Signings, Cuts, Trades

[rmcjacket23]

When is the last time a player on the level of Brown hit Free Agency? A two time Pro Bowl player entering his prime. I dont think an OL player can say they have hit FA with that kind of pedigree in over a decade and I can only think of two past their prime former pro bowlers to even hit FA. Right now the Ravens cant afford to sign him though so they have to do what SF did and just take the picks the year before a player who outplayed them hits FA.

The reason being, yes the Ravens will be slightly worse this year without Brown (probably though you never know what you can find with a decent 1st round pick and they are still better than they were at the end of the last year), but they are absolutely worse off in 2 years and far worse off in 3 years and so to not trade him is the equivalent of giving up 2 first round picks for one shot at a ring.

1. I would unquestionably trade 2 first round picks for one shot a ring. First round picks just aren't that valuable, especially when you factor in the whiff rate on them, which has been steadily increasing for years.
2. I put no stock in "Pro Bowl" nominations, because they're mostly a popularity contest measure instead of an indication of actual NFL talent.
3. Nobody can say with any sort of certainty that we're better off or worse off 2-3 years from now. What's the barrier to drafting somebody as good as Brown again? You do realize he was not a 1st round pick. He was a day 2 pick that was universally undervalued by the league. I'd trade one more year of Brown and get, say, a Rick Wagner type player for the next 3-4 years. He wasn't better than Brown, but he was certainly a top tier starter at his position in the league, and he only required a day 3 draft pick.

Plus, you're essentially pigeon holing yourself into using that first round pick you get to replace him. Otherwise, you're just using a mid round pick on a player that may not be good (which is also true of a first rounder), which means not only may you not be better in 2021, you also may be worse off in 2022, 2023, etc. Because you used a draft pick on a player who wasn't any good.

What exactly is the basis for assuming that ANY draft pick, even a first rounder, yields a good football player for a football team? If I have a good player on a rookie contract, and I'm trying to win today, I'm not trading the player. That's trading certainty for a massive amount of uncertainty. That uncertainty could have higher long term gains, or it could have higher long term losses.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I am sure every single one of them WANTS to build in the trenches but they are simply not able to do so. Finding good OL talent has been the bane of every single team in the NFL and they are usually taken fairly high. If you don't have a top 10 pick you are not finding a premier talent on the DLine either and no one wants to be the GM who reaches for a position of need. As for FA, as I said earlier how often do building block OL players, or DLine players, hit FA. It is slightly more common for the t2 defensive players to hit FA then either t1 or t2 OLine players, and that is why they get so overpaid.

1. Over half the GMs in the league reach for positions of need. I don't think they're doing it out of lack of desire. They're doing it because they think addressing needs is how NFL teams should build.
2. I don't think its a question of how frequently those players hit FA. Because the reality is... its uncommon for teams to have multiple players in those position groups that are a) playing at an elite level and b) having to pay both around roughly the same time. There's many circumstances that need to happen in order for that to be true.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I think this is the problem with the thought process, though. Getting 2 first round picks for him is nothing but assumption. I know we've already been down this road, but I see no way he garners that. If a 1 came in, I'd think long and hard about it. But I'm not convinced one 1st is coming in let alone two.

Two first round picks isn't happening. Just because one time gave up X for another player at another position doesn't mean there will be other teams who will do the same.

It would likely be a one, or maybe a one + another pick, which would be the equivalent of the comp pick range to begin with. There's also no guarantee the 1st rounder is a 2021 first rounder either...

 

[RavensMania]

1. Over half the GMs in the league reach for positions of need. I don't think they're doing it out of lack of desire. They're doing it because they think addressing needs is how NFL teams should build.
2. I don't think its a question of how frequently those players hit FA. Because the reality is... its uncommon for teams to have multiple players in those position groups that are a) playing at an elite level and b) having to pay both around roughly the same time. There's many circumstances that need to happen in order for that to be true.

seriously the Rams don't have a first round pick until 2050

 

[rmcjacket23]

seriously the Rams don't have a first round pick until 2050

I mean they've taken "going all in" to a whole different level, but I sort of like it. I'm a big fan of building through the draft, but I think there's certain teams, including the Ravens, that overvalue said picks. I would never advocate giving up like a half decade of first rounders unless I'm getting a like 15-20 year franchise QB, which the Rams clearly haven't gotten, but at least their approach is different.

I applaud them for a couple reasons:
1. They realized they made a mistake with Goff, and they rectified it. A lot of teams would have just bent over and taken like 2-3 more years of bad coach/QB relationships, and probably not improved much as a team, and then moved on. I give them credit for, at least for now, making a good effort to make their situation, at least in the short term, better.
2. I think they realize what a lot of fans don't realize... this idea of "long term sustainable success" is extremely difficult to achieve in this league, and the idea of making decisions now to hope to win 3,4,5 years from now backfires a TON. The head coaches and GMs that try to play the "long game" with roster management usually aren't around long enough to see it through. There are maybe a small handful of Owners in this league who will tolerate losing, mediocrity, or even small amounts of "winning" (i.e. a playoff appearance or two, but certainly nothing close to a Lombardi) for more than maybe 4-5 years. And for something that long, you have to be coming in to a dumpster fire that needs a complete tear down, and the Owner acknowledges it.

Coaches certainly don't have the luxury of doing a 5 year rebuild. And GM's really don't either. They may get a year or two to get some good players in there, but it has to be a very significant improvement for them to stay. Otherwise, they're gone, and whatever work you did to build the team will be to the benefit of somebody else.

Owners are the only person in the building who can really have no negative consequences of short-term or long-term losing.

Lamar Jackson (or at least the decision to draft him) saved John Harbaugh's job. John gets some credit for that decision, but if he didn't pan out, he would have been fired at least before last season. He was absolutely on the hot seat coming into 2018 and even a little bit in 2019 perhaps. And that was based on 3 years of losing essentially. And his pedigree of success from a W/L perspective is only matched or exceeded by maybe 3-4 other coaches in the league. You think he's super concerned about what his roster looks like 3-4 years from now?

 

[Simba]

I mean they've taken "going all in" to a whole different level, but I sort of like it. I'm a big fan of building through the draft, but I think there's certain teams, including the Ravens, that overvalue said picks. I would never advocate giving up like a half decade of first rounders unless I'm getting a like 15-20 year franchise QB, which the Rams clearly haven't gotten, but at least their approach is different.

I applaud them for a couple reasons:
1. They realized they made a mistake with Goff, and they rectified it. A lot of teams would have just bent over and taken like 2-3 more years of bad coach/QB relationships, and probably not improved much as a team, and then moved on. I give them credit for, at least for now, making a good effort to make their situation, at least in the short term, better.
2. I think they realize what a lot of fans don't realize... this idea of "long term sustainable success" is extremely difficult to achieve in this league, and the idea of making decisions now to hope to win 3,4,5 years from now backfires a TON. The head coaches and GMs that try to play the "long game" with roster management usually aren't around long enough to see it through. There are maybe a small handful of Owners in this league who will tolerate losing, mediocrity, or even small amounts of "winning" (i.e. a playoff appearance or two, but certainly nothing close to a Lombardi) for more than maybe 4-5 years. And for something that long, you have to be coming in to a dumpster fire that needs a complete tear down, and the Owner acknowledges it.

Coaches certainly don't have the luxury of doing a 5 year rebuild. And GM's really don't either. They may get a year or two to get some good players in there, but it has to be a very significant improvement for them to stay. Otherwise, they're gone, and whatever work you did to build the team will be to the benefit of somebody else.

Owners are the only person in the building who can really have no negative consequences of short-term or long-term losing.

Lamar Jackson (or at least the decision to draft him) saved John Harbaugh's job. John gets some credit for that decision, but if he didn't pan out, he would have been fired at least before last season. He was absolutely on the hot seat coming into 2018 and even a little bit in 2019 perhaps. And that was based on 3 years of losing essentially. And his pedigree of success from a W/L perspective is only matched or exceeded by maybe 3-4 other coaches in the league. You think he's super concerned about what his roster looks like 3-4 years from now?

I agree with the bolded. I love building through the draft and think you're generally going to be more successful if you build your team that way.

But sometimes, moving those picks for a bonafide player is such a good move. I look at Buffalo with Diggs. They noticed an opportunity to put a premier talent to go with their young QB. They didn't balk. They did it. I don't think you do with that with the frequency that the Rams have, but I'd love to see us pick up a superstar via trade at some point if the opportunity presents itself.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I agree with the bolded. I love building through the draft and think you're generally going to be more successful if you build your team that way.

But sometimes, moving those picks for a bonafide player is such a good move. I look at Buffalo with Diggs. They noticed an opportunity to put a premier talent to go with their young QB. They didn't balk. They did it. I don't think you do with that with the frequency that the Rams have, but I'd love to see us pick up a superstar via trade at some point if the opportunity presents itself.

Green Bay is the best example of this this process generally "doesn't" work. Green Bay, in the Ted Thompson era (most of the Aaron Rodgers timeframe) had a deathly fear of free agents. It seemingly required Congressional approval for them to sign even a mid-tier FA. They built through the draft over and over again.

How do we assess how well that's worked? Well, for the most part, with Rodgers, they've been relevant all the time. They're a perennial playoff team for the most part, and they're pretty much never a bad team.

That being said... 1 SB appearance in 16 years with one of the best QBs in NFL history. I would almost guarantee that Aaron Rodgers, when his career is over, will tell you that he will be disappointed that the Packers didn't "take more shots" on trading for upgrades, additional resources, etc., that could have perhaps helped them win another SB or two.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

I mean they've taken "going all in" to a whole different level, but I sort of like it. I'm a big fan of building through the draft, but I think there's certain teams, including the Ravens, that overvalue said picks. I would never advocate giving up like a half decade of first rounders unless I'm getting a like 15-20 year franchise QB, which the Rams clearly haven't gotten, but at least their approach is different.

I applaud them for a couple reasons:
1. They realized they made a mistake with Goff, and they rectified it. A lot of teams would have just bent over and taken like 2-3 more years of bad coach/QB relationships, and probably not improved much as a team, and then moved on. I give them credit for, at least for now, making a good effort to make their situation, at least in the short term, better.
2. I think they realize what a lot of fans don't realize... this idea of "long term sustainable success" is extremely difficult to achieve in this league, and the idea of making decisions now to hope to win 3,4,5 years from now backfires a TON. The head coaches and GMs that try to play the "long game" with roster management usually aren't around long enough to see it through. There are maybe a small handful of Owners in this league who will tolerate losing, mediocrity, or even small amounts of "winning" (i.e. a playoff appearance or two, but certainly nothing close to a Lombardi) for more than maybe 4-5 years. And for something that long, you have to be coming in to a dumpster fire that needs a complete tear down, and the Owner acknowledges it.

Coaches certainly don't have the luxury of doing a 5 year rebuild. And GM's really don't either. They may get a year or two to get some good players in there, but it has to be a very significant improvement for them to stay. Otherwise, they're gone, and whatever work you did to build the team will be to the benefit of somebody else.

Owners are the only person in the building who can really have no negative consequences of short-term or long-term losing.

Lamar Jackson (or at least the decision to draft him) saved John Harbaugh's job. John gets some credit for that decision, but if he didn't pan out, he would have been fired at least before last season. He was absolutely on the hot seat coming into 2018 and even a little bit in 2019 perhaps. And that was based on 3 years of losing essentially. And his pedigree of success from a W/L perspective is only matched or exceeded by maybe 3-4 other coaches in the league. You think he's super concerned about what his roster looks like 3-4 years from now?

You should change your name from rmcjacket23 to rmcjacket123, because every post is numbered 1 2 and 3 lmao

 

[rmcjacket23]

You should change your name from rmcjacket23 to rmcjacket123, because every post is numbered 1 2 and 3 lmao

I only had 2 on that one...

 

[Simba]

Green Bay is the best example of this this process generally "doesn't" work. Green Bay, in the Ted Thompson era (most of the Aaron Rodgers timeframe) had a deathly fear of free agents. It seemingly required Congressional approval for them to sign even a mid-tier FA. They built through the draft over and over again.

How do we assess how well that's worked? Well, for the most part, with Rodgers, they've been relevant all the time. They're a perennial playoff team for the most part, and they're pretty much never a bad team.

That being said... 1 SB appearance in 16 years with one of the best QBs in NFL history. I would almost guarantee that Aaron Rodgers, when his career is over, will tell you that he will be disappointed that the Packers didn't "take more shots" on trading for upgrades, additional resources, etc., that could have perhaps helped them win another SB or two.

Agreed. It's funny going down their draft history. Jaire Alexander and maybe Kenny Clark are like the only 1st rounders that actually lived up to their billing over a quite long period of time. Imagine if they had moved just one or two of the 1sts in the last 10 years or so to get a superstar. And it wasn't a money issue either... the Packers just didn't spend money outside of the organization until the new regime.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

I only had 2 on that one...

Just joking, and was more referring to the long one at the top of the page

 

[rossihunter2]

Green Bay is the best example of this this process generally "doesn't" work. Green Bay, in the Ted Thompson era (most of the Aaron Rodgers timeframe) had a deathly fear of free agents. It seemingly required Congressional approval for them to sign even a mid-tier FA. They built through the draft over and over again.

How do we assess how well that's worked? Well, for the most part, with Rodgers, they've been relevant all the time. They're a perennial playoff team for the most part, and they're pretty much never a bad team.

That being said... 1 SB appearance in 16 years with one of the best QBs in NFL history. I would almost guarantee that Aaron Rodgers, when his career is over, will tell you that he will be disappointed that the Packers didn't "take more shots" on trading for upgrades, additional resources, etc., that could have perhaps helped them win another SB or two.

i mean there's a middle ground - thompson refused to dip a toe into free agency to a fault - there's a middle ground to it and by the end of his tenure even he'd softened his stance with the massive increases in the salary cap

you make a good point about it too
the patriots basically screwed their draft over most years and built almost entirely through free agents and pro-personnel and went to 9 superbowls

but that wasnt about not making picks (on the contrary they love trading back and stockpiling picks), they were just bad at picking players for the mostpart

 

[rmcjacket23]

i mean there's a middle ground - thompson refused to dip a toe into free agency to a fault - there's a middle ground to it and by the end of his tenure even he'd softened his stance with the massive increases in the salary cap

you make a good point about it too
the patriots basically screwed their draft over most years and built almost entirely through free agents and pro-personnel and went to 9 superbowls

but that wasnt about not making picks (on the contrary they love trading back and stockpiling picks), they were just bad at picking players for the mostpart

Well the Patriots are going to be outliers to a lot of situations, and we pretty much see what one of the worst rosters in the league, without Tom Brady, looks like. Even with the best coach, its an average football team.

I agree there's a middle ground. But the point is there's no such thing as "the window is wide open". I have no idea what Lamar is going to look like 5 years from now. I'm extremely confident he won't be outrunning everybody in the open field at that point, so everything from he becomes more well like Russell Wilson to we're looking to find a replacement is on the table in my eyes.

That's why when you've got the chance to win now and it requires some future assets to do it, I'm taking that shot. I'm not selling the farm to buy a condo, but I'm certainly not steering clear of any significant FA or trade upgrades in lieu of more draft picks, and I'm certainly not selling off anybody I know I can't afford in the future. Owners can do that. Fans can do that. Coaches, GM's, and Players can't do that.

 

[Adreme]

But you said yourself... their window isn't closed. So if their window isn't closed, why are we focused on trying to fill a lot of holes in a short period of time? We shouldn't be. We have picks this year. We have picks next year, and will likely get more picks next year. And in 2022, there's likely to be a lot more money available to spend on players.

Letting a good player play out his rookie contract for cheap certainly doesn't qualify as "throwing away future to go all in right now" in my eyes. I'm not sure there really can be an argument made that it is by any standard either. Throwing away the future to go all in right now would be trading future draft picks to add a player not already on the roster, and likely an expensive player. Trading for Yannick is much closer to that scenario than simply allowing Brown to play out his existing deal would qualify as "mortgaging the future".

And as I referenced before... all you're getting is picks. Picks aren't relevant until you convert those picks into quality players. How can I guarantee the picks I acquire are going to help this football team win in the short term or the long term? I can't. Bird in the hand... I've got a valuable player at a cheap price. Teams that win consistently maximize that.

That's why I said there really aren't many, if any, examples of NFL teams that are competitive trading away cheap, valuable players for draft picks. The only team that comes close to that is New England, and they missed out on a LOT of more talented players and I'd argue missed out on some Lombardi's by doing so. And it shows in the current roster they have, which is essentially the same as it was, minus the QB.

NEs current roster was losing 4 defensive starters in FA and a bunch who opted out.

Once again though is there any non QB you would trade 2 first round picks for, in the final year of their rookie deal, when you know you cant sign them? That is what the Brown situation is. Is is a rather unusual situation to not be able to sign a two time pro bowl player but that is probably the situation the Ravens are in so the question is: Are you willing to trade away multiple firsts for an all in shot at this year? If they thought they could sign Brown, then they by all means should go for it, but by all accounts there just is not enough cap room which tends to be the case when your roster is overflowing with young all pro talent.

Basically Brown is fantastic and the team is better with him on it, but no player is so good that they are worth giving up 2 first round picks for on a 1 year rental unless the Ravens window literally was closing after this year.

 

[rmcjacket23]

NEs current roster was losing 4 defensive starters in FA and a bunch who opted out.

Once again though is there any non QB you would trade 2 first round picks for, in the final year of their rookie deal, when you know you cant sign them? That is what the Brown situation is. Is is a rather unusual situation to not be able to sign a two time pro bowl player but that is probably the situation the Ravens are in so the question is: Are you willing to trade away multiple firsts for an all in shot at this year? If they thought they could sign Brown, then they by all means should go for it, but by all accounts there just is not enough cap room which tends to be the case when your roster is overflowing with young all pro talent.

Basically Brown is fantastic and the team is better with him on it, but no player is so good that they are worth giving up 2 first round picks for on a 1 year rental unless the Ravens window literally was closing after this year.

1. Again, you're probably the only person I've seen so far anywhere suggest we would get 2 first round picks for him, and I see absolutely no reason why any team would pay that price, so I'm not really going to entertain that thought too much at all to be honest.
2. If its a 1st rounder + additional pick, which is where I think the market might be (and I'm not convinced its that high), then no, I wouldn't trade it for one more shot at a SB. I already know I can get a mid-rounder as a comp pick if I choose, so its basically just a net first rounder.

I don't value first rounders nearly as highly as you, mostly because its a 50/50 shot they're even a marginal player to begin with.

 

[BoredMarine13]

1. Again, you're probably the only person I've seen so far anywhere suggest we would get 2 first round picks for him, and I see absolutely no reason why any team would pay that price, so I'm not really going to entertain that thought too much at all to be honest.
2. If its a 1st rounder + additional pick, which is where I think the market might be (and I'm not convinced its that high), then no, I wouldn't trade it for one more shot at a SB. I already know I can get a mid-rounder as a comp pick if I choose, so its basically just a net first rounder.

I don't value first rounders nearly as highly as you, mostly because its a 50/50 shot they're even a marginal player to begin with.

I’ve seen a lot of pundits say two 2nd round picks should be the starting point. That seems low for a pro bowl left tackle. A top 15 pick and a day 3 pick seems realistic.

I’m not sure that’s worth trading the only quality lineman we have. We’re not even sure Stanley comes back on time or healthy. I agree the only way this gets done is if DeCosta thinks the current Super Bowl window is closed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simba]

I’ve seen a lot of pundits say two 2nd round picks should be the starting point. That seems low for a pro bowl left tackle. A top 15 pick and a day 3 pick seems realistic.

I’m not sure that’s worth trading the only quality lineman we have. We’re not even sure Stanley comes back on time or healthy. I agree the only way this gets done is if DeCosta thinks the current Super Bowl window is closed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I keep seeing the bolded and I can assure you that Pro Bowl accolades do not matter to teams making the call. He's a very good player but we know how dumb the pro bowl vote is. If we were talking all-pro recognition, I could bite.

 

[BoredMarine13]

I keep seeing the bolded and I can assure you that Pro Bowl accolades do not matter to teams making the call. He's a very good player but we know how dumb the pro bowl vote is. If we were talking all-pro recognition, I could bite.

Sure the pro bowl overall is a joke and many guys go because of popularity or fill in. I wouldn’t use that as a determining factor but don’t forget players and coaches voted for him as well. I also don’t think it’s a stretch to say Orlando played “out of position” at an all pro level this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simba]

Sure the pro bowl overall is a joke and many guys go because of popularity or fill in. I wouldn’t use that as a determining factor but don’t forget players and coaches voted for him as well. I also don’t think it’s a stretch to say Orlando played “out of position” at an all pro level this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I'm not disagreeing there. He's a really good player. But his pro bowl status is going to have no bearing in trade negotiations. Solely looks good on paper.

 

[rossihunter2]

And I'm not disagreeing there. He's a really good player. But his pro bowl status is going to have no bearing in trade negotiations. Solely looks good on paper.

and for what it's worth tbf Tunsil hadn't made a probowl when he was traded either or gotten all-pro or anything - his only accolade at that point in time was all-rookie team