Jump to content

Lamar Jackson officially starting QB over (healthy) Flacco


wackywabbit

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, tom cody said:

Good for Jackson. I think Flacco gets let go at season's end.

I think that's the 3rd most likely possibility. I know people think that his contract is an overpay, but with no guarantees (Ravens already on hook for signing bonus) and where the cap is/will be I'm pretty sure he will be a tradable asset. It also wouldn't shock me if he retires. He can definitely still play, but I don't know if Flacco even wants to be someone who plays until he's 40. He never struck me as that hardcore. He's already got a ring and generational fortune. 

Edit: Actually the 4th most likely. They could also keep him even as a backup. Cap space isn't a real problem and it's just the base salary, which we can afford with a late 1st rookie scale QB starting. It's not pressing to recoup that cap space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I think that's the 3rd most likely possibility. I know people think that his contract is an overpay, but with no guarantees (Ravens already on hook for signing bonus) and where the cap is/will be I'm pretty sure he will be a tradable asset. It also wouldn't shock me if he retires. He can definitely still play, but I don't know if Flacco even wants to be someone who plays until he's 40. He never struck me as that hardcore. He's already got a ring and generational fortune. 

I agree that I think that they could trade him. And if it's a team like the Jags, you may even be able to get a solid pick back since you'd likely have to take on Bortles. The problem with a trade just becomes the market. The Jags are clearly there. I don't know that the Giants would feel that Eli ---> Flacco would be worth it. After that, it's a little scarce. Tannehill has played pretty well in Miami, so that seems out. Maybe Denver could make some sense if you guys take Keenum back. But an 18.5 cap hit for a starting quarterback is certainly not onerous by any means. Washingotn would be a real given Smith may be done, but Washington is one of the few teams that is not in a great situation cap space wise, and Smith's contract is fully guaranteed for next season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Forge said:

I agree that I think that they could trade him. And if it's a team like the Jags, you may even be able to get a solid pick back since you'd likely have to take on Bortles. The problem with a trade just becomes the market. The Jags are clearly there. I don't know that the Giants would feel that Eli ---> Flacco would be worth it. After that, it's a little scarce. Tannehill has played pretty well in Miami, so that seems out. Maybe Denver could make some sense if you guys take Keenum back. But an 18.5 cap hit for a starting quarterback is certainly not onerous by any means. Washingotn would be a real given Smith may be done, but Washington is one of the few teams that is not in a great situation cap space wise, and Smith's contract is fully guaranteed for next season. 

We don't need to take back any QBs. Any of those teams could cut those players for the exact same effect as trading them from their point of view. The guaranteed money would accelerate to the current year and the annual salary would dissapear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Forge said:

I agree that I think that they could trade him. And if it's a team like the Jags, you may even be able to get a solid pick back since you'd likely have to take on Bortles. The problem with a trade just becomes the market. The Jags are clearly there. I don't know that the Giants would feel that Eli ---> Flacco would be worth it. After that, it's a little scarce. Tannehill has played pretty well in Miami, so that seems out. Maybe Denver could make some sense if you guys take Keenum back. But an 18.5 cap hit for a starting quarterback is certainly not onerous by any means. Washingotn would be a real given Smith may be done, but Washington is one of the few teams that is not in a great situation cap space wise, and Smith's contract is fully guaranteed for next season. 

Yeah as @wackywabbit said, we don't need to take back any QB's. We have RGIII who's already an ideal backup for Lamar and we'll probably draft another QB as well, so there's no need. We just need those sweet, sweet draft picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Forge said:

Ugh. 

I just don't like that. 

This!

I've never seen an effective QB committee approach. If they go this route it seems likely both QB's struggle to maintain any sort of rhythm, and with them being so much different from a playing style standpoint, it is likely going to throw timing off with the entire offensive unit. 

I think they should just stick with Jackson. They have looked like a good team with him behind center the past 4 games. They just about beat what might be the top team in the AFC taking it to overtime against them. Jackson seems to be improving as a passer with more reps, and has that running game looking great. Seems sticking with him would be their best option both for now and developing him for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Yeah as @wackywabbit said, we don't need to take back any QB's. We have RGIII who's already an ideal backup for Lamar and we'll probably draft another QB as well, so there's no need. We just need those sweet, sweet draft picks.

It's not about you guys taking a quarterback back because you need it, it's because it makes it easier for the other team to digest. Washington / Jax aren't exactly swimming in cap space. Yes, they have players that they can cut, but Jax is going to have to make some hard decisions this year with regards to who they keep. Starters are going to go. If they gut the team too much, it may not even be worth it for them and they may as well enter a rebuild. Competing for a super bowl with a guy like Flacco at quarterback only works if you have that defense from last year. 

Washington is in the same boat. They have about 24 million in space. Some of that will be taken up by the rookie pool. If they take on flacco at 18.5M, they are paying 2 quarterbacks 38 million in space. It's not really workable. 

If you take out teams that have money problems, that market becomes even more limited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Forge said:

It's not about you guys taking a quarterback back because you need it, it's because it makes it easier for the other team to digest. Washington / Jax aren't exactly swimming in cap space. Yes, they have players that they can cut, but Jax is going to have to make some hard decisions this year with regards to who they keep. Starters are going to go. If they gut the team too much, it may not even be worth it for them and they may as well enter a rebuild. Competing for a super bowl with a guy like Flacco at quarterback only works if you have that defense from last year. 

Washington is in the same boat. They have about 24 million in space. Some of that will be taken up by the rookie pool. If they take on flacco at 18.5M, they are paying 2 quarterbacks 38 million in space. It's not really workable. 

If you take out teams that have money problems, that market becomes even more limited. 

The point is there is no cap benefit to trading a player over cutting him. Any team planning to replace an existing QB will to deal with that QBs guaranteed money anyway. In some cases that may be a sunk cost, like with Alex Smith, if his injury is as serious as it seems.

The salary dump concept is an NFL thing. I know there was ONE nfl salary dump with Brock Osweiler, but I think that was due to him having guaranteed money coming his second year. I don't think that's very common. Most often the guaranteed money is signing bonus up front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wackywabbit said:

The point is there is no cap benefit to trading a player over cutting him. Any team planning to replace an existing QB will to deal with that QBs guaranteed money anyway. In some cases that may be a sunk cost, like with Alex Smith, if his injury is as serious as it seems.

If its the base that is guaranteed (as is the case for Smith, and part of Bortles), then there is a difference. The new team (the Ravens) would pick up the base salary guarantee, so there's definitely a difference between cutting and trading those guys. If Washington were to cut Smith, it's a 36million dollar dead cap hit, while if they trade him, it's only 21.6. If the Jags cut bortles, they only save 4.5M, whereas if they trade him, they save 11 million. 

Now, the bortles thing isn't probably a requirement. But again, they are already in cap hell this upcoming season and will have to make moves. If you gut the team too much then what is the point of bringing in Flacco anyway? At that point, I'd just take the shot that you cut him and we don't have to give up the assets. Or I can turn my attention to Teddy B in free agency. Give him 15 million and the starters job, and it's cheaper than flacco and without having to give up the asset. Why not take a chance on Tyrod? 

I think that there can be a trade market for Flacco - not sure it's that robust or that the return is that great unless the Ravens essentially "buy" the higher draft pick by taking money back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to see so many people on board with this, despite the obvious red flags.  After watching this guy play, I seriously don't know what all the fuss is about. 

Any way you try to slice it, Jackson is not a better quarterback than Joe Flacco. 

This is a coach on the hot seat, trying not to ruffle any feathers...  and I'll go ahead and say it, Jackson is going to ultimately cost Harbaugh his job at some point anyway...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frenchie said:

I'm surprised to see so many people on board with this, despite the obvious red flags.  After watching this guy play, I seriously don't know what all the fuss is about. 

Any way you try to slice it, Jackson is not a better quarterback than Joe Flacco. 

This is a coach on the hot seat, trying not to ruffle any feathers...  and I'll go ahead and say it, Jackson is going to ultimately cost Harbaugh his job at some point anyway...

I'll bite on the troll bait.

Why is he not a better Quarterback than Joe Flacco? Is it because he's not a better passer than Joe Flacco (something 100% of people acknowledge)?

Why would a coach turn away from a Quarterback who has won 3/4 starts, given the offense a truly elite portion of the offense and made our team better on the whole as a result of the offense's output and time of possession coupled with their scoring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have long known that there are actually two Joe Flaccos - regular season flacco and PLAYOFF FLACCO.  Any chance they gave the starting job to Jackson with the plan to hand the ball back to Playoff Flacco when he steps out of the phone booth right before the postseason begins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said:

We have long known that there are actually two Joe Flaccos - regular season flacco and PLAYOFF FLACCO.  Any chance they gave the starting job to Jackson with the plan to hand the ball back to Playoff Flacco when he steps out of the phone booth right before the postseason begins?

Probably not, unless we basically limp into the playoffs on the backs of our defense - which isn't likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...