NFL Offseason/Coaching Carousel/non-playoff talk

[Banedon]

you want to talk about hindering your ability to put a complete roster out there?

 

cap hits, next 3 years combined

Flacco: $37M

Suh: $45M

 

Next year, the combined cap hit for Suh and Stafford is about $41mil. Only team with two guys in the top 10 salary cap hits.

 

This year's cap is $123m.

 

Oh, and going back to Flacco for a second. He's not in the top 10 QB salary hits for 2013, he's #9 for 2014 (behind Sam Bradford, FYI), and in 2015, he's back out of the top 10. Mark Sanchez will have a bigger cap hit than Flacco in 2015 (presuming he's not released by then). It's not till 2016 that things get silly.

[Cubswin11]

you want to talk about hindering your ability to put a complete roster out there?

 

cap hits, next 3 years combined

Flacco: $37M

Suh: $45M

 

Next year, the combined cap hit for Suh and Stafford is about $41mil. Only team with two guys in the top 10 salary cap hits.

 

This year's cap is $123m.

 

Oh, and going back to Flacco for a second. He's not in the top 10 QB salary hits for 2013, he's #9 for 2014 (behind Sam Bradford, FYI), and in 2015, he's back out of the top 10. Mark Sanchez will have a bigger cap hit than Flacco in 2015 (presuming he's not released by then). It's not till 2016 that things get silly.

And by then they will probably have worked out another extension with him reducing his cap hit

[CubColtPacer]

slightly tangential, but what's really sad (to me)

 

cap hits (source: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl)

 

Matthew Stafford: $20M, $19M, $17M, (FA)

Joe Flacco: $7M, $15M, $15M, $29M, $31M

 

Stafford has $41M guaranteed, and Flacco has $29M; i don't know if he'll make it past 2015 as a Raven

 

but Flacco actually earned a Super Bowl to get paid like he did, Stafford just got a Brinks truck of cash simply for having potential

 

FFFFFUUUUUUU old CBA

 

lol, yep. We can talk about Flacco's contract in overall dollars, but truth is that those last couple of years are unlikely to be paid out as-is.

 

As-is, no. But that's not a positive point for the Ravens. Flacco will be the perfect age to demand another large money extension then. And the Ravens can't really get out of the deal easily even at that point. The guarantees make cutting him after year 3 pretty unpalatable, and just going forward with that contract if Flacco demands a ridiculous amount isn't really workable either. They'll be in pretty terrible negotiating position.

[Banedon]

As-is, no. But that's not a positive point for the Ravens. Flacco will be the perfect age to demand another large money extension then. And the Ravens can't really get out of the deal easily even at that point. The guarantees make cutting him after year 3 pretty unpalatable, and just going forward with that contract if Flacco demands a ridiculous amount isn't really workable either. They'll be in pretty terrible negotiating position.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if he's as bad as dew says, cutting him won't be all that painful.

 

If he's still good though, they can extend him and manipulate the cap hit.

[sneakypower]

well they bought themselves another 3 years to try to groom a replacement

[CubColtPacer]

As-is, no. But that's not a positive point for the Ravens. Flacco will be the perfect age to demand another large money extension then. And the Ravens can't really get out of the deal easily even at that point. The guarantees make cutting him after year 3 pretty unpalatable, and just going forward with that contract if Flacco demands a ridiculous amount isn't really workable either. They'll be in pretty terrible negotiating position.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if he's as bad as dew says, cutting him won't be all that painful.

 

If he's still good though, they can extend him and manipulate the cap hit.

 

If they cut him in 2016, they would have a dead cap hit of around 24 million. That's pretty prohibitive.

 

So they either cut him after year 3 and still have 24 million on their cap, or they have Flacco on their cap for 29 million. Neither option is all that appealing, so they'll have to work out an extension. Flacco will have them over a barrel. It may be 7-9 years before they truly feel the pain from this contract, but it has set a chain of events into motion that most of the time will end up with a bad result.

 

This is of course all irrelevant if Flacco has turned the corner as a QB. We'll have to see on that one.

[Guest]

slightly tangential, but what's really sad (to me)

 

cap hits (source: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl)

 

Matthew Stafford: $20M, $19M, $17M, (FA)

Joe Flacco: $7M, $15M, $15M, $29M, $31M

 

Stafford has $41M guaranteed, and Flacco has $29M; i don't know if he'll make it past 2015 as a Raven

 

but Flacco actually earned a Super Bowl to get paid like he did, Stafford just got a Brinks truck of cash simply for having potential

 

FFFFFUUUUUUU old CBA

Okay - I didn't look into Flacco's contract in enough detail. Essentially, this gives the Ravens three years to have Flacco become more consistent or groom a replacement without the deal being onerous.

 

I hereby switch sides of the argument.

[Banedon]

As-is, no. But that's not a positive point for the Ravens. Flacco will be the perfect age to demand another large money extension then. And the Ravens can't really get out of the deal easily even at that point. The guarantees make cutting him after year 3 pretty unpalatable, and just going forward with that contract if Flacco demands a ridiculous amount isn't really workable either. They'll be in pretty terrible negotiating position.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if he's as bad as dew says, cutting him won't be all that painful.

 

If he's still good though, they can extend him and manipulate the cap hit.

 

If they cut him in 2016, they would have a dead cap hit of around 24 million. That's pretty prohibitive.

 

So they either cut him after year 3 and still have 24 million on their cap, or they have Flacco on their cap for 29 million. Neither option is all that appealing, so they'll have to work out an extension. Flacco will have them over a barrel. It may be 7-9 years before they truly feel the pain from this contract, but it has set a chain of events into motion that most of the time will end up with a bad result.

 

This is of course all irrelevant if Flacco has turned the corner as a QB. We'll have to see on that one.

 

It's a lot, but over the next 3 years of that contract, he's scheduled to make around $83million. You gladly take that dead money hit if Flacco isn't the best QB the world has ever seen. It'll hurt, but hopefully you've got some young, rookie scale QB you're using while you take that hit.

[Warpticon]

Are you serious comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Flacco?

 

People said the exact same thing about Mark Sanchez when he came into the league. They gave him extra credit for production in the playoffs in spite of pedestrian regular season production. That's the primary reason he has that albatross contract now. You guys have hilariously short memories.

[Banedon]

Are you serious comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Flacco?

 

People said the exact same thing about Mark Sanchez when he came into the league. They gave him extra credit for production in the playoffs in spite of pedestrian regular season production. That's the primary reason he has that albatross contract now. You guys have hilariously short memories.

 

Well don't saddle me with any Mark Sanchez defense that "people" made. I didn't make that argument, so I'm sure as hell not gonna defend it.

[Warpticon]

Are you serious comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Flacco?

 

People said the exact same thing about Mark Sanchez when he came into the league. They gave him extra credit for production in the playoffs in spite of pedestrian regular season production. That's the primary reason he has that albatross contract now. You guys have hilariously short memories.

 

Well don't saddle me with any Mark Sanchez defense that "people" made. I didn't make that argument, so I'm sure as hell not gonna defend it.

 

Nobody asked you to.

[Banedon]

Are you serious comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Flacco?

 

People said the exact same thing about Mark Sanchez when he came into the league. They gave him extra credit for production in the playoffs in spite of pedestrian regular season production. That's the primary reason he has that albatross contract now. You guys have hilariously short memories.

 

Well don't saddle me with any Mark Sanchez defense that "people" made. I didn't make that argument, so I'm sure as hell not gonna defend it.

 

Nobody asked you to.

 

Then what was the point of your post? To point out that someone, somewhere, at some time, thought Mark Sanchez was good and worth money? Well bully for them. That doesn't have anything to do with Joe Flacco being a whole lot better than Mark Sanchez, and deserving to get paid more than him.

 

There's no hilariously short memory involved.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up that Flacco won a Super Bowl.

 

Yes, you are the one who keeps bringing up the notion that Flacco is average and is only getting paid because he won. You keep saying it. Most everybody else understands the reality of the NFL, the CBA and the implications for quality starting quarterbacks.

 

Here's my first post that started this discussion. Please point out to me in that post where I said anything at all about the Super Bowl:

 

QB contracts are completely out of control. Flacco as the highest paid (or one of, at least) QB in the NFL and Romo almost getting $18 mil per year is just ludicrous (especially Flacco).

 

I know it's a heavy passing league now and QBs are an integral part of that, but completely replaceable QBs are getting significant deals/returns (Alex Smith's ridiculous return included).

 

Any comment I have made about the Super Bowl has been in response to you, sulley, or Banedon saying that he deserves the contract because he won the Super Bowl this year, all the while completely dismissing (or ignoring) the stats I post to show just how average Flacco has been.

 

You keep ignoring that he's probably in the top 15 of the 100 or so NFL quarterbacks, well above average, and that he's done more than win the super bowl. You compare him to Sanchez, who freaking sucks balls, and Smith, who was replaced by a rookie because everybody who has a clue knows he's not any good.

 

I will make one change to my argument, based on what Tim said earlier. When I refer to an "average" QB, I'm not including the bottom feeding drecks of players floating around who can't hold a job. I'm talking about starting QBs and some of the backups. I'm not arguing that Flacco should not be a starter in the league (which, if he were the 50th best QB in the NFL, he wouldn't be worth being a starter), simply that among the legitimate QBs out there, he's pretty average and there's nothing particularly special about him.

[Warpticon]

Are you serious comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Flacco?

 

People said the exact same thing about Mark Sanchez when he came into the league. They gave him extra credit for production in the playoffs in spite of pedestrian regular season production. That's the primary reason he has that albatross contract now. You guys have hilariously short memories.

 

Well don't saddle me with any Mark Sanchez defense that "people" made. I didn't make that argument, so I'm sure as hell not gonna defend it.

 

Nobody asked you to.

 

Then what was the point of your post? To point out that someone, somewhere, at some time, thought Mark Sanchez was good and worth money? Well bully for them. That doesn't have anything to do with Joe Flacco being a whole lot better than Mark Sanchez, and deserving to get paid more than him.

 

There's no hilariously short memory involved.

 

Good, because nobody said that wasn't the case. You should probably read the posts you're replying to.

[dew1679666265]

Okay - I didn't look into Flacco's contract in enough detail. Essentially, this gives the Ravens three years to have Flacco become more consistent or groom a replacement without the deal being onerous.

 

I hereby switch sides of the argument.

 

$24 million in dead cap space isn't onerous? That's almost 20% of the current cap that they'd be paying for a guy to not play for them... and they'd still have to go find another QB (or pay the one they'd have).

 

The only way I see this contract not being onerous is if something clicked when Jim Caldwell took over and he gets back to at least the 2009/2010 levels of performance or better through the length of the deal.

[dew1679666265]

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if he's as bad as dew says, cutting him won't be all that painful.

 

If he's still good though, they can extend him and manipulate the cap hit.

 

I've never used the term "bad" in reference to Flacco. He's average when it comes to legitimate QBs in the league.

[Banedon]

Good, because nobody said that wasn't the case. You should probably read the posts you're replying to.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about in your last few posts then. It's ridiculous to compare Flacco and Sanchez. Then you make a post attempting to say that it's not ridiculous, and saying we all have short memories. Only it's still a ridiculous comparison, so I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying to say.

[dew1679666265]

Since every better option is already signed by their team and unavailable in trade.

 

2 problems with this (at least):

 

1) I'm certainly not advocating cutting him now, so who is out there right now is pretty irrelevant.

2) When did they quit holding the draft? Last I checked there are some QBs in it - it's a down draft, but there's still some real potential in there (especially in the middle rounds).

[Guest]

Okay - I didn't look into Flacco's contract in enough detail. Essentially, this gives the Ravens three years to have Flacco become more consistent or groom a replacement without the deal being onerous.

 

I hereby switch sides of the argument.

 

$24 million in dead cap space isn't onerous? That's almost 20% of the current cap that they'd be paying for a guy to not play for them... and they'd still have to go find another QB (or pay the one they'd have).

 

The only way I see this contract not being onerous is if something clicked when Jim Caldwell took over and he gets back to at least the 2009/2010 levels of performance or better through the length of the deal.

That dead cap hit would only be for one year, right? Presumably, if they want to cut him at that point, they've groomed a successor through the draft that would be on a cheap contract at that time. Then you take the cap hit and move on. In the meantime, you don't have your fan base pissed because you didn't re-sign your "super bowl winning qb" and you've bought yourself three years to set up your future at the position. Plus, if you get lucky, Flacco really does turn a corner and becomes a more consistent performer worth the last couple years of that deal.

 

Those outcomes are probably worth the cap hit (if it is a one time thing).

[dew1679666265]

because you're the highest paid doesn't mean you're the best, that's just silly. you're framing the argument as if situations remain static and quarterbacks are slotted based on statistical performance.

 

It typically means that you're one of the better players at your position in comparison to your peers (i.e. they don't take into account the bottom feeders of QBs who make the league minimum). Based on both traditional and advanced metrics, Flacco is not that.

 

flacco is a good quarterback, which is a rare bird. maybe the ravens should have taken the plunge and gone out into that wilderness the titans are in? while i'm sure you'd appreciate that, it shouldn't happen. letting good quarterbacks get away without a good replacement is the worst thing anyone can do to a team.

 

As someone who hates the Ravens, I love that they brought Flacco back because I think it's going to hurt them in future years.

 

And the Titans are in their current wilderness not because of poor QB play (it's not helping), but because Bud Adams is doing his best Al Davis impersonation and our current coaching staff can't coach. We could have Peyton Manning in his prime in Nashville and we'd probably still miss the playoffs.

[Banedon]

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if he's as bad as dew says, cutting him won't be all that painful.

 

If he's still good though, they can extend him and manipulate the cap hit.

 

I've never used the term "bad" in reference to Flacco. He's average when it comes to legitimate QBs in the league.

 

Except that he's not average.

 

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2012&pos=QB&season=reg

 

Ranked as the #12 QB during the regular season. Including playoffs, he's ranked #6.

 

In 2011, he was ranked #9 in the regular season, and in 2010 he was ranked #5 in the regular season.

[Banedon]

As someone who hates the Ravens

 

Now we get to it.

[dew1679666265]

That dead cap hit would only be for one year, right? Presumably, if they want to cut him at that point, they've groomed a successor through the draft that would be on a cheap contract at that time. Then you take the cap hit and move on. In the meantime, you don't have your fan base pissed because you didn't re-sign your "super bowl winning qb" and you've bought yourself three years to set up your future at the position. Plus, if you get lucky, Flacco really does turn a corner and becomes a more consistent performer worth the last couple years of that deal.

 

Those outcomes are probably worth the cap hit (if it is a one time thing).

 

That's a good question and one I'm not sure what the answer is. My thoughts are that if he's guaranteed money through 2018, the cap hit would go through that season (meaning two years of cap hits and the second being worse than the first).

 

If I'm wrong, though, it makes the contract a bit more palatable, though it doesn't make Flacco any better.

[Guest]

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, if he's as bad as dew says, cutting him won't be all that painful.

 

If he's still good though, they can extend him and manipulate the cap hit.

 

I've never used the term "bad" in reference to Flacco. He's average when it comes to legitimate QBs in the league.

 

Except that he's not average.

 

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?year=2012&pos=QB&season=reg

 

Ranked as the #12 QB during the regular season. Including playoffs, he's ranked #6.

 

In 2011, he was ranked #9 in the regular season, and in 2010 he was ranked #5 in the regular season.

Or...

 

17th in 2012

14th in 2011

11th in 2010

13th in 2009

 

The argument I'd make for Flacco is similar to the one I'd make for Cutler. He plays on a team that has been defense (and running) focused. He has not had the weapons or system that other QB's have had and his individual ranking has hurt as a result.

[CubColtPacer]

That dead cap hit would only be for one year, right? Presumably, if they want to cut him at that point, they've groomed a successor through the draft that would be on a cheap contract at that time. Then you take the cap hit and move on. In the meantime, you don't have your fan base pissed because you didn't re-sign your "super bowl winning qb" and you've bought yourself three years to set up your future at the position. Plus, if you get lucky, Flacco really does turn a corner and becomes a more consistent performer worth the last couple years of that deal.

 

Those outcomes are probably worth the cap hit (if it is a one time thing).

 

That's a good question and one I'm not sure what the answer is. My thoughts are that if he's guaranteed money through 2018, the cap hit would go through that season (meaning two years of cap hits and the second being worse than the first).

 

If I'm wrong, though, it makes the contract a bit more palatable, though it doesn't make Flacco any better.

 

The cap hit is a 1 time thing. The 24 million is a result of his remaining pro-rated signing bonus accelerating onto that year's cap.

 

Of course, that would still make it a 3 year/62 million year deal (with the cap hit over 4 years).

 

I could see that being an argument for keeping Flacco that long, but I'm guessing they'll end up extending rather than cutting, even if he doesn't get any better.