[News] Late For Work 2/21: Is WR Pierre Garcon's Subtle Message Good News For Ravens?

[cobrajet]

I would love to see Pierre Garcon in purple and black! Victor Cruz has not been the same after his injury, I hope we pass on him.

[TheRavengers]

With regards to Flacco and the cap money, that's why re-signing our O-linemen, namely Wagner should come first. I'd prefer to keep him and Brandon Williams but if not then we've got at least 3 other guys who can fill in for B-Will if he gets traded. Finding the right tackle or guard is a lot more challenging.

[rmcjacket23]

  1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Gonna bookmark this paragraph and wait until you see how much Tony Romo and Jay Cutler get paid in FA this season, as proof to validate what Joe's value would be worth (plus inflation) 2 years from now when that happens.

Should give me a good chuckle.

I have been hearing this since the day Joe signed his contract. "You just wait until the next QB signs his deal, then you'll see Flacco is only getting the going rate for NFL QB's". Well it's been 4 long years and every QB in the league has signed a new contract since Joe in 2013. Not one, not two, EVERY QB IN THE LEAGUE. But your right, I'm sure Roma and Cutler will be the highest paid QB's in the league this year. Wow. 

Nope, they won't be the highest paid in the league. Not even close. But then again, I never implied that they would be either.

I was told by the OP that Joe's market in FA in two years if we were to move on from him would be practically nothing. In fact, the exact quote was "By then he won't be worth much and no one will go out of their way to sign Flacco."

So if Romo/Cutler sign deals around like $15-18M a year (or more) in FA, at significantly older ages and with much more concerns in terms of durability and consistency, then apparently two years from now Flacco's market will be nothing?

Kind of hard to sell any logic on that. If a 37 year old QB who can barely walk can get that kind of money on the open market (and I suspect he will), I don't think Joe would have a problem getting at least that on the open market in two years.

Not that I really think there's people who actually think he wouldn't be in demand anyway.

[Ravensfan23]

1 hour ago, berad said:

This is true. He had all of the leverage after winning the SB with that end-of-year run. One of the times wear the gamble worked for the player and the team paid up. Whether you love or hate him, he's going to be on the team for the next few years at least - just the way his deal is set up.

I think what people miss about the whole Flacco contract is that It was the Ravens decision to structure it the way it is. This time last year Flacco went back to the table with the Ravens and said his reason was to create cap space for the team to continue to keep/add players. The Ravens choose not to structure the contract to create much cap space over the first 3 years and instead keep the cap hits level over the duration of the contract. 

Flacco banked on himself in 2013 and won. Now the Ravens are banking on the fact that Flacco will not necessarily get back to being a top 10 QB but get this team back to being in contention for a championship consistently over the next 5 years. Matt Ryan is about to break the bank and set the market again(rightfully so) and then you have younger players in their mid-late 20s that will set the market as well. Wilson, Carr, Winston, Mariota, Wentz, Dak and maybe even guys like Tyrod and Jimmy G will be getting paid over the next 3 years while Flacco is still under contract and their cap hit will almost surely surpass Flacco's cap hit. This is not to compare Flacco or his play to any other player because I think everyone including Flacco will say he's under performed, it's more to show the thinking behind why the Ravens signed Flacco to the contract extension they did in 2016. Those new contracts will push Flacco's contract down to the 7-12 range and maybe even lower should a few other younger QBs find a way to get paid. Not saying it's right or wrong, but imo this was the Ravens thinking on Flacco. Keep his cap number level and as the market and cap space increase over the years, his deal will be a bargain of sorts. 

[rmcjacket23]

1 hour ago, ByTheBay said:

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Gonna bookmark this paragraph and wait until you see how much Tony Romo and Jay Cutler get paid in FA this season, as proof to validate what Joe's value would be worth (plus inflation) 2 years from now when that happens.

Should give me a good chuckle.

I have been hearing this since the day Joe signed his contract. "You just wait until the next QB signs his deal, then you'll see Flacco is only getting the going rate for NFL QB's". Well it's been 4 long years and every QB in the league has signed a new contract since Joe in 2013. Not one, not two, EVERY QB IN THE LEAGUE. But your right, I'm sure Romo and Cutler will be the highest paid QB's in the league this year. Wow. 

Also find it amusing that you unknowingly agreed with my premise anyway, given your own explanation. When Joe signed his $20M AAV contract in 2013, it was seen as an outrageously high contract.

2017 AAV for QBs:

12 over $20M
18 over $18M
22 over $16M

2013 AAV for QBs (when Joe signed his original deal):

4 over $20M
6 over $18M
8 over $16M

So in 2013 if you made over $16M a year you were considered a top 10 NFL QB, yet in 2017 it makes you a fringe NFL starter

Number of QBs making over $20M has tripled in the last five years, up to nearly 40% of the leagues starters.

Number of QBs making over $18M has tripled in the last five years, up to over half of the league's starting QBs

Numbers of QBs making over $16M has nearly tripled, up to nearly 70% of the leagues starting QBs (including guys who have been benched for ineffectiveness)

So needless to say, yeah, we waited until the next guy signed his deal (and the next guy after that, etc.) and we determined without question what the going rate for a competent but unspectacular QB is.

So I guess we'll just go back to haggling over the $2-3M a year difference between what fans ignorantly think he should get paid and what he does, and we can let those fans try to pretend to themselves that the $2-3M a year difference is actually why the team hasn't been very good recently.

How great it is to live in a world that isn't reality...

 

Edited February 21 by rmcjacket23

[fluffy201]

With regards to Flacco and the cap money, that's why re-signing our O-linemen, namely Wagner should come first. I'd prefer to keep him and Brandon Williams but if not then we've got at least 3 other guys who can fill in for B-Will if he gets traded. Finding the right tackle or guard is a lot more challenging.

Brandon Williams can't be traded because he no longer has a contract with the Ravens. I agree that Wagner is much more of a priority than Williams. We really have to give Flacco some protection/security, along with improving the run game. Brandon Williams is a run stuffier who does not get to the quarterback, which to me is another example of an average player. Kinda like Pitta who led the league in catches, but can not block. Brandon Williams is not a play maker nor should the Ravens pay him like he's one.

[rmcjacket23]

10 minutes ago, Ravensfan23 said:

I think what people miss about the whole Flacco contract is that It was the Ravens decision to structure it the way it is. This time last year Flacco went back to the table with the Ravens and said his reason was to create cap space for the team to continue to keep/add players. The Ravens choose not to structure the contract to create much cap space over the first 3 years and instead keep the cap hits level over the duration of the contract. 

Flacco banked on himself in 2013 and won. Now the Ravens are banking on the fact that Flacco will not necessarily get back to being a top 10 QB but get this team back to being in contention for a championship consistently over the next 5 years. Matt Ryan is about to break the bank and set the market again(rightfully so) and then you have younger players in their mid-late 20s that will set the market as well. Wilson, Carr, Winston, Mariota, Wentz, Dak and maybe even guys like Tyrod and Jimmy G will be getting paid over the next 3 years while Flacco is still under contract and their cap hit will almost surely surpass Flacco's cap hit. This is not to compare Flacco or his play to any other player because I think everyone including Flacco will say he's under performed, it's more to show the thinking behind why the Ravens signed Flacco to the contract extension they did in 2016. Those new contracts will push Flacco's contract down to the 7-12 range and maybe even lower should a few other younger QBs find a way to get paid. Not saying it's right or wrong, but imo this was the Ravens thinking on Flacco. Keep his cap number level and as the market and cap space increase over the years, his deal will be a bargain of sorts. 

Joe's first deal was a mistake by the FO in terms of STRUCTURE, not in terms of total compensation. This I agree with. I think the FO didn't know how to handle a contract that size, and the way they spread out the cap impact and backloaded in tremendously definitely didn't help the franchise in the long run.

However, the new restructured contract is what I think you see is the new norm for NFL teams. In the past teams would try to backload these deals, but teams are figuring out that flatter cap structures for the larger contracts are the better long term approach, even if it means sacrificing winning in the short term.

[whobilly]

  1 hour ago, whobilly said:

So what were are other options at QB when the confetti was dropping down on the field in New Orleans?

Trade up in the 1st round of the 2013 NFL draft for... EJ Manuel

Or sit at 32 and pick... Geno Smith

Legends like Tim Tebow, Matt Casell, Kevin Kolb, Matt Moore, and Ryan Fitzpatrick were veteran free agents at that time

Or trade a whole bunch of capital for a QB that a team was willing to part with and let Flacco walk for a 3rd-round compensatory pick.

Or, sign Flacco to a long-term deal he earned.

Thank you.

[Azzi22]

as a GM.. id pay Flacco DOUBLE of what he's making.. he has been the best option we have had in RAVENS HISTORY and the current best option we can have.. yea he blows leads.. yea hes a dumb thrower sometimes, yea hes not always on point... but IMAGINE where we would be without Joe... go ahead...ill wait

[ibleedpurpleandblack]

as a GM.. id pay Flacco DOUBLE of what he's making.. he has been the best option we have had in RAVENS HISTORY and the current best option we can have.. yea he blows leads.. yea hes a dumb thrower sometimes, yea hes not always on point... but IMAGINE where we would be without Joe... go ahead...ill wait

Flacco blows leads?? So now he plays defense or gets blamed for the defensive faltering giving up leads?

[Azzi22]

1 hour ago, ibleedpurpleandblack said:

1 hour ago, Azzi22 said:

as a GM.. id pay Flacco DOUBLE of what he's making.. he has been the best option we have had in RAVENS HISTORY and the current best option we can have.. yea he blows leads.. yea hes a dumb thrower sometimes, yea hes not always on point... but IMAGINE where we would be without Joe... go ahead...ill wait

Flacco blows leads?? So now he plays defense or gets blamed for the defensive faltering giving up leads?

Has he ever added to a lead we had in the 4TH? hes MR 3-out at the end of games.. that's what I meant

[ibleedpurpleandblack]

SSS should get a prize for "Most Willpower."

Flacco needs to do a Brady deal and restructure his contract to put more money into keeping him safe in the pocket.

His original contract was TEAM friendly - and I'll say it again that no one is talking about the almost 30 million we paid for 3 players to not play or play for another team the following year. Then he restructured it once and now people (not you) are demanding the man take a pay cut. So I say this to the people who are demanding him take a pay cut, would you be willing to take a pay cut to help your company hire someone else to come in and do a job? Didn't think, so throw that idea out the window people!! He's earned it and he's getting it!!

[fluffy201]

  1 hour ago, berad said:

  1 hour ago, whobilly said:

So what were are other options at QB when the confetti was dropping down on the field in New Orleans?

Trade up in the 1st round of the 2013 NFL draft for... EJ Manuel

Or sit at 32 and pick... Geno Smith

Legends like Tim Tebow, Matt Casell, Kevin Kolb, Matt Moore, and Ryan Fitzpatrick were veteran free agents at that time

Or trade a whole bunch of capital for a QB that a team was willing to part with and let Flacco walk for a 3rd-round compensatory pick.

Or, sign Flacco to a long-term deal he earned.

Thank you.

Flacco will be on the team for another two years, so you guys really need to get over it. He is not going to be traded or cut until at least 2019. Looking at his contract details, you should be able to clearly see why..........you guys are really beating this into the ground, get over it, he's here till 2019.

[ibleedpurpleandblack]

  2 hours ago, ibleedpurpleandblack said:

  2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Gonna bookmark this paragraph and wait until you see how much Tony Romo and Jay Cutler get paid in FA this season, as proof to validate what Joe's value would be worth (plus inflation) 2 years from now when that happens.

Should give me a good chuckle.

Not only that; the article states that basically Romo's cap hit is higher than Flacco's.  What has Romo done?  How many playoff wins does he have?  Championships?  Talk about overpaying and underperforming - Romo is the poster child for that!!!

 

 

 

Yes, the article states Romo's cap hit is higher, but the implication is that Flacco is getting paid too much.

What does it matter what Romo has done?! We are not paying Romo, we are paying Flacco. And ever since getting his big fat payday, with the exception of 2014 when he indeed did deserve his salary, Flacco has done next to nothing for us. At the same time he is holding up very valuable cap space that could be spent on players who actually might do something for us.

Again, please stop talking about how Romo or Cutler or whoever hasn't done anything either. These players are not playing for us! Flacco is. Our only concern should be Flacco's salary compared to his playing level. That's it.

He's the only one holding up cap space that's not playing to his potential...let's see Webb $9 million for 1 Interception; Doom $7 million for 3 sacks...should I go on? Hmmmm, his first season after ACL/MCL surgery, 10 different line combinations no continuity whatsoever. Let's see he had Wallace (1st year together) Perriman (basically his rookie year because he was on IR his actual rookie year, Smith injured most of the season and Pitta. Not to mention how many games did the defense lose in the 4th quarter because of our secondary? But let's all just blame Joe and tell him he needs to take a pay cut because the rest of the team didn't do their jobs either.

It's called market value; the Ravens knew this and that's why they gave him the contract they did. Everyone needs to get off the Flacco needs to take a pay cut bs because that's not happening and has never happened in the league.

[nj_ravens]

1 hour ago, Azzi22 said:

1 hour ago, ibleedpurpleandblack said:

  24 minutes ago, Azzi22 said:

as a GM.. id pay Flacco DOUBLE of what he's making.. he has been the best option we have had in RAVENS HISTORY and the current best option we can have.. yea he blows leads.. yea hes a dumb thrower sometimes, yea hes not always on point... but IMAGINE where we would be without Joe... go ahead...ill wait

Flacco blows leads?? So now he plays defense or gets blamed for the defensive faltering giving up leads?

Has he ever added to a lead we had in the 4TH? hes MR 3-out at the end of games.. that's what I meant

except for that time when he had two different 14pt leads in the 4th qtr vs the pats. I'm sure there were other times. Stop speaking in generalities.

[OzzieBisciotti]

Due to poor salary cap management, we can keep wishing- we will never get a receiver of Garcon's calibre- maybe Victor Cruz but not Garcon... Anyhow, why do we need him when we have stud-in-the-making Perriman- Not!

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, OzzieBisciotti said:

Due to poor salary cap management, we can keep wishing- we will never get a receiver of Garcon's calibre- maybe Victor Cruz but not Garcon... Anyhow, why do we need him when we have stud-in-the-making Perriman- Not!

So your solution to poor salary cap management is to give us more salary cap space?

Brilliant!

[Ravensfan23]

1 hour ago, steelcityraven said:

The flacco contract definitely is hurting us. In fact I would say that probably no other contract in the NFL is handcuffing their team worse.

But I still would not call that Ozzies biggest mistake. IDK... Boller comes to mind. Allowing Harbs to bring Dean Pees in comes to mind... The Webb contract is up there. The Pitta contract is also up there. All the guaranteed money on the Ray Rice deal hurt us badly over the past two years. Sergio Kindle hurt us...

But Flacco has produced (albeit not up to his contract) but he has produced. So... as much as his contract holds the team hostage... I cant call it Ozzie's worst move... but its top 10 for sure!

Flacco's contract isn't hurting the Ravens as much as people think. Over the first 3 years of the original contract, Flacco's cap hit was really team friendly. Since signing Flacco to the original contract, the team signed, Pitta, Jimmy, Monroe, Yanda, Tucker, Koch and Weddle to big deals. That doesn't include locking up guys like Zuttah, Wright, SSS, Forsett and Watson to deals that weren't big but the team thought these players would contribute a lot. They also made competitive offers to Torrey and KO.

Flacco's contract hasn't hurt the team, that's just the perception going around. What has hurt the Ravens is these long term commitments and young draft picks not playing well over the last 3-4 years. The Ravens have been among the top of the league in dead money over the last 3-4 years because of poor contracts. Injuries have hurt as well. 

Flacco certainly has to play better and play up to his contract, but he hasn't stopped the team from signing anyone. Boldin was traded because the Ravens didn't think he could perform as well moving forward. Torrey wasn't a guy the Ravens would pay 10Mil for, especially since they have so much success getting close to over the hill WRs who can perform just as well as Torrey and no way they were paying KO LT money without being 100% sure he was the answer there which no one could honestly say. 

Seeing Flacco struggle on a huge contract sucks, but the reality is, the Ravens don't commit big money to outside players often and the guys they wanted to keep here they have. Flacco has to play better, but the Ravens were banking on guys like Perriman, Maxx, Brooks, Elam, Davis, Smith, Timmy, Taliafero, Buck and others to really step their games up and be the new era of players to keep the team performing well and that just hasn't happened. 

[nj_ravens]

  45 minutes ago, Ravensfan23 said:

I think what people miss about the whole Flacco contract is that It was the Ravens decision to structure it the way it is. This time last year Flacco went back to the table with the Ravens and said his reason was to create cap space for the team to continue to keep/add players. The Ravens choose not to structure the contract to create much cap space over the first 3 years and instead keep the cap hits level over the duration of the contract. 

Flacco banked on himself in 2013 and won. Now the Ravens are banking on the fact that Flacco will not necessarily get back to being a top 10 QB but get this team back to being in contention for a championship consistently over the next 5 years. Matt Ryan is about to break the bank and set the market again(rightfully so) and then you have younger players in their mid-late 20s that will set the market as well. Wilson, Carr, Winston, Mariota, Wentz, Dak and maybe even guys like Tyrod and Jimmy G will be getting paid over the next 3 years while Flacco is still under contract and their cap hit will almost surely surpass Flacco's cap hit. This is not to compare Flacco or his play to any other player because I think everyone including Flacco will say he's under performed, it's more to show the thinking behind why the Ravens signed Flacco to the contract extension they did in 2016. Those new contracts will push Flacco's contract down to the 7-12 range and maybe even lower should a few other younger QBs find a way to get paid. Not saying it's right or wrong, but imo this was the Ravens thinking on Flacco. Keep his cap number level and as the market and cap space increase over the years, his deal will be a bargain of sorts. 

Joe's first deal was a mistake by the FO in terms of STRUCTURE, not in terms of total compensation. This I agree with. I think the FO didn't know how to handle a contract that size, and the way they spread out the cap impact and backloaded in tremendously definitely didn't help the franchise in the long run.

However, the new restructured contract is what I think you see is the new norm for NFL teams. In the past teams would try to backload these deals, but teams are figuring out that flatter cap structures for the larger contracts are the better long term approach, even if it means sacrificing winning in the short term.

You're probably right about the structure being wrong. They tried to compete the following year by making his cap number low, but didn't make it. Then the money starts coming and we hit injuries and dead money. It could have worked, just didn't. Now they're back to a little bit of a longer term rebuild, which I think should hit it's stride this year or next. By then, Flacco either rights the ship or regresses.

Keep in mind, with the different practice rules, getting rookies up and running is different than say back in 07-08. I think some of our draft picks that have been marked as misses will come into their own this year and next. It just takes a little longer to develop these days.

[Ravensfan23]

43 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Joe's first deal was a mistake by the FO in terms of STRUCTURE, not in terms of total compensation. This I agree with. I think the FO didn't know how to handle a contract that size, and the way they spread out the cap impact and backloaded in tremendously definitely didn't help the franchise in the long run.

However, the new restructured contract is what I think you see is the new norm for NFL teams. In the past teams would try to backload these deals, but teams are figuring out that flatter cap structures for the larger contracts are the better long term approach, even if it means sacrificing winning in the short term.

I don't think it does sacrifice winning in the short terms. As I just wrote in the post above, it's the performance of the players the Ravens choose to lock up long term moreso than the way Flacco's contract was structured. If Pitta, Monroe, Jimmy, Webb and Flacco all performed up to their contracts where would this team be right now? If drafted guys like, Perriman, Maxx, ZDS, Timmy, Elam, Brooks, Camp and some others were guys you could look at and say, I know they'll show up on a consistent level, where would this team be?

I think the answer is the team would be winning and even if Joe's numbers weren't among the best in the NFL, the Ravens could still justify the contract because the team would still be winning. But yeah I definitely agree with you.

[rmcjacket23]

13 minutes ago, Ravensfan23 said:

I don't think it does sacrifice winning in the short terms. As I just wrote in the post above, it's the performance of the players the Ravens choose to lock up long term moreso than the way Flacco's contract was structured. If Pitta, Monroe, Jimmy, Webb and Flacco all performed up to their contracts where would this team be right now? If drafted guys like, Perriman, Maxx, ZDS, Timmy, Elam, Brooks, Camp and some others were guys you could look at and say, I know they'll show up on a consistent level, where would this team be?

I think the answer is the team would be winning and even if Joe's numbers weren't among the best in the NFL, the Ravens could still justify the contract because the team would still be winning. But yeah I definitely agree with you.

Well in Joe's case its hard to tell what we sacrificed.

For example, his cap number in 2013, the first year of his mega deal, was just under $7M. Now, if they had flattened out his cap impact on a much more straight-line basis, and that cap number was somewhere in the $15-20M range, what would the roster look like? Would it look significantly different? Would we have to cut more players or miss on signing other guys (a Dumervil perhaps)?

Truth is we don't really know, but generally speaking, if you have more money to spend on players (regardless of whether they are FAs or retaining your own guys), that's a good thing for the franchise, especially one that already has a franchise QB on the roster.

So its hard to see how if we had less cap space during say 2013 or 2014 that we would have been a better team.

I agree that flattening out the structure doesn't guarantee you will lose, because plenty of teams still win and are competitive with players with large cap impacts. But its certainly not going to help that ability in the short term.

Even looking at 2014, when Joe's cap hit was just under $15M (completely manageable), but that was up $8M year over year. Anytime you have a player who costs $8M more year over year, you're going to see some cap restrictions if your roster is adequate. 

So when 2016 came, and his cap number jumped from $14.5M to $28.5M in a single offseason, you're effectively spending the entire annual increase in cap spending on one player, which is why a contract extension was the only option.

So the Ravens decided on his new deal that his cap impact was going to be relatively flat... his cap impact never jumps by more than $2M in any given season, as opposed to those large jumps we saw in his previous deal.

I like to think of it as better budgeting. His contract status changes are almost non-existent from a cap perspective for the remainder of the contract, while the cap would likely continue to increase at a sufficient rate.

[dirtybird66]

i sure hope PIERRE GARCON id added to this offense,still has plenty of TREAD and BLOCKS downfield.at the same time for some reason i think he's ready for 1 last FAT contract to retire on.

[sami]

2 hours ago, Azzi22 said:

2 hours ago, ibleedpurpleandblack said:

  1 hour ago, Azzi22 said:

as a GM.. id pay Flacco DOUBLE of what he's making.. he has been the best option we have had in RAVENS HISTORY and the current best option we can have.. yea he blows leads.. yea hes a dumb thrower sometimes, yea hes not always on point... but IMAGINE where we would be without Joe... go ahead...ill wait

Flacco blows leads?? So now he plays defense or gets blamed for the defensive faltering giving up leads?

Has he ever added to a lead we had in the 4TH? hes MR 3-out at the end of games.. that's what I meant

how about the Pittsburgh game?

[Azzi22]

  1 hour ago, Azzi22 said:

  1 hour ago, ibleedpurpleandblack said:

  1 hour ago, Azzi22 said:

as a GM.. id pay Flacco DOUBLE of what he's making.. he has been the best option we have had in RAVENS HISTORY and the current best option we can have.. yea he blows leads.. yea hes a dumb thrower sometimes, yea hes not always on point... but IMAGINE where we would be without Joe... go ahead...ill wait

Flacco blows leads?? So now he plays defense or gets blamed for the defensive faltering giving up leads?

look at this MF...Has he ever added to a lead we had in the 4TH? hes MR 3-out at the end of games.. that's what I meant

how about the Pittsburgh game?

one game here and there? don't get me wrong I ABSOLUTELY will change teams if we get rid of FLACCO.. hes a RAVENS QB.. plays like us.. he defines RAVENS as a QB... people want to talk about him making a lot of money.. so be it.. id rather him take 90% of our salary than have some loser qb like half the teams in the league...

[Shaky End of the Quarter]

i sure hope PIERRE GARCON id added to this offense,still has plenty of TREAD and BLOCKS downfield.at the same time for some reason i think he's ready for 1 last FAT contract to retire on.

I Doubt Garcon will come to Bmore. SF will lure him with a bigger contract. Garcon and Shannahan have also worked together in the past. When Shannahan was in WAS he made Garcon the most targeted and receptions leader in the NFL the year before Shannahan left for ATL.

[ellicottraven]

3 hours ago, Bat-mite said:

SSS should get a prize for "Most Willpower."

Flacco needs to do a Brady deal and restructure his contract to put more money into keeping him safe in the pocket.

Won't happen. 

[ellicottraven]

1 hour ago, fluffy201 said:

Flacco will be on the team for another two years, so you guys really need to get over it. He is not going to be traded or cut until at least 2019. Looking at his contract details, you should be able to clearly see why..........you guys are really beating this into the ground, get over it, he's here till 2019.

Reality must sink in folks. This right here is the truth. No matter how bad Flacco is or people think he is, he's here through his final contract unless of course he becomes a plague in the locker room and/or we go 0-16 because of his inept play. Otherwise, we need to reconcile and give him all the tools and weapons necessary to succeed to the extent his ability provides. That is it.

[J.O.14]

I wish fans would realize that Flacco isn't going anywhere for awhile, and we would be dumb to let him go....

[Chuckx999]

WOW just think, we could have a 8 and 8 "at best" QB with the higest cap?? I would love to see "old 3 and out Flacco" kicked out on his butt but until that time comes make him rework his contract for cap space. Brady does it all the time so the TEAM has money for player to get to more Super Bowls. With "old 3 and out Flacco" the only bowls we will see are the toilet bowls.
Who ever wrote " hes a RAVENS QB.. plays like us.. he defines RAVENS as a QB" needs a lot of time on the couch talking to a head guy.
"Old 3 and out Flacco" makes me want Trent Dilfer back.

[Crusader]

  3 hours ago, Bat-mite said:

SSS should get a prize for "Most Willpower."

Flacco needs to do a Brady deal and restructure his contract to put more money into keeping him safe in the pocket.

Won't happen. 

If Joe keeps playing like he has do you really want to extend him beyond the two years?