rmcjacket23

Me personally, if I know that the league is spending money that I contributed to them, I wouldn't feel that great about them spending even part of that money on a third party to just sit around and watch the Patriots practice. Frankly, I don't think any (including Spygate and Deflategate) of the Patriots transgressions warrants that kind of reaction.

1. He has a non-guaranteed contract. 2. Its only $745K, so we could certainly live with the hit even if we were to take it.

Agreed that we won't keep 10 lineman. I'd say more like 8. Reid is the obvious easiest cut... he wouldn't be the direct backup to Wagner or Monroe if they got hurt anyway, so he's basically the 4th tackle at best. Hurst and Urschel are safe to me, so that means Myers and Jensen compete for the 8th spot.

1. But the idea that "it doesn't matter if they won or how well they did" is purely theoretical, mostly because it does matter. Do you honestly believe that the public reaction and fake outrage is the exact same regarding this situation if the Patriots lost the football game? Is it the exact same if Brady throws 4 INTs while using deflated footballs? Of course not. 2. Whether or not anybody believes that its the first time its happened or not is by far the most irrelevant discussion of the process, because its impossible to know and impossible to punish. If you're going to attempt to prove that they did it more than once, you better make sure you've got at least some evidence regarding that. Simply saying "well obviously they didn't do it just once" isn't evidence... its theory. I can guarantee that the NFL won't even remotely consider making the punishment "harsher" because of the theory that "well they must have done it a bunch of times". They're 100% interested in a single, isolated incident, because its the only thing they have evidence regarding.

Kraft is Goodell's boss. I'd be more concerned with Goodell upsetting Kraft than the other way around.

1. So if the reward of doing this was simply to obtain a "better chance" of winning the SB, then the punishment of a year suspension and whatever other radical sanctions are being proposed can only be described as exponentially harsh. To me, that's the equivalent of a five year jail sentence for getting caught with a joint for the first time. You might be sending a message, but its certainly not a valid message. 2. Goodell caved to the MEDIA, and specifically, sponsors, who are what really matters. If you want to argue that the public directly affects what sponsors decide to do, I mostly agree with that, but Goodell isn't even remotely considering what fanboard posters think in regards to the Ray Rice situation. I think the leader of a multi-billion dollar company is smart enough to know that the actions of his consumers means a lot more than the words of his consumers. When a single sponsor or two, who have the ability to alter the bottom line of the organization at the drop of a hat, voice displeasure regarding the situation, that's when Goodell listens. Fans certainly share their opinions on here... and in some cases, especially with this topic, fans also for some reason have determined that they make DEMANDS also. My point was... when your demand is not met, what is your recourse? In my opinion, nothing, because the only recourse available to them is one they won't choose. 3. HGH, for the most part, isn't legal without prescription. But then again, neither is Adderall, and all of the sudden there's dozens of players annually who can obtain it legally from a doctor, despite not having a valid reason to use it. There's plenty of legal substances on the NFL's list of approved substances that require a doctors supervision and probably prescription to use. HGH is no different. Whether it causes unnatural changes or not has no relevance to me, because its their body and they have to live with it... I don't. They are there for my entertainment, and if it can increase my level of entertainment, I support it.

1. The "punishment should outweigh the crime" theory is just that... a theory. I'd argue that in society in general, especially in the legal system, standard protocol in moderns society is "the crime outweighs the punishment". In this specific case, you could make the case that the "reward" for Tom Brady and the Patriots is a SB ring. So... how exactly do you concoct a punishment that exceeds the reward of winning the SB? Particularly for a 35+ year old QB who's already won many of them? The opening volley, in that instance, would be a lifetime ban from football, banishment from the HOF, and basically a total stripping of the title from the player and from the team. I think we can both agree that punishment seems incredibly ridiculous and so outside the realm of possibliities that its not even worth discussing. But that would be the type of punishment that would essentially be the minimum punishment for exceeding the reward of winning the SB. 2. The point of me saying that harsh punishments rarely act as a deterrent was mostly intended to focus around levying harsh punishments for infractions that shouldn't warrant such a punishment, mostly because the infractions are minor. Me personally, I'd have a bigger problem with a player intentionally diving at a players knee than I would them deflating some footballs for their own benefit, yet ironically, the former is a standard 15 yard penalty and a fine, while the latter is being discussed in the realm of multi-game suspensions. 3. Imposing fair and strict punishments is important. My issue is... its not the publics job to determine what is fair and strict. If the public doesn't like the punishment, then they have two options... 1. do something about it (aka stop watching games) or 2. suck it up and move on with their lives. The public has no power to levy punishments in this case, nor do they probably have sufficient knowledge and insight to do so. 4. I said players should be allowed to use HGH because I literally think they should be allowed to use it. It shouldn't be illegal or banned by sports in general, which therefore would make it not cheating. It would as standard in sports as players using creatine or any of the other hundreds of legal over the counter, performance enhancing substances that players are already allowed to take in most sports.

But again, neither I nor anybody else I've heard thinks that there should be NO punishment for this. My point is... what happens if the punishment isn't sufficient based on yours or my personal feelings about what the punishment should be? It would appear that many fans would coincide a lack of a sufficient punishment in their eyes to be the same thing as condoning the cheating, or, in their eyes, hurting the integrity of the league. The entire argument, at least for me, has shifted from should there be punishment to what level of punishment should there be. In my opinion, that's where people are playing the "integrity" card.

But its never been about "allowing it". Nobody is suggesting that it should be tolerated and allowed. Everybody here expects punishment, and they're incredibly likely to get it. What I'm saying is that there is a large group of posters on this blogs and others that will say that if the punishment isn't sufficient to THEIR LIKING (which is inherently subjective and thus irrelevant anyway), its the same as the NFL "allowing it", which is completely illogical. If the NFL decided to fine Brady $1M for this, that's punishment. Just because thus punishment doesn't fit somebodies arbitrary (and generally baseless) opinion of what punishment should be doesn't mean that the fine isn't punishment. If the basis of the "their integrity is in question" theory is simply that the NFL didn't issue a punishment to the level that YOU would like, then that is 100% a YOU problem and has nothing to do with integrity whatsoever. What people also shouldn't buy is this notion that dropping the hammer on somebody as punishment will automatically mean that nobody will ever do it again. We can stay right inside the sports industry, particularly at the college level, and see how overly harsh punishments can oftentimes backfire, and in the grand scheme of things, they rarely deter anybody from doing anything.

Everybody knows there's going to be punishment. The problem fans have is when the punishment doesn't fit the punishment YOU would like to see. But realistically, that's not the NFL's problem, because they aren't in the business of punishing people based on how the public thinks they should be punished. I honestly don't know what would happen to anybody else. In my opinion, the punishment would probably be less if it was Tyrod Taylor who did this. If this was the Minnesota Vikings organization that did this, it gets approximately 1% of the media attention that the Patriots get for this, and I don't think the average QB gets a suspension from this. As much as the public hates to admit, there's a significant, significant downside to being a mass public figure and getting in trouble. And in many cases, the punishment greatly exceeds what the average persons punishment would be.

And that would be true... if ticket sales and merchandise sales weren't increasing as well. Those two things have nothing to do with TV ratings. The real interest in integrity, outside of people selectively choosing to play that card, is when it PERSONALLY affects you. When the integrity of the league has direct impact on you, that's when the outrage is actually warranted. When fans realize that the entire concept of watching the NFL is based on you obtaining entertainment from it, it makes it that much easier to add perspective to the fact that a person may choose to deflate some footballs to provide you with better entertainment. Much in the same way that I'm in the minority (although I think deep down people don't actually care about this either) in that I don't care whether professional athletes use PEDs. I still to this day can't even fathom why HGH isn't legal and actually encouraged in all sports, especially when you consider all of the many health benefits that occur from using it (something the public chooses not to understand). In particular, certain aspects of it that boost injury recovery, which therefore means I get to boost my entertainment sooner, since injured players may be back on the field quicker. The only truly valid argument (and I don't even buy that its valid) ever conceived for why HGH use is banned in professional sports is this laughable notion of protecting past records. Because their fathers and grandfathers couldn't use it, apparently its not fair that they can. Logically, that's completely ridiculous for dozens of reasons, but mostly, because society simply evolves.

Frankly, I don't even buy that the "integrity of the league" is really in question. Just because somebody says that the integrity is in question on a fanboard or in a media article doesn't actually mean its true. If the integrity of the league where actually as low as some people seem to think it is... then why is viewership and revenues increasing? What does it say about the consumer that they are willing to continue to use the product/service, despite having questions about the integrity of the company? I don't know about most of you, but if there's a company that I buy goods/services from and I question the integrity of their business, I cease doing business with them. As consumers, we have that choice, and we have the exact same choice in regards to the NFL. That's why makes me chuckle about all of this fake "outrage" that fans seem to have, going all the way back to the Rice/Peterson incidents and even further back than that. If people are really as outraged as they say, and they really view the league's integrity in such a low fashion, how can you then tune your TV to ANY NFL game on Sunday's? How can you buy and wear that jersey? How can you attend games? It makes no sense... except it does. The sense it makes is... YOU'RE NOT REALLY OUTRAGED. You don't really think the leagues integrity is that big of an issue, because if you did, you'd do something about it. For me, it all comes down to the simple fact that people like to use the media and the internet to express selective morality, which is convenient only when it benefits you do be moral.

I think if a team like NE, who has no depth and marginal talent at CB, releases a cheap guy who is still under his rookie contract and has decent experience, that's a big red flag for me. I see 3-4 guys on our roster currently that are better than him, so I don't see a whole lot of upside in bringing him in.

I doubt that's enough to get anybody on the phone. Both Brown's would be perceived as "project" type players to anybody else around the league since they are mostly unproven, and you'd probably have to toss in at least a high draft pick (possibly a 1st or 2nd rounder) to get that deal done, because that's the going rate for an upper tier CB. AND... you still have to pay an upper tier CB upper tier money, similar to what you are paying Jimmy Smith. That's going to cost us a player in the long run... could easily mean a guy like Osemele doesn't stay on this team beyond the season. I just don't see it happening, nor do I think there's a realistic option out there for it to happen. If you wanted to obtain another Webb-level corner, than a trade like that might be doable. Just don't see any team in the league willing to trade a top-tier corner for a project player and a mid-draft pick. Can't see how that benefits the other team.

If we are talking about Alfonzo Dennard who was just released by the Patriots... 1. He's 25, not 37. He was a 7th round pick in the 2012 draft. 2. From what I can tell, he wasn't released for cap purposes, as the Pats saved basically $1M that they didn't need. 3. I'm always weary of a team like NE, who lost their two best corners in the offseason already and didn't really add much at that position, releasing a draft pick at a position of weakness while they are still on their rookie deal. There really isn't a bigger "red flag" than that in terms of my desire to sign a player. It can't be a case of the old "not given an opportunity", because he started 20 games for the Pats. I think we have at least 3-4 better corners on this roster right now, and I think that's being conservative. No thanks.

Its a bit of a mis-nomer though. On average, throughout his tenure in Baltimore, Torrey ran roughly 70-75% of his targeted routes within 20 yards of the line of scrimmage. Perhaps not coincidentally, his production basically decreased when Kubiak came into town, because he DECREASED the number of "deep" routes he ran.

There's no question that any rookie corner we would bring in would be unlikely to have a major impact anyway. But lets make sure we understand a couple of key things... 1. We beat the Pittsburgh Steelers in the playoffs without even a true #1 corner, and they have a very good offense. We also beat teams like the New Orleans Saints without a #1 corner either. Basically, we CAN and DID beat very good offenses with a very banged up and below average secondary. Just because we didn't beat the Patriots doesn't mean we can't beat anybody. 2. What I think we are seeing from the FO is that they are willing to gamble that we won't have a half dozen corners or so end up on IR by the end of the season. If we have an injury or two, they think we can sustain it. Maybe if a guy like Danny Gorrer doesn't end up on IR, things may have been different, and he's certainly a borderline #3 corner. Could come back to bite us, or it could be a blessing in disguise. We can't possibly know that right now.

Well, if anybody thought the FO wasn't serious about not being as concerned about our secondary as fans are, you should be 100% certain that the FO is content with our secondary right now.

Its kind of funny in the grand scheme of things that we Ravens fans always call our draft strategy "best player available", yet, coincidentally, practically our entire draft we ended up taking players at positions of "need". We came into the draft knowing that WR, TE, CB, and DL (specifically DE) were positions where we'd like to upgrade or add depth. And what do you know... 9 draft picks comprised of 2 WRs, 2 TEs, two DL (including a DE) and a corner. We also added a RB and an offensive lineman. Remember that the "BPA" strategy for the Ravens is based on a draftboard that we assemble. So when the draft board is assembled in a fashion that maximizes the likelihood of us addressing certain positions, it shifts to much more of a "needs based" draft.

GO Ravens... ODB was picked 12th overall last season. That's not even remotely close to "late in the first round"

But that's the problem Fastynart... too many fans think we should take players to "catch" the guys we lost to. That's an incredibly awful way to run a franchise, and in particular, one that I guarantee gets a GM fired. Every single player left on that board was "risky" (outside of maybe Malcom Brown). Corners and safeties, regardless of where you take them, are incredibly risky. I'd argue its the riskiest position of any that you can draft. We aren't in a position where one pick in this draft is going to instantly make us SB favorites, nor are we in a position where we MUST get a great player in the first round in order to be good. If you think using any draft pick (even a first) on a corner and he is going to come in and shut down even mediocre WRs in this league, then you're being incredibly naive. Any player I'm taking at 26 I'd expect to struggle in his rookie season, regardless of position. Taking a corner at 26 would change largely nothing for me as far as making the 2015 Ravens a lot better.

As far as what our divisional foes did... 1. Honestly love the Steelers pick. I think Dupree is the most underrated rusher of this class, and I think they got great value at that pick. 2. I think Cleveland went 1 for 2. The Shelton pick will make them a ton better against the run, but I don't understand the Erving pick. Good player, pretty versatile, but they already have a pretty solid OL and he can't play RT, which is where they need help. Think they could have gotten a pretty good WR at that spot. 3. I have no idea what Cincinnati is trying to accomplish. I suppose they know that Cedric basically won't play this season, which doesn't make sense to me for a team that should be looking to win now while Dalton and Green are still playing for relatively cheap deals. They had plenty of pass rushers available there that they could have taken, amongst other positions. One of the more baffling picks for me of the night.

Faster? Why does faster matter? What you're failing to recognize is that teams traveling from West to East typically play at 1pm ET, meaning its 10am PT. You won't be finding any West coast NFL football games starting at 10am, I can guarantee you that. When a team travels East to West, they play at 4-430pm ET, or, 1-30 PT. So basically, a team traveling West still plays their game on Sunday at the same time they would have played it on the East coast, after accounting for the time change. You don't get that benefit when you travel East, unless the East coast game is at 4-430 ET, which is rare. What we KNOW, for a fact, is that the Ravens requested something very similar to this. So either the Ravens voluntarily are choosing to torture themselves (seems a bit unlikely), or they too see the value in lumping the west coast trips together. You're trying to create a problem out of something that isn't a problem.

I still don't understand why the road travel schedule is viewed as dis-advantageous? We already knew we were going to have these road games, so that didn't change. All that changed was the date and time, which I think most Ravens personnel would agree is actually ADVANTAGEOUS the way it shaked out. Basically, we have two long road game trips, and they are lumped together, which is what teams want (hence why Harbaugh asked for it). Denver and Oakland are back to back. SF and Arizona are back to back. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. If you prefer alternating home/away games every week, then you're not really doing what's in the best interest of the team when you have west coast games. For me, I care about what QBs we play in the back half of the season. In the second half of the season, the Ravens play the following QBs: Bortles, Foles, McCown, Tannehill, Wilson, Alex Smith, Roethlisberger, Dalton.... not exactly murderers row if you ask me (and the two toughest QBs, Ben and Wilson, are both in Baltimore). Pittsburgh conversely, in their last six games, play against Wilson, Luck, Dalton, P. Manning, Flacco and McCown... and the only home games are against probably the best two of the group (Luck, P. Manning). Good luck. Pittsburgh is the kind of team who might be 7-3 heading into a bye week and miss the playoffs entirely. They'd do well to go .500 in their last six games.

You are correct. I thought his 2015 salary was $2M.