[News] Late For Work 6/8: Franchise Tag For Justin Tucker? So Far So Good For Breshad Perriman

[RavensFootballFan]

I see the most popular vote of this page is NO to Wes Walker, I am in total agreement. I have never flipped out over a player the Ravens signed, sure there were some signing I was not fond of but never flipped out. I would literally flip out if Wes Walker was signed playing for the Ravens. His wife Anna and Wes himself does not deserve to be a part of the Ravens organization. Her comment - "Proud of my husband and the Pats. By the way, if anyone is bored, please go to Ray Lewis' Wikipedia page. 6 kids 4 wives. Acquitted for murder. Paid a family off. Yay. What a hall of fame player! A true role model!" That shows how completely ignorant she is, going on a childish rant. To make a statement on full public view on Facebook that is intended to be mean spirited and then say she did not meant for the statement to be mean is an insult to intelligent people. I cannot believe we are reading this story unless the intend is to see how riled up Ravens fans would get at the mention of Wes Walker coming here. Ray Lewis is part of Ravens family and no one gets a free pass when it comes to disparaging family.

 

Besides, Walker is injury prone. We have plenty of talent at WR for someone to play the slot. I am much more comfortable to use Camp when healthy or Carter as slot than Walker, both are younger and faster then Walker. It would be a terrible waste to cut one of Ravens future talented young receivers for Walker. Not to mention on how many times I would cringe seeing Walker in a Ravens uniform all year. 

Edited June 8, 2015 by RavensFootballFan

[cobrajet]

I am not sure how I feel about signing Wes Welker. The guy is a great wide receiver but I like the guys we have. I know one thing for sure, the guy is married to one of the most beautiful women on the planet.

[balfan23]

I see the most popular vote of this page is NO to Wes Walker, I am in total agreement. I have never flipped out over a player the Ravens signed, sure there were some signing I was not fond of but never flipped out. I would literally flip out if Wes Walker was signed playing for the Ravens. His wife Anna and Wes himself does not deserve to be a part of the Ravens organization. Her comment - "Proud of my husband and the Pats. By the way, if anyone is bored, please go to Ray Lewis' Wikipedia page. 6 kids 4 wives. Acquitted for murder. Paid a family off. Yay. What a hall of fame player! A true role model!" That shows how completely ignorant she is, going on a childish rant. To make a statement on full public view on Facebook that is intended to be mean spirited and then say she did not meant for the statement to be mean is an insult to intelligent people. I cannot believe we are reading this story unless the intend is to see how riled up Ravens fans would get at the mention of Wes Walker coming here. Ray Lewis is part of Ravens family and no one gets a free pass when it comes to disparaging family.

 

Besides, Walker is injury prone. We have plenty of talent at WR for someone to play the slot. I am much more comfortable to use Camp when healthy or Carter as slot than Walker, both are younger and faster then Walker. It would be a terrible waste to cut one of Ravens future talented young receivers for Walker. Not to mention on how many times I would cringe seeing Walker in a Ravens uniform all year. 

Interesting point that you bring up Welker's wife ... usually no one cares - especially not organizations - about what some players wife might say. If the guy can play, then I think we'll look past what his wife said or thinks. 

 

Welker makes no sense for us from a football standpoint ... even if he did, I think her comments would give our organization pause before wanting to bring him into the Ravens family. Of course, she apologized for her comments (apologies are all the rage these days ...) but I have to think they left their mark. Pretty sure Ray didn't say, "apology accepted". 

 

Sure, Ray isn't really a Raven anymore, but this FO has respect for him and I think they'd be reluctant to betray that respect. 

 

But again - it doesn't matter. We've worked to get young at the position and I have to think we're sticking to that plan. 

[riseNConquer81]

1. See Patriots, New England.

why? what about them? who cares if they tagged a kciker, i wasnt out to list every team that ever tagged a kicker, this is what it looks like when you kill a joke. once again, you dont need to argue everything.

 

2. If Tucker doesn't get the tag, nobody gets the tag. There isn't another player on the roster available to be tagged who is worth anything close to what the tag will pay them. Not really worth continuing to discuss.

maybe. but you guys generally dont think anybody is worth anything around here.

anyway, point is: we're not tagging a freaking kicker.

Edited June 9, 2015 by riseNConquer81

[ALSKAN RAVEN FAN]

If it happens that Oz tags Tucker then it is what it is but I think he would be one of the easier deals to get done. Just pay him top dollar for kicker the next few years cant be more than 4-5 million a year right?

[hen826957]

@riseNConquer81 geeees calm down. It seem that every time you write and argument to someone it looks like your blood pressure is high every time I read your arguments LOL but anyway rmcjacket23 is right. If Tucker doesn't get a tag nobody gets a tag is that simple. According to the article I found, kickers are only 4.12 million against the cap in 2015. I don't know about 2016 number because it might change but it should not be expensive on kickers. If we use it like say Marshal Yanda or K.O. (which I think your thinking about using it on one of these two) that would be 12.92 million against the cap or more in 2016 that a lot of space for an OL player. I'm not putting words in your mouth about using it on a OL just my suggesting if you think we shouldn't use in on Tucker. My point is kickers doesn't affect the cap that much as so as a OL and such. We might not even use the franchise tag anyway if we give Tucker a long term deal next season. We only will use a franchise tag on Tucker as a security blanket just in case we can't agree on a deal next season.

[rmcjacket23]

why? what about them? who cares if they tagged a kciker, i wasnt out to list every team that ever tagged a kicker, this is what it looks like when you kill a joke. once again, you dont need to argue everything.

maybe. but you guys generally dont think anybody is worth anything around here.

anyway, point is: we're not tagging a freaking kicker.

Well, if the reigning World Champions don't think tagging a kicker is such a bad idea, something tells me the Baltimore Ravens don't think it is either, particularly when it literally makes all the sense in the world for them to do it. Ideal? Of course not, the franchise tag rarely is. But this notion that they won't do it simply is completely ridiculous. I, like most, consider it the most likely outcome at this point, though I'd expect they'd ultimately agree on an extension anyway, much like what happens with most of the players we tag. Very few of them ever actually play the season under the tag.

I think players are worth plenty... I'm just the odd realist of the bunch. I understand that a Guard isn't worth $13M a season, which is what it would cost to franchise them. I understand that a player like Upshaw isn't worth $13M a season, which is what it would cost to franchise him. Lets just say that as certain you are that this franchise won't use the tag on a Kicker, I'm exponentially more certain that this franchise won't invest $13M on a one year deal to KO, Yanda, or Upshaw.

So as a REALISTIC person, there's two choices for a franchise tag... Tucker and Koch, and they both pay the same and are both reasonable (with Tucker being far more reasonable than Koch).

[RavensFootballFan]

Interesting point that you bring up Welker's wife ... usually no one cares - especially not organizations - about what some players wife might say. If the guy can play, then I think we'll look past what his wife said or thinks. 

 

Welker makes no sense for us from a football standpoint ... even if he did, I think her comments would give our organization pause before wanting to bring him into the Ravens family. Of course, she apologized for her comments (apologies are all the rage these days ...) but I have to think they left their mark. Pretty sure Ray didn't say, "apology accepted". 

 

Sure, Ray isn't really a Raven anymore, but this FO has respect for him and I think they'd be reluctant to betray that respect. 

 

But again - it doesn't matter. We've worked to get young at the position and I have to think we're sticking to that plan. 

 

Plenty of Ravens fans cares about what Welker's wife said, while you're right organizations don't take much consideration into what player's wives think, what Welker's wife said is beyond the norm of simple opinions, it was not a public statement of "my team is better than yours" or even " We got lucky" but rather it was downright trashy, mean spirited and classless. 31 other teams probably don't care what she said, only one team, the Ravens will take it seriously enough to not consider Welker. The Ravens release players for doing wrong on their spare time, so I don't think they would consider Welker at all because of that public statement she made, even if he is playing at a high level, especially a statement made against a Ravens player whose statue is next to Johnny U. Plenty of player's wives flip out and make comments in the heat of the moment, that is nothing new, what Welker's wife did was not the norm in the heat of the moment, it was a deliberate attack in which she took the time to thought it out and type it, it's the context and meaning of the words she chooses. The Welkers are not deserving of donning purple. 

[Minionhunter]

McJacket makes good points, plus one or both of those guards will net us up some high round comp picks. Don't forget that.

[January J]

Well, if the reigning World Champions don't think tagging a kicker is such a bad idea, something tells me the Baltimore Ravens don't think it is either, particularly when it literally makes all the sense in the world for them to do it. Ideal? Of course not, the franchise tag rarely is. But this notion that they won't do it simply is completely ridiculous. I, like most, consider it the most likely outcome at this point, though I'd expect they'd ultimately agree on an extension anyway, much like what happens with most of the players we tag. Very few of them ever actually play the season under the tag.

I think players are worth plenty... I'm just the odd realist of the bunch. I understand that a Guard isn't worth $13M a season, which is what it would cost to franchise them. I understand that a player like Upshaw isn't worth $13M a season, which is what it would cost to franchise him. Lets just say that as certain you are that this franchise won't use the tag on a Kicker, I'm exponentially more certain that this franchise won't invest $13M on a one year deal to KO, Yanda, or Upshaw.

So as a REALISTIC person, there's two choices for a franchise tag... Tucker and Koch, and they both pay the same and are both reasonable (with Tucker being far more reasonable than Koch).

i dont think it really matters what other teams are doing-  an organization as top notch as ours doesnt care what the "reigning world champions" are doing- we set our own trends for other teams to follow. I also think we all know where you stand MC when it comes to the franchise tag- you have let it be known several times . However i think now with the addition of the new PAT rule, we will try even harder to get a deal done with justin first of all- but we will be even more reluctant to let him go if we cant, so the franchise tag is an even bigger option now. i dont think its likely to come to that though, im sure they will be able to get it done before 2016.

[rmcjacket23]

i dont think it really matters what other teams are doing-  an organization as top notch as ours doesnt care what the "reigning world champions" are doing- we set our own trends for other teams to follow. I also think we all know where you stand MC when it comes to the franchise tag- you have let it be known several times . However i think now with the addition of the new PAT rule, we will try even harder to get a deal done with justin first of all- but we will be even more reluctant to let him go if we cant, so the franchise tag is an even bigger option now. i dont think its likely to come to that though, im sure they will be able to get it done before 2016.

That wasn't my intent. My intent was to show that franchise tagging a kicker isn't something that only "bad or poorly run franchises" do. Its something that even the best of the best run franchises in this league will do if they feel its the best option, which is precisely what the Ravens will consider.

 

In reality, if you look at the Patriots situation and their choice to tag Gostkowski, its actually incredibly similar, borderline identical to the situation we could be in next offseason. They're both elite kickers, arguably the two best in the league, and they both will command money at the top of their positions. Neither has much of a baseline to go off of right now in contract negotiations, and I think both kickers would be borderline happy to play under the franchise tag. Kickers aren't going to get much guaranteed money in long-term deals anyway (for obvioius reasons), so unlike most situations where players prefer to get job stability via a long-term extension with guaranteed money, kickers are sort of an outlier in that area.

 

Do I expect Tucker to play 2016 under a FT? No, I don't. I think its possible he gets tagged and then signs an extension after the fact, which is common, particularly with this franchise.

 

The reason I don't dismiss the tag is because, with kickers like Tucker, the tag amount is pretty much right in-line with what his AAV is. The difficulty with franchise tags historically is that oftentimes teams are sort of "forced" to franchise tag players at rates that are higher than what they would typically get annually from that franchise or any franchise.

 

Its why suggesting franchise tags for a guard is laughable, while its realistic for a kicker or even a QB, because they reflect the market value of that position. The inherent problem I have with the tag is the lack of diversification at certain "areas", such as OL or linebacker. A center/guard gets tagged at the exact same amount as a LT would, and clearly their market values are significantly different. A pass rushing OLB gets tagged at the same amount as a MLB, and clearly their market values are significantly different.

 

With kickers, its cut and dry, which makes the tag more appealing and actually an easy decision if no deal is reached. A team like the Ravens has historically successfully used the FT as basically a 3-4 month extension of time to exclusively negotiate a contract, and we've been successful at doing that historically.

[Tenacious Faulker]

we are not running anything close to a spread offense, that doesnt even make sense.

We move the ball primarily with stretch/zone running, Joe Flacco only took about 36% of his snaps out of the gun last year, we dont run that much hurry up, Joe isnt an option QB, and Tyrod is a Bill now.

RU kidding me?  Kubiak's passing offense (and Trestman's) is based on the WCO - i.e Walsh's spread offense that he brought from Cinncinati.  You can make these pass heavy like Walsh did with Montana or run heavy the way Kuiaks does.  Our offense is obviously run focused with a 100+ more run plays than passing, and it starts with the run zone blocking but they set up a lot of shorter, high-percentage, spread pass plays.  This sets up the defense for the longer plays out of the fewer shotgun fomations.  

 

So yeah, its "close" to a spread offense.

[riseNConquer81]

RU kidding me?  Kubiak's passing offense (and Trestman's) is based on the WCO - i.e Walsh's spread offense that he brought from Cinncinati.  You can make these pass heavy like Walsh did with Montana or run heavy the way Kuiaks does.  Our offense is obviously run focused with a 100+ more run plays than passing, and it starts with the run zone blocking but they set up a lot of shorter, high-percentage, spread pass plays.  This sets up the defense for the longer plays out of the fewer shotgun fomations.  

 

So yeah, its "close" to a spread offense.

its not.

you dont understand what a spread offense is.

You basically just picked your favorite part of every type of offense there is and called it a spread offense.

that's not how it works. just because we run a 4 or 5 wide set once in a while does not mean we run a spread.

spread offenses are college offenses: run from the gun and feature one or both of a whole lot of passing and option running. Those are the defining characteristics of the scheme.

The only nfl offenses running anything that resembles a consistent spread offense are NE, Denver, Green Bay, Indy, Philly and NO (though that's probably going to change this year since they blew up the roster)

Edited June 10, 2015 by riseNConquer81

[riseNConquer81]

@riseNConquer81 geeees calm down. It seem that every time you write and argument to someone it looks like your blood pressure is high every time I read your arguments LOL but anyway rmcjacket23 is right. If Tucker doesn't get a tag nobody gets a tag is that simple. According to the article I found, kickers are only 4.12 million against the cap in 2015. I don't know about 2016 number because it might change but it should not be expensive on kickers. If we use it like say Marshal Yanda or K.O. (which I think your thinking about using it on one of these two) that would be 12.92 million against the cap or more in 2016 that a lot of space for an OL player. I'm not putting words in your mouth about using it on a OL just my suggesting if you think we shouldn't use in on Tucker. My point is kickers doesn't affect the cap that much as so as a OL and such. We might not even use the franchise tag anyway if we give Tucker a long term deal next season. We only will use a franchise tag on Tucker as a security blanket just in case we can't agree on a deal next season.

 

 

Well, if the reigning World Champions don't think tagging a kicker is such a bad idea, something tells me the Baltimore Ravens don't think it is either, particularly when it literally makes all the sense in the world for them to do it. Ideal? Of course not, the franchise tag rarely is. But this notion that they won't do it simply is completely ridiculous. I, like most, consider it the most likely outcome at this point, though I'd expect they'd ultimately agree on an extension anyway, much like what happens with most of the players we tag. Very few of them ever actually play the season under the tag.

I think players are worth plenty... I'm just the odd realist of the bunch. I understand that a Guard isn't worth $13M a season, which is what it would cost to franchise them. I understand that a player like Upshaw isn't worth $13M a season, which is what it would cost to franchise him. Lets just say that as certain you are that this franchise won't use the tag on a Kicker, I'm exponentially more certain that this franchise won't invest $13M on a one year deal to KO, Yanda, or Upshaw.

So as a REALISTIC person, there's two choices for a franchise tag... Tucker and Koch, and they both pay the same and are both reasonable (with Tucker being far more reasonable than Koch).

calm down? im quite calm. i always am...i dont know why you people always invent this adversarial attitude in your own heads everytime i write something and then tell me to calm down like your own delusions have anything to do with my own actual disposition.

and what argument?

see, that's exactly what im talking about...you guys think everything has to be an argument.

ill say it again: key word here is "humor."

this is why i hardly come around any more. you guys are exhausting.

[January J]

That wasn't my intent. My intent was to show that franchise tagging a kicker isn't something that only "bad or poorly run franchises" do. Its something that even the best of the best run franchises in this league will do if they feel its the best option, which is precisely what the Ravens will consider.

In reality, if you look at the Patriots situation and their choice to tag Gostkowski, its actually incredibly similar, borderline identical to the situation we could be in next offseason. They're both elite kickers, arguably the two best in the league, and they both will command money at the top of their positions. Neither has much of a baseline to go off of right now in contract negotiations, and I think both kickers would be borderline happy to play under the franchise tag. Kickers aren't going to get much guaranteed money in long-term deals anyway (for obvioius reasons), so unlike most situations where players prefer to get job stability via a long-term extension with guaranteed money, kickers are sort of an outlier in that area.

Do I expect Tucker to play 2016 under a FT? No, I don't. I think its possible he gets tagged and then signs an extension after the fact, which is common, particularly with this franchise.

The reason I don't dismiss the tag is because, with kickers like Tucker, the tag amount is pretty much right in-line with what his AAV is. The difficulty with franchise tags historically is that oftentimes teams are sort of "forced" to franchise tag players at rates that are higher than what they would typically get annually from that franchise or any franchise.

Its why suggesting franchise tags for a guard is laughable, while its realistic for a kicker or even a QB, because they reflect the market value of that position. The inherent problem I have with the tag is the lack of diversification at certain "areas", such as OL or linebacker. A center/guard gets tagged at the exact same amount as a LT would, and clearly their market values are significantly different. A pass rushing OLB gets tagged at the same amount as a MLB, and clearly their market values are significantly different.

With kickers, its cut and dry, which makes the tag more appealing and actually an easy decision if no deal is reached. A team like the Ravens has historically successfully used the FT as basically a 3-4 month extension of time to exclusively negotiate a contract, and we've been successful at doing that historically.

yeah I got you. Things often get misinterpreted through text. You really said all there is to say. Not gonna act like I've always known all the ins and outs of the franchise tag so your post was pretty informative.

[Space11jams]

I agree that Wes Welker would be a bad signing.  But don't suggest we're loaded at WR with Steve Smith and a bunch of unproven talent.

What difference does it make if they're unproven (right now) or not? Is Aiken not proven? Is Marlon not proven? That's 3 receivers that could start and I would be happy about. Now you Camp, Butler and our draft picks. If we were going to sign another veteran WR i would think it would have been sooner rather than later. Like I said we're loaded at receiver right now. It wouldn't make any sense to bring in a vet with lingering concussion issues to take snaps away from younger guys that's putting in the work to get get snaps.