rmcjacket23

Ugh.... completely misleading article. 1. If the contract plays out as presently assembled, Tannehill gets $96M over the next SIX years. He was already signed through 2016 after the Dolphins picked up his fifth year option. Therefore, the average annual salary is NOT $19.25M over that span... it is $16M, which puts him significantly below Joe in AAV. 2. His contract is very similar to the Dalton/Kaepernick deals, in that they are essentially "pay as you go", particulary after year 2-3. Most of his "$45M guaranteed" is in the form of annual roster bonuses, which the team could decline if they choose to, meaning they are NOT guaranteed. The Dolphins could get out from under that deal after year 2, having only paid and owed him about $30M. 3. Its sort of debatable whether this makes the Ravens look smart or the Dolphins look smart. If you were to compare the two QBs statistically in their first three years, it looks like this: Tannehill: 62% comp pct, 234 yards/gm, 63 TDs, 53 turnovers Flacco: 62% comp pct, 213 yards/gm, 60 TDs, 42 turnovers So while the turnovers are significantly higher for Tannehill, everywhere else, its eerily similar. And yes, the biggest difference between the two is both team and postseason success, but then again, that matters a ton of you're in the camp that gives 100% of the credit for team success to a QB, which this fanbase is particularly gracious at. Put simply, the likelihood of the Dolphins finding a better QB than Tannehill in the near future is slim to none, and paying $16M for a QB in the present day NFL isn't really even that high of a price tag.

It doesn't in any way devalue the TD, because in your scenario, you literally can't win the game without it. It makes the PAT more difficult, and brings in the statistical analysis and thought process of teams going for 2 more often.

Highly doubtful. He carries an $8.5M salary, and he would be a FA next offseason. Plus, I think Ozzie feels very confident at corner right now, and I doubt we add anybody of note other than maybe a guy or two to compete for a roster spot they probably won't get.

I believe he was referring to the idea that a more efficient offense that was capable of scoring TDs more frequently would, by definition, require less FGs. If you could reduce Tucker from attempting two FGs a game down to 1-1.5, then by definition, he becomes less valuable. This can be done by scoring more TDs (or not moving the ball at all). The wildcard with his value is based on whatever projected changes to PATs are going to occur. If the change is to move the PAT back to the 20-25 yard line, then kickers become slightly more valuable. If the change is to remove the PAT all together, then they become less valuable.

I honestly don't know why fans are so concerned about Tucker's deal. He's a kicker. He's not going to make that much money, and he could easily be franchise tagged for a reasonable price. If we are willing to carry a $3M cap hit for a punter (who probably holds less value compared to his peers than Tucker does), I don't think carrying a $4M cap hit at most for a kicker is going to be a problem. I have zero doubt he will be here long-term. Think of it this way... in 2016, the Ravens could cut Chris Canty (which they almost certainly will do anyway) and a depth player (somebody like a Lawrence Guy) and can free up over $3M in cap space, which is in the ballpark of what Tucker will cost. Heck, cutting Steve Smith next season (which again is incredibly possible) frees up $3M. I'm not even remotely concerned about Tucker.

Actually, no. There is no franchise tag specifically for guards. There is a franchise tag for OL in general, which includes guards, centers and tackles. The franchise tag for OL in 2015 is $12.9M, meaning in 2016, its pretty much guaranteed to exceed $13M. Neither of our guards, nor any guard or center in the entire league, is worth $13M a year, especially for one year. Franchise tag isn't an option for Yanda or KO.

Impossible to fix, because its a problem that all 32 teams face. You simply can't have a roster of 53 players who are being paid market value. If you'll notice, there's a strong positive correlation between the consistently good teams in this league and the high number of players they lose on an annual basis to FA.

Basically a 0% chance we tag Yanda or Osemele. There's no difference from franchise tag standpoint between centers, guards, or tackles, so a franchise tag for a player like Yanda would cost probably about $13M for one season. Outside of Joe, there isn't a single player on this roster right now who is worth $13M a season, even if its a one year deal. That's not going to be even a remote consideration.

1. Really doesn't benefit Joe to do so. A verbal agreement mostly means nothing (especially in this business), and Joe isn't in a position where he should be renegotiating anything right now. 2. There's really nothing stopping us from resigning both this season, because we could easily fit both under the cap (Yanda's deal would almost certainly lower his present year cap number anyway). The issue is making sure that we can afford them 2-3 years from now. While Joe's impending extension very well may help us out, if I'm a fan, I'm pumping the brakes on this notion that Joe is all of the sudden going to go back to costing $10M a year in cap space. I'd bet a ton that the Ravens will try desperately to more "straight line" his next extension, keeping his cap hits in a similar, manageable range consistently throughout, instead of the ridiculous jumps in cap space that this deal has. And frankly, I'd still expect Joe's cap number next season to be in the $18-20M range anyway, as well it should be.

Sure, but there's also a long, long list of "elite" kickers who went from being amongst the best in the league to being unemployed completely within a year or two. Kicking is primarily a mental game for the most part, and while I have no doubts about Tucker's mental toughness, there's no shortage of kickers who people have said the exact same things about who went on to bounce from team to team due to inconsistencies. I'm not really concerned about Tucker's deal anyway. He's a kicker... they don't cost extreme amounts of money, the guaranteed money typically isn't that much, and you can always franchise tag them for a reasonable price anyway. The really good kickers are making $3.5M a season with less than half guaranteed. These types of negotiations typically don't concern me. Even the franchise tag amount is just about $4M on a one year deal.

A bit of a misconception though. With Grubbs, it was probably never really about him wanting too much money. It was primarily a case of the Ravens just simply being unable to afford both at the rates that the market set for them. Yanda signed his deal in 7/11, whereas Grubbs played out 2011 and then left in FA. I have no doubt it could have easily been the other way around. For what its worth, both deals were pretty similar. Yanda signed at 5 for $32.5M, whereas Grubbs signed in FA at 5 for $36M, so you're really only talking a $700K difference per year. The reality is that there was no way the Ravens were going to commit $70M to a couple of guards, with probably close to half of that guaranteed. We will have to wait and see if the Ravens are willing to do the same in 2015/2016. I have my doubts. I think whoever signs first stays and whoever signs second signs with somebody else. Yanda's been one of the best guards in football for a long, long time now, and he feels like a prototype "Raven" player, but Osemele looks awfully impressive when he's playing and he 5 years younger. I personally almost always side with the younger player in these cases, however I think guards can still play at a very high level well into their mid 30s, and I think Yanda has a good 2-3 years of All-Pro level play left in him.

The truth is that we really don't know what our financial situation will be at the moment. We let Grubbs go, primarily, because we didn't have the cap space to sign him, particularly after we had already signed Yanda. Its difficult to tell, right now, if we will have the kind of cap space required to sign both guards. A lot of that, frankly, may depend on what happens with Joe next offseason. If we're able to free up $5-10M in cap space by extending him, then I have zero doubt our focus will go directly towards retaining our own players first.

There's really no such thing as "the agent is the problem". Agents work for players. Its no different than hiring a real estate agent. The agent might be the one making the calls and doing the negotiating, but I guarantee the agent NEVER decides on the final price, and everytime a contract is offered, is relayed to the player for his approval. Its not like the agent is making a deal with a team and the player doesn't know what the terms are. If the agent is perceived to be "difficult to work with", its almost certainly directly related to the player standing his ground and not accepting a deal for less than what he wants or what he thinks hes worth.

I expect him to be back as well, but we also don't really know what Upshaw wants. He may be a guy who wants to go somewhere where he can at least have a shot at being a full time player (playing 70-80% of snaps at least), and he'd have a better shot at that on a 4-3 base defense team in my opinion. Maybe he decides its worth taking $500K-$1M less per season to simply play more, since barring injuries, there's very little chance he gets to be that kind of a player on this team in the next 2-3 years at least.

All depends on cap situation. We still got guys like Tucker, Osemele, Yanda, and even guys like Will Hill who can all be UFAs next season, and as of now, I'd consider them all more important to resign than Upshaw at the moment. We've seen the Ravens let players walk who didn't command big money on the open market either (Corey Graham comes to mind). Just depends on how much the FO values him. He's good at what he does, but maybe the FO thinks that they can use a mid-round draft pick on a run-stopping OLB in the next draft, or even find somebody even cheaper on the open market. A lot of moving parts there.

They are both basically situational. Upshaw plays on less than half the snaps (48.5% in 2014), and Dumervil played 55.8%. Just like McPhee was situational, playing on 47.7% of snaps. When its 3rd and long or an obvious passing down situation, Upshaw generally isn't on the field. That, by definition, makes him a situational player. There's nothing wrong with being a situational player, except in some ways it can devalue you from a FA standpoint, because I don't think there's many teams who would be willing to pay Upshaw to be a 80-90% snap count player. Its cool that he laid a big hit on Ben, but that's not relevant at all to the fact that he is, by definition, situational.

Interesting that they feel Smith is the replacement to Upshaw, when at least I and others thought he was the replacement for McPhee as the third, situational pass rusher. I can see the Ravens moving on from Upshaw, but then again, he's not going to cost anything near what McPhee would have cost to retain, because the market for a situational run stopping OLB just isn't that big. He's a situational player in a 3-4 as a run stopper only, and he's probably just a WLB in a 4-3, where again, he would probably come out on passing downs. Frankly, I'd suspect, barring a big season, then you could probably retain him for $2-3M per season I would think, which could be affordable depending on how next offseason shakes out.

Very likely may be the case. I just think we are essentially in year 1 out of the rebuilding mode, and fans need to understand that, so that if we don't win the SB or advance as far as some think we should, fans don't pull their typical "crazy" card and demand for us to blow the whole thing up... again.

Great teams overcome a lack of momentum. That very same 2012 Baltimore Ravens is a prime example of this. If momentum is something that dictates the outcome of a game, then there's ZERO justification for how we beat the Denver Broncos in the playoffs. They had literally all of the momentum, they had a TD lead, and they were at home. In fact, you sort of already agreed with this point when you referenced the Patriots, since they came back TWICE against us AND they overcame a pretty large deficit against a great defense in the SB (and imagine this... without deflated footballs or "shady" alignments). Why? Because that's what great teams do.

I think most are referring to the 2010 playoff game (2009 season) in NE, where we won by 19 and led by 24 at one point. Also, some considered the 2012 AFC title game win to be rather one sided, particularly in the second half. We won that game by 15, and by playoff standards, a 15 point win is basically a "blowout". The 4 playoff games (all in NE) that we've played them in, we've outscored them 112-85, and we have two 15+ point victories over them. The two games they beat us they won by a combined 7 points.

Or they are signing the safeties for competition, which is precisely what you to do to a player who isn't performing at the level you would like them to be at. Cutting him isn't an option for cap purposes, so the only other alternative would be to sign ZERO safeties and just hand him a job that he didn't earn. Which would you prefer? Under that logic, we signed a QB this offseason to decent backup QB money. Does that mean that we don't have faith in Flacco? Of course not.

You are confusing two different games. The one you are referencing in regards to Tony Dungy noticing it occurred in the AFC title game against the Colts, when Nate Solder caught a TD pass. Shane Vereen didn't do that against us. The player who did that against the Colts was Cameron Fleming, who reported as eligible and then went to playing ineligible, which is an illegal substitution.

Not everybody knows they were unethical, because again, ethics are subjective, meaning that by definition, not everybody agrees upon them. I can promise you that precisely ZERO Ravens fans would be accusing their own team of being "unethical" if we did that to somebody else. We'd be praising our coach and team for "being smarter than you", just like the Patriots did. I'll never be the kind of person who blasts other teams for doing perfectly legal things to win a football game, merely to make myself feel better about a loss.

LOL, but there's a problem... they didn't cheat. Cheating involves a violation of rules, and you already know that the number of rules violated by those plays is precisely zero. You can call it shady if you want to, and like I already explained to others, that's merely a subjective opinion that isn't validated by facts whatsoever. You can call it shady simply because you didn't like it... cool. I care about whether its actual cheating, as in they did something that violates NFL rules. Which again, you and I already know they didn't. It played a major factor in the game... no question about it. What also played a major factor in the game is our inability to defend a HB pass, our inability to even attempt to stop their offense from marching down the field on us on their last possession, and a combination of a probably poorly-timed pass coupled with a lack of aggression by the receiver on that pass... amongst probably dozens of other factors that contributed to the outcome of the game. If you choose to blame our loss on "shady" tactics, go for it. It seems a bit short-sighted in my opinion to blame the totality of a game loss on a small series of events that weren't illegal just to make your argument look valid, but again, that's the subjective nature of this entire concept. I'd put more weight in the general premise of the argument if the Patriots had actually, in fact, cheated. But they didn't.

Cool. It's May for me. I'm, at a minimum, 4-5 months away from even having an opinion about whether we are a SB contender or a mediocre team. Potential is a great thing, especially when its realized. But the main concept of potential is that its generally long-term, which is how I think Ravens fans should be looking at this team.