rmcjacket23

While I don't think their cap situation in 2018 will be bad, I should also point out that they have $134M under contract currently, but that's only with 36 players. As is typically the case, its not so much about affording him as WANTING to afford him. Committing something like $20-25M in cap space in a given year to two defensive lineman who aren't particularly great at rushing the passer isn't always the best investment strategy. I'm not buying the talk of him getting traded or of us not being able to resign him just yet, but again, its difficult to commit that much money to those types of positions.

True, although it seems to happen more frequently with our FAs going to other teams.

Good luck finding one...

Pretty much a myth based on 2016 statistics. Look at the targets/game: Pitta: 7.4 Wallace: 7.3 Smith: 6.4 Perriman: 4.1 Aiken: 3.1 So Pitta and Wallace were targeted at nearly the same rate, and Steve Smith was only targeted once per game less. Pretty typical for a team with no clear #1 target. Spread out pretty evenly over the top 2-3 players, and then a drop off to the next group. I will agree that Pitta's targets numbers are higher than we normally see from him and probably higher than they should be given his skill sets, but he's getting as much attention as Wallace was, and not significantly more than Steve Smith either.

Source where Ozzie told John to hire Kubiak? Pretty sure that didn't actually happen. Most likely a fan-generated myth. The closest article I found. "The last tweet from Baltimore Sun columnist Mike Preston is telling, considering that Jim Hostler was leading the way for the job it seemed. That would insinuate that Harbaugh wanted Hostler and that Ozzie Newsome and Steve Bisciotti were thinking otherwise." http://www.baltimorebeatdown.com/2014/1/27/5350924/ravens-to-hire-gary-kubiak-as-offensive-coordinator-official Preston also makes stuff up all the time too, so needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Jefferson himself said he turned down 1.5m per yesr to accept the Ravens offer. Yup, so not much. Also don't know what the guaranteed money difference was or if there was one.

Agree. Aiken really isn't THAT good to be honest. He had his chances to prove himself but couldn't out perform a retiring vet or 2nd year rookie. His route running is also suspect. Lets see just how much he actually plays in Indy. He might just live on special teams. Notice just how much interest teams had in him....Ummmm hardly any. When he signed with them it wasn't a long deal so that should tell him something. I hate whiners! Blame everything and everyone but himself. Geez. Yea, it is hard to envision Kamar getting much time on offense unless someone gets hurt. I don't think that anyone has ever thought that Kamar was THAT good. I had a hard time last off season trying to justify the FO move to tender him as a second round RFA last year. I still cant come up with any logical explanation for why they made that decision. That said I really don't think what he said is as incendiary as you and others are making it seem. I wish him well. That's exactly my point, people in this thread are acting like Aiken said "Screw Baltimore, I hate them, they suck, I did amazing things in Baltimore, Indy ftw." People talking about him like he spray painted a swastika on the field before he left. Jeezz No one is saying Aiken was great, never said he was better than Perriman or Wallace- just that when given playing time, he's more dependable to catch the ball. Keep in mind, all those stats about his 1st down %(which led our receivers) or 4% drop rate came in the year where he saw his reps decrease cause SSS, Periman, and Wallace were 1, 2, & 3 in the depth chart. Everything Aiken said is valid. Are there better options, OBVIOUSLY. But to Aikens point, there is a difference between not playing cause you suck, and not playing cause the front office wanna see what the rookie can do. Aiken is not that great BUT, when put in his shoes, if in 2015 you led the team with 75 receptions for 944 yards and five touchdowns, then see your self on the bottom of the depth chart for what is in your mind no other reason than some bigger names came in.... tell me you wouldn't feel the same way??? Ideally he would have realized that Steve Smith missing a big chunk of the season had a lot to do with that, as well as the fact that the team spent most of the season trailing and had to throw constantly. If I were him heading into last offseason, I would have said to myself "well, Steve is coming back (even though he said he was going to retire, Perriman is getting healthy, AND they signed Mike Wallace... I'm not sure they really think much of me at this point".

They are actually going to be doing this. Not fully, but significantly.

But the reality is it has very little to do with that. People think this is an NFL problem... its not really. Its a television problem. Its a TV network issue, its a TV subscriber issue. People aren't paying for Cable/Satellite TV anymore. There's a rapid change in consumer preference when it comes to this. They don't want commercials PERIOD. Has nothing to do with length of them or quality of them. The steps that they're talking about taking in regards to commercials I actually think will work. You'll get less commercial breaks, but you'll get a slightly lengthier commercial break when you get one. Doubt fans actually take notice.

They're complaining of 2 different situations...Juice's position was underutilized, Aiken's position was crowded and he could catch better than 2 of the 3 people ahead of him on the depth chart. Juice would sound bitter too if there were other FB's getting more playing time with Juice feeling as if he could contribute more than them. Granted, Wallace and Perriman have other qualities that might have made them rank above Aiken such as better route running, more separation, more YAC, etc., but when your JOB is to CATCH THE BALL, it seems as if the Ravens valued the wrong attributes and maybe Aiken realized that. You can't blame him for feeling the way he does. Or they looked at his 4% drop rate (which isn't terrible, but not great either) and determined that maybe he wasn't all that great at doing that either...

I'm pretty sure he identified already that the Ravens were identifying things that he didn't do well or needed to work on. Seemed he just simply disagreed. The problem with Aiken is that I don't see a particular set of skills that he brings to the table that differentiates himself from his peers, and I think the league knows that. Aiken's skill set was being sure handed on 3rd down and moving the chains, which he did when he played. His peers: Perriman- deep threat with no hands Wallace- deep threat who occasionally had no hands Ironically, his best shot for playing time would've come with this years Ravens since, with the departure of SSS, he would have had the surest hands on the team aside from getting one of the top 3 WR in the draft. Another myth though. Aiken had a higher drop rate (4%) in 2016 than Steve Smith (3%), Mike Wallace (1.7%), and Pitta (1.7%), two of which will be on the 2017 team. In terms of being a "chain mover", his 1st down % isn't much different than most of his peers in 2016. Aiken: 62% Wallace: 60% Steve Smith: 56% Perriman: 58% Pitta was the only one with a pretty low number.

I'm pretty sure he identified already that the Ravens were identifying things that he didn't do well or needed to work on. Seemed he just simply disagreed. The problem with Aiken is that I don't see a particular set of skills that he brings to the table that differentiates himself from his peers, and I think the league knows that.

Good thing Tony Jefferson had a completely different mindset.. Well we don't really know what the Browns were offering, but my guess is he didn't leave much money behind. We don't even know if the guaranteed money was much different either. I will almost guarantee that it wasn't a case of the Browns offering like $12M a year and him choosing the Ravens for like $8.5M. We're talking maybe $1M a year difference in most of these cases.

Welp, here's to hoping that Flacco has filled his pockets with enough moolah at one point so he, too, would be willing to take a bit less or maybe shuffle some of that dough around into bonuses of different sort. 1. He's already done the bonus thing. It's why his cap number is so high right now and why he had to do a complete extension after just 3 years of a 6 year deal. 2. Unlikely to see anything of the sort, given that Joe almost certainly won't be playing until he is 40 like Tom will. He would be 37 when his current contract expires, and that's probably around the time he'll start considering retirement, assuming he even makes it that long.

And for even added context, look at the output from the Colts the last few years in that role: In 2016, the 3rd WR on the roster was actually 4th on the team in targets, with 56. By comparison, he had 50 targets in Baltimore last year, and felt "underutilized". Note that the Colts ran a lot of two TE sets, and had two TEs with over 50 targets. Not that much difference than Baltimore, who had Pitta as a target hog and Juice having nearly identical targets to Aiken. In 2015, the 3rd WR on the roster was again 4th on the team in targets, though did see a bump to 77 targets. This was also the year that Luck missed significant time and the Colts threw a lot more due to falling behind in games a lot. So realistically, based on how our offense runs compared to the Colts, I don't really see the options for Aiken to get more usage. Like 2015, he's probably going to need an injury to Moncrief or Hilton in order to get significant time. AND that's assuming that he gets more targets than somebody like Dorsett, which I doubt.

Have not seen any updates on his contract size either, but hopefully soon we will. I find the whole thing amusing. He complains about his role in an offense that had limited abilities at the WR position, then signs with a team to COMPETE for the #3 WR in an offense that is extremely multi-dimensional. Basically he complains about the Ravens not "showing him love", and then signs a one year deal in a bad WR market with a team just so he can COMPETE for #3 duties. Sounds like the Colts don't think he's that good either.

Be that as it may, settling for FG was one of our Achilles heels last season. Since nothing had changed receiver wise it may be a problem this year as well. Sure signing a long term solution would be great if you can find one. If not I for one would welcome Boldin back as a one year stop gap. Beggers cant be choosers. Or its something we address in the draft. Or we start using our TEs more, which I think is the goal. Or we start running the ball better, especially in the red zone, which is certainly the goal. That's why I don't think we are a "begger" in that regard. I don't think anybody realistically thinks adding Boldin will mean we start scoring a bunch of TDs instead of FGs.

We could definitely use a red zone specialist Yup... for multiple seasons, not just a one year stop gap on a team that's not likely to compete for a SB title. Would also point out that the last time he was in Baltimore, where he had less competition for snaps and playing time, he wasn't that much of a red zone threat in the regular season either. Especially in his last two seasons. People remember him being one in the playoffs, but he didn't display nearly as much of that from September-December.

I'd go with the bitter player. KO I'm not even really sure he knew what he was talking about or anybody really even understands what he said. It seemed to me that he was just upset that the Ravens didn't put up a better contract offer. With Aiken, pretty clear he wasn't a valued member of the offense, and we all knew that already.

You can not in all seriousness believe that Gizele's income is the main reason for Brady low cap number?! I mean, if that was the case and Brady really was living out of Gizele's pocket, why even take 15mil per year. Why not take 10mil, or 5?? Brady takes less money cause he wants to be with a winning organization and wants that organization to be in the best possible position to win as many titles as possible. Well, sort of. 1. He can take less because he's made a little under $200M in his career from the Patriots. That's why he can take less, which he somewhat does. 2. Fans seems to forget that there have been multiple contracts in Brady's career where he was taking top of the market deals. The reason fans forget this is because QBs weren't making $20M+ a year when he was doing that. In 2005, he signed a deal that paid him nearly $10M AAV, which was one of the biggest deals in league history at the time. Note that the salary cap that season was just over $85M. In 2010, he signed a 4 year extension worth $72M, so an AAV on that extension of $18M/year. On AAV, that made him the highest paid player in the league. 3. Also need to understand that Brady's compensation and cap numbers are often two very different things. Much of Brady's compensation through his career has come in the form of bonuses instead of base salaries, so that they can be allocated over a longer period of a contract. Tom Brady made over $28M to play football last season. That's how much cash the Patriots paid him. He wasn't playing for $5M, or $10M, or $15M. Now, in 2017, he's only owed $1M, but we will see if that actually comes to fruition or not.

LOL her we go again. Ready to pounce huh. No, it's not. He probably would be even accept 5M a year. LOL, do you honestly believe what you are saying or are you just trolling? Just FYI, $7M a year is top 10 inside linebacker money in the NFL... also known as a ton. Its especially a ton for a team that probably only has about half that much in cap space to actually spend. Still money to free up Genuis. But of course you knew that? You know it all sounds like Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't sound like a great way to build a quality football team though. Sounds like you didn't really think this one through all the way before you fired off the troll post. LOL. By suggesting a couple obvious cuts that will be made...? O OK LOL Continue to impress with your ways 1. You mean the obvious cuts that every fan was so sure was going to happen like a month ago? Those obvious cuts? LOL. Funny thing is... its basically one person... Ben Watson. Arrington isn't getting cut until he can pass a physical, otherwise we have to pay him something in a settlement, which could eliminate most of the cap savings, thus making it pointless. 2. Also implies that we would actually want to cut one of those guys simply to spend $7M on a MLB when we have another MLB who will get at least that much probably next offseason. Again, if you just think these things through, its not really that hard. interesting you know how much we would pay him. I knew you were on the inside with all your knowledge. Plus, it doesn't imply that at all. It might imply that we have 5 other tight ends. And a second rounder that needs to hit the field, in addition to Boyle, Gilmore, and Pitta. Who knows if they'll keep trying with Waller. Watson is coming off an Achilles and will be 37 before the season's over. Think it through, it's not that hard. 1. If you invested the extra few seconds to read some of the other posts on this thread, you'd recognize where that figure came from. (Hint: it didn't come from me). 2. Yup, and we had close to that many TEs last season, and nothing changed. Some will get injured, some may get cut. Watson is the only one we could cut and get any relevant cap relief from. So unless you plan on magically signing Brown for $500K a year, cutting any one or combination of those guys outside of Watson is meaningless.

And equally, if YPC benefits the guy who is not targeted in goal line situations, then TD receptions or even TD ratio WOULD benefit the guy who is targeted in goal line situations... and unfairly so.

A word of advice... if you're going to propose a theory, you might want to at least substantiate it or test it out first. Now I had to do your work for you... Aiken had 18 first downs on 29 receptions, a 62% rate. Boldin had 41 first downs on 67 receptions, a 61% rate. So at best, they were comparable in terms of efficiency from a first down standpoint. TDs are obviously in Boldin's favor, though I'm not really sure why you think that's a quality measurement for efficiency. YAC is a pretty good measurement of efficiency, and that favors Aiken pretty comfortably. The only thing a TD ratio is going to display is usage differences between the two players. Aiken was obviously not a red zone option, while Boldin was.

What a load of hogwash. First, restructuring does not necessarily mean a player gets paid less. Converting base salary into bonus money pays the player the exact amount as before, just now some of that money is guaranteed. It's always risky for a team, but it's a common tool to lower a player's cap hit. Secondly, plenty of QBs have done it. Brady and Big Ben have both done it at least 2 times in the past 5 years if I remember correctly. You actually just proved his point. Players move the money around, but they don't eliminate it completely. That's the point. His statement was that no QB has agreed to take a straight paycut, meaning no bonus conversion, etc. While I wouldn't say nobody has done it, I don't recall any big name, franchise QB doing it. Restructuring a salary into a bonus to create short term cap space is just like putting something on your credit card. It doesn't go away... you just pay it later. This is all moot on Joe, because only $6M this season would be subject to this anyway, so converting a portion or all of that into a bonus wouldn't even yield that much cap space. In short, its not happening.

I could argue both sides. 1. Him having the best year of his career isn't saying much, because his career numbers were never great. 2. He had a ton of catches but was pretty bad in terms of yardage. That's pretty inefficient. 3. At $5.5M, he would be paid like a top TE in the league, which he really isn't. Also takes into account the gigantic health risk associated. Not only that... he got paid while injured and we didnt waiver on that. Plus, he probably realizes that he wouldnt stand to make what he'll probably make here over the next 2 years in the open market (especially now that everyones gobbled up TEs, and the draft is historically good at the position). Agreeing to the pay cut all but guarantees he'll be here for the next 2 years at a pretty good salary, on the team he wants to be with, where his family is comfortable, with a QB who he is a security blanket for which prob helps his future earning potential. I wouldn't say he's guaranteed a roster spot in 2018. The difference between this year and last years paycut is that he agreed to a cut for more than just that season. As it stands now, he would create $3M in cap savings with a cut after this season, with only $2.2M in dead money. Anytime there's decent cap savings AND the cap savings is more than the dead money, you're almost always on the roster bubble. A similar season to last season likely means he stays. Any injuries or decrease in production and he's a prime cut candidate. I think all this agreement does is guarantee him a roster spot for 2017, but definitely not in the future.