dc.

By that logic, are injuries to Suggs, Monroe, Perriman, etc responsible for Ravens losses?

You remember wrong. Comments were post 2013 season when some were blaming contract for deals that sent Boldin away among others. Linta was defending Joe and the contract against that. Didn't sound like he was seeking anyone out except defending his client, his work, etc against claims made against them http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/ravens/2013/05/26/joe-flacco-contract-never-seen-a-dumber-move-joe-linta/2361599/

Given the contract hardly affected the team for its first two years, maybe that's premature? 2013 in particular, what exactly did Joe's contract and relatively small cap hit, relative both to later years and consummerate pay for other strong QBs, have to do with Ray Rice's 2.9ypc?

Again, I'm not against a restructure at all. I'm just saying the do or die right now I'd nonsense because the numbers don't work yet - at least next year our leverage would be the cap hit to cutting him is a significant discount. As for Linta - the comments were crass but I need more context. Was he responding to a question that warranted a response?

How many players would we have to find next year if we cut him? 11 with an extra 3m?

I just mean, if the net gain is 3m ... Why cut him now? Next year the net gain is more like 16m...

Younger, cheaper... Equally as effective? Draft pick wasted on a position we already have secured instead one of dozens we need help with? And the math still doesn't add up to me. We'd save so little money in the next two years of this contract by cutting him... That we actually couldn't add anything except a rookie draft pick to replace him. So at best, we are helped in the years? Why not just wait to cut him until then since the money is give anyway? If he were truly unproductive it would be one thing...

But the whole concept of dead money is that you're still committing the call money to the player... They just don't play for you.

I can't get behind this at all. Renegotiate yes. Cut no. "Hi, we'd like to forfeit about 15%of our allotted cap figure for two years in order to receive lesser production from the QB position and gain virtually nothing to improve the team with, especially once it's spent on a replacement QB." ?

I'm not sure anyone is arguing Joe is underpaid. And I certainly see arguments for him being overpaid. But as Crav points out, the market seems set at his level - Brady type and Flacco type players. So after all this, the question seems to me to come back to... What's the alternative? Renegotiate, sure. But if that fails? There is no solid strategy for this team to lose Flacco and maintain performance level at the position (even if you don't love it) for less money... And I'd argue there's little argument that his performance is replaceable at all in an acceptable fashion given how this team is built, positioned, etc, especially when you consider the franchise's history with QB development.

That's fair on some level, but the same is true of most quarterbacks: lower attempts correlate with higher win percentage. Now, the line of where too many throws is may differ by QB... But it also depends on the kind of O we run and the tools we have. The Ravens have always been a run-oriented team and never invested heavily in a receiving corps (or O coordinator to do otherwise). Kubiak of course showed another side of that, and Joe showed he could work within it. Again, to me the argument is just not as complete as some make it out to be.

And no one is saying Joe is Brady, or close. But if Brady lost those games, I'm betting few people would blame him... Yet Joe loses a playoff game against the #1 seed on the road throwing four touchdowns and getting two separate 14pt leads... And let's call it his fault? Bottom line: pick another example. His game was as good as Bradys that day and he still can't buy a vote.

See, but this last part is where you lose me... Joe has to be perfect all the time because he's being paid a bagillion dollars? I can almost buy that. Not fully, but almost. Joe has to be perfect all the time because... "that's what it takes to win?" ... That I can't buy. Joe has to be perfect, but the rest of the team, well, you know... Because my recollection of that game is that we were TWICE leading by 14 points. But the only conversation we're having is about Flacco. That's where you lose me. (Joe's QBR in that game, by the by, was better than Brady's). Joe's just not the problem. He's not perfect. But he's not this team's problem. And I still don't know what anyone thinks is going to come along to replace him and magically outperform him. You can criticize his NE game all you want - really, you're criticizing one play - but I'm curious where you get the four touchdowns and 300 yards passing with no sacks for the other 59 minutes of the game? Despite all this, here's what I'll give you: the fact that our team has a "high powered offense" by stats is misleading and you won't hear me using it as an excuse. We get lots of points and lots of yards late in games when we're behind.

Saw the headline but not looked into it yet... actually surprised the numbers are as low as they are given what you just said. Expect more.

On the Joe vs play calling- I agree that Joe is, and always has been, up and down. "Back foot Joe" is just a part of who he is; he hides him well at times but sometimes he busts out. I didn't mean to say the two items were inseparable, but just that they are tightly linked. And my theory is that separating the two gets harder as teams get worse and better. A bad individual play doesn't make aQB play poorly, but a series of wonky calls can mess anyone up. Similarly, a bad player can make decent calls look awful. The same is true in reverse. And when you get bad player with bad calls, or good player with good calls, it simply becomes harder to divvy credit and blame.

Yeah, what an I supposed to drink heavily about now?

Flacco saves game somehow getting on that snap. Headlines youll never read.

Wouldn't want Joe to play with a lead on the final drive

Nice little final push there

Man I'm surprised Harbs didn't go all in that the rb had reestablished his momentum while in the endzone

Good point, forgot that. Except, the is way the ref said that the penalty was upheld made me think he could have changed that because... Inconsistency

They could have said catch, fumble, SD ball. Would have been a bad call, but they could have...

Oy. I think it was a catch, but we already got the penalty... Only bad can come from this when they rule it a fumble (it shouldn't be though) or they just rule against us

Same jail, Crav... Just expanded it about a decade ago.

It was in response to the false start, not a request. Just that we always seem to back up...