Great And Absolutely Fabulous I Told You So Flacco Article In Bleacher Report

[papasmurfbell]

I said it was a bad deal before they inked it. At what point do tyou stop throwing good money after bad? Also Joe has to be willing to restructure. I guess if he can keep the Ravens locked into these deals that brutally hurt to extricate yourself from he will.

[rastaman831226]

The implication of early posts here was that this article says Flacco's contact is bad. It does not and that's not even the earlier thesis if the article. The article is about contacts that will influence future personnel decisions heavily.

 

Does Joe's for that bill? Of course. But not sure what the news is here.

 

Meanwhile, if this continues to devolve into some crap about avatars, in going to close it. Grow up, both of you.

The title of the ESPN article by way of Bleacher Report is " Cutler's Onerous Contract And 5 Others Like It ". Anything defined as " onerous " is not a good thing.

[dc.]

The title of the ESPN article by way of Bleacher Report is " Cutler's Onerous Contract And 5 Others Like It ". Anything defined as " onerous " is not a good thing.

I still don't get what ESPN buy way of Bleacher Report means...

 

But anyway, title is irrelevant. The article says little of that in its intro and certainly not in Joe's.

 

And of course, onerous means burdensome... But Ray Lewis's contracts were onerous and so is Peyton Manning's... There is no implication that Flacco's is not worth the money, only that the structure will be burdensome on future decisions.

 

Meanwhile, I'm curious how back loaded some other contracts are because my understanding is that most are structured similarly.

[dc.]

I said it was a bad deal before they inked it. At what point do tyou stop throwing good money after bad? Also Joe has to be willing to restructure. I guess if he can keep the Ravens locked into these deals that brutally hurt to extricate yourself from he will.

Yeah not really arguing that. All these back loaded contracts for this description though at some point - to expensive to keep and requiring resigning/restructuring.

[dc.]

According to site below, Joe's numbers get huge fast, but he could be cut before his last year for a much smaller dead money hit than you'd think ($5m). So, we're stuck with him for three years for sure it seems.

[rastaman831226]

I still don't get what ESPN buy way of Bleacher Report means...

 

But anyway, title is irrelevant. The article says little of that in its intro and certainly not in Joe's.

 

And of course, onerous means burdensome... But Ray Lewis's contracts were onerous and so is Peyton Manning's... There is no implication that Flacco's is not worth the money, only that the structure will be burdensome on future decisions.

 

Meanwhile, I'm curious how back loaded some other contracts are because my understanding is that most are structured similarly.

So then, you now agree that Joe Flacco's contract is burdensome and will have a negative effect on future personnel decisions?

[vmax]

So then, you now agree that Joe Flacco's contract is burdensome and will have a negative effect on future personnel decisions?

 

That's true for any NFL franchise QB's contract. It's nothing new. It's old news.

The Colts with Manning had no money for defense. The Saints with Brees, no money for defense. The Packers with Rodgers, no money for a supporting cast.

The Ravens have more wins than those teams since Joe's been in the NFL.

And obviously more wins than the teams struggling to find their franchise guy, which is where the Ravens would be without Joe.

 

Ngata's contract is burdensome. So is Webbs. and Suggs.

[rastaman831226]

 

That's true for any NFL franchise QB's contract. It's nothing new. It's old news.

The Colts with Manning had no money for defense. The Saints with Brees, no money for defense. The Packers with Rodgers, no money for a supporting cast.

The Ravens have more wins than those teams since Joe's been in the NFL.

And obviously more wins than the teams struggling to find their franchise guy, which is where the Ravens would be without Joe.

 

Ngata's contract is burdensome. So is Webbs. and Suggs.

The article is not about Ngata, Webb, or Suggs. The article is about Joe Flacco's contract and 5 other NFL contracts that have become burdensome to their respective clubs. Any reinterpretation on your part will not change that fact.

[GrubberRaven]

No you can bring that in when you make statements about his contract affecting YOUR team's ability to bring in FA and sign current players. Joe isn't the only one earning a paycheck on this team.

[papasmurfbell]

He and several other I have said should not be here.

[rastaman831226]

No you can bring that in when you make statements about his contract affecting YOUR team's ability to bring in FA and sign current players. Joe isn't the only one earning a paycheck on this team.

Joe Flacco's contract is the biggest and easily the most burdensome. So onerous, he made an ESPN article about onerous NFL contracts. Now that's impressive.

[GrubberRaven]

If this was year 4 of his contract, then I could see your gripe, but right now...nope

[rastaman831226]

If this was year 4 of his contract, then I could see your gripe, but right now...nope

That's short sighted. When contract is discussed, as in the article, the entirety of the contract is considered.

[ForceEight]

That's short sighted. When contract is discussed, as in the article, the entirety of the contract is considered.

Rasta's a tool and a troll whose posts don't deserve the server space that they occupy, but he's right about this. A contract isn't considered by the year in which it's applied; it's considered by what it is. And Flacco's sucks. Because he isn't playing up to it, frankly.

 

If he were playing at a Pro Bowl level, at the top of the stat charts, and the team was running away with the division, not many people (Rasta, papa, etc. included) would be bitching about the contract. But the fact of the matter is that he's a middling performer and poor leader on a team with a losing record in its own division and nervous about a game versus a 4-6 NFC South team.

 

Play semantics as to the definitions of the title, story contents, etc., but we all know why it was truly written.

[GrubberRaven]

Ugh...what if they restructure year 4...what will your tune be then?

[GrubberRaven]

The fact of the matter is that his O-line from the Super Bowl Run and surrounding personnel have changed. It's one thing to lose a WR...but he lost three o linemen and his top TE...his WRs aren't doing him any favors. He frustrates the SHIT out of me at times...letting the clock run out in Game 1, was it? Still...Brady never had the super bowl run he had and the fucker hasn't won shit since they caught the team cheating...

[papasmurfbell]

That's short sighted. When contract is discussed, as in the article, the entirety of the contract is considered.

Yep

 

Ugh...what if they restructure year 4...what will your tune be then?

Good money after bad.

[papasmurfbell]

The fact of the matter is that his O-line from the Super Bowl Run and surrounding personnel have changed. It's one thing to lose a WR...but he lost three o linemen and his top TE...his WRs aren't doing him any favors. He frustrates the SHIT out of me at times...letting the clock run out in Game 1, was it? Still...Brady never had the super bowl run he had and the fucker hasn't won shit since they caught the team cheating...

There hasn't been a very good OL here in many yrs. They have had problems Joes whole career.

[GrubberRaven]

Good money after bad.

 

So...it would be fine then? Eventhough, right now, the dollar amounts are reasonable, granted he isn't breaking any records.

[papasmurfbell]

No if they redo his contract it will be throwing good money after bad. Cut your losses and move on unless he is willing to take a dramatic paycut which I highly doubt he would.

[GrubberRaven]

I think he would, but I also thought Bill Cosby was a decent human being...

[papasmurfbell]

Well that is a different subject that is getting really interesting really fast.

[dc.]

So then, you now agree that Joe Flacco's contract is burdensome and will have a negative effect on future personnel decisions?

Burdensome, yes.

 

But there a difference between burdensome and "not worth it." I don't know exactly where I stand on that except to say I think Joe probably got more than I would have paid.

 

Taxes are burdensome. But whether they are with it is a very different question.

[rastaman831226]

Burdensome, yes.

 

But there a difference between burdensome and "not worth it." I don't know exactly where I stand on that except to say I think Joe probably got more than I would have paid.

 

Taxes are burdensome. But whether they are with it is a very different question.

Sorry chief, but at some point you're gonna have to cut the crap and stop trying to put perfume on " S ". Burdensome is a helluva lot closer to not worth it than even tolerable. Like the man said, cut your losses now - it's the smart thing to do.

[oldno82]

?..cut your losses now - it's the smart thing to do.

How do you propose we do that?