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

**leachisabeast** · 03-05-2013, 04:38 PM

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.

**houstonravensfan** · 03-05-2013, 04:49 PM

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 . . .

**leachisabeast** · 03-05-2013, 04:54 PM

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.

**The Excellector** · 03-05-2013, 05:05 PM

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.

**alien bird** · 03-05-2013, 05:15 PM

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.

**Ravens75** · 03-05-2013, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by alien bird

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.

Unless its Tavon Austin the Ravens probably aren't drafting a receiver. Their first 3 are set (pending potential restructures) with Tandon Doss being giving every chance to be the fourth receiver.

I really think that Tommy Streeter will end up being the 5th receiver and may move up if he shows anything in practice. He's a 6'5" guy with speed but if he can consistently catch the ball he's going to be productive.

**leachisabeast** · 03-05-2013, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

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.

**The Excellector** · 03-05-2013, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

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

**GOTA** · 03-06-2013, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

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.

I'm with you on Morgan Cox. We've seen teams lose playoff games because of a long snapper. Since Cox has been here we've never even thought about the position. That's exactly what you want. I think it would be nuts not to tender him.

**The Excellector** · 03-07-2013, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

I'm with you on Morgan Cox. We've seen teams lose playoff games because of a long snapper. Since Cox has been here we've never even thought about the position. That's exactly what you want. I think it would be nuts not to tender him.

Remember that playoff comeback by the 49ers, over the Giants? I thought that Tom Coughlin was going to drink himself to sleep after that one.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 03-07-2013, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by The Excellector

The one guy I would not tender is David Reed.

Wait...you are giving up on him Ex?

Just messing with ya lol...

**Ravenalytics** · 03-07-2013, 10:19 AM

Why can't we tender Kruger, or give him the tag and try to trade him? I see no one talk about this option. He's sure to get a demand that could net us something.

**The Excellector** · 03-07-2013, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

Wait...you are giving up on him Ex?

Just messing with ya lol...

If you really think about it, it makes sense (I'm sure you figured that out before me). For all of the potential that I think he has, he just can't get out of his own way. Whether it is injuries, fumbles or missing out on key special teams plays, there is just too much keeping him from reaching his potential with no end in sight.

Even if the team released Jacoby Jones, the WR depth chart is going to be competitive. Torrey is a lock, Boldin is a lock and Doss would likely be favorable to make it. The team really likes Deonte Thompson and they don't give the 'hangnail' treatment to players they don't value. That would be Tommie Streeter. That's five right there. LaQuan is going to be on the bubble and Reed won't even be in the picture. Even if they release Jones, there's a chance they'll replace him in FA (I'll leave it at that). Even if they don't, if Tavon Austin falls to them you know they'll take him. How many undersized players have they taken high, because their college production is off the charts? Austin fits the player the Ravens would take, to a tee. j

That would make six.

**admartian** · 03-05-2013, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by houstonravensfan

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.

**BcRaven** · 03-05-2013, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by admartian

... and there are no such things as backup LS...

Yes there are. They are called Centers... Bc

**The Excellector** · 03-05-2013, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

Yes there are. They are called Centers... Bc

Ha! Well played, lol.

**B-more Ravor** · 03-05-2013, 07:07 PM

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.

**bmore finest** · 03-05-2013, 07:32 PM

True, Cox is very important and should be back. He has played very well. Reed, well see you later buddy! Let him go, and give , doss, Thompson , and Williams a shot. And Harewood, well we can find another cheaper depth player for him.

So of those three, only Cox is important to bring back. Highly important!!

**Stealthbirds80** · 03-05-2013, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by bmore finest

True, Cox is very important and should be back. He has played very well. Reed, well see you later buddy! Let him go, and give , doss, Thompson , and Williams a shot. And Harewood, well we can find another cheaper depth player for him.

So of those three, only Cox is important to bring back. Highly important!!

Agreed, do not mess with the kicking game. I seem to remember us winning a couple games this year and one that extended our season in Denver because of the help of Mr. Cox. This should be a non-debate.

**BigPlayReceiver** · 03-06-2013, 06:29 AM

Harewood according to PFF is a good run blocking guard. Top 1/3 among his peers. His pass pro stinks, but he only surrendered 1 sack (12 hurries though). Again, as per PFF. Having said that, I can't imagine us not giving Harewood an ORD tender.

I would not tender Reed.
Give Cox the league minimum? What are the options for UDFAs?