Front Office Discussion

[BmoreBird22]

3 hours ago, Sami84 said:

could have had dez or gronk in 2010. Instead we had kindle and cody. I was furious. I was never a fan of kindle and cody was just another oz alabama obsession. We could have traded up for dez or taken gronk who i saw as the best TE prospect in years. I couldnt believe gresham was picked before him.

A lot of analysts expected the Ravens to take Gronk, but those back injuries

[BmoreBird22]

47 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

LOL, not even close.

I'll give you a hint... you've got to drop MULTIPLE really good players off those teams in order for Gronk to be on this team. You are aware he doesn't play for free right?

Ain't fantasyland bud. 

Well, assuming he was a first round pick, like many expected, he wouldn't even be a FA until the 2015 offseason, so it technically would be possible for 2011-2014.

[ellicottraven]

3 hours ago, Sami84 said:

could have had dez or gronk in 2010. Instead we had kindle and cody. I was furious. I was never a fan of kindle and cody was just another oz alabama obsession. We could have traded up for dez or taken gronk who i saw as the best TE prospect in years. I couldnt believe gresham was picked before him.

But sleazy Jones stole Dez from right under our noses by trading down right before us. That's when we picked Oher if I'm not mistaken.

[rmcjacket23]

42 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Well, assuming he was a first round pick, like many expected, he wouldn't even be a FA until the 2015 offseason, so it technically would be possible for 2011-2014.

Maybe. The 5th year option didn't kick in until the 2011 draft class, and 2010 was the last year of the "big contracts" under the new CBA. Would depend on the size and structure of his rookie deal.

Also, my point was mostly around how you budget to retain or sign other players. For example... do we still think we would have gone out and signed Dumervil in 2013, when Gronk would have been in year 4 of, at best, a 5 year deal? Its not like NFL teams just evaluate player contracts on a year to year basis. We know that our FO, when doing their salary cap projections and analysis, looks at least two years in advance. 

Plus, its not like Gronk is making SB appearances year after year on his existing team, and I don't see how Gronk solves some of the issues that has held this team back in recent years, particularly in the last 3-4 years. 

[JoeyFlex5]

3 hours ago, Sami84 said:

if we drafted gronk..

3 more superbowls..

i wont debate for one second that the 2010 draft really messed up our franchise. whiffing that badly is hard to recover from, then doing it again 3 years later is essentially burying your team for a few years, and the reactionary moves to make up for those whiffs strapped us financially and kept young talent off of our team because we needed to sign vets to fill the gaps. 

but, as far as gronk goes, thats 20/20, the injury concerns were very legit, i loved him on the field but i was also really concerned with his back. i actually wanted brooks reed badly with our original 2nd, that wouldve been a decent pick for us i think.

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

LOL, not even close.

I'll give you a hint... you've got to drop MULTIPLE really good players off those teams in order for Gronk to be on this team. You are aware he doesn't play for free right?

Ain't fantasyland bud. 

well in all fairness, as ridiculous as he may sound, he wouldve been on a rookie contract until at least 2014, and a 5th year option if we took him in the first. so im not sure this point is relevant at all.

[usmccharles]

3 hours ago, Sami84 said:

if we drafted gronk..

3 more superbowls..

When you say stuff like this, it makes it sound like you view Madden as a good basis of understanding of football.  You can play the "if we drafted" card for every single draft.

Edited September 9, 2016 by usmccharles

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

well in all fairness, as ridiculous as he may sound, he wouldve been on a rookie contract until at least 2014, and a 5th year option if we took him in the first. so im not sure this point is relevant at all.

See my post above. 2010 was the last year of the "big money" rookie contracts. New CBA with 5th year option didn't kick in until 2011. So there was precedent, but no "rookie wage scale" for that draft.

Edited September 9, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, LosT_in_TranSlatioN said:

Torrey smith showed up for too many big games to be considered a bad wr. But it's okay. Vs Denver in the playoff game to prove Champ Bailey was old? First career start(not the first games vs that season) vs Pit? Vs the Patriots his rookie year? Vs patriots after his brother died? He made a clutch catch vs San Diego the 4th and 29 game. Say what you want about his hands, he found ways to make plays when it counted... With the exception of his last season here. But even then you could argue flaccos decision to throw it to him in the end zone was a terrible one. The patriots were getting destroyed on the short pass. There was plenty of time to keep doing that. And then he got greedy.

 

Torrey Smith wasn't a bad receiver. I wouldn't take the guy over Breshad, as Breshad has far more potential, but Torrey is a great deep threat, who's made big plays in the past. I can't discount what he's done here.

let me just say that i appreciate what torrey did here, he did a lot for us and we won a lot of games with his help, but when you have a guy whos made so many big plays, you forget that for every big play you had 2 or 3 really hideous/frustrating ones. 

we got lucky the broncos decided to man champ on torrey the whole first half, that was just dumb, everyone knew that champ lost more than a step in terms of raw speed, and we had a short range wr with elite ball skills on the other side, obviously champ wouldve matched up better with boldin and didnt match up at all, i even called the mismatch myself as soon as i saw champ on the top of the screen. that was bad coordinating, if you wanna beat a corner whos been playing for over a decade, match him up with the year 2 burner who runs a 4.3. but yes i appreciate what he did in that game. 

we also didnt get greedy against the pats, he saw torrey smith in what looked like 1 on 1 coverage, you take the points when you can get them, in any case, if you see an opportunity for a TD you take it, ideally that ball could have been placed another yard to the boundary, but when the ball left joes hand and the safety was still shallow, the throw was on the money, the safety made a good play to disguise the coverage and then get there in time, but regardless torrey completely gave up, there is almost no chance that int is caught if torrey just continues on his route, but he came to almost a dead stop and watched it happen and prepared for the tackle as if that was any consolation. it was a microcosm of his whole time here, all the times he didnt even attempt to toe tap, all the times he purposely drew a PI even though he had a chance to catch a TD, all the times he gave the db a free shot to the ball, all the times he slowed up because he got lost trying to find the ball, it hadnt happened often, if at all, in big games, but it happened constantly his whole time here and it happened in a huge moment and everyone finally understood how serious his shortcomings were.

[JoeyFlex5]

10 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

See my post above. 2010 was the last year of the "big money" rookie contracts. New CBA with 5th year option didn't kick in until 2011. So there was precedent, but no "rookie wage scale" for that draft.

rookies still didnt demand ridiculous amounts of money though, unless you were jamarcus russell lol. 

his contract wouldve been far from crippling.

[Tiznut]

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/rob-gronkowski-6551/

 

 

rookie contract was 2010-2013. No he didn't demand a high rookie contract like Jamarcus because he was drafted much later. 

 

He did have his contract done to be highest paid TE and New England also met with rosenhaus a month ago about Gronk again.  

He's also a guy who had injury issues in 2012 and 2013. So to the other poster comment about winning the sb easier. I'm not sure that's the case if Gronk is unavailable. 

Like said earlier this isn't madden where you essentially plug and play and avoid injuries. 

 

 

Ftr New England also only won once with Gronk too. 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Tiznut

[rmcjacket23]

6 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

rookies still didnt demand ridiculous amounts of money though, unless you were jamarcus russell lol. 

his contract wouldve been far from crippling.

Right, but as I said, projecting whether to retain a player on a big money deal alters your FA and draft plans in the future. Basically asking something like "do we sign Dumervil" in 2013 is a valid question, given that Gronk would be in year 4 of a rookie deal.

Plus, as I said earlier, I don't really think Gronk solves the problem of what this team has been lacking in for the last several years.

[Tru11]

7 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

let me just say that i appreciate what torrey did here, he did a lot for us and we won a lot of games with his help, but when you have a guy whos made so many big plays, you forget that for every big play you had 2 or 3 really hideous/frustrating ones. 

we got lucky the broncos decided to man champ on torrey the whole first half, that was just dumb, everyone knew that champ lost more than a step in terms of raw speed, and we had a short range wr with elite ball skills on the other side, obviously champ wouldve matched up better with boldin and didnt match up at all, i even called the mismatch myself as soon as i saw champ on the top of the screen. that was bad coordinating, if you wanna beat a corner whos been playing for over a decade, match him up with the year 2 burner who runs a 4.3. but yes i appreciate what he did in that game. 

we also didnt get greedy against the pats, he saw torrey smith in what looked like 1 on 1 coverage, you take the points when you can get them, in any case, if you see an opportunity for a TD you take it, ideally that ball could have been placed another yard to the boundary, but when the ball left joes hand and the safety was still shallow, the throw was on the money, the safety made a good play to disguise the coverage and then get there in time, but regardless torrey completely gave up, there is almost no chance that int is caught if torrey just continues on his route, but he came to almost a dead stop and watched it happen and prepared for the tackle as if that was any consolation. it was a microcosm of his whole time here, all the times he didnt even attempt to toe tap, all the times he purposely drew a PI even though he had a chance to catch a TD, all the times he gave the db a free shot to the ball, all the times he slowed up because he got lost trying to find the ball, it hadnt happened often, if at all, in big games, but it happened constantly his whole time here and it happened in a huge moment and everyone finally understood how serious his shortcomings were.

the throw was on the money to the safety.

stop making excuses for flacco for forcing a throw in double coverage.

there was no disguise from the safety at all.

it was a cover 1 look with that safety deep and man cov all across the board.....

 

[rmcjacket23]

13 minutes ago, Tiznut said:

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/rob-gronkowski-6551/

 

 

rookie contract was 2010-2013. No he didn't demand a high rookie contract like Jamarcus because he was drafted much later. 

 

He did have his contract done to be highest paid TE and New England also met with rosenhaus a month ago about Gronk again.  

He's also a guy who had injury issues in 2012 and 2013. So to the other poster comment about winning the sb easier. I'm not sure that's the case if Gronk is unavailable. 

Like said earlier this isn't madden where you essentially plug and play and avoid injuries. 

 

 

Ftr New England also only won once with Gronk too. 

He was a 2nd round pick, but I think Sami's point was that, in hindsight, obviously, he should have been a 1st round pick. 

So when Dallas traded in front of us to draft Dez, we should have taken Gronk at #25, instead of trading back and taking the three players that we got in that trade (Pitta, Dickson and Kindle).

Of course, if we were going to play the full hindsight game, Gronk gets drafted long before #25 in that draft. As somebody mentioned, he wasn't even the 1st TE taken in that draft class. Plenty of teams whiffed on 1st round picks that would have rather had Gronk.

[Sami84]

4 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

He was a 2nd round pick, but I think Sami's point was that, in hindsight, obviously, he should have been a 1st round pick. 

So when Dallas traded in front of us to draft Dez, we should have taken Gronk at #25, instead of trading back and taking the three players that we got in that trade (Pitta, Dickson and Kindle).

Of course, if we were going to play the full hindsight game, Gronk gets drafted long before #25 in that draft. As somebody mentioned, he wasn't even the 1st TE taken in that draft class. Plenty of teams whiffed on 1st round picks that would have rather had Gronk.

 

 

I had him as a top 10...and that was a strong class..I actually underestimated him...he'd be number 1 in hindsight. When he was dropping, back issues or not ( which he had overcome and said so) i was jumping up and down with excitment as we got to the 23rd pick...i was like yes!! one of Dez or Gronk is ours..

 

Once we picked kindle and cody i just turned the tv off. I didnt even watch the rest of the draft after the cody pick...i hated those two players as prospects. it was the first time in fact i questioned the FO and their drafting. I didnt watch day 3 either.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Sami84

[rmcjacket23]

2 minutes ago, Sami84 said:

I had him as a top 10...and that was a strong class..I actually underestimated him...he'd be number 1 in hindsight. When he was dropping, back issues or not ( which he had overcome and said so) i was jumping up and down with excitment as we got to the 23rd pick...i was like yes!! one of Dez or Gronk is ours..

 

Once we picked kindle and cody i just turned the tv off. I didnt even watch the rest of the draft..i hated those two players as prospects. it was the first time in fact i questioned the FO and their drafting.

Maybe he would be #1. I'm always intrigued at the hypothetical of taking somebody like him away from Brady and seeing what happens.

Plenty of really good, even great, players went in the 1st round that year.

[Sami84]

7 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Maybe he would be #1. I'm always intrigued at the hypothetical of taking somebody like him away from Brady and seeing what happens.

Plenty of really good, even great, players went in the 1st round that year.

 

and outside of pitta we just found scrub after scrub after scrub. Unlike most on this board..i was NOT a kindle fan..but the fat slob pick just ended any of my enthusiasm..

[usmccharles]

1 minute ago, Sami84 said:

and outside of pitta we just found scrub after scrub after scrub. Unlike most on this board..i was NOT a kindle fan..but the fat slob pick just ended any of my enthusiasm..

Here we go again with the name calling.

I wasn't a fan of the pick either, just like im not a fan of the KC pick, but im logical enough to give a player time to develop and see what he can become, sadly, with Kindle we never got that. If you play the hindsight game, you have to play it for other teams as well. 

[Sami84]

in fact im not a huge noah spence fan BUT i can say without question he's a better prospect than kindle. He's got a whitney mercilus ceiling while kindle was just a worse version of mercilus.

[rmcjacket23]

21 minutes ago, Sami84 said:

in fact im not a huge noah spence fan BUT i can say without question he's a better prospect than kindle. He's got a whitney mercilus ceiling while kindle was just a worse version of mercilus.

OK, but why are we discussing would have, could have, should have from 2010 again?

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Maybe. The 5th year option didn't kick in until the 2011 draft class, and 2010 was the last year of the "big contracts" under the new CBA. Would depend on the size and structure of his rookie deal.

Also, my point was mostly around how you budget to retain or sign other players. For example... do we still think we would have gone out and signed Dumervil in 2013, when Gronk would have been in year 4 of, at best, a 5 year deal? Its not like NFL teams just evaluate player contracts on a year to year basis. We know that our FO, when doing their salary cap projections and analysis, looks at least two years in advance. 

Plus, its not like Gronk is making SB appearances year after year on his existing team, and I don't see how Gronk solves some of the issues that has held this team back in recent years, particularly in the last 3-4 years. 

With first rounders up through then (2010), they were signing five to six year contracts (Bradford got six years), so they would likely have inked him through 2014, maybe 2015. 

The last year of his contract had a cap hit of about $5.5M, so it's not something great, but it was less than Pitta's, so I'm sure they could manage to get his cap hit in there when you consider they wouldn't have paid Pitta his contract since they likely wouldn't have drafted Pitta since he was a pick that they got from the trade back. 

I think they could still fit Dumervil in their cap hits. Doom doesn't have an absurdly large cap hit, and again, Gronk's contract wouldn't be anything insane. Even now, he doesn't hit a double digit cap hit for another two years and even then the highest is $12M at a time when the salary cap should go up significantly.

I don't think Gronk somehow makes the Ravens Super Bowl contenders year in and year out, but he would give the Ravens the most dominant receiving weapon in the game, an elite blocker, and a true threat for Flacco, something that probably propels them to the Super Bowl in 2011 with that defense.

[BmoreBird22]

50 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Maybe he would be #1. I'm always intrigued at the hypothetical of taking somebody like him away from Brady and seeing what happens.

Plenty of really good, even great, players went in the 1st round that year.

I think he'd still be flat out dominant. His skill set just lends itself to being an unstoppable force on the football field no matter where he goes.

[Sami84]

38 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

Here we go again with the name calling.

I wasn't a fan of the pick either, just like im not a fan of the KC pick, but im logical enough to give a player time to develop and see what he can become, sadly, with Kindle we never got that. If you play the hindsight game, you have to play it for other teams as well. 

 

what was cody going to turn into but an ever expanding hamburger?

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, Tru11 said:

the throw was on the money to the safety.

stop making excuses for flacco for forcing a throw in double coverage.

there was no disguise from the safety at all.

it was a cover 1 look with that safety deep and man cov all across the board.....

I'm not going to say it was a great Flacco decision or even an easy completion BUT Torrey pulled up hard after seeing the safety and gave zero effort to go up and get the ball.

[Tiznut]

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

He was a 2nd round pick, but I think Sami's point was that, in hindsight, obviously, he should have been a 1st round pick. 

So when Dallas traded in front of us to draft Dez, we should have taken Gronk at #25, instead of trading back and taking the three players that we got in that trade (Pitta, Dickson and Kindle).

Of course, if we were going to play the full hindsight game, Gronk gets drafted long before #25 in that draft. As somebody mentioned, he wasn't even the 1st TE taken in that draft class. Plenty of teams whiffed on 1st round picks that would have rather had Gronk.

Where he should have gone is irrelevant. He went in the second rd thusly his contract was not going to be close to the first pick. 

[Tiznut]

It's hilarious to see some of you debate while constantly trying to move the goal posts so that your point and only your point makes sense. 

[Tru11]

1 hour ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I'm not going to say it was a great Flacco decision or even an easy completion BUT Torrey pulled up hard after seeing the safety and gave zero effort to go up and get the ball.

flacco should have never put him in that position in the first place.

when other receivers are in single coverage and you force a pass off your backfoot to a guy in double coverage , its a bad decision period.

i did not see him pulling up hard at all.
every single receiver in the NFL slows down a bit when they are trying to locate the ball.

i have yet to see a receiver run at full speed and not slow down even a tiny bit when trying to look back to locate the ball.

seems to me you guys wanted him to just run at full speed straight ahead with out trying to even look back and locate the football.
if he did that then yeah he had a better chance to break up the INT although it probably would have been offensive PI.

 

[BmoreBird22]

11 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

flacco should have never put him in that position in the first place.

when other receivers are in single coverage and you force a pass off your backfoot to a guy in double coverage , its a bad decision period.

i did not see him pulling up hard at all.
every single receiver in the NFL slows down a bit when they are trying to locate the ball.

i have yet to see a receiver run at full speed and not slow down even a tiny bit when trying to look back to locate the ball.

seems to me you guys wanted him to just run at full speed straight ahead with out trying to even look back and locate the football.
if he did that then yeah he had a better chance to break up the INT although it probably would have been offensive PI.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seZ2s39oAWs

It's got some NSFW language, but here's the All-22

[Sami84]

10 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

flacco should have never put him in that position in the first place.

when other receivers are in single coverage and you force a pass off your backfoot to a guy in double coverage , its a bad decision period.

i did not see him pulling up hard at all.
every single receiver in the NFL slows down a bit when they are trying to locate the ball.

i have yet to see a receiver run at full speed and not slow down even a tiny bit when trying to look back to locate the ball.

seems to me you guys wanted him to just run at full speed straight ahead with out trying to even look back and locate the football.
if he did that then yeah he had a better chance to break up the INT although it probably would have been offensive PI.

 

 

I agree. we were at the 39 yard line with a couple of timeouts and with only 1:45 on the clock..it was 2nd down too in 4th down territory. Flacco messed it up..firstly i wouldnt have even wanted the patriots to even have had the chance to kick a field goal with that amount of time left. we should have just marched it down.

 

Flacco shouldnt have taken the risk. He blew it..i watched the reply again just to remind myself, sure torrey could have stretched more but he wasnt going to get it.it was overthrown. He could have tried to at least attack the saftey to stop the interception though.

[OLD SCHOOL SMASH BALL]

4 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Maybe he would be #1. I'm always intrigued at the hypothetical of taking somebody like him away from Brady and seeing what happens.

Plenty of really good, even great, players went in the 1st round that year.

You would then have to speculate what Brady could have done with Pitta