Eugene Monroe Thread (merged) - Released by Ravens

[Kinda_Dante]

@cobrajet As an organization they were moving on because after two injury plagued seasons they couldn't trust him to be healthy and didn't want Hurst to start. Of course he didn't feel like the organization had his back because they didn't, they were moving on. He starts calling his team out for not supporting his cause, which they never said they didn't and never said they did. They never publicly told him to stop promoting his cause. The relationship was clearly broken, and if he wants to play football they probably did him a favor because he can now choose the team he wants to go to and actually get on the field as opposed to sitting behind Stanley.

Again these are all points that have already been made.

I was actually arguing with @rmw10 before Monroe was cut that we should keep Monroe but he was making the point that the relationship was beyond repair and I think that's clear now.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Kinda_Dante

[cobrajet]

8 minutes ago, Kinda_Dante said:

@cobrajet As an organization they were moving on because after two injury plagued seasons they couldn't trust him to be healthy and didn't want Hurst to start. Of course he didn't feel like the organization had his back because they didn't, they were moving on. He starts calling his team out for not supporting his cause, which they never said they didn't and never said they did. They never publicly told him to stop promoting his cause. The relationship was clearly broken, and if he wants to play football they probably did him a favor because he can now choose the team he wants to go to and actually get on the field as opposed to sitting behind Stanley.

Again these are all points that have already been made.

I was actually arguing with @rmw10 before Monroe was cut that we should keep Monroe but he was making the point that the relationship was beyond repair and I think that's clear now.

Yeah I understand that because it seems that the relationship was beyond repair that is why they felt the need to cut him. It must have been awkward for both sides after everything went down. My argument to the whole thing is that I just don't feel like it had to come to that point, especially with a veteran player at such a critical position of need. I usually support how our organization deals with the players. In fact, I actually think they are too lenient with the players at times. However, I feel in Monroe's case they had an equal share in causing the relationship to break down beyond repair. They had to know how critical our depth was at left tackle after losing K.O. to free agency, especially after Hurst fell into Joe's knee and he tore his ACL.

[berad]

Zrebiec does a great job summing up the whole 'saga' in his article...

Quote

I was hoping the Eugene Monroe-Ravens saga would be put to bed by now, but speculation persists that the offensive tackle’s tireless advocacy for medical marijuana was behind his release Wednesday. Harbaugh defended the organization from that charge, saying the move was “100 percent” a product of “football circumstances.”

What Harbaugh didn’t do – and I’ll fill in the blanks – is cite the extensive evidence that pointed toward Monroe’s exit long before he aggressively took up the medical marijuana cause this offseason.

Monroe started just 17 of 34 games since getting a big contract, and started and finished just three games all of last year. He turned down a simple contract restructure, which is his right, last offseason when the Ravens needed salary cap flexibility. Monroe never warmed to offensive line coach Juan Castillo’s teaching or bought into what the team describes as the “Raven way.”

In January, general manager Ozzie Newsome said that Monroe was currently the team’s starting left tackle only because Kelechi Osemele was a free agent.  That “tepid” endorsement came well before medical marijuana talk became a constant on Monroe’s Twitter feed.

A month later, the Ravens made an aggressive free-agent offer to Osemele with the intention of playing him at left tackle. They used their sixth-overall pick a couple of months later on left tackle Ronnie Stanley.

The signs were there for many months that the Ravens were preparing to move on from Monroe. The holdup was Monroe getting cleared medically, Stanley proving what he can do in the various minicamps and the Ravens gauging if there was any trade market for the veteran tackle.

Certainly, Monroe’s passionate stance had to make some Ravens’ officials uncomfortable and rub others the wrong way. But the primary factor behind his release? It makes for a juicy story. It just happens to neglect months of indications that Monroe’s days in Baltimore were numbered since late last year.  

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-ravens-news-notes-and-opinions-after-mandatory-minicamp-20160616-story.html

What else needs to be said?

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

25 minutes ago, berad said:

Zrebiec does a great job summing up the whole 'saga' in his article...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-ravens-news-notes-and-opinions-after-mandatory-minicamp-20160616-story.html

What else needs to be said?

Well - in fairness... the last thing really in his timeline is that drafted Stanley. Ok. Except that they tried hard to move up and draft Ramsey.

That doesnt really fit the narrative that they had their mind made up about moving on from Monroe well before that. I mean, if they did pull that off they had to have been comfortable doing something else at LT. Maybe... and i do mean MAYBE they wouldve gone to FA or trade. But my guess is if they got Ramsey, Monroe would be the tackle this season.

And if they couldve made it work in that instance... they couldve made it work in this one. Thats my only point.

[rmw10]

39 minutes ago, cobrajet said:

Yeah I understand that because it seems that the relationship was beyond repair that is why they felt the need to cut him. It must have been awkward for both sides after everything went down. My argument to the whole thing is that I just don't feel like it had to come to that point, especially with a veteran player at such a critical position of need. I usually support how our organization deals with the players. In fact, I actually think they are too lenient with the players at times. However, I feel in Monroe's case they had an equal share in causing the relationship to break down beyond repair. They had to know how critical our depth was at left tackle after losing K.O. to free agency, especially after Hurst fell into Joe's knee and he tore his ACL.

The bolded should be irrelevant.  It shouldn't matter what position he plays or how long he's been in the league.  If a relationship is done, it's done.

[berad]

16 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Well - in fairness... the last thing really in his timeline is that drafted Stanley. Ok. Except that they tried hard to move up and draft Ramsey.

That doesnt really fit the narrative that they had their mind made up about moving on from Monroe well before that. I mean, if they did pull that off they had to have been comfortable doing something else at LT. Maybe... and i do mean MAYBE they wouldve gone to FA or trade. But my guess is if they got Ramsey, Monroe would be the tackle this season.

And if they couldve made it work in that instance... they couldve made it work in this one. Thats my only point.

Perhaps or maybe they would have plucked a 2nd round LT or went after one harder with a trade like you said. We can play hypothetical all day but there were many signs they weren't happy with Monroe before his medical marijuana campaign.

[rmw10]

@BOLDnPurPnBlacK

I won't quote you since it's a long post, but here are my final thoughts on the matter.

It shouldn't matter what position he plays or what the depth looks like.  If there's a lack of trust, there's a lack of trust.  Keeping him here isn't going to change that.  By no means am I saying that the whole situation played out perfectly on either side, but at the end of the day, this was a move that had to be made.  This is ultimately what it came to.  Blame can be placed all around in this type of situation.  The simple fact of the matter is that the relationship was damaged beyond repair and a parting of ways was due.  That's really all I'm trying to say.  I'm not justifying either sides actions leading up to this moment, just that this moment had to come.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 minute ago, rmw10 said:

@BOLDnPurPnBlacK

I won't quote you since it's a long post, but here are my final thoughts on the matter.

It shouldn't matter what position he plays or what the depth looks like.  If there's a lack of trust, there's a lack of trust.  Keeping him here isn't going to change that.  By no means am I saying that the whole situation played out perfectly on either side, but at the end of the day, this was a move that had to be made.  This is ultimately what it came to.  Blame can be placed all around in this type of situation.  The simple fact of the matter is that the relationship was damaged beyond repair and a parting of ways was due.  That's really all I'm trying to say.  I'm not justifying either sides actions leading up to this moment, just that this moment had to come.

I'm not really trying to parse blame either. My main feeling is that this is professional sports, with a goal of putting the best possible team on the field. 

Yes, there was tension... but one side was willing to put it aside, show up and go to work. One wasnt... and imo it hurts more than just the player, it hurts the other 52 players who werent involved bc a lesser player will now have to be counted on.

If the relationship was beyond repair, it is bc the team was unwilling to repair it. So it wasnt this inevitable or unavoidable thing. It seems pride or personal beliefs got in the way here; which is understandable... but i dont think thats the best platform to be making competitive, business decisions from. I dont believe the moment had to come, it was chosen.

But, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

16 minutes ago, berad said:

Perhaps or maybe they would have plucked a 2nd round LT or went after one harder with a trade like you said. We can play hypothetical all day but there were many signs they weren't happy with Monroe before his medical marijuana campaign.

No you're right... there were other options. But if Monroe was on the roster and we were counting on Jason Spriggs, Le'Raven Clark, or Willie Beavers to be our LT in a season where Joes coming back from injury - i doubt everyone would be so on board with the Monroe move.

And if they went for a trade with a guy like Clady... that would kind of kill the whole "this was 100% a football decision" bc Clady is less durable than Monroe.

Thats what I'm trying to say. Trying to move up for Ramsey tells me at the very least there was a scenario in which they would have accepted moving forward with Monroe... and if thats the case that means they were at least prepared to squash the beef, and put the best foot forward.

[Tiznut]

1 hour ago, berad said:

Zrebiec does a great job summing up the whole 'saga' in his article...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-ravens-news-notes-and-opinions-after-mandatory-minicamp-20160616-story.html

What else needs to be said?

This.  Again speculation of his release predates marijuana talk but it doesn't make a good story 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Michael Oher just signed a 3 year extension worth over $21m in new money, and averaging about $7.5m per year.

Not to keep the Monroe thing going - but i dont want to hear that releasing him was about money... bc you cant even get a Michael Oher for less... in fact he costs more. Not that we need a Monroe level player to feel comfortable with the back up, but i dont think id be overly comfortable if Oher was our backup... So, we know what we're looking at in the FA market for even a below average tackle, coming off a pretty forgettable year.

[Tank 92]

On June 15, 2016 at 5:04 PM, B-more Ravor said:

 

Unless you expected Monroe to play out his contract, he was likely to be released next year anyway, which means the $4.4M was going to count in 2017 either way.

Once they drafted Stanley, this move was inevitable.

Bottom line:  They weren't going to pay $6.5M in cash to an unreliable player to sit on the bench.  No team would.

They had $6.3M in Cap space prior to this, which is enough for minimum salary moves and to carry into the season, but would not likely leave much of a carryover.  Now, they can look to extend Williams/Wagner - both of whose Cap numbers will increase with an extension - and carry over the rest. 

Giving this a bump in case some missed it. 

[rmw10]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I'm not really trying to parse blame either. My main feeling is that this is professional sports, with a goal of putting the best possible team on the field. 

Yes, there was tension... but one side was willing to put it aside, show up and go to work. One wasnt... and imo it hurts more than just the player, it hurts the other 52 players who werent involved bc a lesser player will now have to be counted on.

If the relationship was beyond repair, it is bc the team was unwilling to repair it. So it wasnt this inevitable or unavoidable thing. It seems pride or personal beliefs got in the way here; which is understandable... but i dont think thats the best platform to be making competitive, business decisions from. I dont believe the moment had to come, it was chosen.

But, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yeah we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I can't substantiate any reason why a team would keep an oft injured player for $6.5M, in addition to the fact that there's no trust there.  Whatever the reason, I'll maintain that the relationship was broken and there was no other move to be made.  This was not only a good move for the Ravens, but for Monroe as well.

At the end of the day, their business decision was made because they didn't think Monroe was helping them achieve the goal.  I don't buy any of the depth arguments because he was never going to be depth here.

[GrimCoconut]

Why are people so upset? We moved on from Monroe and the writing was on the wall for some time. I personally thought we would want to keep him for depth  but we didn't, so what? People kept saying they didn't like him, and now that he's gone we suddenly made a mistake? Huh?

[Tiznut]

1 hour ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Michael Oher just signed a 3 year extension worth over $21m in new money, and averaging about $7.5m per year.

Not to keep the Monroe thing going - but i dont want to hear that releasing him was about money... bc you cant even get a Michael Oher for less... in fact he costs more. Not that we need a Monroe level player to feel comfortable with the back up, but i dont think id be overly comfortable if Oher was our backup... So, we know what we're looking at in the FA market for even a below average tackle, coming off a pretty forgettable year.

But the panthers view him as a starter.  We would be looking at Monroe as a back up.  So yes you can get a back up for less money than what oher  got. 

[ravensdan]

On June 17, 2016 at 9:38 AM, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

We saved a whole $2m basically. Save $6.5m this year, but take on $4.4m in dead money next year.

Dont really see the sense in it either. Sorry you couldnt work out a trade in the ONE day you gave yourself.... but no one was in desperation mode either. Hold him, wait until someone loses their starting LT and has a sense of urgency to grab him in a trade. Or, hold on to the insurance in case Stanley goes down or something.

These are grown men. I just dont see any situation in which the FO or coaching staff should have put the petty differences ahead of whats best for this football team in terms of on field performance.

Plus we're going to have to sign some kind of vet backup no. Adios savings. 

[Tank 92]

Obviously the guy didn't want to be here. What sort of production would you expect from a disenchanted player? There's really nothing else to consider and it would have been just plain stupid to keep him on the roster.

[Willbacker]

1 hour ago, ravensdan said:

Plus we're going to have to sign some kind of vet backup no. Adios savings. 

A backup for 6.5 mil?

[ravensdan]

5 hours ago, Willbacker said:

A backup for 6.5 mil?

We're paying that amount over the next two years regardless. The minimal savings he will generate will be negated by the vet tackle that will be signed. Overall it's a shortsighted move that is not typical. Really shocking for this organization. To get absolutely nothing for him. We're still paying but we don't have the player. McKinney was much worse of a guy and he came through and helped as an overpaid backup when needed. 

[RaineV1]

7 hours ago, ravensdan said:

Plus we're going to have to sign some kind of vet backup no. Adios savings. 

Actually, I wouldn't be shocked if the Ravens didn't sign a vet backup and just used that money as part of an extension for someone.

[rmw10]

1 hour ago, ravensdan said:

We're paying that amount over the next two years regardless. The minimal savings he will generate will be negated by the vet tackle that will be signed. Overall it's a shortsighted move that is not typical. Really shocking for this organization. To get absolutely nothing for him. We're still paying but we don't have the player. McKinney was much worse of a guy and he came through and helped as an overpaid backup when needed. 

We're not still paying anything.  What he counts against the cap, we've already paid.  This move makes it so we aren't paying him anything more than we've already overpaid.

[JimmyBlack]

If Alex Lewis and Ronnie Stanley turn out to be excellent then we will forget about Monroe.

[jazz1988]

On 6/17/2016 at 3:18 PM, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

No you're right... there were other options. But if Monroe was on the roster and we were counting on Jason Spriggs, Le'Raven Clark, or Willie Beavers to be our LT in a season where Joes coming back from injury - i doubt everyone would be so on board with the Monroe move.

And if they went for a trade with a guy like Clady... that would kind of kill the whole "this was 100% a football decision" bc Clady is less durable than Monroe.

Thats what I'm trying to say. Trying to move up for Ramsey tells me at the very least there was a scenario in which they would have accepted moving forward with Monroe... and if thats the case that means they were at least prepared to squash the beef, and put the best foot forward.

The fact that The Ravens try to trade up for Ramsey may indeed say The Ravens were comfortable with going forward with Monroe as their starting left tackle this coming season but it may also show how The Ravens really  do go by  the best player available model no matter what during the draft.

 Harbaugh had stated  before the draft that Monroe was going to have to battle it out with someone for the starting left tackle position but  I don't think The Ravens were entirely sure that was going  to be a rookie tackle drafted 6th overall in the first round.Since Stanley was drafted so high he was bound to be a starter but I don't think the coaches thought left guard or right tackle would suit him best which I  think help lead to Monroe no longer being  in their plans especially since they like Wagner at right tackle and the other young guys at guard.

Monroe really  a finesse type tackle and thats great for the zone blocking scheme but Castillo has always valued the opposite which is big tackles that can dominate by strength alone. I think Monroe being asked to bulk  up was probably because Castillo wanted him to add more power to his game..

 

The Ravens do use the zone blocking scheme but I don't think it will be use as heavily as it was back when Gary Kubiak was the offensive coordinator. I can tell from last year that The Ravens run blocking style wasn't  totally the same.Stanley maybe somewhat similar to Monroe(playing style wise) but he's a rookie so Castillo can work with him alot more easier than a established veteran like Monroe.

 

 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

On June 17, 2016 at 2:46 PM, rmw10 said:

The bolded should be irrelevant.  It shouldn't matter what position he plays or how long he's been in the league.  If a relationship is done, it's done.

Maybe it should be irrelevant but it rarely is. 

I mean do you really think that a team is going to handle a crucial, star player at an important position like QB, LT, pass rush, CB... The same way they would say, a back up RB or 3rd string corner. Or even say a starting pass rusher where you have zero depth vs say a RB when you have say 2 comparable players on the depth chart. 

Or that a team isn't more likely to give chances to a still young, promising player with upside over a declining, aging player that's going to be replaced soon anyways.

 

i guess it's an honorable thing to treat every situation objectively regardless of talent level, position or age. Most don't... Better players, ones at important positions, or guys with upside tend to get more chances and leniency than others.

But there's a reason for that.... And it's bc they help the football team win games. 

So while it may be honorable or technically the right way to look at things, maintaining your honor or objectivity at the expense of a competitive edge seems stubborn to me. Especially when it's seemingly applied randomly. 

Will Hill is gone, while Boyle is held on to. Stand by Ray Lewis amidst public outcry, but quickly separate yourself from Ray Rice (granted if there were a video of Lewis that prob would've been different) but then it's still they stood by both Rays at first at least, while they cut Cody at first wind of an arrest in animal abuse. Keep Webb and Pitta who have both been regularly injured after getting big money (we got other, cheaper options at both CB and TE) but Monroes gone for supposedly that reason. Ayanbadejo publicly campaigns for a cause that the coaches beliefs are against and they allow him to do so and stand by his right to express his belief, but with Monroe they make sure to completely distance themselves and not show support for his right to express himself  

I have no problem with handling similar situations differently for different players... And Monroe just feels like a guy at a position that we should've looked the other way on some transgressions and shortcomings for the better of the team.

And even though we've done similar in the past (with guys who did arguably worse things) we choose to tow the line strictly in this case. Just can't make sense of it other than someone with decision making power is making decisions with their emotions instead of with sound, football rationality. 

[ravensdan]

Without copying all that I don't think the Ravens have handled other situations like this. It's not like thevRavens to make a rash decision and get zero compensation. 

[Guest]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 10:51 AM, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

We were going to keep Ray Rice when clearly no one in the locker room agreed with him hitting his wife. We kept Ed Reed when he was publicly calling out the franchise QB. We've kept many defensive players who called out the offense for being inept - cant imagine that sits well in the locker room.

All im saying, is that this is professional sports. If you cant "get along" to complete the objective over some petty BS, then I have to question the professionalism. Thats all im saying. And it seems this philosophy is applied inconsistently.

I feel like we used to be one of the teams that would take in guys that were disgruntled or notorious for not fitting in other places, and they'd thrive here bc we ignored the petty kind of stuff and allowed/accepted guys as themselves so long as they showed up and played. Now, obviously Monroe wasnt showing up to play, bc he was injured. But he did show up to play once cleared and healthy.

And i think thats something that the good teams do well.... NE, Arizona, Cincy, Pitt, Seattle, Den, etc... And to an extent we still are like that (Trent, Rolando, Mallett, SSS, Weddle) but in other cases we dont. Marginal players like Cody, Jah, Deonte, Asa, and others got chance after chance after chance with literally 0 production.

I get that its over, and i dont even feel bad for Monroe - he played his part. Just looking at our LT situation, its a better situation with Monroe in the fold. I dont think theres any arguing that... and the net $2m savings, or any increase in "locker room chemistry" (which i think is highly overrated, these are adult professionals) doesnt overcome the loss in talent.

 

Clearly theres 2 very differing opinions. And just as you can say you dont get how one doesnt understand letting go a player you dont see eye to eye with.... its just as easy to say i dont see how someone can look at the LT situation and say we're a better team right now. And if a move makes us a worse team without an equal or greater benefit somewhere else - its the wrong move. And we're not replacing that loss with $2m or even $6m, and the added camaraderie isnt replacing it either.

Not exactly the same, but part of the reason Pollard and Reed were let go were organizational differences and not falling in line (yes their play declined rapidly too), and we've spent 3 years, a bunch of money, and and numerous draft picks trying to solve it. Thats different obviously bc keeping those guys wouldnt solve the problem either since theyre both out of the league now - but its still a case of letting a guy go for some of the wrong reasons without a solid plan in place to transition.

And thats my main gripe - the reasons for letting Monroe go are weak at best, and theres no plan in place other than continue to run Hurst as the back up. Maybe we'll see a move to shore this thing up, but i doubt it. 
 

I've read a number of posts from you and can't disagree with much of this one. What you are illustrating is the decay of our Front Office.  Easy Decisions have become Ethical Decisions for them. Talent and Ability will always outweigh Character, especially with Baltimore, a short career team in a short career league.

We were eager to ignore Ray Rice's troubles until it went public. Now every little bit of bad press and our Front Office pulls up stakes and runs like a scared rabbit. There haven't been good consistent decisions made by us in a long time, from drafting to veteran and free agent decisions.

The Safety mess they created in 2013 is still being addressed in 2016. 

Elam was not a credible NFL Safety selection. Anyone with half a brain could see that. But worse yet was purging our starting safeties and leaving no viable mentor for the miss-evaluated Elam. Sami84 called it right off...the most Elam could be was  "Pollard Light".  Pollard was our leading tackler his last year here and Reed had more to give. The loss of their play certainly hurt, but more painful was the breakup of team unity.  Those type of things leave a scar. Retaining those players at that moment was imperative for far more than playing reasons.  

 

[Willbacker]

8 hours ago, ravensdan said:

We're paying that amount over the next two years regardless. The minimal savings he will generate will be negated by the vet tackle that will be signed. Overall it's a shortsighted move that is not typical. Really shocking for this organization. To get absolutely nothing for him. We're still paying but we don't have the player. McKinney was much worse of a guy and he came through and helped as an overpaid backup when needed. 

You're basically saving his base salary of 6.5 mil minus the 2.2 mil signing bonus cap hit which actually saves us 4,3 mil which could be carried to next year if they like or they could use it other ways. I'm sure they was trying some sort of trade but there was no takers. Everybody knew we was releasing him plus if you released him next year we'd still get the 4.4 mil cap hit anyway for next year

[Ravenseconbeast]

Jake Long might be a back up /last ditch effort if were in a bad situation during regular season.   Says he is finally healthy.   

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, Ravenseconbeast said:

Jake Long might be a back up /last ditch effort if were in a bad situation during regular season.   Says he is finally healthy.   

Probably going to be a Bear

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

9 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Probably going to be a Bear

Then we're going to be waiting a long time for him to be a raven