ForceEight

Wait, what? That's not true at all. I'm tired of writing it: http://forums.extremeravens.com/index.php?showtopic=1521&view=findpost&p=16416 And Colin, it's about more than affecting the cap. It's about keeping the appearance of money problems in view. Why do you think there's such little spending? If you exclude the teams that have a decent bankroll and need to win NOW for the future of their franchise (Lions, Bears), there has been less spending this year than any free agency period before. Though they'll never admit to this collusion, the owners are fairly together in keeping down spending. Look at the Cardinals. They spent money on no one and let four of their best players go. Look at the Redskins and Cowboys, the highest bidders every year! They've signed zero players! Bisciotti is absolutely part of the group that wants to keep the percentages of player salary down; there's no way in hell he'd go for Marshall after already getting Boldin (who cost less but fills the need anyway). And more importantly, I don't think any owner wants to spend $200 million on player salaries in one year, regardless of a cap. This isn't baseball.

Moreover, Reggie Brown was traded yesterday.

Guys, Marshall isn't coming here. Period. That is, unless you want to lose Rice, Ngata, Gaither, etc. in a year or three. And don't even think about having the money (or presumed cap space) to extend Flacco. Everyone is jumping at the chance to sign every possible player now that there's no cap. You overlook the fact that, you know, these owners aren't made of money, and are busy trying to convince the union that they don't have the money they'd like (spending too high a percentage on players) in the first place. Bisciotti was one of the loudest voices on that front a few months ago. Moreover, there will eventually be a cap again if everything works out as planned. Hopefully as early as 2011. How are we going to handle having two receivers making $8 million or more per season? Marshall is not coming here. Period. I will take a prop bet with anyone in the world on it.

I'm still really confused about the WR situation. Clayton and Williams were tendered, but they'd still like to resign Mason and Washington.

We already could. We can sign as many players as we'd like under $3.7 million in year one + the growth. We can sign one unrestricted free agent for over $5.5 million in year one. Signing a player for a salary equal to or less than a lost player's salary doesn't really come into play until we've used up the high-priced free agent allowance. Bannan will only make slightly over $2 million in 2010. Even considering the signing bonus, I'm fairly sure that he would fall under the "sign as many players as you'd like at this price" category.

The Broncos signed Jarvis Green today, so that's one less potential spot for Edwards to land. Though I suppose it could mean that the Pats could get him, now, because they wanted to keep Ellis.

(This is weird, considering that I just posted about Williams in reply to you) I don't think Troy is going anywhere, either, and certainly not in a trade. Considering his tender, he'd be gone by now if anyone actually wanted him. Holmgren is doing things his way in Cleveland and wants his own players (obviously).

Not this year. Jerry has been more loud about keeping Williams than he was about his scoreboard issues. Williams isn't going anywhere, and I'd book it.

Not rumor. He and Bryant are both visiting tomorrow.

Ben Sexualassaulterberger isn't nearly as catchy. And he has (allegedly) raped before.

1. The Ravens would NEVER sign him. It would be like the Colts signing Tom Brady (except Brady's good). 2. He's falling off. There's a reason he's not being signed back. He is not worth starter's money, according to a team with a pretty decent defense. 3. How do you know what we "could afford"? If we can't afford to keep our own D-linemen, how can we afford an aging situational pass rusher who wants more than he's worth?

Those examples are all well and good, except none are performance-based. They don't want him anymore because he's not the player he used to be, and he still wants to be paid like it.

Bill Parcells and Tony Sparano.

The fact that they can, or are trying, does not mean that they will. There is such parody in the NFL that (just like anyone can make a deep playoff run) anyone can have an awful year out of nowhere. Maybe those teams will get better, maybe they won't. Maybe the Bengals, Giants, Cardinals, Panthers, or some other team that lost guys or look to be on their way down or outplayed expectations last year will hit rock bottom in 2010. The simple fact is that there are always teams that will be worse than others in a given year, and you cannot discount statistics in one year against what a player can get in the next year simply because of that.

Porter's NEVER coming here. That's worse than Owens. For as much as the players hate Hines Ward, that's not a malicious relationship. Porter is dirty scum, and couldn't walk into the Castle without getting pulverized. Besides, his whole issue in Miami is that he wants to be a starter and get starter money when he is no longer capable of it. He does not want to be a situational pass rusher.

Not really. He'll be throwing against some JV teams next season, too.

...you're making my point.

I disagree with every ounce of this post. To your first point: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/05/with-boldin-on-board-baltimore-bails-on-walter/

No, all we know is that it's a five year deal. It has to be somewhere in the $20-22 million range at best, though. I can't see more than that.

What a flawed article. First off, Boldin is known for his YAC, maybe more than any other receiver. The fact that he has RECENTLY (last two years) been targeted so comparably few times is meaningless in a game situation. Secondly, Arizona has more deep threats at receiver than anyone in the league. Why would he need to run so far downfield anyway? Thirdly, this only considers (to the hack writer's advantage) the last two seasons, when Arizona's receivers emerged (remember, he was their top option once), and when he missed five games. Fourth, how does any of this make Boldin a lateral move? Does Mason go over the middle? Is Mason half as strong as Boldin? Is he suddenly eight years younger? Did Mason gain five inches? Does Mason EVER get YAC? It's amazing to think that someone had to PAY to read this ridiculousness.

Right.

I don't think Ozzie wants more than one expensive new WR pickup. He supposedly was negotiating with Boldin and Walter and was going to pull the offer to whichever didn't sign first (as he did). And, of course, there's that whole Final Eight thing, and Bryant is not worth wasting that. Bodden is too expensive, and is already pretty deep in negotiations to stay in New England. We aren't the Redskins. Cap or not, buying everyone up is a foolish idea. I thought it was sad, yet hysterical, how some of you were throwing fits that nothing had been done in free agency with the Ravens through yesterday afternoon. It's as if you hadn't watched how things have usually been done for the last 15 years or, more to the point, as if Mr. Bisciotti's wallet never gets empty.

Ravens are reportedly no longer interested in Mason.

Rapistberger returns! With Captain Chin out of the picture, there's no one to save the world of his dastardly deeds! Omar Epps Man is powerless against him!

Bannon was not an RFA. He's been in the league for nearly 10 years.