Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,107
    Blog Entries
    4

    Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?



    Pitta, Arthur Jones, and Ed Dickson are all pretty certain to be on the roster next season playing under RFA (restricted free agent) tenders. Pitta, and Art Jones will likely receive 2nd round tenders, which costs roughly $2.023M against the cap. Ed Dickson will likely receive a low tender, which will cost roughly $1.303M against the cap. So in total, that's around $5.349M to re-sign all three for another year.

    We also have three other RFAs that aren't quite secure. Ramon Harewood, David Reed, and Morgan Cox. Morgan Cox is a long snapper, and IMO, it just doesn't make sense to pay a long snapper more than what most of you're rookies are earning. Then there's Harewood, and Reed to consider, and both don't seem likely to be anything other than depth players. Assuming the Ravens give low tenders to all three of them, that's going to cost around $3.90M against the cap. Lets just say you let all three walk, and sign an UDRFA long snapper in the offseason, which would be a significantly cheaper option, and replace Harewood and Reed with low round/undrafted rookies. You could be saving roughly $2.685M doing it that way. I know that's not much, but every little helps this year for us. It could be the difference of being $4.394M under the cap going into FA (BEFORE cuts, extensions, or restructures worked out.), and $1.709M under.

    It could possibly be the difference of for example re-signing Ellerbe. Would you take Ellerbe over Morgan Cox, Ramon Harewood, and David Reed? I sure as hell would.




  2. #2

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    I think I'm with you on each point. Harewood is the enigma. Just WHY was he ever made a starter? Were we totally banged-up and there was NO one else? Did he show something in practice that did not materilaize in games. Why did he totally disappear?

    On Cox, sure would be great to get an LS who could fill in on the O line if needed. I could understand the FO keeping Cox if they credit him with being important to our excellent bkicking game. If it ain't broke . . .




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,107
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    Harewood started because he supposedly had a really good TC, but I think it was also due to the ineptitude of Bobbie Williams. In the end the Oline should have ben McKinnie-KO-Birk-Yanda-Oher all along, but Harewood actually played better than Bobbie did whenever he was in. I wouldn't be over 1 million dollars for a guy who's likely never going to start again.




  4. #4

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    You know, your line of thinking with the long snapper is exactly why the New York Giants used to screw the pooch in the postseason, before they eventually came around to winning the Super Bowl. Special teams takes timing, rhythm and stability to be successful. You can't just go cheap everywhere. It's not that hard to end up with a long snapper that shoots it high and costs you a game. You get what you pay for.

    As for Ramon Harewood, his talent will lend to him getting the low tender and playing out his rookie contract. The one guy I would not tender is David Reed.
    "When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Dimas, CA
    Posts
    5,266

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    If the Ravens choose to keep Jacoby Jones and plan on drafting a WR, I see the handwriting on the wall for David Reed. With limited value at that point, he might end up like Marcus Smith, losing out in a numbers game.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,107
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Excellector View Post
    You know, your line of thinking with the long snapper is exactly why the New York Giants used to screw the pooch in the postseason, before they eventually came around to winning the Super Bowl. Special teams takes timing, rhythm and stability to be successful. You can't just go cheap everywhere. It's not that hard to end up with a long snapper that shoots it high and costs you a game. You get what you pay for.

    As for Ramon Harewood, his talent will lend to him getting the low tender and playing out his rookie contract. The one guy I would not tender is David Reed.
    We replaced a PK with an UDFA last offseason and it didn't work out too badly.




  7. #7

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    Quote Originally Posted by houstonravensfan View Post
    I think I'm with you on each point. Harewood is the enigma. Just WHY was he ever made a starter? Were we totally banged-up and there was NO one else? Did he show something in practice that did not materilaize in games. Why did he totally disappear?

    On Cox, sure would be great to get an LS who could fill in on the O line if needed. I could understand the FO keeping Cox if they credit him with being important to our excellent bkicking game. If it ain't broke . . .
    I don't think many (if any) teams have a LS that play oline. They just get too banged up during the play and there are no such things as backup LS.
    Self appointed Ravens SuperFan in the southern hemisphere/New Zealand.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,328
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    Quote Originally Posted by admartian View Post
    ... and there are no such things as backup LS...
    Yes there are. They are called Centers... Bc




  9. #9

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    Quote Originally Posted by leachisabeast View Post
    We replaced a PK with an UDFA last offseason and it didn't work out too badly.
    A PK that sucked. Morgan Cox doesn't suck. There's no need to replace him.

    ......lol
    "When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"




  10. #10

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    Quote Originally Posted by BcRaven View Post
    Yes there are. They are called Centers... Bc
    Ha! Well played, lol.
    "When questioned, the Elders explained that they were in search of magical powers. However, they're actually searching for the whereabouts of a certain ring. This ring is a legendary treasure that long ago was known to exist"




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    "Merry old England"
    Posts
    9,107
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Excellector View Post
    A PK that sucked. Morgan Cox doesn't suck. There's no need to replace him.

    ......lol
    That's not the point. Even if Billy Cundiff was as good as he was in 2010 that season, and we ended up cutting him for cap reasons, Justin Tucker was still a great replacement for a much cheaper price. I'm pretty confident the team could find a suitable replacement at long snapper.




  12. #12
    I get why people bring up Cox's name as a non-tender, but if any remember the early years, we had some so-so and bad (Harper LeBel) LS'ers who actually cost us wins (one against the Steelers, no less).

    Because we hear nothing about them (hopefully), we kind of think of them as dime-a-dozen, but when you have a really good one, you shouldn't be too quick to dismiss them IMO.
    Last edited by B-more Ravor; 03-05-2013 at 10:40 PM.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland