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

**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.

**RavenScallywag** · 03-06-2013, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by B-more Ravor

Normally, I would agree, but this year with such a tight Cap, I could see one or two of these guys being non-tendered.

I'm sure they would offer them minimum deals to return, but it's possible that the player might rather try his luck elsewhere.

I think we've done this before...non-tendered a guy and then given him a pretty fair deal straight up. Ramon Harewood and David Reed have little shots of hooking on elsewhere for much more money. Morgan Cox is a tough call, we've generally found talented LS in UDFA time and time again. But I do remember what happened the last year Katula was here, his hand got injured and a bunch of snaps got messed up.

**GOTA** · 03-06-2013, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

I wouldn't be quick to give up on Harewood especially with Castillo on the coaching staff. Lets see what Castillo can do with him.

Harewood was a starter the first game of the season. They must see something in him. I think he gets tendered too.

**ursula** · 03-06-2013, 11:17 AM

I'm thinking that Reed is still valuable to the team. At a minimum I would not tender him but offer him a contract and I might just tender him anyway.

Right now Reed is the 5th WR on the team, behind Boldin, Smith, Jones, and Doss, and ahead of Williams, and Streeter. He's also a good special teams guy, something that any WR that far down the pecking order needs to be. Looking forward, I am not sure how the team views Williams vs Reed, but it is hard to imagine Streeter moving ahead of him in the pecking order cause Streeter was pretty bad last year at training camp. Honestly Streeter looks close to a bust and if he were not a draft pick he would have been cut. I would also say that Reed is closer to overtaking Doss than losing ground to other WR's.

It is also hard to see the team picking a WR like Austin (a high draft pick) unless the team cuts Jones or Boldin so I think there's a good chance that next year the team will use the same WR corps as last year. Of course with a non-Cam-led offense the pecking order of the WR's might change this offseason...

**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.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 03-07-2013, 10:34 AM

we don't have the cap space.

**leachisabeast** · 03-07-2013, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

we don't have the cap space.

We actually do, it would just require cutting Jacoby, Leach, Williams, and McClain (3 of them are likely gone anyway).

Its too late to use the franchise tag anyway, but it could have been an interesting option to have tagged him then put him on the trade block, would have been interesting to see what picks we would have been offered for him.

**jonboy79** · 03-07-2013, 10:42 AM

I personally see these three as a good place to save cap space. Non-Tender them all and offer Vet min deals or close to it. I'm actually OK with ravor's idea of giving Cox a 5 year deal with a 6 figure bonus and Vet Min salaries. He is very good, jsut not worth $1m in capspace.

**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.

**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.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 03-07-2013, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

We actually do, it would just require cutting Jacoby, Leach, Williams, and McClain (3 of them are likely gone anyway).

Its too late to use the franchise tag anyway, but it could have been an interesting option to have tagged him then put him on the trade block, would have been interesting to see what picks we would have been offered for him.

Sure, if we didn't want to do anything else in UFA like maybe look for a LT. Tagging him would have taken away all flexibility.

**leachisabeast** · 03-07-2013, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

Sure, if we didn't want to do anything else in UFA like maybe look for a LT. Tagging him would have taken away all flexibility.

Yeah I understand that, just saying, we COULD have done it if we really wanted to.

**Raveninwoodlawn** · 03-07-2013, 12:53 PM

I get that...I mean we COULD find a way to keep anybody.

But logically, it makes no sense because we don't have cap space to just plunk down on him and still have any opportunity to do anything else in UFA.

**leachisabeast** · 03-07-2013, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

I get that...I mean we COULD find a way to keep anybody.

But logically, it makes no sense because we don't have cap space to just plunk down on him and still have any opportunity to do anything else in UFA.

Agreed. I just want Ellerbe signed and a legit LT, whether that be McKinnie or someone else I don't care, just not Oher. Anything else is a bonus.

**Mista T** · 03-07-2013, 01:55 PM

I don't know if leachisabeast was around in 1998, but every Ravens fan alive back then will remember the name "Harper le Bel".

Don't even think about dumping the near-always perfect Cox!

**leachisabeast** · 03-07-2013, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mista T

I don't know if leachisabeast was around in 1998, but every Ravens fan alive back then will remember the name "Harper le Bel".

Don't even think about dumping the near-always perfect Cox!

I didn't even know what the NFL was in 1998 lol

**LukeDaniel** · 03-07-2013, 02:01 PM

Cox is highly unlikely to get tendered, given his position. It's likely he will just be given a contract around the league minimum, which he would almost certainly accept.

Reed and Harewood are the ones that are a little hard to predict at this point. Harewood has value from a depth standpoint, but he really has done precious little to warrant any type of tender in his first 3 years. He was put on IR and didn't play a regular season snap in his first two seasons, and after bombing badly in a starting role to start the season, was inactive for most of the 2nd half of the year. It's a tricky situation, because giving a tender to a guy who is going to be inactive again in 2013 makes no sense. If he does end up playing a role and playing decently, someone else is going to badly overpay for him, making him basically a one-year rental. He's 50/50 at this point as to whether he even gets a tender.

Same with David Reed, who is darn good as a special teams gunner, but offers no value from scrimmage. A $1.33 tender for a gunner is a totally justifiable if that guy has a role from scrimmage (#5 cornerback or #4 wide receiver). Reed is the #6 or 7 or maybe even #8 wide receiver on the roster right now, so he is not even guaranteed to make the team. Tendering him for $1.33 million takes away some available cap space (about $800k) to use towards another player, so it's hard to see them using that money on him.

I think the wisest course of action is to offer Harewood and Reed a contract that is the veteran minimum for a player with 3 years of NFL service. If they take it, great. If not, then it's time to part ways with them. Keep in mind that the $1.6 million extra towards our cap that they would cost us in 2013 would be the equivalent of the cap # assigned to Corey Graham last year. You can get a decent free agent for a first year cap # of 1.6 million. The odds of Harewood and Reed at this point ever having a lasting value to the Raven organization is minimal, so I think the contractual commitment to them should be minimal as well.

**Losac** · 03-07-2013, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenalytics

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.

Kruger is an unrestricted free agent. You can only tender restricted free agents.

**LukeDaniel** · 03-07-2013, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Mista T

I don't know if leachisabeast was around in 1998, but every Ravens fan alive back then will remember the name "Harper le Bel".

Don't even think about dumping the near-always perfect Cox!

Good point.

Cox isn't worth $1.33 million, but you don't want to risk losing him either. Why not just offer the guy $3.6 million over the next 4 years with three years of guaranteed money and a small signing bonus? He'd be a fool to turn that down. From the Raven standpoint, it would be a way of securing a reliable player for the next four years. Yes, he'd cost a bit more than the $450k or so you'd pay an undrafted rookie to come and snap for you, but you wouldn't have any worries about that position for the next four years.

Thoughts?