B-more Ravor

That's fine if you only expect to sign (very) low level FAs, but by May (after the draft), even the "stealth" FAs are going. That's not to say they will - or have ever - gone for the top FAs, but you cannot wait until after the draft to fill holes, because very little is left. What the Ravens have always done - or, at least, tried to do - is sign enough FAs, even lower level ones, before the draft to go into the draft with at least a "viable" starter (or a decent competition) at every position, so as not to have to be compelled to draft for need. I doubt they do any different this time around, but they most certainly won't wait until after the draft to determine their needs.

No, older and overrated. They need a TE to be part of the mix, not a guy expecting to be the man. Cook, even at a rebate, is going to cost more than what they'll want to pay. Boyle loses $308K in salary and the Ravens get a credit of $308K against the Cap due to the suspension (nothing like pissing away 300K!) so that's a bit of s silver lining, but it likely means that they now have to spend one of their draft picks on a TE (which they would not have otherwise done).

Hill was a bit of a special case last year in that he has a lot of recent off-field baggage, so I do think that was a bit of a calculated risk. That said, they have often taken what many fans have felt were "risks" with lesser tenders and only once to my recollection has it cost them (Chester Taylor in 2005, who they ended up having to pay more after matching Clev's offer sheet).

Yes, the compensation of what round the player was drafted in stays with the player no matter whether he's been cut or not. It actually stays in place for a player drafted by another team too. So, for instance, the Ravens released John Simon in 2014 (his second season) and Houston signed him from our PS. He's just now completed his 3rd year and is a pending RFA. If they give him the low round tender, the compensation is still pegged at the 4th round - the round in which he was originally drafted, even though Houston didn't draft him.

Funny thing is, the truth is that he wasn't very much of a game manager either. He just had a defense that was so good that it made up for every mistake he made. In reality, Dilfer INT % was higher in 2000 than pretty much every other Ravens staring QB since (except Anthony Wright, 2003). Add in fumbles and it's still pretty much the same. Love his grit and his teammates certainly took to him and rallied around him, but his QB play wasn't much and likely would have been much more evident the following year without Jamal and with a defense that was still very good, but no longer out of this world.

For an UDFA, the so-called "low round tender" (really, the "low" tender) only provides the Ravens with the ability to match any offer for Aiken. The low tender gives them no compensation since Aiken was originally an UDFA. And, given, how tight they will likely be against the Cap - and how flush with Cap space many teams are going to be - it would be pretty easy for a another team to fashion a deal that the Ravens would not be able to match.

I'd be surprised if they even considered the possibility that Easton would get traded again (how often is a UDFA traded once, much less twice, in the same season?), so it's very possible/likely that the conditions of the pick only contemplated that Easton remain on SF's 53 for the entire season. As such, I'd be surprised if they get anything for him.

FWIW, the Patriots have used this option tactic before to get Comp picks. And, FWIW, the contract signed by Chris Canty last spring contains the exact same type of option, so if the Ravens "release" him (i.e. decline the option) in March and he signs elsewhere, the Ravens would be eligible for a Comp pick (depending on the size of his contract, of course).

Yes, way too many!

Two things: 1. Once released, the dead money hits, even if they re-sign him later. 2. Pitta is not eligible for the PS.

Exactly. The contract is just way too little low to garner anywhere near a 3rd.

Yup, allows them to draft a guy they consider to be a priority UDFA instead of having to bid for him and compete against other teams to sign him - especially since the Ravens have never been big spenders on UDFA bonuses.

Yes, Tyrod played over 85% of the offensive snaps, so that's definitely in favor of pushing him up to get a Comp. As far as Stewart does, I still don't think starts in the post season factor in. I'm pretty certain (or, as least, as certain as I can be when it comes to Comp picks) that only his regular season starts and snaps count for the Comp pick formula. I don't think post-season has any bearing at all. But, we shall see.......as I said above I'll never say never when it comes to Comps.

Given the size of the contract, I think it would be quite a jump for Stewart to get all the way up into the 6th round (he played in 77% of the D snaps for Denver according to FO, which is substantial, but not overwhelming either), but with Comp picks, I've learned to "never say never". And, while playing time certainly is a factor, I've never seen anything to indicate that making the post-season is considered (especially since that is a team accomplishment, not a player accomplishment). "Post-season honors" is a category, but that deals with awards, not the player's team advancing to the post-season.

If Pitta does decide to retire prior to June 1, the Ravens could still get post-June 1 treatment by either (1) asking him to wait to make the announcement (as they did with JO) or release him prior to June 1 using the post-June 1 designation. So, if they really want post-June 1 treatment for him, they can still pretty easily get it.

He's only in the Pro Bowl because 6 or 7 QBs dropped out. So, that's not going to be of any help - you've got to make the initial Pro Bowl roster for it to matter. That said, starting 14 games as a QB appears to have been enough to overcome the small contract and get him up the list (at least, that's what the Ravens think).

Won't much matter though, since both Tyrod and Stewart will likely be 7ths either way, so whichever one cancels Lewis, it would only likely mean a higher 7th.

I just do not get why a little paycut along with the restructure is so preposterous!! lol I mean he wants players and wants to win, and he will not miss $8mil over a several year frame. If he wins a couple Superbowls he will make far more than that back in endorsements anyways. He will be in the exact same financial bracket!! But with a far better team and maybe a championship ring. The simple answer is that agents and the NFLPA don't like paycuts. It's bad business and sets a bad precedents. Because of that it rarely happens, especially when the player has all the leverage in the world. Yes, Flacco has expressed a desire to get something done - of course, he would because he's going to get paid more this year to do so. It is what it is. But, as someone else said, the real issue is his agent, Joe Linta, and how accommodating he's going to be and how much Flacco pushes him to be reasonable.

2006- 102mill 2007- 109 2008- 116 2009- 123 2010- no cap 2011- 120 2012- 120.6 2013- 123 2014- 133 2015- 143.8 2016- 150+**** Seems to go up at least 7mill more frequently than not. We will not be the only team to have a cap hit of 20-25 for a player, let alone a qb. This. The only time the Cap has ever gone down or even come remotely close to flattening was after the 2011 CBA, when the owners forced a reduction of the Cap and it took a couple of years to start climbing again. And, it's climbed steadily since.

No, it likely won't matter. Taylor's loss does qualify for a Comp pick, but because of the small yearly average of his base deal, he falls below the 32nd Comp pick, which is the maximum (basically creates an 8th round of the draft). He's somewhere down in the 35-37 range.. For Comp picks, the yearly average of the deal sets the round of the Comp, and then that can go up or down a round based on playing time and "Post season honors". But, in Tyrod's case, he wasn't an initial choice for the Pro Bowl, so this won't have any impact. It would only potentially have an impact for guys initially named to the Pro Bowl, not alternates. Same goes for PB bonuses - those are only paid to initial choices, not guys that get there because of injury, drop outs or players playing in the SB.

RFAs are players whose contracts have expired and who have 3 years of accrued service time. The team must tender the player with an RFA offer. Once tendered, another team can sign the player to a RFA offer sheet, but the Ravens then have 7 days to match that offer sheet and retain the player under the terms of that offer sheet. If the Ravens were to choose not to match the offer sheet, they would then receive compensation based on the level of RFA tender made to the player. There are 3 RFA Tenders * 1st Round Tender: allows the team to receive compensation of a 1st round – $3.586M (est) * 2nd Round Tender: allows the team to receive compensation of 2nd round pick – $2.52M (est) * Low Tender: allows the team to receive compensation of a draft pick equal to the round in which the player was originally drafted or the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) for an undrafted player – $1.65M (est) The Ravens have 4 players who are RFAs: WR – Kamar Aiken (undrafted) WR – Marlon Brown (undrafted) TE – Chase Ford (undrafted) S – Brynden Trawick (undrafted)

Definitely. I doubt anyone would, but, with all due respect to Aiken, the Ravens would gladly make that "trade".

He's probably not worth the 2nd round tender (~$2.5M), but because of the alternative, I'm not sure they have a choice. Short of a new contract, their alternative to the 2nd round tender is the low tender ~($1.65M), which because he was a UDFA gives them NO compensation, just the ability to match. Given the sizeable amount of Cap space that some teams have, it would be easy for a team to craft a deal that the Ravens couldn't match by including a high 2016 Cap number. Granted, they've taken chances before and mostly gotten away with it (other than Chester Taylor in 2005), so it's not inconceivable that they will roll the dice with the low tender, but given their WR questions, I would be surprised. Now, if they decide to ride out Flacco's contract this year at $28.55M, they are going to need Cap space from every source possible, so in that case, I could see the low tender.

The Cap has only flatlined or gone backwards when the 2011 lockout occurred. And, that was only time that ever happened. All other times the CBA has come up for extension/renewal, the Cap has gone up. You can say the Ravens have been extremely lucky that the Cap has increased like it has, but that was expected all along. From the time the CBA was agreed upon, it was understood there'd be a couple of tough years and then sizeable growth again once the new TV money kicked it. What wasn't expected in 2009 was that the owners would so thoroughly win the 2011 CBA negotiations that the Cap would take such an unprecedented dive. The Ravens were extremely unlucky when that happened and that has really been the root cause (along with the tough breaks on some contracts - some chance, some not) of their Cap issues since.

No, not the same mess. Lowers his two killer Cap hits in 2016 and 2017 and then nothing approaching $28.55M or $31.15M in future. Higher later Cap numbers can easily be accommodated in later year because Cap will be much, much higher (ie a $27M Cap hit in 2021 won't seem as high as it does now, if he's even still on team). No, in ideal world, no one would want those kinds of hits either ($25-27M), but given the parameters of where they are with Cap now and how much is still owed Flacco, it's going to be hard to make it happen any other way (although, that's probably the upper limits of a deal). That is, unless they decide to do nothing with the contract in 2016 and revisit it in 2017 when some of the leverage swings back in the team's favor and Flacco no longer has ( pretty much) all of the leverage.