budman

I don't know that he is, but if Tucker is wanting to be the highest paid kicker he shouldn't get it. Whatever changes he has made sure hasn't been for the better. To be the highest paid he needs to be able to make good from 50+ yards which he did not do last year even in his home stadium. A lot of people love him in the community and his social media, but facts are facts. Yes he did well before last year but consistency in a kicker is a must and 82 % in the NFL is not that good. Just saying.

5 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

According to what I read, the "salary cap floor" is largely an irrelevant number.

1. It looks like there's an 89% salary cap "floor", but that floor only pertains to a four year window from 2013-2016 IN TOTALITY, meaning an individual team doesn't have to spend 89% in any given year.

2. If they didn't spend the 89% floor, they'd just have to pay the difference between the 89% and what they did spend to the NFL, so its not like there's a major penalty or anything for failing to do so.

3. Even at an 89% floor for $155M, that would mean you'd have to spend $137M, so you can still roll over almost $20M in cap space in any given year.

That's interesting. Thanks.

Does anybody really take anything that Peter King says for anything other than hot air? Do they think he actually knows anything about talent? the answer is no. All he does is circumvent what has already been said by others. smh.

Hey mcjacket--How do teams carry over all that cap money? I thought that they must spend close to all of it each year (a big % of it anyway)/

25 minutes ago, billiejean said:

Well nobody thought that signing Web was a gamble either. Really anytime you sign a player to a long term deal with a lot of guaranteed money it is a gamble. But it is especially so if a guy your giving left tackle money to has only played four games at left tackle in his entire career. And yes he did play there in college but the speed of the game is much higher in the NFL especially at the pass rusher position. Im not saying the guy can't do it. Its just that it is a bit of a risk. What he does have going for him though that has nothing to do with his physicality is that he is extremely intelligent, not Urchel intelligent, but smart enough to know what he's got to do to be successful.

With that logic, then every player is a gamble right? Which is actually very true. There are no crystal balls.

41 minutes ago, billiejean said:

I feel like signing Osemele to big left tackle money is a huge gamble. Yea, he played there for four games last season but his play was average at best. The guys kick slides are stiff and look far from natural. He was also was susceptible to the inside move because he let defenders cross his face. It is possible with more time at the position that he will get better at these things, but it is big risk. I am just hoping he can live up to the contract (if he signs) and we don't have any buyers remorse like we do with Webb, Smith, and Monroe.

He did only play 4 games at Lt but he did play there in college. It was expected for him  to play "just average". Just imagine how he will be with all mini and training camp and practices. He will be a beast there as he was at guard IMO. Either way I just don't see keeping him a gamble.

It might be fair to say to watch out for some BIG shocking moves if KO stays. I am only guessing but it might have to mean that some players that you thought might not be cut or traded, just might be that. Would they really entertain a Suggs trade? Will Forsett be here? I myself am getting ready for just about anything. Go Oz work some magic!

1 hour ago, hen826957 said:

I don't get Ozzie and in free agency stuff they do sometimes. Why they want to get Richardson? Ok they would try to go after Richardson but not Matt Forte who is better at this point and know Marc Trestman scheme. If they want pay for Richardson then they can pay a little more to get Forte then. Smh

It would actually be WAAAAAY more for Forte.

Hopefully this is not a hint into what kind of player we will be "very active" with if we do not reach a deal with Flacco. This guy hasn't even shown that he WANTS to play in the NFL. It's just a check to this guy.

4 minutes ago, Matty G said:

Yea, but you don't give an extension to a qb that has had mediocre seasons since the super bowl. Also, he is coming off a major knee injury and while many players snap back there are a lot that don't. Also while many teams will pay premium dollars for a mediocre qb doesn't mean the Ravens have to. Defense wins Championships. While I am not say we should cut Joe, that would be absurd, but I think an extension at this time would be foolish.

Sure you do. Brees got one, Palmer, Kaepernick, Rivers, Dalton Etc. all got resigned or extended even with mediocre seasons. They, along with Flacco have "Franchise Qb" label (except Kaep)

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

No, he won't be released. That's the point. Guys like Joe don't get released, because in many cases, it takes many, many, many years in order to replace him.

That's the point. There really is no scenario where Joe gets released, short of him pulling a Ray Rice. He can play like he did in 2013, when he had his worst season, and he will still sign an extension worth $20M a year or more. Why? Because that's the market rate for said QB.

There's this false perception around fans that having less dead money and more cap savings allows us the ability to threaten to release somebody. That would generally work... if anybody on the planet thought you could replace that player. But no realistic person thinks we'd have a prayer of finding a better QB next season or probably in the short-term after that, meaning in order to be willing to cut Flacco, you have to be willing to lose for several years in the hopes of finding the next Andrew Luck. Needless to say, there's many teams who have been trying this (Cleveland, Buffalo, Miami, etc.) for quite literally a decade or longer, and have many failed attempts in doing so.

Make no mistake... the alleged "threat" of a release is a laughable notion, and Joe's agent knows this very well. Its great for fans to pretend like its a possibility, but its not.

Agree. No chance that a threat of cut or release will be used. Linta isn't stupid and the Ravens aren't neither. I do however get the feeling that even though they say they have been "friend" for years, there is a huge amount of animosity there. It seem that they just don't like each other.

Must be part of his workout regiment!.

Burfict will never change. Do you remember his quite catasptrophic combine interviews? All he kept talking about is how EVERYONE ELSE was responsible and at fault for everything he was red-flagged for. The refs, the press, his own coaches and teammates... everyone but him.

Fast forward to now: what's he saying? That he wouldn't have been flagged if it wasn't him... Ergo, who's to blame? The refs. Not him, the refs.

Vontaze, you'll never change - and you'll never grow up to take responsibility for your own actions.

I really do think that Burfict is going to critically hurt a player eventually. It's just his mindset to hurt or disable. This is one guy I wish wouldn't be allowed to play in the league any longer. After he does (and he will) disable another player, it will be too late for anything to be done. His mindset and behavior is the reason all 32 teams took a pass on him at the Draft. I guess I just don't like or trust the guy.

20 hours ago, PalmBayRaven said:

On another note the contract we gave Eugene Monroe is up there for bad deals. Another one who hasn't played up to his contract and whether we keep him or not any way you cut it there is lots dead money.

Actually, at the time we signed Monroe, he hadn't missed a start in his career while in Seattle. He was considered 1 of the top 5 LT's in the league so at the time signing him to the extension was a good move. Lot of games missed and injuries since but really nobody has a crystal ball. Maybe that shows how tough it is playing in the AFC North is. I don't know why all the missed games since.

20 hours ago, PalmBayRaven said:

Well he is not the Elite QB that warrants that kind of paycheck. Is he a good QB? Yes. Does he have a strong arm? Yes. Can he read Defenses? Questionable. Don't get me wrong I like Joe Flacco but I have expected more from him and gotten so much less especially last year before getting injured. Yes he did have a good year under Kubiak but still blew it in the playoff game with New England. We had a little time and we didn't need to go for it all on that pass to Torrey. Again famous over throw/under throws and considering what we do pay him I personally don't think he has lived up to it.

Disagree. Flacco is not getting "Elite" Qb pay. He is getting what the Qb position is dictating around the league. Look at the pay for a Qb if he is franchised and that pretty much tells you what the positions "average" is. Not to mention that he has won a Superbowl, MVP of that Superbowl, and his playoff record in general. If you look around the league at players like Stafford, Dalton, Cutler, Rivers they are paid along the lines yet have really won nothing.Heck, just wait and see what Cousins gets this year. It's just what the position is dictating.

Joe should re do his contract, he got enough money, make more if we make playoffs, next Derrick Henry should be our first draft choice, adds a great deal on offence, lastly noticed that most if not all free agents that leave Ravens are mostly a bust anywhere else. Smith, especial, he could catch a cold the last year he was here. Finally Chad Johnson just fade away & die, you & Owens are just plain moron losers in life

C'mon Man get real. Henry our 1st? Put down the pipe.

1 minute ago, 757RavensFan said:

 

And some games that should have been wins:

- the no call vs the Jags that the NFL stated the next day should have been called and would have ended the game in our favor. 

- the bad PI call at the end of the game vs Hill against Oakland.   

 

Very good point. Thanks

6 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

Seeing that such a catasptrophic season was "only" enough to land us at #6 on the draft chart, what I keep wondering about is how badly you must suck to get the top spot...

We did have a few games that were real close that could've/ should've been losses. It's the stigma of being a 2-14, 3-13 team that would wrench my gut regardless of what pick we would get.

I see what you did in there Pitta boy 3 years 3 kids Lol...man i doesnt get the jaguars in front of us...i know is that stuff of most difficult schedule but why when
we are on the playoffs side of the history they considere the juaguars in front of us because they won against us and then in the draft they gave then a better position...and the worst part is that they probably will get ramsey one of the guys we want it.

Yeah. That sucks.It's really hard to believe just how much of a difference 1 spot makes in the draft when drafting that high, but it makes a Huge difference.

11 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

Well, I don't think we should attempt to make serious prediction based on estimates

Very very true, Mr. Bio

  8 minutes ago, crazyboutravens said:

The Ravens never have any cap room.Why do we keep talking about it? We give away good players every year.

We keep talking about it because we actually do have cap space. This year we have the option to keep all of our players if we wanted to. Usually we lose 3-4 starters and look for cheaper replacements but not this year.

Us having cap room and able to keep all of our players? That's completely false.

9 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

I've simulated the 8145 Super Bowl, where the Tulsa Rams beat the Lexington Raiders 45:24, with Ray Lewis's direct descendant under center, throwing to converted WR Peyton Manning...

So, who came out on top, Tulsa or Lexington? Lol

2 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

I would love to hear how WNST’s Luke Jones would explain that he included Z'Darius Smith, a mid-round rookie, who wasn't expected to be a huge contributor, still got 5.5 sacks, or Buck Allen who, despite being #3 on the day #1 depth chart, went on to be the best rookie and stand his ground when suddenly became the #1 RB, are on his "need more from" list, while Matt Elam, a first round pick, who, after an OK rookie season went on to completely fade into oblivion, failed to make the cut...

 

Seems a tad unfair to me... or Luke Jones just thinks he's beyond hope?

Well put Mr. Bio

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

Originally looked like we wouldn't, as comp picks are largely based on contract size.

What as 757 posted, there are more recent articles suggesting we've got a shot to get a late rounder for him.

Good to know. Thanks for the info. I read a earlier article that said no. I believe it was on this site.

Gotta truly appreciate the way Aiken stepped up and consistently performed over the course of the season.  

Put a 2nd round tender on him and let him retire a Raven like he wants.  

 

Congrats Tryod!  Hopefully, we'll get a comp pick for you!  

They have already said there will be no Comp pick for Tyrod. Forget the reason why but it was in a article on here a couple of weeks ago. Maybe Mcjacket knows why not.

  1 hour ago, TheKingFlip31 said:

IDK if I would say this is the deepest RB group we've ever had. I would give that to the 2000 Ravens of Jamal Lewis, Priest Holmes, Obafemi Ayabadejo, Sam Gash, and Chuck Evans....

Ray Rice, Willis McGahee, Ricky Williams was pretty good too...

Agreed