year

[smittywerb]

Odds are if Manning was on one of those Ravens teams they wouldn't have had all the other players on those teams that they did have.  It wouldn't have been as simple as take Manning and his contract and move him to the Ravens, if you did that the Ravens would have had to give up some pretty good players to make room for him. 

 

Oh yeah of course, I was just speaking hypothetically.  I agree.  But that's the thing, if you give Manning just a B ranked defense, maybe even C+, he'll get you there.  

[Superman]

Anyway you could possibly look at it the whole Flacco deal is obsurd, The Ravens better hope he channels is inner Peyton Manning and covers up for some of his teams shortcomings...The Ravens are still a talented team but not close to what they were just as of last year

 

I think they can be better than they were last year. They're relying on a lot of younger players (Arthur Brown and Matt Elam instead of Ray Lewis and Ed Reed, and so on), but they are still talented. They're deep up front, they have a strong run game, and if Flacco can be more productive in the regular season, they'll be good enough to get in the playoffs. From there, it's anyone's game, as they showed last year.

 

I don't think Flacco was worth the money, but it's compounded when you look at the structure of the contract.

[mvbighead]

I know a lot of people responded to my Manning comment.  To put it as simple as possible, if you were to put Manning on one of those Ravens teams, Manning would have won his ring a lot sooner than later.  If it weren't for the Broncos D laying a dud, Manning might have been going to another SB.  I'm not a Manning apologist, but dude never really had defense to play with (except for the 06 playoff team).  Manning WAS the defense essentially.  

 

I think there is a lot of this that carries over to the Flacco/Ryan debate.  Manning is essentially Ryan, and Brady is Flacco.  Ryan has plenty of offensive weapons, Flacco has the defense.  Manning for the longest time had all the stats, Brady had all the playoff success.

 

Now, at this point, the Flacco/Ryan deal is just beginning.  And as Flacco's team just underwent a major make over, it may change.  By and large, Flacco's team still has the better defense.  Ryan's still has the better offense.

 

Now, IMO, Flacco and Ryan are each currently on a lower level than Manning/Brady, but that's the gist.  Brady's team started to take a different approach with the acquisition of Moss and others.  Then he got stats, but by that time, his defense was past its prime and didn't help enough to win the SB.

 

In any case, I don't care what anyone says, Flacco's contract is what he ended up being worth based on his last playoff run.  The Raven's made a gamble of waiting to pay him after the season, and while they ended up with a SB, they also ended up with a QB who just reached the pinnacle during a contract year.  As a result, the price tag went up, way up.  All the same, Ryan got a little more, in large part due to the fact that he has better stats.  But I'd like to think, you switch the two around, and Flacco's stats are higher.  Maybe not quite as high as Ryan's now, but higher than what he has with the Ravens.

[The Old Crow]

One Super Bowl is already in the hip pocket for Flacco and the Ravens. I will take a Super Bowl win over any individual QB stats or regular season success. Flacco got more than probably he should , but he earned it. I really believe Ozzie is flexible enough to work around this contract. He just guided this team through a big transition , and we will see how it works out . Ryan is a good QB but until he wins a Super Bowl he will be in the Marino category.