Is there ANYTHING Joe Flacco can do to convince the world he's a truly great player?

[bmorecareful]

Absolutely I did.

And there were others in agreement who were getting flamed on the boards for thinking it.

In the age of the cap, no player is worth mortgaging the future success of the team.

I don't even think Joe Montana in his prime is worth more than 20 million a year. I'm with Houstonraven on this one. I think the Saints may start badly suffering from this too.

I might agree with these points for any position OTHER than quarterback. But in today's NFL, if you don't have a quarterback, you can't win. Period. If the market value of quarterbacks becomes astronomical (if it isn't already), I'm not sure simply declining to buy on the market is even an option.

The dynamics of the QB position are just too different. You can't keep cycling through rookie QBs and veteran stopgaps, at some point you need to draft a QB, develop him into an elite player, and then sign him long-term. It usually takes more than 4 years for a QB to really hit his prime, and yet you would be willing to let them walk just because you draw a hard line somewhere between 18 million and 22 million a year?

You can do that with RBs, WRs, DL, CBs... pretty much any other position... but QBs take too long to develop, their prime years last too long, and the difference between having one and not having one is just way too stark.

The game is constantly changing. It's too short-sighted to kind of fold your arms and stamp your foot and say that you're going to swim against the tide and not change with the game. You'll get left behind quick, fast, and in a hurry.

[Ravenswintitle]

Not sure who Joe hasn't convinced or why he needs to convince the world of anything. But he's gonna get paid and he's earned it. He took the risk by turning down the initial offer and it's worked in his favor. The team will figure out when and how to get a deal done, they always do.

[Paintballguy]

Which it is projected to go up. I'm not sure when or how much, but it is supposed to increase in the next 3-4 years, IIRC.

Furthermore, signing Brees to that deal didn't handicap them. Poor drafting has put a damper on their team's overall production.

Brees cap number is not that bad at all:

2012: 10.4 mil
2013: 17.4 mil
2014: 18.4 mil

It jumps in 2015 and this is when the cap is supposed to increase a bit from the TV revenue.

2015: 26.4
2016: 27.4

[PurpleApocalypse37]

If he throws for 40 touchdowns they will. Even if he then goes one and done in the playoffs while throwing three picks.

[Jeremiah W]

I might agree with these points for any position OTHER than quarterback. But in today's NFL, if you don't have a quarterback, you can't win. Period. If the market value of quarterbacks becomes astronomical (if it isn't already), I'm not sure simply declining to buy on the market is even an option.

The dynamics of the QB position are just too different. You can't keep cycling through rookie QBs and veteran stopgaps, at some point you need to draft a QB, develop him into an elite player, and then sign him long-term. It usually takes more than 4 years for a QB to really hit his prime, and yet you would be willing to let them walk just because you draw a hard line somewhere between 18 million and 22 million a year?

You can do that with RBs, WRs, DL, CBs... pretty much any other position... but QBs take too long to develop, their prime years last too long, and the difference between having one and not having one is just way too stark.

The game is constantly changing. It's too short-sighted to kind of fold your arms and stamp your foot and say that you're going to swim against the tide and not change with the game. You'll get left behind quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Exactly.

Teams with young QBs playing well in the 1st contract will have an advantage, but starting over is not an attractive option. Good QBs are still hard to find, even if right now it seems like almost every team has one. You can not afford to be a have not.

I was right there on the fence with Rice. RB is a position you can find and teams consistantly make the mistake of over paying and over drafting them. On the other hand teams make the mistake so often because the position does have a lot of value and the risk can be worth the reward.

[alienrace]

Why so much hand wringing over rumors and speculation started by Peter King in an SI article? I thought we all agreed that SI is garbage, tabloid style rag anymore?

They will get this done, he is not going to Cleveland or Jacksonville. King wrote an article taking one thing Ozzie said completely out of context and then trying to spin it like a top, while at the same time leaving out the part of the dialog that was actually about Joe(and not letting him go).

C'mon people, stop falling for this shit.

[wickedsolo]

Not saying we have drafted that bad, but we've been picking high pretty much every year since 2008, and it makes it hard to find REAL difference makers or stars, we haven't found many of them over the years.

Michael Oher is average to solid as a RT, not exactly an amazing pick here.

Oher is better than Bushrod and Charles Brown...Brown doesn't even play. IIRC, he was a 2nd round pick.

Paul Kruger has only just emerged into a good pass rusher, and will already be one of our players we've developed nicely that has to go for cap reasons

Kruger is better than Martez Wilson and Cam Jordan.

Cody and Kindle have been busts

And Cameron Jordan was selected with the 24th overall pick and Sedrick Ellis was a top 10 pick.

Torrey Smith is good.

He is better than Robert Meachem, who not only was a 1st round pick, but isn't even on the team anymore.

Teams that draft well can get away with having expensive star players.

Teams that don't draft well have to constantly go out and buy players to supplement their roster.

Think about it. When was the last big time free agent acquisition made by the Ravens? Other than trading for Boldin and McGahee, it has been a long time. Last year alone the Saints went out and signed Ben Grubbs, David Hawthorne, Curtis Lofton, Broderick Bunkley, etc.

[wickedsolo]

Brees cap number is not that bad at all:

2012: 10.4 mil
2013: 17.4 mil
2014: 18.4 mil

It jumps in 2015 and this is when the cap is supposed to increase a bit from the TV revenue.

2015: 26.4
2016: 27.4

Exactly.

It's all about how they structure the deal.

They can structure it so that it really doesn't become a ridiculous cap hit until the last couple of years on the deal. At that point, they may just end up extending Flacco anyway.

[Captain Silver]

I think if he could throw a football from his knees 60 yards through the uprights he could get much more respect

[JAB1985]

Exactly.

It's all about how they structure the deal.

They can structure it so that it really doesn't become a ridiculous cap hit until the last couple of years on the deal. At that point, they may just end up extending Flacco anyway.

which is why contracts should be looked at a little differently with QBs, they almost always see them out and when theyre hurting the cap, they just add an extension. This isnt a position where Flacco gets old and they just cut him. QBs play into thier late 30s or early 40s these days. you cant really compare it to any other position.

[Gabrosin]

Brees cap number is not that bad at all:

2012: 10.4 mil
2013: 17.4 mil
2014: 18.4 mil

It jumps in 2015 and this is when the cap is supposed to increase a bit from the TV revenue.

2015: 26.4
2016: 27.4

This.

People need to relax a little bit on the overall numbers. Joe's agent has already passed along the code, that he's willing to help with structure in order to get the overall number higher. What does this mean? That in 2013-14, where the cap is not projected to rise significantly, Joe's cap number will be reasonable, and not more harmful to the team than any other veteran starter QB. Probably in line with what guys like Romo and Schaub are getting. The number balloons beyond that point, but that's okay. The cap will increase. Joe will have another couple years of proving whether or not he's worth it... if he's not, we have bigger problems, but we can always negotiate a reduction or release him. Remember, he's already said that he's okay with less guaranteed money too... so the hit on releasing him down the line would be lessened.

The numbers at the ends of these deals are all funny money. They're never played out. They become leverage for the player if the player is still doing well, to force an extension to reduce that number. Players don't actually play for $20m+ a year unless they're Peyton Manning at the end of his career. And if the player falters, the team gets out of the contract. Take a look at the debate over Suggs right now... if his health is at the point where we don't think he's worth $13m, maybe we cut him, or just maybe we negotiate a reduction/extension that lowers his number. The same will happen for Joe down the line.

The key is to get this done in a way that makes everyone happy BEFORE free agency.

[BMann]

I remember a Squeeler buddy of mine remarking after Pig Ben won his first Super Bowl how happy he was that they'd FINALLY found a franchise QB. "As long as Ben is there, we'll always contend." And they've been to 2 Super Bowls since then. Point proven.

Flacco is what this franchise was missing from 1996-2007. He just led us through a remarkable playoff run, during which the opposition scored 35 and 31 points in 2 of the games, and he still led us to victories. Defense, shmefense. Joe must stay. And he will. Makes no sense for us fans to fret how much he'll hurt our cap situation; just be glad that we finally have a QB good enough to lead us to the Super Bowl! I couldn't care less how much it costs the Ravens, or which tag they use on Flacco, as long as he's wearing purple come September. In today's NFL, QB is everything.

[esmd]

Why so much hand wringing over rumors and speculation started by Peter King in an SI article? I thought we all agreed that SI is garbage, tabloid style rag anymore?

They will get this done, he is not going to Cleveland or Jacksonville. King wrote an article taking one thing Ozzie said completely out of context and then trying to spin it like a top, while at the same time leaving out the part of the dialog that was actually about Joe(and not letting him go).

C'mon people, stop falling for this shit.

[HoustonRaven]

I might agree with these points for any position OTHER than quarterback. But in today's NFL, if you don't have a quarterback, you can't win. Period. If the market value of quarterbacks becomes astronomical (if it isn't already), I'm not sure simply declining to buy on the market is even an option.

The dynamics of the QB position are just too different. You can't keep cycling through rookie QBs and veteran stopgaps, at some point you need to draft a QB, develop him into an elite player, and then sign him long-term. It usually takes more than 4 years for a QB to really hit his prime, and yet you would be willing to let them walk just because you draw a hard line somewhere between 18 million and 22 million a year?

No player is above compromising the future just to have a good QB.

What good is having a great QB on your roster if he takes up so much cap space you cannot adequately field a team around him to win?

Makes for great fanatsy stats I suppose but if you cannot sign players such an effective O line or decent receivers, what sense does it make to give a QB money that's far and above market value?

Want proof? Just look at Vinta's comments from last week. He's on the side that would want the most of the deal and even he says what I just said. He did the radio circut last week and repeated the same mantra -- Joe is not looking for a deal that will make the team less competative.

So yes, there is a point when it's too burdonsome on the cap to make sense. As a few people have pointed out, its all how the deal is structured.

Thankfully, Joe and the team seem to be on that same page and understand the ramifications of an oppresive cap number.

[JAB1985]

No player is above compromising the future just to have a good QB.

What good is having a great QB on your roster if he takes up so much cap space you cannot adequately field a team around him to win?

Thats just it, with that Elite QB you can win with lesser talent or at least be able to tool around them. Without him at all you basically have no chance of winning.

[HoustonRaven]

Thats just it, with that Elite QB you can win with lesser talent or at least be able to tool around them. Without him at all you basically have no chance of winning.

And we've seen first hand this season when we have not had the best O line in front of Joe what happens. He did not start really clicking this season until the removal of Cam and the O line getting reworked.

It's a some of the parts, not an either / or debate.

Structure a deal that keeps Joe AND allows us to move around in the cap and it's perfect for both parties and the fans.

Over pay Joe and you have a happy QB on a team that cannot compete as well as they have and fans that are frustrated because things are not running at their best.

Rams are in this very boat right now. They overpaid a talented rookie QB and are in cap jail. He's being asked to rework the deal now.

[bmorecareful]

No player is above compromising the future just to have a good QB.

What good is having a great QB on your roster if he takes up so much cap space you cannot adequately field a team around him to win?

Makes for great fanatsy stats I suppose but if you cannot sign players such an effective O line or decent receivers, what sense does it make to give a QB money that's far and above market value?

Want proof? Just look at Vinta's comments from last week. He's on the side that would want the most of the deal and even he says what I just said. He did the radio circut last week and repeated the same mantra -- Joe is not looking for a deal that will make the team less competative.

So yes, there is a point when it's too burdonsome on the cap to make sense. As a few people have pointed out, its all how the deal is structured.

Thankfully, Joe and the team seem to be on that same page and understand the ramifications of an oppresive cap number.

What is that point? What is "too much?" How do you define "compromising the future?" These are nebulous terms that people are throwing around as if they mean something. They do not; they have no absolutely objective meaning. There's no bright red line you reach with a contract value that suddenly you can't field a competitive team anymore, because all contracts have value only relative to one another. What's to say that as QB contracts don't get bigger as a percentage of the cap, other contracts get smaller? In fact, that's not even a supposition--it's a FACT. We have all seen the dramatic decline in the value of contracts for inside linebackers, and maybe that's just the tip of the spear.

Where's the point of no return? Do you define it as a cap number or as an annual average? Is it $20.5 million? $21.5 million? Somewhere in between? How about we judge the team's investment by its RETURN, instead of what we "feel like" is too much? Whatever contract Joe signs, if the team is competitive during the lifetime of the deal, it will not have been too much. The same is true for Drew Brees and the Saints, or Aaron Rodgers and the Packers, etc. etc.

[Jeremiah W]

And we've seen first hand this season when we have not had the best O line in front of Joe what happens. He did not start really clicking this season until the removal of Cam and the O line getting reworked.

It's a some of the parts, not an either / or debate.

Structure a deal that keeps Joe AND allows us to move around in the cap and it's perfect for both parties and the fans.

Over pay Joe and you have a happy QB on a team that cannot compete as well as they have and fans that are frustrated because things are not running at their best.

Rams are in this very boat right now. They overpaid a talented rookie QB and are in cap jail. He's being asked to rework the deal now.

The Rams?

How about NE, NY, Indy and Pittsburgh? Those are more relavent examples of teams that stayed competitive long term while paying the QB a lot of money.

The Ravens are the perfect team to build around a franchise QB. They draft as well or better than anyone. They do not spend big in free agency, even letting a high number of valuable free agents walk every year. The free agents they do bring in tend to be good value. As long as they manage the rest of the cap well, I see no reason to think that a big QB contract will cripple the depth on the roster.

[HoustonRaven]

What is that point? What is "too much?" How do you define "compromising the future?" These are nebulous terms that people are throwing around as if they mean something. They do not; they have no absolutely objective meaning. There's no bright red line you reach with a contract value that suddenly you can't field a competitive team anymore, because all contracts have value only relative to one another. What's to say that as QB contracts don't get bigger as a percentage of the cap, other contracts get smaller? In fact, that's not even a supposition--it's a FACT. We have all seen the dramatic decline in the value of contracts for inside linebackers, and maybe that's just the tip of the spear.

Where's the point of no return? Do you define it as a cap number or as an annual average? Is it $20.5 million? $21.5 million? Somewhere in between? How about we judge the team's investment by its RETURN, instead of what we "feel like" is too much? Whatever contract Joe signs, if the team is competitive during the lifetime of the deal, it will not have been too much. The same is true for Drew Brees and the Saints, or Aaron Rodgers and the Packers, etc. etc.

Where have I argued the team ahould "feel" it's way through this?

This is an orchistrated process, filled with finesse, as most high level negotiations are. The absense of some magic line that cannot be crossed does not mean the problem of overpaying doesn't exist, espeically when things like prorated bonuses are involved.

Again, as I and others have stated, it's all in the structure of the deal. And again, if you have a problem with that line of thinking, than your issue is with Vinta and Ozzie, not me. They both, publicly, have recognized this as a possible issue and both are working to avoid it. Thankfully.

The Rams?

How about NE, NY, Indy and Pittsburgh? Those are more relavent examples of teams that stayed competitive long term while paying the QB a lot of money.

The Ravens are the perfect team to build around a franchise QB. They draft as well or better than anyone. They do not spend big in free agency, even letting a high number of valuable free agents walk every year. The free agents they do bring in tend to be good value. As long as they manage the rest of the cap well, I see no reason to think that a big QB contract will cripple the depth on the roster.

Those four teams you just mentioned are exactly my point. They don't overpay for anyone, this can manage the cap the best possible way and add players via the draft.

The Rams, on the other hand, have an overly burdonsome contract on their hands with their QB, that has made signing quality players prohibative and are now asking him to take a pay cut.

Funny you mention Indy on that list since it was overly burdonsome contract that led to Manning getting cut and moving to Denver.

As I pointed out to bmorecareful, if you do not agree with this line of thought, your issue too is with Vinta and Ozzie. Both of them are worried about this very same thing.

[bmorecareful]

Those four teams you just mentioned are exactly my point. They don't overpay for anyone, this can manage the cap the best possible way and add players via the draft.

The Rams, on the other hand, have an overly burdonsome contract on their hands with their QB, that has made signing quality players prohibative and are now asking him to take a pay cut.

Funny you mention Indy on that list since it was overly burdonsome contract that led to Manning getting cut and moving to Denver.

As I pointed out to bmorecareful, if you do not agree with this line of thought, your issue too is with Vinta and Ozzie. Both of them are worried about this very same thing.

Your arguments don't support your point at all--whatever that point may be, as you still have not defined what it means to overpay or provide anything definitive of what that looks like.

You claim that the Patriots, Giants, Colts, and Steelers manage the cap well and "don't overpay for anyone," yet EACH of those teams made their quarterback the highest paid player at his position at various points over the last few years! Isn't that "overpaying?" It obviously is not, because those are 4 of the best teams in football over the last decade, so they clearly did a fine job of surrounding their ultra-expensive QB with talent despite making an unprecedentedly large investment in him.

For your points to be true, we would expect most of the teams that have the highest percentage of their cap spent on a single player to be pretty bad. Of the top 6 players by 2013 average salary, 4 of them have rings--7 total between them.

That doesn't mean that teams never make bad investments in specific players, obviously they do. But it disproves this notion of there being some sort of "limit" to how much you can pay ANY player, no matter how good he is. If a guy is the best player in the NFL you're going to need to give him a huge, unprecedented contract. Simple as that.