papasmurfbell Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 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 Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 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. Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 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. Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 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. Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Author Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Author Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 He and several other I have said should not be here.
rastaman831226 Posted November 18, 2014 Author Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 If this was year 4 of his contract, then I could see your gripe, but right now...nope
rastaman831226 Posted November 18, 2014 Author Posted November 18, 2014 If this was year 4 of his contract, then I could see your gripe, but right now...nopeThat's short sighted. When contract is discussed, as in the article, the entirety of the contract is considered.
ForceEight Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Ugh...what if they restructure year 4...what will your tune be then?
GrubberRaven Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I think he would, but I also thought Bill Cosby was a decent human being...
papasmurfbell Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Well that is a different subject that is getting really interesting really fast.
dc. Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 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 Posted November 19, 2014 Author Posted November 19, 2014 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 Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 ?..cut your losses now - it's the smart thing to do.How do you propose we do that?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.