Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Re: Another Trey reset

Posted: 2/4/2013 9:04 PM

Re: Another Trey reset 


While I agree with the general sentiment, I'm trying to figure out why any owner in any sport in his right mind would say something like: "We're going to spend like drunken sailors in free agency.  Free agents - come and get us baby!".

My advice, as always: Watch what they do, not what they say.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/4/2013 11:30 PM

Re: Another Trey reset 


This is my thought: when the right player comes free, you need to take a shot at them if you want to get better. How much did Boldin (a premier, "name" FA when he hit the market) and Jacoby Jones (a B list FA) mean to the Ravens this year? Of course a team needs to be successful in drafting talent, but if that is used as an excuse and a restrictor plate on the engine of rebuilding, then it's not good strategy. If an Anquan Boldin or his equivalent (offense or defense) is available, and that player fits your blueprint, you should make a run. You're not going to win them all, or even that many, but you don't get anyone sitting on your hands. And you don't build a championship team playing the game with one hand tied behind your back.

We suck. We don't have cap issues. What the hell are we afraid of?
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/5/2013 9:19 AM

Re: Another Trey reset 



daddywags wrote: While I agree with the general sentiment, I'm trying to figure out why any owner in any sport in his right mind would say something like: "We're going to spend like drunken sailors in free agency.  Free agents - come and get us baby!".

My advice, as always: Watch what they do, not what they say.

This is the 21st Century. No one says what they're going to do like that. They use code words. So when Trey says things like 'sense of urgency" and "winning is the priority" that means two things. He means what he says or he's full of crap when he comes back foot disengaged from throttle.

And "building theorugh the draft" and "sense of urgency" are at complete and polar odds.

Conclusion?

FOS.

The players have changed butt the FO strategy remains the same. Like I wrote, the only dif will be in the execution.

On a scale of 1 - 10 I thought H&H ended up at about a 6 given progress as I saw the talent level rising.

The question is whether Lombardi and baner are gonna top that. I admit right now my opinion of Lombardi is about Kelvin 0 on that scale.

But like RR says, we shall see.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/5/2013 2:40 PM

Re: Another Trey reset 



Nasdaq wrote:
daddywags wrote: While I agree with the general sentiment, I'm trying to figure out why any owner in any sport in his right mind would say something like: "We're going to spend like drunken sailors in free agency.  Free agents - come and get us baby!".

My advice, as always: Watch what they do, not what they say.

This is the 21st Century. No one says what they're going to do like that. They use code words. So when Trey says things like 'sense of urgency" and "winning is the priority" that means two things. He means what he says or he's full of crap when he comes back foot disengaged from throttle.

And "building theorugh the draft" and "sense of urgency" are at complete and polar odds.

Conclusion?

FOS.

The players have changed butt the FO strategy remains the same. Like I wrote, the only dif will be in the execution.

On a scale of 1 - 10 I thought H&H ended up at about a 6 given progress as I saw the talent level rising.

The question is whether Lombardi and baner are gonna top that. I admit right now my opinion of Lombardi is about Kelvin 0 on that scale.

But like RR says, we shall see.

I don't think we can draw accurate conclusions yet, YMMV.  I know what I think, but frankly it doesn't depend much on what they say.  It's more geared toward what I've seen done so far.  As for free agency, who knows?  They could go out and sign Tim Tebow to a $100 million contract and say "We never thought he would be available!".  Or they could keep the zipper tight on Haslam's wallet.  Either way what he/they have said to date won't be the determining factor.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/5/2013 3:46 PM

Re: Another Trey reset 


I keep coming back to the fact that they have to increase payroll by something like $35-40 million just to comply with the CBA and get to the cap floor.

Yet they're saying there won't be any "flashy" signings.

So what's left, ten Frostee Ruckers? Only at different positions, of course. 

Which wouldn't be a bad idea. We need two corners (one starter), a safety, and a couple of 3-4 linebackers. Unless you think Sheldon Brown has another year in him, Usama Young is pretty good, and JMJ, Fort, and Richardson are legitimate starters. 

That's five on defense. Let's say they take a defensive player at #6, so we need four. Maybe three if you like JMJ.

Add in a road grading guard and maybe a TE to replace Ben Watson. His contract is up and Banner doesn't like 32-year-olds, or even 30-year-olds, just ask Sheldon Brown. 

So I'm thinking they sign five non-flashy free agents that fill holes, give or take one. Like Buster Skrine starting at cornerback type of holes. They pass on Michael Vick - too flashy. Any money left over is used to extend guys like Mack or Haden. Maybe they even bring Cribbs or Dawson back, but I doubt it. 

So start with 4-6 non-flashy but solid upgrades in free agency, add in the #6 overall pick and the high 3rd rounder, plus the expected improvement in all those rookies that saw extended PT last year, and we could "almost always almost win" even more games next year.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/5/2013 5:11 PM

Re: Another Trey reset 



PROSECUTOR wrote: I keep coming back to the fact that they have to increase payroll by something like $35-40 million just to comply with the CBA and get to the cap floor.

Yet they're saying there won't be any "flashy" signings.

So what's left, ten Frostee Ruckers? Only at different positions, of course. 

Which wouldn't be a bad idea. We need two corners (one starter), a safety, and a couple of 3-4 linebackers. Unless you think Sheldon Brown has another year in him, Usama Young is pretty good, and JMJ, Fort, and Richardson are legitimate starters. 

That's five on defense. Let's say they take a defensive player at #6, so we need four. Maybe three if you like JMJ.

Add in a road grading guard and maybe a TE to replace Ben Watson. His contract is up and Banner doesn't like 32-year-olds, or even 30-year-olds, just ask Sheldon Brown. 

So I'm thinking they sign five non-flashy free agents that fill holes, give or take one. Like Buster Skrine starting at cornerback type of holes. They pass on Michael Vick - too flashy. Any money left over is used to extend guys like Mack or Haden. Maybe they even bring Cribbs or Dawson back, but I doubt it. 

So start with 4-6 non-flashy but solid upgrades in free agency, add in the #6 overall pick and the high 3rd rounder, plus the expected improvement in all those rookies that saw extended PT last year, and we could "almost always almost win" even more games next year.
10 frostee ruckers are too much. You'd get brain freeze and be too full after 3.

I just love the flashy ways, guess that's why we suck and no one's paid.

Biggie, I miss you man!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/5/2013 9:19 PM

Re: Another Trey reset 



PROSECUTOR wrote: I keep coming back to the fact that they have to increase payroll by something like $35-40 million just to comply with the CBA and get to the cap floor.

According to a post in the Football forum, complete with supposed CBA language, the payroll "floor" is a four-year average (2013-16, then 2017-20) over which the team must average 89% of the combined salary caps.  Moreover, the only penalty for falling short is that the team has to pay out an amount that gets them up to the average to the players who were on the team during that four year period according to a formula devised by the union. 

If this is correct, there is no need to rush over the 89% number in 2013 and certainly no reason to overpay free agents we don't want or think we need.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/6/2013 8:49 AM

Re: Another Trey reset 



daddywags wrote:
PROSECUTOR wrote: I keep coming back to the fact that they have to increase payroll by something like $35-40 million just to comply with the CBA and get to the cap floor.

According to a post in the Football forum, complete with supposed CBA language, the payroll "floor" is a four-year average (2013-16, then 2017-20) over which the team must average 89% of the combined salary caps.  Moreover, the only penalty for falling short is that the team has to pay out an amount that gets them up to the average to the players who were on the team during that four year period according to a formula devised by the union. 

If this is correct, there is no need to rush over the 89% number in 2013 and certainly no reason to overpay free agents we don't want or think we need.
OK, so it's averaged over four years, meaning they could fall below the 89% next year but make up for it by going over 89% the next three years so by 2016 they average 89%. 

I don't see why any team would fail to hit the cap floor because that would not save them money. They would just have to give extra money to players for games they already played over the previous four years. 

Still, I think they would at least try to get close to the 89% (about $108 million) this year. Or at least a lot closer than they are.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/6/2013 1:05 PM

Re: Another Trey reset 


GF - "We suck. We don't have cap issues. What the hell are we afraid of?"

It's not what "we're afraid of," it's what FAs are afraid of = Cleveland.

The FO downplays FA spending/activity (though new rules mandate spending) to cover the fact that Cleveland is not a desirable landing place for top FAs anyway - so they make it about "we'll be cautious" rather than "we be rejected." Can't tarnish the brand.
Reply | Quote