• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The 2023 Offseason Thread

Michael M. said:
Also seems like the Reid/Mahomes combo are becoming the next Belichik/Brady. I don't sense that with Harbaugh and Lamar...But another team who has found their duo are the Jags. Pederson/Lawrence have a bright future
Click to expand...
Think its too early with John/Lamar to see what long term looks like. I don't think they'll be a perennial SB team for like 15 years like the Patriots were, but I could see a Lombardi or two in that window. And that's more realistic.

I like Pederson/Lawrence, but lets not jump the gun. They were a .500 team this year that won a playoff game at home against a thoroughly unimpressive Chargers team... and trailed by 20 at the half. They've got a long way to go.
 
BoredMarine13 said:
Brady’s 35 million cap hit is spread over two years. 11 this year and 24 next
Click to expand...
OK I missed the allocation. Still, its a huge $ for a player who won't be on your roster. And a $24M dead money cap hit for a player who hasn't been on your roster in two years really sucks.
 
Not sure if posted yet

 
allblackraven said:
They gave Mahomes 10 year contract in his 3rd year. That's what you do if you are truthful saying "Lamar isn't going anywhere, he's our guy". Then you have flexibility to spread that kind of cap load and sign more quality players and give your QB someone to play with. Not to mention our inability to recognize how offensive scheme is holding your QB back big time.

They also draft well, their rookies have prominent roles on the team year in, year out.
Click to expand...
1. How many QBs, realistically, sign a 10 year deal? Like give me the list of that historically. Mahomes deal is an outlier, which is why the paid like 20-25% over market value at the time for him.
2. Lamar ain't never, in a million years, signing a 10 year deal. Really doesn't do anything for the player. Why would you lock yourself into long term commitments for a decade at today's market value?

The only thing smart about Mahomes deal is that its structured in a way that he'll be hugely paid later (when the cap balloons), and once the guaranteed money ends, he can hold out for more.
 
allblackraven said:
Imagine what would Chiefs be paying had they waited like we did.
Click to expand...
The same that they paid 2 years ago? Today, Mahomes is #2 in AAV and signed for 10 years. So what, today, he costs $550M over 10 years instead of $500M?

Chiefs paid significantly above market value the first time. Why do you think other QBs who have signed since haven't gotten as much?

And yet ironically, Lamar allegedly deserves more than Mahomes...
 
rmcjacket23 said:
1. How many QBs, realistically, sign a 10 year deal? Like give me the list of that historically. Mahomes deal is an outlier, which is why the paid like 20-25% over market value at the time for him.
2. Lamar ain't never, in a million years, signing a 10 year deal. Really doesn't do anything for the player. Why would you lock yourself into long term commitments for a decade at today's market value?

The only thing smart about Mahomes deal is that its structured in a way that he'll be hugely paid later (when the cap balloons), and once the guaranteed money ends, he can hold out for more.
Click to expand...
Not just the 10y deal for Lamar, why would we want a scrambler for 10 years?
 
rmcjacket23 said:
The same that they paid 2 years ago? Today, Mahomes is #2 in AAV and signed for 10 years. So what, today, he costs $550M over 10 years instead of $500M?

Chiefs paid significantly above market value the first time. Why do you think other QBs who have signed since haven't gotten as much?

And yet ironically, Lamar allegedly deserves more than Mahomes...
Click to expand...
No in no way does he, and yet he also deserves more than Rodgers and el diablo. Money at this point isn't really the best player anymore. Just the player with the most gullible team.
 
allblackraven said:
So they would give say 200 guaranteed to Lamar's agent but not to Lamar?

What gives you an impression Lamar would agree to less just because agent told h8m so?
Click to expand...
Probably because the Agent would explain to him how math works.
A smart agent would do what a lot of franchise QBs have done... wait until after year 3 (in this case, the 2021 offseason) and said "hey Lamar, instead of making $25M in 2021 and 2022 combined, what do you say we go and make $60-70M or more during that timeframe"?
And maybe we sign a 5-6 year deal in 2021, so that you're a FA again before you're 30, and when the salary cap will north of $300M?
And maybe we do what a lot of high end QB extensions have done in the recent past, which is put in a no-franchise tag clause in it, so that the Ravens can't do it again. So that when you're actually 29, and you're up for FA, you can actually go that route if you want.

So who in Lamar's camp was communicating that to him?
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Probably because the Agent would explain to him how math works.
A smart agent would do what a lot of franchise QBs have done... wait until after year 3 (in this case, the 2021 offseason) and said "hey Lamar, instead of making $25M in 2021 and 2022 combined, what do you say we go and make $60-70M or more during that timeframe"?
And maybe we sign a 5-6 year deal in 2021, so that you're a FA again before you're 30, and when the salary cap will north of $300M?
And maybe we do what a lot of high end QB extensions have done in the recent past, which is put in a no-franchise tag clause in it, so that the Ravens can't do it again. So that when you're actually 29, and you're up for FA, you can actually go that route if you want.

So who in Lamar's camp was communicating that to him?
Click to expand...
No argument. Just plain agreement. Great post
 
allblackraven said:
As far as QBs go, they are actually pretty inept, historically. Selection and management of QBs.
Just look at what happened with Joe. He's been overpaid on the count of 4 games run, rather than paid what he was really worth. The contract was bad, too - done in a way that they had to restructure it at the point when it was clear Joe is done, not even capable of his old standard of play. Also, after giving him handsome bucks, they decided to trade his best WR. Kept drafting scrubs, continuing to tie Joe's hands, really.

All that screams ineptness. It may not be all on FO, Bisciotti had to have a hand in those decisions, just like he has now.
Click to expand...
A little bit of revisionist history though...
1. The contract in total wasn't bad. The structure was.
2. They traded his best WR because the franchise did what YOU are advocating they do now, which is go all-in. How did you think we managed to win a SB in 2012 and make the AFC title game three times in five years? Hint: it wasn't because we were cheap. Some would say we were too aggressive with our roster. Which is why 2013 was what everybody knew it would be...you went all in for five years to win, you got yours, and everybody and their mother wants to get paid. And there isn't $ to pay everybody. What did you think was going to happen?
3. I couldn't give a shit less about Boldin. Great postseason receiver, the Joe Flacco of regular season WRs with the Ravens. The 2013 team wasn't any good, and Boldin wasn't in the stratosphere of the type of receiver who's going to go out and win a team a bunch of games in the regular season single handedly.

People that wanted Boldin to stay are making an emotional reaction, rather than an intelligent one. He would have stayed one more year on a team that wasn't winning with or without him. It's totally irrelevant. The fact that people can't recognize or move on from it shows exactly what kinds of "fans" they are from an intelligence/character standpoint. Its purely for "nostalgia".
 
allblackraven said:
As far as QBs go, they are actually pretty inept, historically. Selection and management of QBs.
Just look at what happened with Joe. He's been overpaid on the count of 4 games run, rather than paid what he was really worth. The contract was bad, too - done in a way that they had to restructure it at the point when it was clear Joe is done, not even capable of his old standard of play. Also, after giving him handsome bucks, they decided to trade his best WR. Kept drafting scrubs, continuing to tie Joe's hands, really.

All that screams ineptness. It may not be all on FO, Bisciotti had to have a hand in those decisions, just like he has now.
Click to expand...
Also don't agree with the "historical ineptness" at QB. They've had two franchise QBs in the last 15 years. One helped make them extremely relevant for like 7 years, including winning a Lombardi, and the other won an MVP and you want to write a blank check too.

That's not what ineptness looks like in this league. The Jets are what ineptness at QB looks like. Teams that have gone decades without QB as good as Flacco, let alone Lamar. The Patriots aren't the norm. Neither are the Chiefs or the Packers.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
A little bit of revisionist history though...
1. The contract in total wasn't bad. The structure was.
2. They traded his best WR because the franchise did what YOU are advocating they do now, which is go all-in. How did you think we managed to win a SB in 2012 and make the AFC title game three times in five years? Hint: it wasn't because we were cheap. Some would say we were too aggressive with our roster. Which is why 2013 was what everybody knew it would be...you went all in for five years to win, you got yours, and everybody and their mother wants to get paid. And there isn't $ to pay everybody. What did you think was going to happen?
3. I couldn't give a shit less about Boldin. Great postseason receiver, the Joe Flacco of regular season WRs with the Ravens. The 2013 team wasn't any good, and Boldin wasn't in the stratosphere of the type of receiver who's going to go out and win a team a bunch of games in the regular season single handedly.

People that wanted Boldin to stay are making an emotional reaction, rather than an intelligent one. He would have stayed one more year on a team that wasn't winning with or without him. It's totally irrelevant. The fact that people can't recognize or move on from it shows exactly what kinds of "fans" they are from an intelligence/character standpoint. Its purely for "nostalgia".
Click to expand...
Boldin should have stayed. 2013 was really ugly, Flacco trying to force everything to Smith. We could have kept him if we hadn't given Flacco such a huge deal. And that's what's gonna happen now. If we are to sign Lamar expect Gus or Clark, or both to be traded. That's the kind of stuff that will (sad or not) happen. And that's a warning. Should we take the risk of going into our 2013-2018 era? or should we let Lamar go?
 
Thezone27 said:
Boldin should have stayed. 2013 was really ugly, Flacco trying to force everything to Smith. We could have kept him if we hadn't given Flacco such a huge deal. And that's what's gonna happen now. If we are to sign Lamar expect Gus or Clark, or both to be traded. That's the kind of stuff that will (sad or not) happen. And that's a warning. Should we take the risk of going into our 2013-2018 era? or should we let Lamar go?
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this Zone. Just something to think about. Great points
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top