[News] Eisenberg: 2015 Ravens Can't Sneak Up On People

[trevorsteadman]

I don't think the Ravens were overlooked even last year. Coaches and teams always respect the Ravens.. In a lot of interviews even at the beginning of the season players talked about teams that were threatening their AFC conference title and they list Baltimore frequently... I think it is just the fans that overlook them because the Ravens only solid players to draft for Fantasy Football last season was Justin Forsett and Steve Smith, while other teams produced more like the Steelers with Bell being the 2nd best running back, Rothlesberger being a top 5 quarterback, and Antonio Brown being the best receiver. Guess who won that game in the playoffs? Ravens by a large margin. It's fans overlooking the Ravens, I bet Tomlin has nightmares of playing Baltimore next season with Baltimore now not having 19 people inactive or on the IR.

[rmcjacket23]

The absolute truth, distilled to its purest form

Not really. It might be the truth for some, but its not necessarily the truth for players, coaches, and FO's.

I mean if winning is literally the only thing that matters to these guys... shouldn't players on losing teams ALL have their contracts immediately terminated? How do you justify spending $10M a year on a corner when his team didn't win the SB last season?

Or better yet... why do players voluntarily leave good teams to play for bad teams purely for financial purposes?

[cbrook1862]

Yesterday I was watching NFL Live and the so called "experts" were talking about the AFC north, and when the ravens came up, one of the "experts" said the ravens o-line worries him, there were  changes and doesn't know if they can protect Joe. Really? Was he talking about the o-line that only allowed Joe to get sacked 19 times, the least amount of times he has in his career, the same o-line that helped Forsett to get over 1,000 yds, the one that  literally hasn't changed this offseason , the one that was one of the best in the league, one of the key components to the team and one of the main reasons to the teams sucess? When you hear stuff like that you can't help but to just laugh. Some of these guys don't need to be on tv... so stupid.

Edited July 1, 2015 by cbrook1862

[fusuymada]

The Ravens started the off-season in the middle of the pack (which is typical except in Super Bowl years) and by the end of the off-season they are at the top. They don't get involved in the big free agent market and stray away from trades except where absolutely necessary (Monroe, Zuttah) yet here they are again by using the draft and waiting for quality players to be released. The model has been the same, the success has been the same and the results have been the same year after year. If other teams don't model their formulas based on the Ravens succeses, then they are not truly interested in winning. If I as a fan can figure this out, why cant the high dollar individuals in other organizations figure this out. Except for the Packers, no one else does this.

[Arch Mage]

Don't worry, someone on an ESPN NFL show yesterday said the Ravens are in trouble because of all the changes on their offensive line. The three others picked Pittsburgh or Cincinnati to win the AFC North.

[January J]

Not really. It might be the truth for FANS, but its not necessarily the truth for players, coaches, and FO's.

 

I mean if winning is literally the only thing that matters to these guys... shouldn't players on losing teams ALL have their contracts immediately terminated? How do you justify spending $10M a year on a corner when his team didn't win the SB last season?

 

Or better yet... why do players voluntarily leave good teams to play for bad teams purely for financial purposes?

it is the truth.   he was referring to joe flacco and the quarterback position, so any other position and what they are paid is irrelevant here. its easier to put the succuss/struggles of a team on the quarterback over any other position- and quarterbacks are often released/held to higher standards when they  do not WIN, regardless of whether they put up high stats. unless it is just an obvious case that he as a horrible defense,the quarterback usually takes the blame. sure there are a few exceptions, however in those cases its usuallly due to incompetent management. (cough chicago, cough cutler)

yes players leave for lower caliber teams all the time for monetary purposes- that is their perrogative-but that is also irrelevant here since he was referring to joe flacco and how people perceive him because of his average statitistics. to reply to your first comment, even if he wasnt reffering to just that, it may not be for the players and front office, but winning definitely matters above all else for coaches. they have the highest turnover rate of everybody, and they often lose their jobs even before  the quarterback does for not having a winning season. so yes, winning is everything to them.

Edited July 1, 2015 by January J

[rmcjacket23]

it is the truth.   he was referring to joe flacco and the quarterback position, so any other position and what they are paid is irrelevant here. its easier to put the succuss/struggles of a team on the quartback over any other position- and quarterbacks are often released when they  do not WIN, regardless of whether they put up high stats. unless it is just an obvious case that he as a horrible defense,the quarterback usually takes the blame.

yes players leave for lower caliber teams all the time for monetary purposes- that is their perrogative-but that is also irrelevant here since he was referring to joe flacco and how people perceive him because of his average statitistics. to reply to your first comment, even if he wasnt reffering to just that, it may not be for the players and front office, but winning definitely matters above all else for coaches. they have the highest turnover rate of everybody, and they often lose their jobs even before  the quarterback does for not having a winning season. so yes, winning is everything to them.

Can you cite an actual example of a starting NFL QB who was actually released with average or above average statistics because his football team wasn't winning SBs?

 

Off the top of my head, in just recent memory:

 

Andy Dalton, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, Ryan Tannehill.

 

Would you consider any of the above QBs to be "winning" QBs? At best, they are stat guys, and at worst, in the case of guys like Tannehill/Dalton, they're basically average in the statistical department also AND they're not consistently winning games (especially playoff games).

 

So how in the world then do they get GIGANTIC raises?

 

I already know the answer to that question, and its completely based on my original premise.

[January J]

Can you cite an actual example of a starting NFL QB who was actually released with average or above average statistics because his football team wasn't winning SBs?

 

Off the top of my head, in just recent memory:

 

Andy Dalton, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, Ryan Tannehill.

 

Would you consider any of the above QBs to be "winning" QBs? At best, they are stat guys, and at worst, in the case of guys like Tannehill/Dalton, they're basically average in the statistical department also AND they're not consistently winning games (especially playoff games).

 

So how in the world then do they get GIGANTIC raises?

 

I already know the answer to that question, and its completely based on my original premise.

well 3 of the guys you named had winning seasons last year and 2 went to the playoffs so yes i would consider those 3 winnning qbs. right off the top of my head lets see.... michael vick i would say was an average qb,  just couldnt get to the playoffs. Matt Schaub was a former pro bowl quarterback who stopped winning games. fitzpatrick was average, couldnt put together a winning season. i could also name quite a few that are on the bubble right now. can you cite an example of a coach that wasnt fired after 3 straight losing seasons? unless they were superbowl winners in the past- theres not many. and that still doesnt change the fact that half of your post was irrelevant bc he was strictly referring to joe flacco and the qb position. he was talking about how people percieve flacco as an average qb bc he doesnt put up stats, and that when rating quarterbacks WINNING should be all that matters,  it was simply his opinion on how quarterbacks should be judged. what other teams do is their perrogative, if they want to invest in a quarterback that cant win a playoff game then thats on them. a lot of times they try to convince themselves that they can just go out and add a big name free agent to pair with their qb and that will fix things. however obviously history shows that teams that splurge like that usually dont end up playing come january.

Edited July 1, 2015 by January J

[Purple Dawg 96]

Don't wanna sneak up on them, wanna walk down there and beat all of them! 123 Woooooooooooooo

[rmcjacket23]

well right off the top of my head lets see.... michael vick i would say was an average qb,  just couldnt get to the playoffs. Matt Schaub was a former pro bowl quarterback who stopped winning games. fitzpatrick was average, couldnt put together a winning season. i could also name quite a few that are on the bubble right now. can you cite an example of a coach that wasnt fired after 3 straight losing seasons? unless they were superbowl winners in the past- theres not many. and that still doesnt change the fact that half of your post was irrelevant bc he was strictly referring to joe flacco and the qb position. he was talking about how people percieve flacco as an average qb bc he doesnt put up stats, and that when rating quarterbacks WINNING should be all that matters,  it was simply his opinion on how quarterbacks should be judged. what other teams do is their perrogative, if they want to invest in a quarterback that cant win a playoff game then thats on them.

1. I will reference QB, so why do coaches matter? Coaches are paid to win games... my argument is that QBs generally aren't, or at the very least, not like FANS believe they are.

 

2. Not exactly valid examples. Schaub actually never stopped winning games... he got injured, and he got old. His last full season as a starter, he went 12-4 and won a playoff game, The number of interceptions he was throwing was going to double if he played a full season in 2013... also known as not being a very good QB.

 

Vick was released because he went to prison, not because he stopped winning games. Even after being out of the league for three years, he has managed to start double digit games for five years after that (including last season). He's never been a winner. He's a better example for my argument.

 

I looked up 10 starting QBs in the NFL right now in particular (represents roughly 30% of ALL NFL teams)...

 

Ryan Tannehill, Andy Dalton, Philip Rivers, Alex Smith, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, Matt Stafford, Cam Newton, Carson Palmer, and Matt Ryan.

 

Lets diagnose:

 

The ten QBs, have a combined playoff record of 10-30. That's 10 TOTAL playoff wins in 75 seasons. Not a single one of them has a winning record in the playoffs, and not a single one of them has made it to the SB. Only 4 championship game appearances amongst them, and the average tenure for those QBs is 7.5 years.

 

AND yet... the average annual value of their contracts is a little over $16M per season.

 

And still some fans still think that NFL teams pay QBs mostly based on winning games? LOL.

 

Is winning at the QB position important for NFL teams? Absolutely. Do I think NFL teams base like 95% of their assessment of QBs based on how well the TEAM does like most FANS do? Of course not. Because NFL teams actually know how to evaluate players.  In most cases, the TEAM not winning has a lot more to do with the TEAM rather than the QB.

 

If there's anything fans should have learned from about the last 5-10 years in this league, its that quality, consistent STATISTICAL production will get you the first $13-15M of your deal. You don't have to win anything to get you that. The difference between the $15M QB and the $20M QB is the wins, and more importantly, the production and wins in the postseason. And as the salary cap goes up, those numbers go up. In the present day, it realistically costs you $16-17M a year for a solid but unspectacular statistically productive QB (see the Tannehills and Newtons of the world), and it will cost you significantly more for QBs who can consistently win in the playoffs (what we're about to see with the Wilsons and Lucks of the world).

[January J]

1. I will reference QB, so why do coaches matter? Coaches are paid to win games... my argument is that QBs generally aren't, or at the very least, not like FANS believe they are.

 

2. Not exactly valid examples. Schaub actually never stopped winning games... he got injured, and he got old. His last full season as a starter, he went 12-4 and won a playoff game, The number of interceptions he was throwing was going to double if he played a full season in 2013... also known as not being a very good QB.

 

Vick was released because he went to prison, not because he stopped winning games. Even after being out of the league for three years, he has managed to start double digit games for five years after that (including last season). He's never been a winner. He's a better example for my argument.

 

I looked up 10 starting QBs in the NFL right now in particular (represents roughly 30% of ALL NFL teams)...

 

Ryan Tannehill, Andy Dalton, Philip Rivers, Alex Smith, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, Matt Stafford, Cam Newton, Carson Palmer, and Matt Ryan.

 

Lets diagnose:

 

The ten QBs, have a combined playoff record of 10-30. That's 10 TOTAL playoff wins in 75 seasons. Not a single one of them has a winning record in the playoffs, and not a single one of them has made it to the SB. Only 4 championship game appearances amongst them, and the average tenure for those QBs is 7.5 years.

 

AND yet... the average annual value of their contracts is a little over $16M per season.

 

And still some fans still think that NFL teams pay QBs mostly based on winning games? LOL.

 

Is winning at the QB position important for NFL teams? Absolutely. Do I think NFL teams base like 95% of their assessment of QBs based on how well the TEAM does like most FANS do? Of course not. Because NFL teams actually know how to evaluate players.  In most cases, the TEAM not winning has a lot more to do with the TEAM rather than the QB.

 

If there's anything fans should have learned from about the last 5-10 years in this league, its that quality, consistent STATISTICAL production will get you the first $13-15M of your deal. You don't have to win anything to get you that. The difference between the $15M QB and the $20M QB is the wins, and more importantly, the production and wins in the postseason. And as the salary cap goes up, those numbers go up. In the present day, it realistically costs you $16-17M a year for a solid but unspectacular statistically productive QB (see the Tannehills and Newtons of the world), and it will cost you significantly more for QBs who can consistently win in the playoffs (what we're about to see with the Wilsons and Lucks of the world).

1) coaches matter because you just stated that winning is not the most important thing for coaches, when obviously yes it is.

 

2) doesnt really matter anyway because this was all based on somebodys opinion on how joe flacco should be valued over other qbs for  winning. i just decided to play your little game at constantly dissecting things. i wasnt actually referring to when vick went to prison, but either way you asked me to name a quarterback that was released that had average stats. i named 3.

 

3)once again, youve done what your famous for-  take something way too literally and over analyze something that is completely irrelevant. you just named atleast 8 quarterbacks that have been to the playoffs. playoffs= winning season...therefore what are you saying? they got their team to the playoffs which means they had a shot. . yes there are alot of stubborn organizations out there with poor managment skills who think that they can go out and get a  big name free agent and that will get them over the hump. however like i said- doesnt work that way. sure there are also a few teams that might have an alternative strategy going into the season where they invest heavily in defense, or in the running game and just need a guy who can manage the game. chip kellys trying something new this year. but yes for the most part, teams absolutely pay quarterbacks for winning games. and for the last time- we were orginally discussing how joe flacco is often overlooked, and that winning is what really matters IN REGARDS  to comparing joe flacco to other quarterbacks. the rest is really irrelevant and has nothing to do with what other teams are paying their quarterback or who is keeping who. our guy is better than their guy because he wins, simple as that. who cares what other front offices do anyway? if other teams want to invest in a guy that has awesome stats but never wins then that is their stupidity- that was his original point, and he couldnt be anymore right.

Edited July 1, 2015 by January J

[The Negotiator]

Just was wondering what happened to the Late For Work segment!

[TXRavensFan]

Just was wondering what happened to the Late For Work segment!

 

Vacation this week.

[The Negotiator]

Thank you

[The Negotiator]

Thank you

[sami]

I know these guys are on vacation but they should have thought ahead and gave us something. Inquisitive minds like mine want to know...stuff.

[huntrgathrr]

Since 2008.....when Joe came into the league:

Flacco 10-5

Ben 5-3

Brees 5-3

Rogers 4-3

Eli 4-1

Wilson 4-1

Sanchez 4-1

Brady 4-5

Kap 4-2

Peyton 4-5

Now where is the debate???????????????????

[cbrook1862]

Oh no were still the underdogs, just because a few guys acknowledge our roster and potential doesn't mean all of a sudden the NFL is in love with the ravens. I mean sure, it's cool to get recognized for all the talent and potential this team has, but at the end of the day, most people still have the steelers and bengals at the top of division, but so what, us fans know just how good this team is and can be, and we know what this team can do, so who care who cares what others think, I expect us to still go out and play gritty, hard-nose, and tough ravens football like we always do, working hard and proving ourselves like a late round pick who expected to go early.

[rmcjacket23]

1) coaches matter because you just stated that winning is not the most important thing for coaches, when obviously yes it is.

 

2) doesnt really matter anyway because this was all based on somebodys opinion on how joe flacco should be valued over other qbs for  winning. i just decided to play your little game at constantly dissecting things. i wasnt actually referring to when vick went to prison, but either way you asked me to name a quarterback that was released that had average stats. i named 3.

 

3)once again, youve done what your famous for-  take something way too literally and over analyze something that is completely irrelevant. you just named atleast 8 quarterbacks that have been to the playoffs. playoffs= winning season...therefore what are you saying? they got their team to the playoffs which means they had a shot. . yes there are alot of stubborn organizations out there with poor managment skills who think that they can go out and get a  big name free agent and that will get them over the hump. however like i said- doesnt work that way. sure there are also a few teams that might have an alternative strategy going into the season where they invest heavily in defense, or in the running game and just need a guy who can manage the game. chip kellys trying something new this year. but yes for the most part, teams absolutely pay quarterbacks for winning games. and for the last time- we were orginally discussing how joe flacco is often overlooked, and that winning is what really matters IN REGARDS  to comparing joe flacco to other quarterbacks. the rest is really irrelevant and has nothing to do with what other teams are paying their quarterback or who is keeping who. our guy is better than their guy because he wins, simple as that. who cares what other front offices do anyway? if other teams want to invest in a guy that has awesome stats but never wins then that is their stupidity- that was his original point, and he couldnt be anymore right.

1. When I said coaches, I was referring to coaches evaluating QBs. Coaches care about winning obviously, but they don't evaluate their QBs like fans do. I seriously doubt any coach cuts a QB because he doesn't win games only.

 

2. I asked to name a QB with average stats who was released BECAUSE HE WASN'T WINNING. Fitzpatrick, MAYBE, would be the only QB who qualifies there.

 

3. Just so I understand you... if you make it to the playoffs just ONE time, you're a winning QB for life? Sorry, but neither I nor do I think anybody here or anywhere would agree with that. I don't consider a guy who wins one playoff game every five years to be a "winner" by any stretch.

 

These boards alone like to universally mock guys like Dalton, Ryan and Romo for "not being clutch" and not winning when it matters most. While I don't necessarily agree with that, most people certainly wouldn't classify these guys as "winners" and as such, I seriously doubt their franchises give them $15M+ contracts because they think they are winners either. They give them that money for any combination of reasons, with winning being just a piece of that, but certainly not the majority of it.

 

While I agree that Joe is better than these guys, I'm certainly not in the group that says he's the best in the league because he wins. There's no shortage of great QBs who win quite often (if not more than Joe) in this league. The Brady's, Rodgers', Brees, Mannings and Roethlisbergers of the world all have pretty similar if not better success in the "winning" category than Joe, AND most of them have also been better statistically over time.

 

NFL teams are looking for BOTH, not just one. They want a guy who's great statistically AND wins games, because those are the truly great QBs. There's plenty of guys who win games but aren't great statistically, and there's plenty of guys who are great statistically but don't win games. Neither of the guys in those groups alone are rare. The rare one's are the one's who can do both. Stats, historically, correlated positively with wins. QBs who throw more TDs means those teams score more TDs, which is 50% of the goal of winning a football game. QBs who throw less INTs means those teams aren't putting themselves in a position to give up more points, which is the other 50% of the goal of winning a football game. It all coincides.

[GO_Ravens]

Kamar Aiken may be our starter come week one at receiver. Did you see the muscle he put on that guy means business he may turn out to be stud for us.

[dirtybird66]

if we play every game like the superbowl, we will be fine. i'd say raven;s and arizona

[trevorsteadman]

The Ravens started the off-season in the middle of the pack (which is typical except in Super Bowl years) and by the end of the off-season they are at the top. They don't get involved in the big free agent market and stray away from trades except where absolutely necessary (Monroe, Zuttah) yet here they are again by using the draft and waiting for quality players to be released. The model has been the same, the success has been the same and the results have been the same year after year. If other teams don't model their formulas based on the Ravens succeses, then they are not truly interested in winning. If I as a fan can figure this out, why cant the high dollar individuals in other organizations figure this out. Except for the Packers, no one else does this.

Patriots do it too.. Except it is hard to include them after now they are being investigated for illegal use of drones along with he Cowboys and Giants (or Jets I can't remember off hand).  Building the team through the draft like a lot of these teams do makes the best all around teams and that puts teams in a better position to win it all... I would rather have our 12th ranked offense and 8th ranked defense of last year than be a team like the Steelers with the #2 offense and #18 defense. It gets you farther at the end of the season... Baltimore has shown that consistently. Never flashy but the best all around team wins it all every year for the most part because throughout the playoffs they will play different types of teams, run or throw heavy, and when they can stop both for the majority it gets you far. Baltimore was 1 injured corner away, 1 referee call away, or 1 receiver to try to catch a ball in the endzone instead of just pushing the defensive back (Torrey Smith) away from another Super Bowl appearance. This is why teams like the Indianapolis Colts will not win the Super Bowl ever until they realize that if they have the #3 offense they shouldn't go out and get Andre Johnson and Frank Gore with all their cap and actually upgrade their defense which was what was holding them back the last 2 seasons. 

[January J]

1. When I said coaches, I was referring to coaches evaluating QBs. Coaches care about winning obviously, but they don't evaluate their QBs like fans do. I seriously doubt any coach cuts a QB because he doesn't win games only.

2. I asked to name a QB with average stats who was released BECAUSE HE WASN'T WINNING. Fitzpatrick, MAYBE, would be the only QB who qualifies there.

3. Just so I understand you... if you make it to the playoffs just ONE time, you're a winning QB for life? Sorry, but neither I nor do I think anybody here or anywhere would agree with that. I don't consider a guy who wins one playoff game every five years to be a "winner" by any stretch.

These boards alone like to universally mock guys like Dalton, Ryan and Romo for "not being clutch" and not winning when it matters most. While I don't necessarily agree with that, most people certainly wouldn't classify these guys as "winners" and as such, I seriously doubt their franchises give them $15M+ contracts because they think they are winners either. They give them that money for any combination of reasons, with winning being just a piece of that, but certainly not the majority of it.

While I agree that Joe is better than these guys, I'm certainly not in the group that says he's the best in the league because he wins. There's no shortage of great QBs who win quite often (if not more than Joe) in this league. The Brady's, Rodgers', Brees, Mannings and Roethlisbergers of the world all have pretty similar if not better success in the "winning" category than Joe, AND most of them have also been better statistically over time.

NFL teams are looking for BOTH, not just one. They want a guy who's great statistically AND wins games, because those are the truly great QBs. There's plenty of guys who win games but aren't great statistically, and there's plenty of guys who are great statistically but don't win games. Neither of the guys in those groups alone are rare. The rare one's are the one's who can do both. Stats, historically, correlated positively with wins. QBs who throw more TDs means those teams score more TDs, which is 50% of the goal of winning a football game. QBs who throw less INTs means those teams aren't putting themselves in a position to give up more points, which is the other 50% of the goal of winning a football game. It all coincides.

yes they also have to sell tickets. But we're not talking about nfl teams- were talking about one guys opinion on how joe flacco matches up against other quarterbacks, everything else is unnecessary.

[bnyce52]

"The Ravens are going to have a tough time sneaking up on anyone this season." A tough time? What does that even mean? Teams may sneak up on fans, but never on other teams. Come on, John... Name one week's opponent that the Ravens didn't put in 100% effort preparing for in the past 20 years due to media rankings? Parody in the NFL ensures that teams take every opponent seriously, no matter who the coaching staff is. All these guys know each other from their college days and talent is scattered everywhere. Being an underdog by the media doesn't give you the benefit of your opponent marking a 'W' on their calendar and just resting the week leading up to game time. That doesn't happen anywhere ever in the NFL where the entire field is ultra-competitive. The bottom line is that rankings can't IMPACT the outcome of the game. Let's not start thinking in a vacuum here. It's sports. The objective is to win. Everybody has the film. Nobody is sneaking up on anyone.

[Ravensfansince03]

I think it's going to be easier than some ppl think.  Don't get me wrong, I am definitely going to miss Ngata but the young guys held their own the last 4 games he was suspended and with them having another training camp and pre-season to prepare I think they are going to be just fine.  That said, I will say someone like Ngata is not someone you just "replace" though.  

Exactly, but you know that mean 6-ft-4 345lb frame will be missed. I have high hopes for Jernigan and Williams, but those 4 games they played do not convince me. The spotlight is on them now to dominate.