Flacco Deal Update...

[JAB1985]

Nowhere did I say "get rid of Flacco." What I did say is don't tie up a lot of money in him right now, until there's a better idea as to whether or not last year was an aberration. If he goes from 93.6 rating in 2010 to 80.9 in 2011 back to ~90 or better in 2012... okay, put some money into him, I'll feel like it's worth it. If the 2012 number is ~85 or lower... I don't know, I think you really have to start thinking about how much money you give him in a long-term deal at that point. If the Ravens are going to continue to win games mostly on the backs of having a great defense (as they've been doing, IMO), doesn't it make sense to keep as much of the cap space as possible free to spend on the defensive side of the ball? If Flacco's never again going to perform at a level higher than last year, but the Ravens still win 12 games with that level of performance, why bother spending a lot of money on offense?

The cap gymnastics dictate that you can't have it all--no team can afford to have a Ray Lewis, an Ed Reed, a Haloti Ngata, a Terrell Suggs, a Lardarius Webb, AND a Payton Manning, an Adrian Peterson, a Calvin Johnson, a Rob Gronkowski, etc. As a team, the Ravens are decisively committed to excellence on the defensive side of the football. I don't know what the cap numbers are for the Ravens, but it would surprise me if more than 50% of the Ravens cap space is not committed to the defense. So if you want to spend big on offense, you're going to take away from that. What level of QB performance is worth not being able to keep Suggs? Webb? Ngata? Forget Reed and Lewis, they're going to be out of here relatively soon anyway, but as a fan base I doubt we accept Joe Schmoes as their replacements. Giving Flacco (or Rice, for that matter) a big deal won't affect that right now, but in a year or two? I'm no cap expert, but I think it would. So you're willing to take that risk, after what you saw out of Flacco last year?

Not me...

I see what youre saying. I personally think last year was an aberration and i believe the previous two years suggest that. I think what we did as an offense and him in particular did with basically an entirely rookie corps outside Boldin was impressive, not a disappointment. I dont think overly investing on either side of the ball is the best thing for the team, which is in part why we didnt win as much as we should have with a top defense all those years. the team that wins it all usually is a well rounded team and those teams that arent seem to be getting exposed in the playoffs (GB NE SF NO etc). right now we have the majority of our money in defense and the league is obviously going to an offensive league. I do think Joe has shown enough to warrant that investment as finding his replacement wouldnt be easy. as a fan i dont ever want to lose that elite defensive mentality, but its certainly something that could be sacrificed somewhat in the future to get the best overall team. I think theyre going to spend that money on flacco regardless and need to because he is the key piece to it. if anything since his stats went down this past year it gives the team more leverage, as opposed to letting him play and coming off a better year. They know what he is, and with all the variables to last year i think its smart they sign him now because i do believe he will have a better year statistically just based on the growth of our young players. which you may be hopeful for but obviously dont believe he will.

[ballhawk]

Flacco had a great season last year...what the hell are you guys talking about? And he did it with a cast of rookie and 2nd year receivers (who probably led the league in dropped passes). He is going to get $100 million...and he is worth it.

[pslholder96]

Lots of back and forth here. This thread went from "Flacco's deal update" to "Is Flacco worth a big deal". Give him a deal somewhere between Kevin Kolb/Tom Cassell and Eli Manning/Phillip Rivers.
Some ravens fans forget what our QB history looked like in the 12 years before Joe arrived. Maybe we've forgotten what good QB play looks like given the recent of history of bad QB play. Flacco is the real deal. Surround him with a little more talent and creativity (Cam are you listening?) to suit his strengths he will take us to next level.

[BcRaven]

Originally Posted by BcRaven
Are you talking about the Ravens or the Browns? It seems like you'd like to see the Ravens fail so you could jump on Flacco with both feet, but it hasn't happened yet. You're gonna have to wait some years for that IMO... Bc

Mind reading fail. When you assume.....fill in the rest.

Excellent comeback for a 3rd grader... Bc

[Haloti92]

No way Flacco has earned a Rivers/Eli/BenR type of contract. That said, you won't get him to agree to a deal anywhere near a Kolb or Cassel deal, even if they were egregiously overpaid. Plus QB is the one position where a failure to get an average or slightly above-average player at minimum, guarantees failure (barring a time-machine and an all-time great defense). So you hope to sign him in between these two levels, but would be forced to sign him at the higher level if push came to shove.

From that point, if Flacco keeps improving, you signed a fair to eventually-cheap deal; if Flacco fails to develop and plateaus at around where he is, you overpaid at the position fairly significantly.

If Flacco insists on a deal that is bigger than Rivers/Eli/Ben then I think you make him wait until 2013 and take your chances.

[alienrace]

No way Flacco has earned a Rivers/Eli/BenR type of contract. That said, you won't get him to agree to a deal anywhere near a Kolb or Cassel deal, even if they were egregiously overpaid. Plus QB is the one position where a failure to get an average or slightly above-average player at minimum, guarantees failure (barring a time-machine and an all-time great defense). So you hope to sign him in between these two levels, but would be forced to sign him at the higher level if push came to shove.

From that point, if Flacco keeps improving, you signed a fair to eventually-cheap deal; if Flacco fails to develop and plateaus at around where he is, you overpaid at the position fairly significantly.

If Flacco insists on a deal that is bigger than Rivers/Eli/Ben then I think you make him wait until 2013 and take your chances.

Reasonable thoughts.

[blacknpurplepain]

Y

About what?

U think we are getting flacco for substantially less then 6/100? Good luck with all of that.

No way he gets 6/100 from the Ravens when Manning got around 5/96. I don't need good luck. I can see if joe carried this offense but the offense is ran thru RR

[JAB1985]

Noway hes worth rivers money? I realize eli and ben won SBs but at the same point in their respective careers theyre all arguably similar players even statistically. Wanting more isnt necessarily below market price with inflation and considering his age. I believe, may be wrong, but eli has the latest deal and it was signed in 2008? If he was asking to be paid brady or brees money id agree youre better off waiting him out but those deals those guys signed were young qbs you believe will take the next step and can lead your team which i believe he falls under.

[Terpsfan82]

I can understand where RedMike is coming from. What's going here, in my opinion, is that the defense has long been establishing, while the offense is trying to establish itself. So, the coaching staff and front office have chosen the strategy of leaning on the established side of the ball, while they methodically develop the offense. It's not easy to develop any particular side of the ball. It took the Ravens four years to develop the defense into the type of unit that set the foundation for its current reputation.

I agree. But if you think back to how they developed the defense, they drafted Lewis, Boulware, Sharper, McCallister and Starks. Then they added key veteran free agents. Quality players who still had siomething left in the tank and were itching for a ring (or at least some semblance of success). They haven't quite done that on the offensive side of the ball. They have a solid nucleus, but the ballsy free agent acquisitions have not taken place yet, IMO.

[JustaslowZ06]

No way Flacco has earned a Rivers/Eli/BenR type of contract. That said, you won't get him to agree to a deal anywhere near a Kolb or Cassel deal, even if they were egregiously overpaid. Plus QB is the one position where a failure to get an average or slightly above-average player at minimum, guarantees failure (barring a time-machine and an all-time great defense). So you hope to sign him in between these two levels, but would be forced to sign him at the higher level if push came to shove.

From that point, if Flacco keeps improving, you signed a fair to eventually-cheap deal; if Flacco fails to develop and plateaus at around where he is, you overpaid at the position fairly significantly.

If Flacco insists on a deal that is bigger than Rivers/Eli/Ben then I think you make him wait until 2013 and take your chances.

Really they're all around the same all 100+M contracts which meanbs jacksquat, GUARNTEE'D money is where it at:
Rivers 6 years 39Guarntee
Ben 8 years 36 G
Vick 6 years 37 G
Eli 7 35G
Peyton is under the 100M club but his guarntee'd money is about the ame with 5 years 35G.

Personally I think Flacco is in the land of 7 years 100M(with all the incentives) and about 32G. Incentive laden more than the others, considering he hasn't had the level of success(even at this point in his career) as the others besides Rivers. But personally I don't think Rivers is very elite either. Give Joe a pair of 6'6' and fast damn receivers(who can also catch), along with Gates and a decent running game and I bet he puts up far better stats. They've handed Joe a washedup short Mason, a possesion guy in Boldin, a beatup end of career Heap(thanks to Boller) and scrubs elsewhere, until T.Smith. And a unimaginative bum of a OC who shouldn't even be coaching HS ball let alone the NFL.

[Sgt CouchPotato]

add 5-10 mil to whatever matt ryan ends up getting...

[wickedsolo]

http://blogs.baltimoreravens.com/201...out-to-change/

PFT stated that no progress has been made, but Aaron Wilson has been informed that the Ravens and Joe Linta have met twice since the combine to discuss Flacco's extension.

[landspeed]

Flacco had a great season last year...what the hell are you guys talking about? And he did it with a cast of rookie and 2nd year receivers (who probably led the league in dropped passes). He is going to get $100 million...and he is worth it.

I dont know what you watched, but Flacco had a pretty shitty season last year, even to his standards which already arent very high.

Flacco has always had the benefit of a ridiculously good defense to bail him out.

And that absolutely should reflect in his contract.

[steelerhater]

I dont know what you watched, but Flacco had a pretty shitty season last year, even to his standards which already arent very high.

Flacco has always had the benefit of a ridiculously good defense to bail him out.

And that absolutely should reflect in his contract.

He didn't have a great year, but he did look good in the playoffs. As far as his off-year is concerned, its hard to tell how much of that is attributed to his terrible offensive coordinator. When the line isn't blocking and everyone is running 9 routes, its hard to be consistent.

[redmike34]

Are you seriously willing to put so much faith in QB rating that you'll decide whether to re-sign Flacco based on 10 points of variance from year to year? I'm sorry, but for as logical and intelligent as you sound, the core of your argument is very dubious.

Prognosticate over 10 points worth of QB rating as much as you want, but here's a simpler explanation: 1) a given player's performance doesn't exist in a vacuum, 2) because of that fact, a certain degree of variance one way or the other is COMPLETELY unavoidable, 3) you can't be sure that variance is due entirely or mostly to the player himself.

Case in point: as I said earlier, 5 (or possibly 6, depending on how you want to define it) of Ray Rice's rushing TDs in 2011 came as a result of a long pass play downed within the 10 yard line or a DPI in the end zone. If those 5 TDs are passing TDs, Flacco's QB rating goes up almost 5 points.

Does that "really" mean he was 5 points better? I think we can all agree that is not necessarily the case.

You can play with the numbers however you want, but to pin all your hopes on QB rating is, in a word, hopeless. I don't care what Flacco's QB rating is in 2012 if he's helping his team win, particularly when the chips are down and no one else seems to be stepping up. He did exactly that often enough to convince me last year.

And I'm not an anti-stats guy. I'm actually pretty big on stats in a lot of respects. But you'll never see a Cam Cameron passer post gaudy stats under ANY circumstances. Drew Brees has been the most consistently excellent passer of the last 5 years, and even he only broke a 90 QB rating once under Cam, in 2004. His average QB rating in San Diego was an 84.9, slightly lower than Joe's career average, and he was a worse passer on the whole in San Diego. Do you think that's a coincidence? I don't, and I think it further illustrates why pinning all your hopes on 1 stat is a mistake.

First, QB rating isn't '1 stat,' it's four stats rolled into one number, intended to be a measure of overall efficiency of a QB's play. You can debate its validity if you like, but it exists and is constantly referenced because it is one of the better indicators of how well a team is doing offensively. Not just the QB, I grant you--it also says something for how well the receivers are getting the ball, how far they're making it when they catch a pass, etc. About the only thing it measures that is mostly on the QB is interceptions.

Second, it's like this. Here's two sets of data for you--first, the ratings for all the QBs of the teams that won 12 or more games last year, and then the records of the teams that had QBs which finished the year +/- 5 points of Flacco on the QB rating scale, and who played all 16 games (if you want, throw out Jackson--he only played 15). I posted this earlier, but not in this format, so maybe it'll be clearer this way:

Rodgers-122.5
Brees- 110.6
Brady- 105.6
Smith- 90.7
Roethlisberger- 90.1
Flacco- 80.9

Newton- 84.9/6 wins
Hasselbeck- 82.4/9 wins
Flacco- 80.9/12 wins
Dalton- 80.4/9 wins
Jackson- 79.2/7 wins
Fitzpatrick- 79.1/6 wins
Sanchez- 78.2/8 wins


So what does it tell you? Obviously, it's not a large enough sample size to say anything definitively, but it does show two things--that Flacco's QB rating was by far the worst of the teams that were the 'elite' of the league last year, and that QBs who got ratings similar to Flacco tended to win far fewer games.

So... upon seeing this, it raises a few questions for me, and makes one thing seem likely. The latter first--getting high quality (statistically) play out of whoever is at the QB position is less important to the Ravens than it is to other teams (or, at least it was to the 2011 Ravens--maybe 2012 will be different). If you get 12 wins with an 80.9 rating, you're apparently making up for that deficiency in other areas (defense, running... probably not special teams!). The questions it raises are these--how many wins would that have been at a 90 rating? How many at a 70 rating? If that's the spread you're working with, what's that actually worth paying for?

Is this in any way definitive? Am I saying I'm right? Not at all. But I think it's a logical, cogent viewpoint, and I think that I want to see another year of this offense before I spend any big money on any part of it, if I'm the Ravens FO. You may be right--Cam may be the whole problem. The Ravens should have gotten rid of him just to see what would happen, IMO. But until you've got a better idea as to exactly where the problem is... I wouldn't throw a lot of cash around.

[festivus]

If you go to the playoffs with a quarterback for all four years of his career, you keep him.

Redmike, you can draw other conclusions from your same stats. How about this one: Joe Flacco's QB rating was aberrantly low in the 2011 season despite his success as an NFL quarterback.

[alienrace]

Wanna know what kills me?

Last year, when Flacco's stats were among the best in the league, the usual suspects where all "but that doesn't mean anything, just look at him play".

Now when people are saying the stats don't tell the whole story, Flacco visibly played better, made more clutch plays, etc, those same people are saying "but his stats went down".

Those same people also bashed Flacco for not having good numbers in the playoffs. Now that over the last two years his rating is in the mid-upper 90's, they want to dismiss them.

There is no winning with these people, and quite frankly, I think most of us are getting tired of this stupid, idiotic debate. Look at what this thread, that started out as something informative, has turned into.

[Haloti92]

Noway hes worth rivers money? I realize eli and ben won SBs but at the same point in their respective careers theyre all arguably similar players even statistically. Wanting more isnt necessarily below market price with inflation and considering his age. I believe, may be wrong, but eli has the latest deal and it was signed in 2008? If he was asking to be paid brady or brees money id agree youre better off waiting him out but those deals those guys signed were young qbs you believe will take the next step and can lead your team which i believe he falls under.

Rivers' year before he got his extension was off-the-charts good. Totally different than Flacco's last year. I am not saying Flacco isn't as good as Rivers (though I probably would). And I am definitely not saying Flacco cannot become better than Rivers will ever be. All I am saying is at the time the contracts were negotiated, Rivers was by FAR more able to argue for big money.

Rivers signed in August of 2009. His 2008 season consisted of a 105.5 QB rating (best in league by 8 pts), 34 TDs (tied for best in league with Brees), 11 Ints only (6 less than Brees), 4009 yards (5th in league BUT he had way less attempts than those ahead of him such that his YPA was significantly the best in league at 8.39). In short, Rivers could easily argue he was the best QB in the league in 2008; even if he might not quite win that argument, it wouldn't be a stretch to claim that by any means. And since we all agree that you pay people for their trajectory as much as anything, his huge deal was easy to rationalize. Age also isn't relevant to the comparison because Rivers was roughly the same age as Joe is now when he signed; he had played one extra year in the league but came out 1 year earlier than Joe.

As for BigBen, he signed his 'big' deal in March of 2008. He also had a ring at that point and his stats for the 2007 season, were: QB rating 104.1 (2nd behind Brady), 32 TDs (3rd in league), 'only' 3154 yards, but only 404 attempts, gving him a YPA of 7.81 (4th in the league). He also made the ProBowl. And also the deal was 8 yrs for 'only' $102M, less than $13M per.

As for total 'career' statistics, I would say that they matter less than the trend/trajectory. And more importantly, passing stats have been going up across the league and completely spiked last year, making it harder to compare year to year totals without some kind of adjustment.

Eli's big-money extension was signed in the preseason of 2009. If Eli had not won a SuperBowl in 2007 and then followed it up with a significantly improved year statistically (to his fairly mundane stats from 2003-2007) I don't think he gets anywhere near that extension. Eli is the one that is closest to Flacco in terms of performance in the contract year. Eli's year was better but not by a ton, but more importantly it was better than the year before (he improved). And again he had a SB title and SB MVP under his belt.

While we can agree or disagree about how Flacco's stats are harmed by forces outside his control, the fact remains, he is not coming into the negotiations with as much leverage as these other three were when they signed their deals. QB rating ranking around 15th-18th depending on who you include, TDs tied for 13th, yardage ranked 12th, YPA ranked a pitiful 24th. That doesn't mean he doesn't have leverage obviously, I would just say that it isn't some kind of 'given' that he deserves deals similar to the deals these three signed.

As for inflation, I hear you and agree, though the salary cap in 2009 was $123M, roughly the same as it will be this year (and maybe next). Also, as has been said, the guaranteed money (and structure/details) is really as crucial as the total and yearly average.

[arnie_uk]

and the counter arguement is flaccos rating could have been in the 90s if not for PI calls and then a rushing TD, or if not for a few drops, or torreys drop that lead to a INT

First, QB rating isn't '1 stat,' it's four stats rolled into one number, intended to be a measure of overall efficiency of a QB's play. You can debate its validity if you like, but it exists and is constantly referenced because it is one of the better indicators of how well a team is doing offensively. Not just the QB, I grant you--it also says something for how well the receivers are getting the ball, how far they're making it when they catch a pass, etc. About the only thing it measures that is mostly on the QB is interceptions.

Second, it's like this. Here's two sets of data for you--first, the ratings for all the QBs of the teams that won 12 or more games last year, and then the records of the teams that had QBs which finished the year +/- 5 points of Flacco on the QB rating scale, and who played all 16 games (if you want, throw out Jackson--he only played 15). I posted this earlier, but not in this format, so maybe it'll be clearer this way:

Rodgers-122.5
Brees- 110.6
Brady- 105.6
Smith- 90.7
Roethlisberger- 90.1
Flacco- 80.9

Newton- 84.9/6 wins
Hasselbeck- 82.4/9 wins
Flacco- 80.9/12 wins
Dalton- 80.4/9 wins
Jackson- 79.2/7 wins
Fitzpatrick- 79.1/6 wins
Sanchez- 78.2/8 wins


So what does it tell you? Obviously, it's not a large enough sample size to say anything definitively, but it does show two things--that Flacco's QB rating was by far the worst of the teams that were the 'elite' of the league last year, and that QBs who got ratings similar to Flacco tended to win far fewer games.

So... upon seeing this, it raises a few questions for me, and makes one thing seem likely. The latter first--getting high quality (statistically) play out of whoever is at the QB position is less important to the Ravens than it is to other teams (or, at least it was to the 2011 Ravens--maybe 2012 will be different). If you get 12 wins with an 80.9 rating, you're apparently making up for that deficiency in other areas (defense, running... probably not special teams!). The questions it raises are these--how many wins would that have been at a 90 rating? How many at a 70 rating? If that's the spread you're working with, what's that actually worth paying for?

Is this in any way definitive? Am I saying I'm right? Not at all. But I think it's a logical, cogent viewpoint, and I think that I want to see another year of this offense before I spend any big money on any part of it, if I'm the Ravens FO. You may be right--Cam may be the whole problem. The Ravens should have gotten rid of him just to see what would happen, IMO. But until you've got a better idea as to exactly where the problem is... I wouldn't throw a lot of cash around.

[Terpsfan82]

and the counter arguement is flaccos rating could have been in the 90s if not for PI calls and then a rushing TD, or if not for a few drops, or torreys drop that lead to a INT

Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger et al also had drops. Please don't start playing the coulda woulda shouda game. Flacco is entering his 5th year. He is who he is. Enough with the excuses.