[News] Late For Work 1/4: 10 Big Questions For Ravens Offseason

[RavensBaltimore]

To put up these numbers with FOUR different starting QB's, Trestman definitely WASN'T the problem this year. 

He did a GREAT job w/ what he had to work with.  

Besides the fours different starting qbs, we were down to 3rd string at all of our skill positions, and our offense ranked 14th. Trestman deserves a lot of credit.

[trevorsteadman]

To put up these numbers with FOUR different starting QB's, Trestman definitely WASN'T the problem this year. 

He did a GREAT job w/ what he had to work with.  

Agreed but I do think the Ravens need more points... It seems like a lot of games we were south of 20 points and that doesn't win too many ball games. 

[RavensBaltimore]

I like how people criticize the Ravens for being "ill prepared" for their 3 most talented WRs to go down. I guess other teams have 3rd and 4th stringers that can step right in and dominate.

[ravenwildman]

You need pretty much a roster of 53 starters with the way the injuries pile up each year. I think the idea of a "back up" not being immediately starter capable (except rookie work ups), is a thing of the past. With salary caps being what they are, it makes getting such a starting roster of 53 a financial work of art.

GO RAVENS!

[Purplepowers88]

Justin Tucker just seems like a good dude. He is my favorite Raven.

[balfan23]

I think there is one big question that was omitted and that is, what coaching changes should be made, if any. If the play on the field is not what it should be, then not only the players, but the organization as a whole needs a review. I'm not proposing anything specific, but such changes should be on the table.

[balfan23]

I would try to move on from K.O and lower expectations. Not because K.O isn't a great fit and awesome player, but simply because we can't afford a bidding war for his services. I believe our best option for next year is to hope that Monroe is motivated and healthy to play a full 16 games. Add a serviceable LT through free agency and a franchise DE or DB in the first round. That would be the optimal solution when you factor in cap space availability and personnel.

If the question is that we hope he's healthy to play ... that's one thing. If we have to hope that he'll be motivated ... that's another. I don't know whether motivation was a factor, but hopefully that is something that the team can determine. If lack of motivation contributed to his bad season, then I think we should move on from him, even though cutting him won't save a huge amount of money. If it was only a matter of health, then perhaps we give him one more year to prove he can be an LT in this league. 

[NCMan]

That's not how it works. Players usually don't care if a deal is backloaded or frontloaded, as long as they get guaranteed money.  As far as I know, the most common way to backload a deal is to give a signing bonus and spread the cap hit out, so the player still gets his money upfront. It's the cap hit that's backloaded, not the actual payout to the player. The real issue with that is that you could be creating future cap issues by backloading too many deals.

Not true. Every contract is different. You make a few valid points, but you are incorrect in some of it. A cap hit is a cap hit, regardless of what season it is applied. You don't "backload" a cap hit. That would assure dead money galore forever. I get what you are trying to say, but your terminology is not accurate.

[balfan23]

Analysts point to our lack of playmakers as a key reason for our poor season. No doubt that's true ... but I think another major factor was lack of discipline and poor technique that bit us at critical times. We'd play well for long stretches, yet would do something foolish (usually either a devastating penalty or letting up a big play) that would erase all of what was good. Not sure how we fix that, because we talked about it all season and yet were still doing that stuff in week 17.

[NCMan]

You need pretty much a roster of 53 starters with the way the injuries pile up each year. I think the idea of a "back up" not being immediately starter capable (except rookie work ups), is a thing of the past. With salary caps being what they are, it makes getting such a starting roster of 53 a financial work of art. GO RAVENS!

A roster of 53 starters, huh? Maybe you can give Oz and Co. your plan to sign and pay them. Nice thought, but......?

[bioLarzen]

Besides the fours different starting qbs, we were down to 3rd string at all of our skill positions, and our offense ranked 14th. Trestman deserves a lot of credit.

 

I consider Trestman one of the few "unsung heroes" of a failed season. He's this season's Juan Castillo for a lot of fans (most of whom, by the way, somehow forgot to admit the O-line woes in 2013 probably weren't all on Castillo after all, as his lines have been very good since...).

 

It can be debated whether Kubiak was a better OC than Trestman - but calling for his head... is about as fair as calling Perriman a bust because he got injured

[bioLarzen]

That's not how it works. Players usually don't care if a deal is backloaded or frontloaded, as long as they get guaranteed money.

 

... their agents however, usually do. They will almost invariably go for the more front-loaded contracts in case of similar offers. Money already in the pocket always trumps any kind of guaranteed, but not yet received money.

[Sean Ryan]

Laquon Treadwell!!!! Would be huge for our offense.

[RavensBaltimore]

... their agents however, usually do. They will almost invariably go for the more front-loaded contracts in case of similar offers. Money already in the pocket always trumps any kind of guaranteed, but not yet received money.

Agents don't care if a contract is backloaded because the player still can get a lot of money upfront, in the form of a signing bonus, so they can backload a contract and still get money in the pocket right away. You don't seem to understand the fact that a contract can be backloaded for the cap hit, but front loaded in terms of when the player actually receives the money.

[RavensBaltimore]

Not true. Every contract is different. You make a few valid points, but you are incorrect in some of it. A cap hit is a cap hit, regardless of what season it is applied. You don't "backload" a cap hit. That would assure dead money galore forever. I get what you are trying to say, but your terminology is not accurate.

The cap hit has been backloaded in every long term deal I have ever seen. For example, Eugene Monroe's cap hit was $3.2 million in year 1, and will be $8.7 million next year. Flacco's cap hit was about $7million year 1, and until he restructures, will go to $28million next year. I'm not sure what you thought was inaccurate about my post.

[boldtown]

unless the ravens hire new scouts, the first pick of the ravens scares the hell out me. the ravens first rounders being successful is uncommon in recent years. so maybe the ravens need to shake up the font office a little. another thing, this one hurts as a fan, pitta should retire. hate to say cut or release. pitta'a agent should get him into tv. a few acting classes could be the next action star. (lol)

[rmcjacket23]

Here's what a typical, mid-to-large size NFL contract would look like for a guy signing a non-rookie deal...

 

1. You'll most likely have a signing bonus, typically represents a significant portion of the contract. This is fully guaranteed.

 

2. You'll typically have a smaller base salary in year 1, since the player also receives that signing bonus in year 1. 

 

3. You will then have escalating salaries in future years, sometimes coupled with roster/option bonuses in the second or third year of a deal, depending on the structure of the deal (Joe's deal had three different bonuses in three different years from 2013-2015).

 

4. Bonuses make up a significant share of the guaranteed money, and on a standard 4-5 year deal, teams will generally only guarantee the first 1-2 years of base salaries. This, however, is purely dependent on the total amount of guaranteed money.

 

Again, this isn't what 100% of NFL contracts look like, but most of your long-term deals look like this one way or another. There are some examples of contracts involving "riskier" players that are structured differently. Jay Cutler, for example, signed a 7 year, $126M contract that had no signing bonus. The deal still had $54M guaranteed, and that was originally just his first three years of base salaries (2014-2016), though they have since restructured a piece of that.

 

That type of deal is pretty rare from what I've seen.

[The Greek]

hope harbs adds jim tomsula to his coaching staff. he knows how to develop talent. have pagano on speed dial but im sure he will waste another season on pees

[The Greek]

This is kind of weird ESPN says that the Ravens had the second best defense he second half of the season, wow that is surprising there is still a lot more work that needs to be done and for sure this team is going to be a contender next season go Ravens!

if true one of the reasons may be that they played a lot of teams as weak as they were which would help them climb the rankings. defense was weak imo and it starts with pees. we finished #8 in yards allowed and #24 in pts allowed which to me is what matters. pees needs to go

Edited January 4, 2016 by The Greek

[ravens4life86]

Offseason priorities... for me.. Resctructure Flacco, Sign Tucker

Make other minor moves and cuts.. hit a Homerun at DRAFT.

[balfan23]

if true one of the reasons may be that they played a lot of teams as weak as they were which would help them climb the rankings. defense was weak imo and it starts with pees. we finished #8 in yards allowed and #24 in pts allowed which to me is what matters. pees needs to go

 

The biggest indictment on this unit is their inability to create turnovers. Outside of the aberration that was the Steelers game, the defense was not very impressive IMO. They played well through stretches, but would too often lapse and erase all that was good due to bone headed penalties and desperation PI. Those penalties don't show up in many of the stats that are listed, but are major contributors to being #24 in points allowed (which is not by any means acceptable). 

[fusuymada]

While we are applauding our defense for improving towards the end of the season, with the lull in practice, the inability of players to develop over the off season as a result of the CBA and the lack of motivation by our players to stay in shape, it means absolutely nothing the defense was improving because we go back to square one all over again next year when everyone comes back in and are just a few weeks away from hamstrings, Achilles, quads, groin and every other muscle they have to pull due to the reasons listed above. I know we are always looking to find a silver lining and I understand that but I think we as fans have been buying too many silver linings stories like "our defense is getting better at the end of this year so we will be good next year", "if our secondary returns healthy we will be ok", "the o-line is returning all its players so it will dominate". I think we need to quit relying on stories of people returning and start looking at each year as a new year and make these guys go out and earn these jobs. I am almost sick when I think of what we thought our O-Line and secondary (cornerbacks mostly) were going to do and they were busts. They all came in out of shape and living on their laurels. But when Webb came in and failed the conditioning test, we should have known at that point and done something about it.

[rmcjacket23]

if true one of the reasons may be that they played a lot of teams as weak as they were which would help them climb the rankings. defense was weak imo and it starts with pees. we finished #8 in yards allowed and #24 in pts allowed which to me is what matters. pees needs to go

So I see a lot of people saying this, and I wondered if this was based on perception or if it was actually factual. So, naturally, I did some digging...

 

As it turns out, at least based on initial analysis, this concept of "we played better offenses early" is largely a myth...

 

From a yards/gm perspective, the teams we played in the first half of the season averaged 357.3 yards per game, while the teams we played in the second half of the season averaged 346.7 yards per game, so roughly a 10 yards/game difference. In my opinion, that's not very significant at all.

 

From a points/gm perspective, the teams we played in the first half of the season averaged 22.5 PPG, while the teams we played in the second half of the season averaged 22.8 PPG, so virtually no difference in PPG output from their offenses.

 

So, at least based on just these two statistics (yards, points scored), the difference in the offensives we played the first half of the season vs second half of the season is about 10 yards a game with practically no change in scoreboard output.

 

So, I guess my question would be... what's the basis for this concept of "o the offenses we played in the 2nd half were weaker"? Is it just some theory based on looking at the names on the jerseys or what is the reason behind it?

[Bohica5]

on#4 i would release everyone but Smith.....and who say's joe restructures?.....if he's smart he won't just pay him what everyone but me thinks he's worth and let's keep being nominal!!

[The Mom Gene]

So I see a lot of people saying this, and I wondered if this was based on perception or if it was actually factual. So, naturally, I did some digging...

 

As it turns out, at least based on initial analysis, this concept of "we played better offenses early" is largely a myth...

 

From a yards/gm perspective, the teams we played in the first half of the season averaged 357.3 yards per game, while the teams we played in the second half of the season averaged 346.7 yards per game, so roughly a 10 yards/game difference. In my opinion, that's not very significant at all.

 

From a points/gm perspective, the teams we played in the first half of the season averaged 22.5 PPG, while the teams we played in the second half of the season averaged 22.8 PPG, so virtually no difference in PPG output from their offenses.

 

So, at least based on just these two statistics (yards, points scored), the difference in the offensives we played the first half of the season vs second half of the season is about 10 yards a game with practically no change in scoreboard output.

 

So, I guess my question would be... what's the basis for this concept of "o the offenses we played in the 2nd half were weaker"? Is it just some theory based on looking at the names on the jerseys or what is the reason behind it?

I look at the schedule in terms of this.....  We played Denver in Denver... SF in SF... Cardinals in Arizona... Cincy at home,  Steelers in Pittsburgh....  I am a firm believer that it may not have been the points  "actually scored", that they weren't higher, but they were much better offenses.  Just my opinion....  When I look at the number of games AWAY... and who we played.... and most of which are in the playoffs right now.

[rmcjacket23]

I look at the schedule in terms of this.....  We played Denver in Denver... SF in SF... Cardinals in Arizona... Cincy at home,  Steelers in Pittsburgh....  I am a firm believer that it may not have been the points  "actually scored", that they weren't higher, but they were much better offenses.  Just my opinion....  When I look at the number of games AWAY... and who we played.... and most of which are in the playoffs right now.

Maybe, but we played 8 games against playoff teams this season, and half of them were at home.

 

Home: PIT, CIN, KC, Seattle

Away: PIT, CIN, Denver, Arizona

 

Seattles offense and Arizona's offense are pretty similar statistically, and so is KC/Denver. I just don't see much of a difference.

 

I suppose you could argue the QB play was better in the first half, but again, statistically, that's not really translating into PPG or YPG.

[Crusader]

Ravens will get lucky to win 8 games next year, very lucky.

[Crusader]

Why is Brynden Trawick still on this team? 4 times I have seen him hit our own return guy. This "team" is so screwed up that Brynden will be on this team and Daniel Brown will be let go before the first game along with KO. Just watch.

[The Mom Gene]

Maybe, but we played 8 games against playoff teams this season, and half of them were at home.

 

Home: PIT, CIN, KC, Seattle

Away: PIT, CIN, Denver, Arizona

 

Seattles offense and Arizona's offense are pretty similar statistically, and so is KC/Denver. I just don't see much of a difference.

 

I suppose you could argue the QB play was better in the first half, but again, statistically, that's not really translating into PPG or YPG.

Some of my Family members have PLS's and mentioned that never has it been so blatant as this year whereas 5 out of the first 7 games were away.  That we weren't in the stadium but twice in once September and once in October.... Third time was November 1st.   So this is where folks are getting the feeling of a tougher 1st half of the season.

[rmcjacket23]

Some of my Family members have PLS's and mentioned that never has it been so blatant as this year whereas 5 out of the first 7 games were away.  That we weren't in the stadium but twice in once September and once in October.... Third time was November 1st.   So this is where folks are getting the feeling of a tougher 1st half of the season.

Again, that's all great and fine and everything, but that's just a tradeoff for having a bunch of home games in the second half of the year, which I've been told countless times on these boards is more important. Can't tell you how many times I've been told that November/December is significantly more meaningful than September/October.

 

So when I see we finish the year 3-5 in home games and 2-6 in road games, I have a tough time buying the argument that much.