rmcjacket23

The salary cap was created for the 1994 season. Since that time: 21 years, 13 different SB champs. Patriots won 4 of them, five other teams won 2. Of those five teams with 2, two of those teams had different QBs when they won the SB. Even if we focus only on GETTING to the SB, and not even winning it, there's 42 SB participants represented by 21 different teams. There is only ONE team in 21 seasons who even has more than 4 SB appearances, and that's NE with 7. PIT has 4 appearances. That's the problem. And even if we play the "well Seattle made back to back, so winning 6 isn't impossible", the same thing could easily have been said about the Patriots. They won 3 in 4 years, which was unprecedented and may never be duplicated again. They only had to wait another entire decade to win another one, and that's after two failed attempts in between. Do I think Flacco can PLAY in 4 SBs? Perhaps, although I'd consider that to be an incredible achievement in it of itself. I certainly don't expect him to go 4-0 in those SBs, because those kinds of accomlishments are incredibly rare. If he wins ONE more SB during his Baltimore career, I'd be extremely happy with that and wouldn't consider that a "missed opportunity", because history tells us all we need to know about what it takes to win that many SBs in a salary cap era, particularly with one QB.

Possibly, though it certainly wouldn't be with the idea of starting. Ultimately, I think Ozzie would decide that a Miles or a Levine would be better at safety than any vet released from camp. Keep in mind that camp cuts are almost always an indictment of an injury or poor performance, as there's really no benefit to making those cuts for salary cap purposes, so the likelihood of getting even a quality reserve player is very small.

Not really that important of a position. In most cases, you're looking at 40-50% of all punts ending up as fair catches, meaning the only requirement is to catch the ball. The best of the best punt returners average about 10-12 yards returned per punt, which is great, except that really only equates to 25-30 yards per game at best. Even the the below average punts returners are still going to get you 6-8 yards, meaning the difference between a good and bad punt returner is less than 20 yards of field position a game. Its why we let go of guys like Jacoby, and why there's very, very, very few teams in the league that employ players specifically as return specialists, because there value just isn't that high. Most teams are completely content with gaining five yards on a punt return, and just not fumbling. That's the whole concept with special teams... you don't have to be great on ST to win a SB. You just simply can't suck at it.

Because its unrealistic. The elite of the elite of the elite of the elite QBs win 4 SBs in a lifetime. The franchise with the most SBs, the Steelers, have 6... TOTAL. That's six over about 45 years, and you're expecting something similar over a 12 year span? Not realistic by any stretch to me. I think people completely underestimate how incredibly hard it is to even get to a SB, let alone win it. We'd be incredibly lucky to play in even 3-4 SBs during the Flacco era, and that's assuming you'd win every single one, which is incredibly rare. I'm not suggesting the franchise won't win 4-6 more SBs in its history... I'm suggesting this notion that of the Ravens even making 4 SBs in the next decade (which is the aggressive lifespan of Flacco in this league) is incredibly unrealistic. I'm not even convinced there's a franchise or QB in this league right now that is even capable of making 4 SBs in the next 10 years.

I think 4-6 SBs would be a stretch. The best of the best franchises win 4-6 SBs over the course of 2-3 decades. Winning even 2 SBs with Flacco would be an amazing success with the franchise, and I'd say expecting anything more than 3 in a 15 year span is very difficult.

Trade seems borderline impossible to me as well. He certainly wouldn't get traded if he did WELL in camp, because then you'd probably be selling low on his value AND if he does well in camp than the franchise would obviously love to keep him. It would only be if he has a monumentally awful offseason that he would get traded, and it would likely be for a mid-to-late round draft pick, which doesn't really benefit us, since we already have a lack of depth/skill at the safety position anyway. So its borderline impossible to get accurate trade value for him. He's here this season 100% of the time, and I'd be shocked if he didn't at least complete his entire four year contract before we make a decision on his future.

Don't really understand why we are even discussing the possibility of Elam getting cut. There's zero salary cap benefit to doing so, and he's at least respectable depth even if he doesn't have a big role. Its borderline impossible for teams to cut first round picks after just two years from a salary cap perspective, and although he played pretty awful last season, he isn't going anywhere. He's one of three safeties who is locked into a roster spot.

While I agree that's the current intent, I honestly don't see it happening. I still don't believe that Marlon/Aiken will carve out a big enough role through their play in camp/preseason where they will honestly consider reducing SSS snap count significantly enough to rest him. I think they will realize early on that there is still a decent talent/skill gap between those kinds of players, and I think SSS will take on a bigger role than the Ravens current will want. He hopefully will have a reduced production role, indicating that others are contributing to the offense more, but I just don't see the snap count decreasing significantly unless its literally forced by the coaching staff, which could be detrimental to the offense. In particular, while we all want to believe that Perriman is going to be a stud, he's a rookie. There's a learning curve with 100% of rookie WRs, and I'm not expecting him to light the world on fire right out of the gate. So, at best, we head into the season with a WR core with major question marks up and down the roster, and the only "rock" in that is SSS.

Do I think he gets cut? No. But it also completely depends on how many WRs we carry. We pretty much know that SSS, Perriman and probably Campanaro are safe (mostly for return skills). So would it surprise me if he fell behind guys like Marlon Brown and a Jeremy Butler or a Darren Waller? Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. If Aiken ends camp as the 5th or 6th WR, its entirely possible he gets cut, particularly when you'd expect us to carry at least 3 TEs on the active roster and 3-4 RBs plus a fullback.

I'd caution you on one thing... the reason Grubbs was allowed to walk is because he was the second player of the guards to sign a contract. There was very little difference between Grubbs contract and Yanda's, so whoever signed first increases the likelihood that the other guard signs elsewhere. In that respect, yes, its possible one of them leaves. The problem is... its entirely possible that KO signs first. I wouldn't call it likely at this point, but its certainly possible. If KO signs first, there's zero guarantee Yanda is back at all, regardless of whether we think he's the better guard or even whether we want him back. In theory, we could retain both, at that's the goal. But I highly doubt the Ravens are strictly focusing on Yanda because he's the better guard. I have no doubt the FO has and continues to engage KO in contract talks as well, and it wouldn't surprise me if he signed first.

Actually, you could argue the rankings means more than the actual cap space does. If we have $50M in cap space, and there's 20 teams that have at least that much, it really doesn't make much difference whether we had $50M in cap space or $5M in cap space, because its all relative when compared to what other teams have. The likelihood of us getting even ONE marquee FA is still remote, especially when you consider that there's 20 other teams with equal or more cap money who may choose to bid on the same player. And typically in the NFL, he who offers the most money typically gets the player. In the end, its still way, way, way too early to be talking about next offseasons cap situation. There's still plenty of moving pieces, and anything can happen in an offseason that can drastically affect the salary cap (as this franchise should know more than any). If I were a betting man, I'd bet that people who think the Ravens are going to go on a FA spending spree next season and make "splashes" with marquee signings are going to be highly disappointed a year from now.

Correct, it wouldn't. Its certainly a better position than we are used to. Though I'd caution that I still think that ranks us around 20th in the league right now in cap space, so while to us it seems like a gigantic sum where we could buy some significant players, there's plenty of teams ahead of us in that regard, and many of them are significantly ahead.

Just for some perspective... The Ravens currently have around $125M in players under contract for 2016. That means, if you assume that the salary cap would be around $160M (probably a bit aggressive), we could have as much as $35M in cap space. Keep in mind, though, that there's a significant list of players who would become UFAs in 2016: Yanda, Osemele, Koch, Tucker, Upshaw, Asa Jackson. Also guys like Will Hill, etc. are technically FAs. If you were to retain even 2-3 of those players, you could be looking at cutting that cap space in half. Granted, there's plenty of players that could be released and cap space created from those moves, but I don't anticipate the Ravens legitimately having $30-$40M in cap space to play around with. I'd expect it to be closer to half of that.

True, but one is an inherent byproduct of the other. If you make the PAT more difficult to make, thus reducing the likelihood of making it, you also produce a relevant rationale or reason for a team to consider going for 2. There's certainly a ton of factors that play into the decision, and we all understand most of those. But a kicker lacking confidence and weather conditions are now significant factors, and I will bet they lead to more 2PC attempts in the future. You really didn't have to worry too much about either of those factors with the old PAT, because it was essentially a "gimme". You didn't need kicking confidence or even good weather to make it. Now, you need both.

Doesn't matter. Throwing deep is just one of many, many, many facets of QB play, and there's plenty of QBs in this league who are incredibly successful who can't complete a 40 yard pass.

1. If you are going to definitively say that Tannehill doesn't have the same skills as Flacco, that's fine. There's a lot of QBs in this league (who are equally or more successful than Joe) who don't have the same skills as him, or may even have less skills. If Tannehill has less or different skills, and can still be on the same track as Flacco in terms of statistical production, then that means 1 of 2 things... either the Dolphins are banking on continued ascension (perhaps towards a Flacco level) or Joe was simply underperforming in his first three years, which is also possible. 2. You're right... it is true every starting QB in the NFL, which is the entire point. The Ravens opted to not sign Joe after his 4th season, and it undoubtedly cost them money. We don't know how much, but even from Joe's agent, it was significant. In that regard, the Dolphins really have very little risk/downside. $16M average annual value is actually relatively low in the present day NFL for a starting QB who isn't on a rookie deal. Over half the starting QBs in this league have an average annual value of over $15M, and that includes several QBs who are grossly underpaid on that list, and also excludes guys like Brady, Newton and Luck, who undoubtedly worth that much. So realistically, you're talking about 20 QBs almost in the NFL that are getting over $15M a year on average. Not coincidentally, that's probably about the same size of teams that have a "franchise caliber" QB on their roster. That also excludes the fact that Joe's contract is basically three years old now, and the salary cap has increased about 15% over that period, which means players salaries (and in particular, QBs) are increasing across the board as well. So if you're the Dolphins... where's the real downside? You know after 3 years that he's your guy for the future, and you know that one great season could easily elevate his yearly average by $2-3M per season easily. 3. I'm not arguing that Joe's postseason performance is somehow diminished, but I think far too often fans like to lump his entire postseason career together and call it "elite". It was literally far from it. Joe's performances in the 08 and 09 postseasons were largely irrelevant. He was widely below average in just about any possible measurement of QB play in those postseasons. We saw a glimmer of something special early in 2010 postseason, but it really wasn't until the AFC title game in NE in 2011 postseason that we actually saw what "January Joe" really looks like, and he's continued that ever since. From my perspective, for probably the first 3-5 postseason games of Joe's career, he was basically a replacement level QB. If he had put up similar numbers over a five game stretch in the regular season, there would have been serious discussion about benching him. The point... you can't just say somebody won't be something just because you haven't seen them do it. That's the trap a guy like Lamar Woodley falls into when he watches Joe play for 3 years and then says "he will never win a SB". I didn't even blame him for that comment, because at the time, there was nothing to indicate he could.

Yes, I can. But again, as I've been harping on, a lot of the records you are listing are TEAM records. Stop and digest this for a second: The exact same QB is given 100% credit for a road playoff win when he completed a grand total of 4 passes. I'll repeat that again... 4 passes. That QB had more rushing attempts than completions in that game, yet he is given sole credit for that victory. In fact, the very same QB, in the first 3 playoff wins that he again is given sole credit for, averaged 8 completions over those three games, completed 44% of his passes, 110 yards per game, with 1 TD pass total in 3 games... and he won them all. This is why using the "wins postseason games" logic is inherently flawed. You are giving him credit for things that he was arguably detrimental towards.

1. I'm comparing the two after 3 years because we can't compare them after 5... Tannehill hasn't played five. The Dolphins decided to extend him after 3. Had the Ravens done the same thing, something tells me Joe would have been getting a very similar contract to what Tannehill has now, perhaps slightly larger. 2. After Joe's first three years, there was precisely ZERO people that ever watched him play that thought he could then make all the throws at an elite level, because there was simply no visible evidence that he could. We knew he had a big arm, and that he was fairly accurate with it. Again, the only reason we can say that NOW is because he's got 3 years longer in the league than Tannehill does, and we've seen him grow into that kind of player. Heck, if we are even saying that postseason track record matters a ton, then look at Joe's first three years in the playoffs... didn't even remotely have people thinking he was an "elite" playoff QB. The guy had 4 TDs and 7 INTs in the playoffs in his first three years, and he was basically a 150 yard/gm guy. Joe would have probably been extremely lucky to get a Tannehill level contract after his 3rd NFL season. If Tannehill puts together a couple more improved seasons, and his team starts having some playoff success (entirely possible), then his contract will look like a real bargain in a few years. 3. Certainly the playoff success plays into it... thus why Joe's contract is larger. Clearly a value put on that... we just can't really quantify what that value is. Fans would have you think that a SB winning QB deserves twice as much as somebody who hasn't won a SB, but that's probably dramatically overestimating what a franchises value is on assigning success for teams efforts (which is what playoff wins are and always will be). In this case, you could argue that the Dolphins are basically saying that Joe's playoff success is worth $4M more per season, since that's essentially the difference in the contract. 4. As is the case with all contracts for QBs, the truth is, its mostly a risk/reward assessment of their replacement value. Can the Dolphins go into the FA market or even the draft and find a better QB than Ryan Tannehill right now, and if so, would he be significantly cheaper than the deal they just gave him? That's the questions fans never seem to ask themselves. Same question that fans should have been asking themselves when Flacco signed his deal when fans thought it was too much. What is the alternative? What's the risk/reward of NOT paying him that much money?

Not a question of being OK with it... its a question of trading off one punishment for significantly reducing a more important one. No different than the thousands of people who plea bargain to lesser sentences of crimes they didn't commit. Happens often in this country. Why would you plea bargain if you aren't guilty? Because perhaps the risk of not convincing somebody you aren't guilty is exceedingly greater than just taking a much lighter punishment. Black eyes go away... people forget them. We all root for an organization that had one of the blackest eyes we've ever seen in league history less than a year ago. We as fans have moved on from that, and so will everybody else eventually. I don't really make much about the "losing 1st round pick" idea. Sure, its a first round pick. Historically, the Patriots aren't exactly the best with their day 1 picks (they often trade out, and they often miss). They are better in the later rounds, and lets face it, anybody the Pats are going to take in the back end of the first round isn't all of the sudden going to bolt them from a pretender to a contender in a single offseason. Its one pick... that means one player, and it won't be a QB. It wouldn't surprise me in the slighest if the Patriots win the 2016 SB, despite not having a first round pick the year before. And they'd be laughing at everybody else because of it.

Correct. Mathematically, in the long run, teams will be better off from a scoring standpoint by going for 2 every single TD and ignoring the PAT all together. Certainly, game flow/situation can alter this. The only thing that possibly could make it more advantageous for kickers in the short-run is that NFL teams may want to get a more accurate sample over a few seasons to determine what their typical conversion percentage is on 2PC. But yeah, in the long run, I think smart coaches/organizations will realize that this largely devalues kickers to a certain extent.

No issue with this. My entire point was... if the argument Ravens fans are going to use is "well Tannehill hasn't won postseason games", then I'm saying that you really can't put that on Tannehill, because again, from a statistical aspect (which is the best measurement we have for regular season games), there just simply isn't that much difference between the two. So we can't give Flacco 100% credit for making the postseason while simultaneously giving Tannehill 100% of the fault for not making the playoffs, because they're very close in terms of actual on-field production in the regular season. If Tannehill had the postseason success of Flacco (or even close to it), there's no question he gets significantly more money, and probably in the Flacco range. When judging individual players, regardless of position, statistics aren't everything, but then again, winning playoff games isn't everything from an individual player standpoint either. The two go hand in hand. Looks to me like a smart deal from Miami that is banking on increased production and continued growth from Tannehill, and its a deal they can get out of relatively easily if they find that's not the case.

Not if I'm the Patriots. I'd gladly trade a late first round pick for having Brady on the field for 2-4 more games, especially considering that the Patriots know that their relevance window is closing every year that Brady gets older. The "black eye" probably factored zero into it, because there really isn't a "black eye". A black eye would only be important if it actually translated into something tangible, such as fan viewership decreased for the Patriots, which we all know won't happen. I seriously doubt that Kraft cares about what the mainstream fanbase feels about his team, particularly when he knows that the mainstream fanbase will continue to support his team financially in a big way.

Could backfire though. We don't really what the outcome of this rule change will be yet in regards to what NFL teams will decide to do. Its possible that teams will decide to go for 2 more, which makes the kicker LESS relevant.

Or, he got the "wink and nod" treatment from Goodell in regards to Brady's inevitable reduced punishment, and Kraft realizes that losing Brady for only two games as compared to four is worth the $1M fine and the loss of a late first round draft pick.

Probably because they see what everybody else sees... he's not the problem. You can't win playoff games if you don't get there, and the Dolphins under Tannehill haven't. Yet, as I posted already, his regular season stats are very similar to Flacco's in his first three years. So if we are acknowledging that Tannehill and Flacco are largely similar QBs in their first three years, how can we then knock Tannehill for not winning postseason games? If we do, aren't we basically acknowledging that Flacco had little impact on this team making the playoffs in the first three years, and that its was, wait for it, a TEAM effort?