Free Agency 2017 (Players from Other Teams We Should Consider)

[JonnyBaltimore]

5 hours ago, usmccharles said:

It just blows my mind, i know we were down but we dixon was picking up 4 per carry.  Without the threat of running there is no reason for them not to drop 7/8 players.  It was obvious what was going on and still no adjustments, ive never udnerstood our lack of adjustments. 

 

On 12/15/2016 at 5:46 AM, VermontRaven said:

I agree.  Especially with the increase in gap, I think we need to make a competitive offer to both of these guys.  Hopefully, we will not be outbid on BOTH and will at least be able to retain one of them. 

If we had to choose between the 2, I think I would prefer to retain Wagner.  I think Lewis could be a very good guard for us, plus he is an acceptable backup swing tackle. Then, Yanda (hopefully fully recovered) goes back to RG and we are only looking for one starter, Center, and a quality backup or 2.  We really don't have a ton of money invested in our OL and we have Stanley and Lewis on the cheap for a few years....by the time they are ready for their big pay day, Yanda will probably (sadly) be gone. 

I absolutely love Williams and between him and Pierce (and Jernigan, Guy), we have an amazing run defense.  That being said, I think we are much better at finding quality interior Dlinemen (see Pierce) and I think we could "replace" Williams easier than Wagner.  Also, I really hope we can keep Guy as well.  I think he is a majorly underrated part of our defense (hopefully the rest of the league underrates him as well so we will be able to afford him)

 

 

I think we sign Williams and let Wagner go. Move Lewis to RT. I figure we will cut Dumervil to create cap space. Why tinker with a top 10 defence when our offence is not very good. If it is status quo, I would pick the defence. I think Brett Urban takes over for Guy, Dumervil gets cut, Wagner signs elsewhere and we get a comp pick. The Front Office has always kept ascending players but can't pay them all. I like Wagner but he is replaceable. Williams is getting better every year and is a foundational piece on defence.

[kjbmore]

Steve s the biggest troll ever - should be obvious by now, not sure why people even bother with a response

[reed20]

No big contracts to any new free agents. What we need is solid role players, depth on defense. We don't need to add any big time stars unless MAYBE at the wide receiver position if SSS retires but that's it.

[rmcjacket23]

7 hours ago, JonnyBaltimore said:

 

I think we sign Williams and let Wagner go. Move Lewis to RT. I figure we will cut Dumervil to create cap space. Why tinker with a top 10 defence when our offence is not very good. If it is status quo, I would pick the defence. I think Brett Urban takes over for Guy, Dumervil gets cut, Wagner signs elsewhere and we get a comp pick. The Front Office has always kept ascending players but can't pay them all. I like Wagner but he is replaceable. Williams is getting better every year and is a foundational piece on defence.

Couple issues I have with this...

1. I suppose you could argue that Williams is a "foundational piece", but I'm not really big on paying, say, $10M a year to a player who really is only playing about half of his teams defensive snaps. The fact that Michael Pierce is playing so well also gives me pause there. To be frank... I think the drop off from Williams to Pierce isn't as big as the dropoff from Wagner to Lewis. Most of that is simply because I have no idea how good a RT Lewis can be or will be. And that's independent of the fact that Williams will likely cost significantly more than Wagner will.

I can tell you that a lot of people in the industry would say that the only kinds of defensive players you should pay top tier money to is Corners and Pass rushers. Brandon Williams isn't close to being either of those things.

2. While I agree the defense is good, there are no shortage of places where upgrades are needed. Our pass rush is still highly inconsistent and can be non existent at times, and we certainly need a lot more depth and maybe even a starter at Corner. Basically any time Jimmy Smith isn't on the field, this team immediately drops down tremendously in terms of defensive production. 

Not to mention the fact that we have two starting safeties over the age of 30, with Webb being no sure thing to return to the team next season either. 

Frankly, I can make a strong case that the defense is most likely to get the bulk of the personnel upgrades.

3. While I agree the Offense is by far the weaker unit... there's really not a huge amount of turnover in personnel that's really possible there.

60% of the starting offensive line is going to be back in some form or fashion... Stanley, Yanda and Lewis. That leaves possibly a new center and maybe a new tackle/guard, depending on what happens with Wagner.

At WR, Perriman and Wallace are likely to return, Moore will be here, and retaining Kamar Aiken remains a possibility. The only loss there is Steve Smith. Adding another WR remains possible, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to be early in the draft, and it could be another veteran signing in FA. 

TE is much of the same. Pitta may not be back and neither will Watson, but we have Gillmore, Maxx and Boyle on the roster already. Adding another makes sense, but other than that, probably not huge changes there.

RB is probably locked in... Dixon and West will likely be the primaries next year also, and QB we already know about.

So while the offense is struggling, personnel wise, I don't see a major change coming for next season. In theory, if we think the OL is performing better and we want "consistency" then it makes sense to resign Wagner and retain 80% of our OL, since most fans seem to like our base starting OL sufficiently, short of finding an upgrade on Zuttah.

If I were a betting man, I think you'll see a draft that focuses on pass rushers, secondary players, and maybe finding some more offensive lineman.

[usmccharles]

21 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Couple issues I have with this...

1. I suppose you could argue that Williams is a "foundational piece", but I'm not really big on paying, say, $10M a year to a player who really is only playing about half of his teams defensive snaps. The fact that Michael Pierce is playing so well also gives me pause there. To be frank... I think the drop off from Williams to Pierce isn't as big as the dropoff from Wagner to Lewis. Most of that is simply because I have no idea how good a RT Lewis can be or will be. And that's independent of the fact that Williams will likely cost significantly more than Wagner will.

I can tell you that a lot of people in the industry would say that the only kinds of defensive players you should pay top tier money to is Corners and Pass rushers. Brandon Williams isn't close to being either of those things.

2. While I agree the defense is good, there are no shortage of places where upgrades are needed. Our pass rush is still highly inconsistent and can be non existent at times, and we certainly need a lot more depth and maybe even a starter at Corner. Basically any time Jimmy Smith isn't on the field, this team immediately drops down tremendously in terms of defensive production. 

Not to mention the fact that we have two starting safeties over the age of 30, with Webb being no sure thing to return to the team next season either. 

Frankly, I can make a strong case that the defense is most likely to get the bulk of the personnel upgrades.

3. While I agree the Offense is by far the weaker unit... there's really not a huge amount of turnover in personnel that's really possible there.

60% of the starting offensive line is going to be back in some form or fashion... Stanley, Yanda and Lewis. That leaves possibly a new center and maybe a new tackle/guard, depending on what happens with Wagner.

At WR, Perriman and Wallace are likely to return, Moore will be here, and retaining Kamar Aiken remains a possibility. The only loss there is Steve Smith. Adding another WR remains possible, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to be early in the draft, and it could be another veteran signing in FA. 

TE is much of the same. Pitta may not be back and neither will Watson, but we have Gillmore, Maxx and Boyle on the roster already. Adding another makes sense, but other than that, probably not huge changes there.

RB is probably locked in... Dixon and West will likely be the primaries next year also, and QB we already know about.

So while the offense is struggling, personnel wise, I don't see a major change coming for next season. In theory, if we think the OL is performing better and we want "consistency" then it makes sense to resign Wagner and retain 80% of our OL, since most fans seem to like our base starting OL sufficiently, short of finding an upgrade on Zuttah.

If I were a betting man, I think you'll see a draft that focuses on pass rushers, secondary players, and maybe finding some more offensive lineman.

1.  I keep going back and forth on retaining Williams.  My issues are that I don't think there is anyway we offer him enough to test FA, him and his agent have to know he will get more money outside of Baltimore, I don't think anyone can argue that.  Also, we seem to develop good talent on the DL from later rounds, making that a position that we can just move on from after contracts are up.  So while I really want to keep the DL together, I feel like we can do more with the money from not signing Bwill, basically exactly like the KO situation. 

2.  This has been my prediction, we need to find the replacements for Suggs and Doom, maybe Judon is Doom's replacement but we definitely need to find another on the strong side.  Also find a starting cb is something I think we really need to try to do in this draft. 

3.  I think we have the personnel on offense, I still feel like the issues are the play calling but that is a whole other argument that is going on already.  What kind of cap savings is there (if any) if we cut Watson and Pitta?

I agree with your with your prediction on who we target in the draft.  I feel like we replace SSr with a FA signing, doubt we will get that same kind of production obviously. 

 

[JonnyBaltimore]

23 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Couple issues I have with this...

1. I suppose you could argue that Williams is a "foundational piece", but I'm not really big on paying, say, $10M a year to a player who really is only playing about half of his teams defensive snaps. The fact that Michael Pierce is playing so well also gives me pause there. To be frank... I think the drop off from Williams to Pierce isn't as big as the dropoff from Wagner to Lewis. Most of that is simply because I have no idea how good a RT Lewis can be or will be. And that's independent of the fact that Williams will likely cost significantly more than Wagner will.

I can tell you that a lot of people in the industry would say that the only kinds of defensive players you should pay top tier money to is Corners and Pass rushers. Brandon Williams isn't close to being either of those things.

2. While I agree the defense is good, there are no shortage of places where upgrades are needed. Our pass rush is still highly inconsistent and can be non existent at times, and we certainly need a lot more depth and maybe even a starter at Corner. Basically any time Jimmy Smith isn't on the field, this team immediately drops down tremendously in terms of defensive production. 

Not to mention the fact that we have two starting safeties over the age of 30, with Webb being no sure thing to return to the team next season either. 

Frankly, I can make a strong case that the defense is most likely to get the bulk of the personnel upgrades.

3. While I agree the Offense is by far the weaker unit... there's really not a huge amount of turnover in personnel that's really possible there.

60% of the starting offensive line is going to be back in some form or fashion... Stanley, Yanda and Lewis. That leaves possibly a new center and maybe a new tackle/guard, depending on what happens with Wagner.

At WR, Perriman and Wallace are likely to return, Moore will be here, and retaining Kamar Aiken remains a possibility. The only loss there is Steve Smith. Adding another WR remains possible, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to be early in the draft, and it could be another veteran signing in FA. 

TE is much of the same. Pitta may not be back and neither will Watson, but we have Gillmore, Maxx and Boyle on the roster already. Adding another makes sense, but other than that, probably not huge changes there.

RB is probably locked in... Dixon and West will likely be the primaries next year also, and QB we already know about.

So while the offense is struggling, personnel wise, I don't see a major change coming for next season. In theory, if we think the OL is performing better and we want "consistency" then it makes sense to resign Wagner and retain 80% of our OL, since most fans seem to like our base starting OL sufficiently, short of finding an upgrade on Zuttah.

If I were a betting man, I think you'll see a draft that focuses on pass rushers, secondary players, and maybe finding some more offensive lineman.

With Flacco taking so much of the cap, it is difficult to pay for the O-line as well. I think we use the draft to replenish the O-line and get a comp pick for Wagner. It is really about value; if we can draft a starter in the 3-6 rounds and then get a comp pick for that player after their first deal, that is a winning recipe on how to build a team.

I agree that Pierce is playing well, but Williams is more a known commodity. The only reason why we are still in the race for the AFC North is because of our defence. With a top 10 defence, we always have a chance, so I say go defence for stability and look to improve on offence via the draft and collect some comp picks. If Lewis can make the adjustment to RT, we save 6-7 million in cap space for the next 3 years. We need great players on the cheap, and let other teams overpay for them when their first contract expires.

[rmcjacket23]

11 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

1.  I keep going back and forth on retaining Williams.  My issues are that I don't think there is anyway we offer him enough to test FA, him and his agent have to know he will get more money outside of Baltimore, I don't think anyone can argue that.  Also, we seem to develop good talent on the DL from later rounds, making that a position that we can just move on from after contracts are up.  So while I really want to keep the DL together, I feel like we can do more with the money from not signing Bwill, basically exactly like the KO situation. 

2.  This has been my prediction, we need to find the replacements for Suggs and Doom, maybe Judon is Doom's replacement but we definitely need to find another on the strong side.  Also find a starting cb is something I think we really need to try to do in this draft. 

3.  I think we have the personnel on offense, I still feel like the issues are the play calling but that is a whole other argument that is going on already.  What kind of cap savings is there (if any) if we cut Watson and Pitta?

I agree with your with your prediction on who we target in the draft.  I feel like we replace SSr with a FA signing, doubt we will get that same kind of production obviously. 

 

$3M in savings for cutting Watson (a no brainer), $3.3M for Pitta if done prior to June 1st. Pitta has a shot to come back if he does what he did this offseason and agree to a substantial paycut. He's due a $5.5M salary next season, which there's 0% chance the Ravens pay him that. If he agrees to slash that down to like $2-3M, they'll probably keep him.

The "easy" cuts that I see:

Watson ($3M in savings)

Arrington ($2.1M in savings)

Kendrick Lewis ($1.8M in savings)

The "likely" cuts that I see:

Zuttah: $2.4M in savings

Dumervil: $6M in savings

Possible cuts or "paycuts":

Pitta: $3.3M in savings

Webb: $5.5M in savings

Wright: $2.7M in savings

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[Rav'n Maniac]

8 hours ago, kjbmore said:

Steve s the biggest troll ever - should be obvious by now, not sure why people even bother with a response

 Maybe due to his deep south location, every time he posts I keep getting a picture in my mind of that kid playing the banjo in Deliverance. 

[kjbmore]

let them both walk, shore up the secondary and get a receiver to replace Steve

 

[usmccharles]

7 hours ago, kjbmore said:

let them both walk, shore up the secondary and get a receiver to replace Steve

 

Both?

[TurkishRaven]

I think our biggest FA signing this off-season will be a new OC. 

 

 

[BmoreBird22]

I really can't see Webb as a cut. They've spent a ton of time looking for a suitable safety after Ed Reed walked and they finally have a pretty decent one in Webb. He's not been a liability recently and has actually played pretty damn well. 

As for Zuttah, I'd be in no hurry to cut him for $2.3M when the Ravens really have no suitable replacement. Good centers aren't floating around the league and it's not an easy position for a rookie to transition into. Unless the Ravens picked up someone like JC Tretter (who I'd even sign just to play guard, personally), I don't see a way Zuttah is cut by the Ravens.

[rmw10]

Just now, BmoreBird22 said:

I really can't see Webb as a cut. They've spent a ton of time looking for a suitable safety after Ed Reed walked and they finally have a pretty decent one in Webb. He's not been a liability recently and has actually played pretty damn well. 

As for Zuttah, I'd be in no hurry to cut him for $2.3M when the Ravens really have no suitable replacement. Good centers aren't floating around the league and it's not an easy position for a rookie to transition into. Unless the Ravens picked up someone like JC Tretter (who I'd even sign just to play guard, personally), I don't see a way Zuttah is cut by the Ravens.

Agreed on both accounts.  They aren't locks to stay by any means, but I'm not sure I see either of them as a logical cut candidate at this point, Webb especially.  The salary for Webb is expensive, but he's been an absolutely huge part of our defensive success.  He had a few rough games early but has really started to find his place covering the deep part of the field.  It looked like he lacked speed early on, but something happened and that speed looks to be back.  He's got strong instincts back there.

[Drew P]

On 12/20/2016 at 9:59 AM, usmccharles said:

I agree with your with your prediction on who we target in the draft.  I feel like we replace SSr with a FA signing, doubt we will get that same kind of production obviously. 

 

Target a QB before day 3 please or make a play for a Mallet ext.

[usmccharles]

1 hour ago, Drew P said:

Target a QB before day 3 please or make a play for a Mallet ext.

Either one is fine by me,  I'm sure we will trade back for extra picks. 

[rmcjacket23]

1 hour ago, Drew P said:

Target a QB before day 3 please or make a play for a Mallet ext.

1. We're not taking a QB before day 3. Would be a waste most likely.

2. Mallett's is a JAG as a backup. You can sign him to a bunch of one year extensions with very little, if any, guaranteed money from now until the end of time. It won't matter. 

[Drew P]

59 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. We're not taking a QB before day 3. Would be a waste most likely.

2. Mallett's is a JAG as a backup. You can sign him to a bunch of one year extensions with very little, if any, guaranteed money from now until the end of time. It won't matter. 

That's pure speculation and opinion. Up until this point Flacco has been a JAG as a starter at best.

[rmcjacket23]

8 minutes ago, Drew P said:

That's pure speculation and opinion. Up until this point Flacco has been a JAG as a starter at best.

Well its opinion with basis, obviously. We know we're committed to Joe for at least the next 2-3 years, so any QB discussion revolves around a discussion of who the backup QB would be. As such, not really sure what the goal is of using a pick in the first three rounds on a backup QB. Hard to argue the Ravens are a better football team in the next 2-3 years by making that decision. 

Basically picking a player with the ideal scenario being that he never plays a snap for us during his rookie deal. 

[Drew P]

39 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well its opinion with basis, obviously. We know we're committed to Joe for at least the next 2-3 years, so any QB discussion revolves around a discussion of who the backup QB would be. As such, not really sure what the goal is of using a pick in the first three rounds on a backup QB. Hard to argue the Ravens are a better football team in the next 2-3 years by making that decision. 

Basically picking a player with the ideal scenario being that he never plays a snap for us during his rookie deal. 

No team is committed to any player in the NFL if there is no ROI (see Brock) and there is always a need for an insurance policy for potential injury (see Romo).

[kjbmore]

6 hours ago, usmccharles said:

Both?

We've got both of their replacements in house or we can load up in the draft

much rather spend the money on people to throw to or people who stop throws 

 

 

[ellicottraven]

19 minutes ago, Drew P said:

No team is committed to any player in the NFL if there is no ROI (see Brock) and there is always a need for an insurance policy for potential injury (see Romo).

While I agree with you generally speaking, Joe isn't Brock. He is a SB winner even if it is by a miraculous run at QB. Right now unless he falls off really badly next year, I don't see him not being the Ravens QB for the next 5-7 yrs. These guys don't grow on trees evidently nor is there an assured way of drafting a great one. But, I do think the Ravens need to prepare by drafting a talented QB prospect every year here on out and see who turns out to be special. We need to take a page from Jerry Jones ( I can't believe I am saying it ) and see how it plays out.

[usmccharles]

2 hours ago, kjbmore said:

We've got both of their replacements in house or we can load up in the draft

much rather spend the money on people to throw to or people who stop throws

I still down know who we are talking about.  Sometimes after a couple quotes between other posters back and forth names get lost, guess i caught the point where no names were being thrown out

[Deflated Football]

6 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

I still down know who we are talking about.  Sometimes after a couple quotes between other posters back and forth names get lost, guess i caught the point where no names were being thrown out

Pretty sure he's talking about Wagner and Williams and replacing them with Lewis and Pierce, respectively. 

[Deflated Football]

2 hours ago, ellicottraven said:

While I agree with you generally speaking, Joe isn't Brock. He is a SB winner even if it is by a miraculous run at QB. Right now unless he falls off really badly next year, I don't see him not being the Ravens QB for the next 5-7 yrs. These guys don't grow on trees evidently nor is there an assured way of drafting a great one. But, I do think the Ravens need to prepare by drafting a talented QB prospect every year here on out and see who turns out to be special. We need to take a page from Jerry Jones ( I can't believe I am saying it ) and see how it plays out.

I agree with this. I'd take Brad Kaaya in the third and let him learn for a few seasons behind Flacco. 

[usmccharles]

5 minutes ago, Deflated Football said:

Pretty sure he's talking about Wagner and Williams and replacing them with Lewis and Pierce, respectively. 

Ah, i dont know if id want to let Wagner leave, we have seen what the OL looks like when injuries happen.  Obviously depends on price

[Deflated Football]

1 minute ago, usmccharles said:

Ah, i dont know if id want to let Wagner leave, we have seen what the OL looks like when injuries happen.  Obviously depends on price

Yea I think we'll retain him. I like Lewis at LG anyways. 

[KBoum]

8 hours ago, rmw10 said:

Agreed on both accounts.  They aren't locks to stay by any means, but I'm not sure I see either of them as a logical cut candidate at this point, Webb especially.  The salary for Webb is expensive, but he's been an absolutely huge part of our defensive success.  He had a few rough games early but has really started to find his place covering the deep part of the field.  It looked like he lacked speed early on, but something happened and that speed looks to be back.  He's got strong instincts back there.

and everytime something happens to one of the CB, Webb plays the slot CB... Thats very underated role for a FS to play efficient man to man. He's been a sure tackler lately and been playing the deep 2 very well. I wasnt sold on him early but he made his case recently.

[rmcjacket23]

16 hours ago, Drew P said:

No team is committed to any player in the NFL if there is no ROI (see Brock) and there is always a need for an insurance policy for potential injury (see Romo).

1. You have absolutely no understanding of what ROI is. For starters, as much as fans like to bash Brock Osweiler, he's going to be on the Texans next year and most likely he is going to get paid $16M next year. How do we know this? NFL contracts 101. When the dead money exceeds the cap savings, it costs more to cut a player than to keep him.

Plus, Joe is obviously playing a ton better than Brock and would have to play significantly worse than he ever has to be be in that territory, so not sure why Brock is a good example of this. Brock is the textbook example of MY point... he's going to be a highly paid player who likely isn't producing at all for your team. That's called being committed to the guy. You've got a player who may literally be doing nothing for you on gameday next season, and there's very little you as a franchise can do about it. That's called commitment.

In terms of how NFL teams actually look at ROI, you have no clue, nor do I. As a business owner, a guy like Steve may look at ROI far beyond things fans look at, such as TD passes, INTs, etc. He's looking at marketing, merchandising, and what gets fans in the seats. News flash... people pay to watch Joe Flacco play, and they pay a lot more than the $6M Joe is going to get paid next year or the $12M he's going to get paid in 2018.

2. Insurance policies come in many forms, most notably as somebody like Mallett or any other run of the mill backup QB. None of those players requires wasting a top 3 round pick on a player who, again, ideally never plays a snap for you. 

Note also that the Cowboys waited until day 3 to address this (which the Ravens could do), and that was also after their franchise QB sustained multiple long-term injuries, not just one ACL tear. I would also point out that the Cowboys already tried that process twice, and it failed. They drafted Stephen McGee in the 4th round back in 2009 and Isaiah Standback in 2007, both during the Tony Romo era.

Edited December 22, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[Drew P]

5 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. You have absolutely no understanding of what ROI is. For starters, as much as fans like to bash Brock Osweiler, he's going to be on the Texans next year and most likely he is going to get paid $16M next year. How do we know this? NFL contracts 101. When the dead money exceeds the cap savings, it costs more to cut a player than to keep him.

Plus, Joe is obviously playing a ton better than Brock and would have to play significantly worse than he ever has to be be in that territory, so not sure why Brock is a good example of this. Brock is the textbook example of MY point... he's going to be a highly paid player who likely isn't producing at all for your team. That's called being committed to the guy. You've got a player who may literally be doing nothing for you on gameday next season, and there's very little you as a franchise can do about it. That's called commitment.

2. Insurance policies come in many forms, most notably as somebody like Mallett or any other run of the mill backup QB. None of those players requires wasting a top 3 round pick on a player who, again, ideally never plays a snap for you. 

Note also that the Cowboys waited until day 3 to address this (which the Ravens could do), and that was also after their franchise QB sustained multiple long-term injuries, not just one ACL tear. I would also point out that the Cowboys already tried that process twice, and it failed. They drafted Stephen McGee in the 4th round back in 2009 and Isaiah Standback in 2007, both during the Tony Romo era.

Committed to paying and committed to starting are two different things. Wins are the measurable ROI for a QB on perennially contending teams.

The Pats contradict your point; Garappolo filled in well for Brady where Brisset not so much. BTW Mallett was a 3rd rounder so I guess the Pats just don't understand the draft thing considering they waste draft picks according to your philosophy.

 

[rmcjacket23]

2 minutes ago, Drew P said:

Committed to paying and committed to starting are two different things. Wins are the measurable ROI for a QB on perennially contending teams.

The Pats contradict your point; Garappolo filled in well for Brady where Brisset not so much. BTW Mallett was a 3rd rounder so I guess the Pats just don't understand the draft thing considering they waste draft picks according to your philosophy.

 

1. Not really they aren't. The only difference between the two is the ROI you get on them. If you're committed to paying a player who isn't "starting" or even playing, that would be a bad ROI, by definition. You're paying for something which yields very little value.

In terms of what the "measurable ROI is", that would be your take, not necessarily an Ownership or Franchise take. It might be what YOU want the ROI measurement to be, but I have no doubt that NFL teams are smart enough to understand that wins are a team statistic, not an individual one, and that teams annually win despite the production of their QB (Brock Osweiler is an example of this in multiple seasons). If all franchises cared about with QBs is whether they win or not, then you have a large number of contracts and non-contracts that you have some explanations to provide for. 

Tim Tebow is a winning QB by NFL standards.

2. No, actually the Pats are an example of my point. Mallett was drafted in the 3rd round in 2011, threw a grand total of 4 passes in the regular season for New England, and was traded for a 7th rounder three years later. Which part of that yielded them a good ROI on that draft pick? Think maybe they could have used that pick differently? Look at the all the players drafted after him that would have undoubtedly yielded more production.

Garoppolo doesn't appear to be in any different of a spot. They used a 2nd rounder on him in 2014, he played all of 2 games for them (games they probably could have won with Brissett in my opinion) and will likely get traded out of a town after the season or next season, or get signed elsewhere afterwards. 

I find this particularly hilarious coming from these boards, because if ANY Ravens player were drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round and played a grand total of 2 games in 3 years, they would be a bust 100% of the time, regardless of position or production.

We write off players on these boards as "busts" after missing one season due to injury, and these guys ride pine for years and somehow are smart draft picks.

Nice try.