varaven45 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Agreed it's probably a multiyear project and that assumes strong to very strong drafts the next 2-3 years. By multi yr project , I mean returning to relevance and a playoff team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravnravn Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Agreed it's probably a multiyear project and that assumes strong to very strong drafts the next 2-3 years. By multi yr project , I mean returning to relevance and a playoff team.Have to wait til free agency and the draft before getting down on my team, I fully expect us to be in the playoffs this upcoming season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Like I said it will be 3 yrs to get out of all the bad contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravnravn Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Like I said it will be 3 yrs to get out of all the bad contracts. Colts did it on one year, we have a hell of a lot better ran originazation then they do in indy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 What retooling did they need to do? Also what really bad contracts were they stuck under? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 What retooling did they need to do? Also what really bad contracts were they stuck under?Just wait until they have to pay Andrew Luck $200M. Their time to win is these next two years. After that they'll have to be real smart with their cap and there will be no room for error. I also have a feeling some of these free agent signings they made this last offseason will become bad contracts. In today's NFL the three year rebuilding project is no excuse. If you have a QB, good coaching staff, and a front office that drafts well you are in it every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varaven45 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 While we ponder our future, things could be a helluva lot worse. At least we have a head coach and are interviewing OC s. The Browns cant get a head coach or even have one stick around, reaffirming the name Leaveland ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldno82 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 It can't be done all in one yr. I agree. The O-line needs help. Maybe Osemele will play back to last year's standards---that would be a real help. But we still need a RT and C and if we don't sign Monroe, a LT. Add to this a WR, TE, and RB over the next two years at least. And, in 3 years we'll probably need a new QB. It's gonna be tough. We really have to draft very, very well like we did when the Ravens were just getting going here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldno82 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 While we ponder our future, things could be a helluva lot worse. At least we have a head coach and are interviewing OC s. The Browns cant get a head coach or even have one stick around, reaffirming the name Leaveland ! Yup! That's the good news! What a hapless outfit they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Just wait until they have to pay Andrew Luck $200M. Their time to win is these next two years. After that they'll have to be real smart with their cap and there will be no room for error. I also have a feeling some of these free agent signings they made this last offseason will become bad contracts. In today's NFL the three year rebuilding project is no excuse. If you have a QB, good coaching staff, and a front office that drafts well you are in it every year.So now you are changing the argument. They have Luck cheap now. Later they will pay him but he looks to be the kind of QB that can carry a team so paying him will be worth it if it holds true. I said retooling. They will be getting bettre more each yr. It will take 3 yrs to get rid of all the bad contracts. BTW by that point they will be at the point when Joes contract is outrageously large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 So now you are changing the argument. They have Luck cheap now. Later they will pay him but he looks to be the kind of QB that can carry a team so paying him will be worth it if it holds true. I said retooling. They will be getting bettre more each yr. It will take 3 yrs to get rid of all the bad contracts. BTW by that point they will be at the point when Joes contract is outrageously large.Not changing the argument just saying everyone is praising the Seahawks, Colts and Niners for good cap management. We'll see how good they are when they have a $200M contract on their payroll. We've debated bad contracts before. Bad contracts are relative. The only bad contract IMO is Ngata, but we only have one more year before we can cut him and get some savings. I'll give Rice one more year before I label him a bad deal. Flacco's deal certainly restricts us, but my point above, that is a problem any team with a halfway decent QB has to deal with. Just means you have less room for error elsewhere. Agree with you on Flacco's contract after three years though. It has the potential to really hamper us down. Same problem with Cutler, Romo, Stafford, Ben, and soon to be Luck, Kap and RW3. I have to think the next CBA will include some sort of clause to restrict % of cap on one player. The QB contracts are getting outrageous and it takes away from other players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsylvester Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Not changing the argument just saying everyone is praising the Seahawks, Colts and Niners for good cap management. We'll see how good they are when they have a $200M contract on their payroll. We've debated bad contracts before. Bad contracts are relative. The only bad contract IMO is Ngata, but we only have one more year before we can cut him and get some savings. I'll give Rice one more year before I label him a bad deal. Flacco's deal certainly restricts us, but my point above, that is a problem any team with a halfway decent QB has to deal with. Just means you have less room for error elsewhere. Agree with you on Flacco's contract after three years though. It has the potential to really hamper us down. Same problem with Cutler, Romo, Stafford, Ben, and soon to be Luck, Kap and RW3. I have to think the next CBA will include some sort of clause to restrict % of cap on one player. The QB contracts are getting outrageous and it takes away from other players. Agree, picture the SeaHawks in two years having to pay Wilson and all those DB's "top in the league" money = good luck.... The quarterback pay is the reason I still maintain that an amendment will be put in place to help teams pay quarterbacks, but retain more cap space. we are getting to the ppoint where we have more very good quarterbacks in the league than ever before and with escalating costs, they will have little choice. The players either overlooked this, small cap increases, higher salary demands, or did not care at the time. There are only so many ways to structure a contract and stay under the cap while having a top qb, lt, wr, lb, corner and safety. Years a go it was no big deal, one could count on the cap going up 20% or more. Right now, not even close to that %. As for Flacco's deal, he is young enough that when the big money hits, just as past years, they will simply add more years. Baring injuries, a qb is good to what, 35-37 years old, unlike most other positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Not changing the argument just saying everyone is praising the Seahawks, Colts and Niners for good cap management. We'll see how good they are when they have a $200M contract on their payroll. We've debated bad contracts before. Bad contracts are relative. The only bad contract IMO is Ngata, but we only have one more year before we can cut him and get some savings. I'll give Rice one more year before I label him a bad deal. Flacco's deal certainly restricts us, but my point above, that is a problem any team with a halfway decent QB has to deal with. Just means you have less room for error elsewhere. Agree with you on Flacco's contract after three years though. It has the potential to really hamper us down. Same problem with Cutler, Romo, Stafford, Ben, and soon to be Luck, Kap and RW3. I have to think the next CBA will include some sort of clause to restrict % of cap on one player. The QB contracts are getting outrageous and it takes away from other players.Of that list you made I would only sign Ben and that was yrs ago. I have said for 2 yrs now that they should draft his replacement. Just because you have guys who can put up stats does not mean they should be paid well. I would be curious what Stafford could do with no Megatron. Cutler was not even the best statictical QB on his team this yr. When they inked Rice it was a bad deal. It just goes with the position. The game has changed and you cannot pay a RB a ton of money now. Peterson I think really falls off next yr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravnravn Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 What retooling did they need to do? Also what really bad contracts were they stuck under?What retooling did they need to do? Also what really bad contracts were they stuck under?Mannings then this year it was freeneys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Of that list you made I would only sign Ben and that was yrs ago. I have said for 2 yrs now that they should draft his replacement. Just because you have guys who can put up stats does not mean they should be paid well. I would be curious what Stafford could do with no Megatron. Cutler was not even the best statictical QB on his team this yr. When they inked Rice it was a bad deal. It just goes with the position. The game has changed and you cannot pay a RB a ton of money now. Peterson I think really falls off next yr. I agree with you completely on the QBs. The alternative is much worse than signing your above average QB to a huge deal however. And if you have a case like Flacco, where you have proven you can win a Super Bowl with an above-average guy, you're stuck paying him. As much as the QBs above make (throw in Ryan, Eli, and Rivers too), two things: if their respective teams didn't sign them someone else would have. And two, those teams would most likely be in a much worse position if they didn't sign them (except the Bears, maybe). There are only so many Lucks and RW3s that can be drafted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varaven45 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Agree, picture the SeaHawks in two years having to pay Wilson and all those DB's "top in the league" money = good luck.... The quarterback pay is the reason I still maintain that an amendment will be put in place to help teams pay quarterbacks, but retain more cap space. we are getting to the ppoint where we have more very good quarterbacks in the league than ever before and with escalating costs, they will have little choice. The players either overlooked this, small cap increases, higher salary demands, or did not care at the time. There are only so many ways to structure a contract and stay under the cap while having a top qb, lt, wr, lb, corner and safety. Years a go it was no big deal, one could count on the cap going up 20% or more. Right now, not even close to that %. As for Flacco's deal, he is young enough that when the big money hits, just as past years, they will simply add more years. Baring injuries, a qb is good to what, 35-37 years old, unlike most other positions.Let's hope the 35-37 YO also applies to Joe .Unless we make drastic OL improvements, we ll be lucky to see Joe play on the other side of 30. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Mannings then this year it was freeneysManning was off the books when they drafted Luck. Freeney was a bad deal but it is gobe now. They had less to change than most. Once they had a QB they were rolling. I agree with you completely on the QBs. The alternative is much worse than signing your above average QB to a huge deal however. And if you have a case like Flacco, where you have proven you can win a Super Bowl with an above-average guy, you're stuck paying him. As much as the QBs above make (throw in Ryan, Eli, and Rivers too), two things: if their respective teams didn't sign them someone else would have. And two, those teams would most likely be in a much worse position if they didn't sign them (except the Bears, maybe). There are only so many Lucks and RW3s that can be drafted.Mark Rypien has proven that he can win a SB. If he was 27 yrs old now I wouldn't give him $100 mil. I agree if there was a team that wanted to sign Joe for 120 mil then they would give the Ravens picks to do just that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Manning was off the books when they drafted Luck. Freeney was a bad deal but it is gobe now. They had less to change than most. Once they had a QB they were rolling. Mark Rypien has proven that he can win a SB. If he was 27 yrs old now I wouldn't give him $100 mil. I agree if there was a team that wanted to sign Joe for 120 mil then they would give the Ravens picks to do just that.Different era of football. Maybe the Skins win the Super Bowl that year maybe not. Heck it's a different era of football since Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer won Super Bowls. We'll never see teams like that again. But to answer your question IF Mark Rypien did what he did in 1992 today, some team would pay him that money. You bring up a good point though. The Redskins showed in the RG3 trade teams have no problem giving up two first round picks for a QB. Should we have traded Flacco for two first rounders? You guess is as good as mine. Pure hypothetical here as food for thought. Say we traded him to the Jets and drafted Dee Milliner and Sheldon Richardson. That does us no good if we strike out and end up with a bad QB. That's the risk you take. I'd argue a team is better off with an above average QB than two Pro Bowl defenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yeah it is a different era. Now losers can put up big numbers. No need to pay them big money.The RG3 trade was 3 1st rounders and a 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsylvester Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Didn't Rip win it in a strike shortened season? That makes a big difference as well. Also, rip had some hal of fame receivers or those who were top tier receivers and one of the best offensive lines in football at the time.... Quite different than what Flacco had to work with even last season.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 No. Thysman did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.