rmcjacket23

Just to clarify... he's not going to have a $16M cap number in year. The $16M is how much he will get paid. Likely means a large signing bonus. By comparison, in 2013 when Joe signed his first mega contract, we paid him $30M in his first year (a $29M signing bonus and a $1M salary), and his cap number was merely $6.8M that year. Joe made $29M last year from us as well, despite a cap number of $22.55M. I would actually bet that Garcon's cap number for 2017 will be around $10M or maybe a little less. They could in theory front load the crap out of it, given the cap space they have, but I would be stunned if they take all of that impact in the first year. You say either I say "eye-ther". The Ravens could ill-afford either (eye-ther) price. Well, you simply don't know that at this point. Given that we appear to be signing Tony Jefferson, my guess is that his first year cap impact wouldn't be a lot different than Garcon's... if we wanted it to be. We could afford to sign somebody who costs $15M against the 2017 cap if we wanted to. Its just a matter of how many players do we have to cut and how many contracts we have to restructure to do it.

you literally just listed them above and copied the wrong number - you've copied the 2018 not the 2017 - and im not sure how listing something i was literally telling you about changes the facts of what i've been saying? Doesn't matter what gets paid and when cap number is what we have against the cap and what we have to spend. Who cares when and what he got. Cap number affects what we do. Yes it does. But when you're talking about paycuts, the cap number means very little. The only thing you can take a paycut from is your current year salary. Can't cut previously paid bonuses. Newsflash... most of Joe's cap hit is from previously paid bonuses. Paycut ain't happening kid. Get used to it. Throwing a temper tantrum ain't gonna solve anything...

Implies there is a correlation between cap spending and winning, which there isn't... Let me know the last time somebody won March and also won February.

Who says Pitta stays on this team? I can guarantee we aren't done cutting players. They're already in discussions for a paycut, which holds a lot more value than just a straight cut. You can get similar or nearly identical cap savings from a paycut as you will just cutting him entirely. I would also point out that Pitta and Wallace had practically the same number of targets last season, and Steve Smith had over 100 targets as well. This notion that Flacco only looks at Pitta isn't based on anything factual from what I can tell.

He averaged 62 and 5 when he was here five years ago. Not sure why anybody would think he would produce better than that, based on something he did on another team. Obviously also ignores the concept that teams rarely evaluated WRs based on TDs, given how extremely volatile that measurement is, and how unsustainable his reception/TD ratio was from last season. And signing Torrey would have nothing to do with signing Boldin, because they have very different skill sets. We're looking for both those types of players, not one or the other. The reason we consider signing Torrey is because we would dump Wallace when we do. You'd get the cheaper, younger receiver with practically the same skill sets. In fact, that's how you open up cap space to sign the Boldin-like player, though I doubt it will be him.

You don't understand how the cap or trades work, because your scenario causes the exact opposite of what you think it does to happen.

havent you heard? brian hoyer will be throwing passes to garcon now... maybe marquise goodwin too Well, for a year, until they get Kirk Cousins. Assuming they don't draft a QB early, of course.

LOL Most of the time it always does. I wonder how much the Ravens offer because if it's like 6-7M, Wagner should've just take that. 2-3 years later, Detroit cuts him and Wagner will be saying " l've should've took the Ravens offer in the beginning." 😅 He can't bank on that though. What if he took less and in 2-3 years the Ravens cut him because he wasn't performing well? We need to stop pretending like these guys that we resign stay here forever.

We needed to bring in at least 1 "big name" FA to fill a need to even pretend we can compete in 2017. It seems people do not comprehend how many voids we must fill. WR position was our best chance to do it and hope we can solve the rest. We will literally have almost half the roster to fill. I think people comprehend the number of voids, which is pretty much the exact reason why you DON'T go sign a big name FA. If you go sign a big name FA, you don't have the money to spend to address many of the other positions we need to address. And no, I doubt the FO is sitting there with a "SB or bust" mentality for 2017 when they too are aware of how we need to get much, much younger on defense and add some playmakers on both sides of the ball. If the fanbase knows how much talent infusion we need, I would dare say they know exponentially more. And I certainly know they're aware that its not a 1 year proposition.

Not really. If they can get a decent deal out of Torrey, then you decline Wallace's option. Really not a whole lot of difference between those two guys from what I've seen on the field, and you'd get the younger, cheaper player.

And literally all of the guys you listed came via the draft, which is about the only place you're going to get any of those players.

I mean cool, but it seems kind of odd to rate how good a draft pick somebody was by how he performed on a team that didn't draft him. Again, that's like the Atlanta Falcons saying that Brett Favre was a good draft pick for them. Its kind of hard to be a good draft pick when you never actually play or play well for that team, regardless of how you did elsewhere.

1. Some of those players aren't getting cut after 2-3 years. 2. They may not play as well for us and get cut after 2-3 years also. Generally, when a player is told that he is good, he doesn't think that he is good because of the employer he works for. The natural mentality is that "I will be good no matter where I play". Its not like we are so extremely loyal to players that we will keep them for life.

Because we aren't the only team with those problems. The one's that draft better than us have overcome it.

Not gonna pay Jensen 1.8 to be a back-up. Draft a Center in the 5th or 6th. See if the rook can beat him out. I wouldn't draft a C high in the draft. We need a corner or a WR with our first pick. The majority of your players making less than $2M are going to be role players or backups. The only starting caliber players playing for that little are almost always players on rookie deals.

Won't get any comp picks for players we cut (i.e. Dumervil). Its basically just Williams, Wagner and Juice that would give us comp pick benefit, and that's pending how we spend on FAs anyway.

Don't worry. They always have a crappy year. They haven't been worse than 7-9 since 2012, so this isn't really true. Two playoff appearances during that time as well.

Crazy, but maybe like a fox. Hurst is a solid LT and OL back-up and 2nd line player. He is not the starting RT that the Ravens will need, however Nembot could be. With Wagner on the move, I still think the Ravens should cut ties with Zuttah. A stronger Center will help this team tremendously. Get the best Rookie Center available in the draft, ( Elflien) sandwich him between Yanda and Lewis with the 2 big guys Stanley and Nembot on the outside I think the Ravens have a great O-line. If the Rookie has trouble you have Jensen and Urschel who need to be ready to step in and take the job. This is a very affordable and reasonable way to make this Offense young and competent. Spend the money on a solid running back to take the pressure off of the passing game. 1. Hurst is definitely not a solid LT. He's one of the worst backup LTs in the league, and frankly, I'm not even sure if he's on the roster as a LT anymore, given that last year the Ravens chose to play Lewis (a rookie) at LT when Stanley was hurt, instead of Hurst. I think he's competing as a backup RT at this point, and its a complete coin flip as to whether or not he makes the roster at all. I suppose if we bring in literally nobody, he could compete for the starting RT gig, but I think he gets beat out by just about any mid-round draft pick at this point, which I suspect is the route we are going to go. 2. We're not signing a veteran RB. We have youth and depth at RB, and we like the guys we have. Most expect Dixon to take over the feature back role this season, with West as the complement. We MIGHT consider drafting somebody, depending on how the board shakes out, but I see no reason on Earth to sign a veteran RB in FA. I don't see what value they'd bring to the team.

If you're looking for a possession receiver, half of the guys you listed won't work. In particular, Stills is a deep threat who is allegedly looking at a price tag in excess of $10M per year, so he won't be on our radar.

Quality player, would have liked to have retained him. In the end, hard to justify spending $9M+ on a RT in this league. By comparison to other OLine position, its easily the least valued league-wide at this point, and it would be very difficult to get a quality ROI on that investment in the long run.

Just to clarify... he's not going to have a $16M cap number in year. The $16M is how much he will get paid. Likely means a large signing bonus. By comparison, in 2013 when Joe signed his first mega contract, we paid him $30M in his first year (a $29M signing bonus and a $1M salary), and his cap number was merely $6.8M that year. Joe made $29M last year from us as well, despite a cap number of $22.55M. I would actually bet that Garcon's cap number for 2017 will be around $10M or maybe a little less. They could in theory front load the crap out of it, given the cap space they have, but I would be stunned if they take all of that impact in the first year.

I wonder how many years fans will say that we will be picking in the top 5 until it actually comes true. Its like watching a blind squirrel. Whiff on it every single year. Heck, two years ago we had half our team on IR including our franchise QB, and we STILL didn't even pick in the top 5. You guys gotta start trying harder... 4-12 next year!!! Sure they will kid. Sure they will.

Unfortunately, the price range for most above-average players will be too high for the Ravens. Every year they sign above average players in FA. This isn't anything new.

Well, mostly on the coaching side (maybe). Even if Ozzie were to leave (which he would do voluntarily, because he's not getting fired), he'd be replaced by DeCosta, who's been running the draft and is already a big player in the FO anyway. So realistically, very little change in the FO structure, and maybe a new coaching staff with a bad year. None of which is guaranteed, of course.

Haven't really seen any indication that the FO is committed to providing Flacco with "weapons". They're looking to find a possession receiver, and that's about all anybody has heard in terms of "weapons". They've said they want to beef up the Oline, which would allow us to run the ball better (which they've said time and time again we want to do) and pass protect better. They've also said they want to add youth and depth in the secondary, and upgrade the pass rush, the two biggest weaknesses on the defense. So to me, if you've listened to what the FO has told you over the last few months, they're doing exactly what you want them to do. Not really sure what the point of the "Flacco turn the ball over as much" comment is, since that wasn't an issue last season. Fans (again) just go to the boxscore and look at the INT totals and say "that's too high", but lack the effort to take it into context. Obviously, QBs who throw the ball a lot, for the most part, throw more INTs. Why do you think Drew Brees averages 15 INTs per year? Because he throws the ball 600+ times a year. Try looking at INTs on a per attempt basis. If you did, you'd see that, in 2016, Joe was throwing INTs at a rate similar to what he was in some of his better years of his career. Again, context people. Box scores only give you the minimum.