5723 replies to this topic

[jamesdean]

There's really no debate about that. Huntley is a decent qb, but even on a healthy Lamar's worst day he's simply not a better qb and doesn't give you the best chance to win a game. Now if we can just the stupid OC to pay attention to the running game. 

Sorry, buddy.  He's still drooling over Lamar's passing stats against the Colts. 

[Bmore Irish]

Allen
Herbert
Burrow
Murray
Lawrence
Tua
Mac Jones
Lance
Hurts

9 QBs I feel good about have been taken in the last 3 years. Maybe some don't pan out. Maybe other guys (Love, Fields, etc.) do. The point is that getting a decent QB isn't that hard for a team that does their homework. Is it hard to find transcendent superstars? Of course, but you don't need one to win a SB, and you better be damned sure Lamar is good enough to carry the team every year without help for the next 8 years before devoting franchise-crippling money to him.

Five of the nine QBs you listed were drafted with a top five pick. Two others went just outside at #6 and #7. Mac Jones was drafted #15 in a year where five QBs went in the first round. The other times that five QBs were drafted in the first round? 2018 when the Ravens drafted Lamar Jackson at #32, and 1999 when all five QBs went by pick 12.

 

I think your list has some questionable criteria to begin with, especially considering the conversation is based on judging the six most recent weeks of Lamar's career as more important than everything he'd done up to that point. But nevertheless, you basically are saying the Ravens need to have a top 10, and more likely top 5, pick in order to have a reasonable chance at drafting a "decent" replacement.

 

It's totally off-base to say that drafting a replacement franchise QB isn't that hard to do. And if all you're aiming for is "decent" for four or five years before doing it all over again, I find that even more absurd. This team isn't in a position to be tanking for a high enough pick, and trading resources to move up means you better be getting more than decent. Maybe they can be the Jets or Bills or Browns or Jaguars and take 5-10 years or more to finally get it right again.

 

I find the whole conversation to be premature and misguided to begin with. You're taking a handful of weeks under extraordinarily poor circumstances and holding it in higher regard over an otherwise historic type of (albeit short) career of evidence to the contrary.

[Old Man]

At some point, the HC is accountable for what the OC is doing or isnt doing.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Five of the nine QBs you listed were drafted with a top five pick. Two others went just outside at #6 and #7. Mac Jones was drafted #15 in a year where five QBs went in the first round. The other times that five QBs were drafted in the first round? 2018 when the Ravens drafted Lamar Jackson at #32, and 1999 when all five QBs went by pick 12.

I think your list has some questionable criteria to begin with, especially considering the conversation is based on judging the six most recent weeks of Lamar's career as more important than everything he'd done up to that point. But nevertheless, you basically are saying the Ravens need to have a top 10, and more likely top 5, pick in order to have a reasonable chance at drafting a "decent" replacement.

It's totally off-base to say that drafting a replacement franchise QB isn't that hard to do. And if all you're aiming for is "decent" for four or five years before doing it all over again, I find that even more absurd. This team isn't in a position to be tanking for a high enough pick, and trading resources to move up means you better be getting more than decent. Maybe they can be the Jets or Bills or Browns or Jaguars and take 5-10 years or more to finally get it right again.

I find the whole conversation to be premature and misguided to begin with. You're taking a handful of weeks under extraordinarily poor circumstances and holding it in higher regard over an otherwise historic type of (albeit short) career of evidence to the contrary.

All of this from beginning to end. Glad Im not the one thats burying slide in this thread. Let some of the rest of you have a chance.

[Slidemaster]

Five of the nine QBs you listed were drafted with a top five pick. Two others went just outside at #6 and #7. Mac Jones was drafted #15 in a year where five QBs went in the first round. The other times that five QBs were drafted in the first round? 2018 when the Ravens drafted Lamar Jackson at #32, and 1999 when all five QBs went by pick 12.

I think your list has some questionable criteria to begin with, especially considering the conversation is based on judging the six most recent weeks of Lamar's career as more important than everything he'd done up to that point. But nevertheless, you basically are saying the Ravens need to have a top 10, and more likely top 5, pick in order to have a reasonable chance at drafting a "decent" replacement.

It's totally off-base to say that drafting a replacement franchise QB isn't that hard to do. And if all you're aiming for is "decent" for four or five years before doing it all over again, I find that even more absurd. This team isn't in a position to be tanking for a high enough pick, and trading resources to move up means you better be getting more than decent. Maybe they can be the Jets or Bills or Browns or Jaguars and take 5-10 years or more to finally get it right again.

I find the whole conversation to be premature and misguided to begin with. You're taking a handful of weeks under extraordinarily poor circumstances and holding it in higher regard over an otherwise historic type of (albeit short) career of evidence to the contrary.

So all of that is correct, except for your statement that I want them to do it.

Reread my statements. I want them to wait until after his next season to make a decision on an extension, and explore this option only if he insists they give him a record breaking deal coming off his worst season since his rookie year. My stance is that it is more beneficial to trade him for several first round picks to another team and draft his replacement with a top 5 pick, over paying him record breaking money after a bad year with plenty of questions.

The hardest part of getting a new franchise QB is getting a high enough pick. That might not be that hard with the right trade.

So, yes - it IS premature. But, I don't think it's premature to at least discuss potential scenarios moving forward.

My preference is that Lamar turns it around, has a great 2022, and gets the extension both sides want. However, if he holds out and refuses to take anything less than record breaking money, I'd rather trade him for a haul of firsts and move on.

[bmore_ken]

At some point, the HC is accountable for what the OC is doing or isnt doing.

I agree 100%

[Ravens2006]

At some point, the HC is accountable for what the OC is doing or isnt doing.

Yep. And the tendency for this offense to go pass heavy in games, over many years, when their OL strengths/weaknesses and other matchups don't necessarily suggest it's the best course of action, has been a constant. Through several OCs and now two different main QBs. The only constant is the Head Coach.

And it's not like this team OFTEN finds itself in big deficits. Most often when we see those games unfold, you'll later realize that they never trailed by more than a score much of the time. In short, they're not just "throwing because they have to". It's a conscious choice most of the time.

[Mackus]

The hardest part of getting a new franchise QB is getting a high enough pick. That might not be that hard with the right trade.

 

I think this is a very bad foundation for an organizational strategy. 

 

Seemingly every year there is a QB taken very early who doesn't do well.  That happens as often as one who does play well.  Lawrence, WIlson, Lance, Burrow, Murray, Mayfield, Darnold, Trubisky, Goff, Wentz, Winston, Mariota, Bortles, Luck, and Griffin are the QBs taken top-3 in the past 10 drafts.  15 guys.  I would take Luck and Murray and Burrow for cheap over Lamar at $45M.  I would take Lamar at $45M over any of those other guys on whatever their 2nd contract costs in current dollars. 

 

The casual assumption that it's anything short of incredibly difficult to find a QB is a truly fatal flaw.  It's very hard to find a competent QB.  It's damn near impossible to find a star-level QB.

[Old Man]

I think this is a very bad foundation for an organizational strategy. 

 

Seemingly every year there is a QB taken very early who doesn't do well.  That happens as often as one who does play well.  Lawrence, WIlson, Lance, Burrow, Murray, Mayfield, Darnold, Trubisky, Goff, Wentz, Winston, Mariota, Bortles, Luck, and Griffin are the QBs taken top-3 in the past 10 drafts.  15 guys.  I would take Luck and Murray and Burrow for cheap over Lamar at $45M.  I would take Lamar at $45M over any of those other guys on whatever their 2nd contract costs in current dollars. 

 

The casual assumption that it's anything short of incredibly difficult to find a QB is a truly fatal flaw.  It's very hard to find a competent QB.  It's damn near impossible to find a star-level QB.

Sometimes guys like Differ and Rypien are good QBs to have.

 

While they dont have the talent to put the cape on their back and take the team with them.

 

They are usually talented enough, to keep mistakes down, and allow the team to win the SB. 

[bmore_ken]

Sometimes guys like Differ and Rypien are good QBs to have.

 

While they dont have the talent to put the cape on their back and take the team with them.

 

They are usually talented enough, to keep mistakes down, and allow the team to win the SB. 

We no longer have the 2000 defense with two Hall of Famers and a likely third. Dilfer benefitted from one of the top defenses in the history of the game. Without that defense and Stover that team doesn't even make the playoffs. You can't plan your roster around that. 

[Slidemaster]

I think this is a very bad foundation for an organizational strategy.

Seemingly every year there is a QB taken very early who doesn't do well. That happens as often as one who does play well. Lawrence, WIlson, Lance, Burrow, Murray, Mayfield, Darnold, Trubisky, Goff, Wentz, Winston, Mariota, Bortles, Luck, and Griffin are the QBs taken top-3 in the past 10 drafts. 15 guys. I would take Luck and Murray and Burrow for cheap over Lamar at $45M. I would take Lamar at $45M over any of those other guys on whatever their 2nd contract costs in current dollars.

The casual assumption that it's anything short of incredibly difficult to find a QB is a truly fatal flaw. It's very hard to find a competent QB. It's damn near impossible to find a star-level QB.

It doesn't have to be an organizational philosophy. Doing it once doesn't mean its your new M.O.

[weird-O]

My concern about a massive new contract, beyond the already well-stated impact it has of the team's ability to retain or add other pieces, is that Lamar isn't an impressive post-season QB. As I understand it, Flacco was a bland regular season QB. But when the bell rang, he usually answered the call (until his SB MVP). Lamar is an exciting, dynamic player, and then the playoffs come, and he's not as dazzling. It could be any combination of factors that have put him in that uncomfortable spotlight. And those factors may all be beyond what he could possibly influence. But after watching the post 2012 Flacco Ravens toil in mediocrity, it would be a bummer to see the team locked into another QB who can't deliver on his "Elite" contract. So I hope something happens to really influence the decision either way.   

[Mackus]

My concern about a massive new contract, beyond the already well-stated impact it has of the team's ability to retain or add other pieces, is that Lamar isn't an impressive post-season QB. As I understand it, Flacco was a bland regular season QB. But when the bell rang, he usually answered the call (until his SB MVP). Lamar is an exciting, dynamic player, and then the playoffs come, and he's not as dazzling. It could be any combination of factors that have put him in that uncomfortable spotlight. And those factors may all be beyond what he could possibly influence. But after watching the post 2012 Flacco Ravens toil in mediocrity, it would be a bummer to see the team locked into another QB who can't deliver on his "Elite" contract. So I hope something happens to really influence the decision either way.   

 

Concerns about the contract are good.  It's going to be a huge deal and it's going to be difficult to build a winner around him at that salary.  It'll influence everything else about how the team is built and sustained.

 

Concerns that take you so far into the point of paralysis that you decide to instead NOT sign him are where I think the problems arise.  It'll be hard to win with a star QB on a star QB contract.  But it's much harder to win without a QB and it's not easy at all to find even a competent one, yet alone a star like Lamar.

[Mackus]

It doesn't have to be an organizational philosophy. Doing it once doesn't mean its your new M.O.

 

I'd hope that someone who tried something so silly would learn from the mistake and not try it again.  So that's good at least. 

 

But why would you be willing to sign the next guy when you aren't willing to sign Lamar?  What more could someone else do that Lamar hasn't done?  The costs are mostly identical.  No decent QB is gonna be signing for under $35 a year, all the actually good ones will be made the highest paid in the league when it's their turn, and that'll continue going up over time.  By Year 3 of his deal Lamar might be only the 5th or 6th highest paid guy.

[makoman]

My concern about a massive new contract, beyond the already well-stated impact it has of the team's ability to retain or add other pieces, is that Lamar isn't an impressive post-season QB. As I understand it, Flacco was a bland regular season QB. But when the bell rang, he usually answered the call (until his SB MVP).

I don't think that's been decided yet. Flacco wasn't really any good in the postseason till his 4th year, they didn't win because of him at all. Peyton Manning was pretty hit or miss at the beginning and didn't win a playoff game till he was 27. Drew Brees played well, but was just 1-2 in the playoffs in his 20s. The playoffs are hard. 

 

Mackus is right though, it's good to be concerned. If you miss on 20% of the cap you're done for a few years. But I do think he still has the ceiling he had before, so I think you have to do it.

[Slidemaster]

I'd hope that someone who tried something so silly would learn from the mistake and not try it again. So that's good at least.

But why would you be willing to sign the next guy when you aren't willing to sign Lamar? What more could someone else do that Lamar hasn't done? The costs are mostly identical. No decent QB is gonna be signing for under $35 a year, all the actually good ones will be made the highest paid in the league when it's their turn, and that'll continue going up over time. By Year 3 of his deal Lamar might be only the 5th or 6th highest paid guy.

I'm surprised that you are convinced it's silly. Know what else is silly? Signing someone with genuine questions about their game to a franchise crippling contract.

I don't know if I'd sign the next guy. I don't know who the next guy is yet. However, I think it's a reasonable, if Lamar never played another game before negotiating his contract, that there be enough doubt about who he is to give us serious pause about the benefits of trading him for a haul vs. giving him the kind of money that will require that he do most of the work on offense himself.

We're watching him play without a great deal of help now, and he isn't good. A team built around him with the kind of cap hit he will cause might be better than this...but by how much? Is this a sneak preview at how he looks without the money to afford great supporting pieces?

I'm not sure. Neither are you. I'm also not sure I don't want to sign him. However, pretending there is NO viable alternative and it is a DISASTER of FRANCHISE DESTROYING proportions to trade him for multiple firsts and move on is just emotion talking.

[Mackus]

There is risk all around.  I like the profile of Lamar even at massive prices over the alternatives.  I think the only way to reach a different conclusion when considering everything is if you've got a fundamental flaw in your decision-making.  In your case, I think you have completely incorrect assumptions about how probable it is to find the next QB, both for finding someone who's merely capable and especially someone who is down right good.  And then if you do find that guy, you've got the same exact decision in a few years so the upside even if you get lucky and find a guy is very narrow.

 

It'd be like if we were talking about going for it on 4th and 6 and you said "well it's a good decision because I've got a 75% chance of converting".  If you did have a 75% chance of converting, then yeah, it's probably a reasonable decision to go for it.  But you don't.  The conversion rate is way lower than that.  You're reaching the wrong conclusion because you have a flaw in your decision-making because of the bad inputs.  You still might convert on that 4th and 6th, is the thing.  It's not impossible.  But it's just not as likely as you think it is.

[bmore_ken]

I'm surprised that you are convinced it's silly. Know what else is silly? Signing someone with genuine questions about their game to a franchise crippling contract.

 

The problem with this statement is you proclaiming "genuine questions"  over a 5 game stretch in a season with a horrible Oline and basically no running backs as opposed to the entire body of work. What happens if we let Lamar walk, we  draft another guy who's good for 3 years and then has a similar five game stretch in his 4th year? Will you be back here claiming we need to start over again? 

[makoman]

There is risk all around.  I like the profile of Lamar even at massive prices over the alternatives.  I think the only way to reach a different conclusion when considering everything is if you've got a fundamental flaw in your decision-making.  In your case, I think you have completely incorrect assumptions about how probable it is to find the next QB, both for finding someone who's merely capable and especially someone who is down right good.  And then if you do find that guy, you've got the same exact decision in a few years so the upside even if you get lucky and find a guy is very narrow.

 

It'd be like if we were talking about going for it on 4th and 6 and you said "well it's a good decision because I've got a 75% chance of converting".  If you did have a 75% chance of converting, then yeah, it's probably a reasonable decision to go for it.  But you don't.  The conversion rate is way lower than that.  You're reaching the wrong conclusion because you have a flaw in your decision-making because of the bad inputs.  You still might convert on that 4th and 6th, is the thing.  It's not impossible.  But it's just not as likely as you think it is.

I think the decision making is fine if you think the last month is now representative of Lamar going forward and you think you can swindle some GM into paying 2019 Lamar prices in a trade. No matter how hard it is to find a QB that could be a win if you're right.

 

Slide seems to think the last month is a big problem and is raising huge questions. I don't, but I also don't have a crystal ball to say that that's clearly wrong.

[Slidemaster]

There is risk all around. I like the profile of Lamar even at massive prices over the alternatives. I think the only way to reach a different conclusion when considering everything is if you've got a fundamental flaw in your decision-making. In your case, I think you have completely incorrect assumptions about how probable it is to find the next QB, both for finding someone who's merely capable and especially someone who is down right good. And then if you do find that guy, you've got the same exact decision in a few years so the upside even if you get lucky and find a guy is very narrow.

It'd be like if we were talking about going for it on 4th and 6 and you said "well it's a good decision because I've got a 75% chance of converting". If you did have a 75% chance of converting, then yeah, it's probably a reasonable decision to go for it. But you don't. The conversion rate is way lower than that. You're reaching the wrong conclusion because you have a flaw in your decision-making because of the bad inputs. You still might convert on that 4th and 6th, is the thing. It's not impossible. But it's just not as likely as you think it is.

So, there are a couple of mistakes in the opinions you are ascribing to me here.

1. I don't think it's necessarily easy to find a good quarterback in the draft. However, I do think that it's easier to find a good quarterback in the draft than it is to get out from under a crippling contract. I would go one step further, and say that I think it's easier to build a Super Bowl contender with a league-average quarterback on a reasonable contract than is to build a contender with a somewhat above-average quarterback on a crippling contract. The Ravens have never had an elite quarterback, yet have won two Superbowls. A few years ago the Eagles won with Nick Foles. If you're going to pay a quarterback Superstar, bank-breaking money, he absolutely has to be able to elevate everyone around him to a championship-caliber level for at least the majority of the contract. Manning, Brees, and Mahomes are all examples of this kind of quarterback.

It is possible Lamar can do that. However, I have questions about if he will. "Questions" is the operative word here.

2. I don't think it's necessarily good analysis to look at the entire first round for whether a quarterback will hit or miss. If you're trading Lamar, you're getting a top-five pick one way or another, either by getting one straight up from the team you're doing business with, or leveraging the haul of first-round picks that you get into a top-five pick from someone else.

I feel the odds of getting a good to great quarterback in the first five picks are about 50%. That's about as good as any odds in football. Those odds come with far fewer financial restrictions than signing Lamar to a contract that will make it very difficult to put supporting pieces around him.

3. I will admit that the last four or five games have raised many of these doubts in my mind, but not necessarily because of Lamar's poor play on the surface. Rather, I'm afraid that they may be a harbinger of things to come should he be signed to the mega deal he's going to want.

My concerns are as follows:

- He's going to run less. That is already happening. When he runs less, the offense is much more predictable, and he is far less dynamic. I don't know what kind of quarterback he's going to be without his legs, and neither does anyone else.

- We are seeing how well he plays when the quality of the team around him is reduced. To be fair to him, it is probably worse now then it would be even when he's making the money he wants to make, but it may not be by that much. They are going to have to rely largely on the draft to restock the offensive line, as well as the defense. So far, their offensive line picks have been major disappointments, and their picks on defense have been merely adequate. The prevailing wisdom has always been that Lamar makes the offensive line better, but that has not been the case this year. If the drafting in those departments remains average or worse, maybe this is the kind of Supporting Cast we're going to have to get used to should he sign that big contract.

- The Blitz. Maybe it's stupid of me to be so worried about this, but they have had four games to prepare for teams throwing blitzes at them, and for 4 games their offense has been dismal. That will be all teams attempt to do until they prove they can beat it. This undoubtedly is in part due to a poor offensive line, but again, how much can we rely on the line improving here, and beyond? Stanley may never be the same. They have not shown an ability to restock through the middle rounds of the draft. It's not as easy as just saying they'll fix it when they get healthy. Is it possible they can get it together? Of course, but it's another question I have.

Again, I want to stress that these concerns don't mean I think they should absolutely not sign him. These are all reasons that I want both the team and Lamar to wait until after his fifth year before deciding on a contract extension. If Lamar decides he wants to hold out, I think it is less risky to trade him and move on then take on all of these questions on top of a 45 million dollar a year contract for between three and five years. For what it's worth, I think it is very likely that they would re-sign him rather than trade him, but that doesn't mean it's the right decision.

What I hope happens is that he plays next year, answers these questions convincingly, and earns every penny of a big deal that will be beneficial for both sides. However, should that ideal scenario not come to pass, I don't think the Ravens should feel as though their hands are tied and have no other alternative but to sign him and pray.