Thurman#1 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 clearly as a restricted free agent he is somewhat available ....The writer is saying in his opinion the Ravens would not be looking for first round pick to get it done. That's it. The writer has an opinion, completely backed up by any facts except the tender. It's a pure guess. It's clear from the story that he doesn't have any source inside the team telling him this, it's a pure guess. And not every restricted free agent is somewhat available, in the sense that they are soliciting offers. The only way to stop a guy from being a restricted free agent is to sign him to a contract or franchise him. Making a guy an RFA can be a strategic move, simply the most logical thing for a team to do under the circumstances. The more you tender a guy with, the more you have to pay him, so tendering a guy with a first-rounder is already very prohibitive, costs less, and you still have the opportunity to match. The OP's headline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 clearly as a restricted free agent he is somewhat available ....The writer is saying in his opinion the Ravens would not be looking for first round pick to get it done. That's it. The Baltimore Sun writer has an opinion, completely backed up by any facts except the tender. It's a pure guess. It's clear from the story that he doesn't have any source inside the team telling him this, it's absolute guesswork. And not every restricted free agent is somewhat available, in the sense that they are soliciting offers. The only way to stop a guy from being a restricted free agent is to sign him to a contract or franchise him, which obviously have their drawbacks, particularly if you're still negotiating. Making a guy an RFA can be a strategic move, simply the most logical thing for a team to do under the circumstances. The more you tender a guy with, the more you have to pay him, so tendering a guy with a first-rounder is already very prohibitive, costs less, and you still have the opportunity to match. The OP's headline was "Jared Gaither available." Not necessarily true. The headline of the Baltimore Sun article is "WOULD Ravens trade Gaither?" You'll notice the difference. The original headline is a question. Then the OP said "the Ravens are believed to be willing to move restricted free agent LT Jared Gaither." Whereas nobody in the original article believes it. lt's purely speculation ... "the team seemingly announced it would listen to offers ... by giving him a first-round tender ..." "SEEMINGLY." Speculation. Again, the OP said "Gaither would've gotten the first- and third-round tender if the Ravens were truly intent on keeping him." The article simply doesn't say that. The OP says "The Ravens want to move Michael Oher to left tackle." The article, on the other hand, actually says "If the Ravens let go of Gaither, they would move 2009 first-round pick Michael Oher to left tackle ..." The OP says "Teams targeting Gaither could probably work out a deal for less than the first-round pick." The article comes nowhere near that, saying "So, would the Ravens keep Gaither if offered a first- or second-round pick? It’s a decision they might soon have to face." "Would they ...?" "... they might have to face." Pure guesswork. And the original article continues "The team would have to fill Oher's void at right tackle." Strangely, the OP didn't bother to mention that part. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/rav...de_gaither.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 He didn't misquote the article. Rotoworld did. Rotoworld takes a legitimate piece of reporting and tries to spice it up a bit. OK, you're right, it was Rotoworld that did the exaggerations, but Rotoworld had a link to the original article. I do apologize to the OP, but on the other hand, he could have easily clicked over to the original article. Anyway, the point is that this whole idea is pure speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Ozzie knows his stuff and I think that if he really didnt want him to leave itd a been a 1st n 3rd tender like what most teams do and wanna work out a long term deal etc. Now maybe they know somethin bout his health others, which in that case due diligence should be done...but pickin him up with a 2nd and maybe a saftey(donte if reed really retires) and gettin gaither and a late round in return seems pretty reasonable. I think so anyway Well, let's agree to disagree. Gaither is a very fine LT, not one of the top five or anything, but a guy who can play the position very capably and extremely physically, for the next ten years. If they get rid of Gaither, they have to move Oher to a position where he did not play all that well for the five games he played there, and it would also leave them with a gaping hole at RT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 how exactly did he not do very well? he started at LT against Minnesota and more then held his own against one of the best pass rushing ends in the NFL Gaither is solid when he plays but seems to get hurt a lot I would love to hear from the idiots on the board who said over and over that Oher couldnt play LT even though he did just that when Gaither was hurt last year If you looked at Oher's numbers, he had been ranked as the number one tackle in the league, counting all right and left tackles, at the end of the first four weeks of the season, when he played RT. After playing two weeks at RT, he had dropped to about #20. His totals at RT the first two weeks? +7.4. Over week 5 and 6 at LT? -4.8. And the average is zero. As for how well he played at Minnesota, his score for that game was -4.8, and he allowed a sack, a QB hit and 3 pressures. It was a lousy game. Later in the year, he spent three more games at LT, totalling -4.3. Pittsburgh in particular absolutely humiliated him at LT, where he totalled 2 sacks, 1 QB hit and 3 QB pressures. They have him as responsible for 6 sacks over the year, and half of those came at LT, during the five games he spent there. http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?...p;playerid=4946 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Gaither is solid when he plays but seems to get hurt a lot I would love to hear from the idiots on the board who said over and over that Oher couldnt play LT even though he did just that when Gaither was hurt last year Bingo...what kills me is that they said it while we were drafting and could have had him. The same group that said we shouldn't move for Haloti Ngata because he didn't "fit" our defensive scheme. Gaither is a great option, but I wouldn't give up a first for him. We need a right tackle and probably a gaurd as well and number 9 could let us completely fix the offensive line. Maybe a second and a player such as Whitner or Lynch, although I don't see them needing anyone in either of their positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 If you looked at Oher's numbers, he had been ranked as the number one tackle in the league, counting all right and left tackles, at the end of the first four weeks of the season, when he played RT. After playing two weeks at RT, he had dropped to about #20. His totals at RT the first two weeks? +7.4. Over week 5 and 6 at LT? -4.8. And the average is zero. As for how well he played at Minnesota, his score for that game was -4.8, and he allowed a sack, a QB hit and 3 pressures. It was a lousy game. Later in the year, he spent three more games at LT, totalling -4.3. Pittsburgh in particular absolutely humiliated him at LT, where he totalled 2 sacks, 1 QB hit and 3 QB pressures. They have him as responsible for 6 sacks over the year, and half of those came at LT, during the five games he spent there. http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?...p;playerid=4946 I've commented on Oher in past posts - watching the CIN-BAL games, plus some other BAL games. He started at LT in the 1st tilt as Gaither was out with injury - and was moved to RT early on. He was given a lot of help, which the B'gals capitalized on... I had mentioned one play while he was at RT - dove at the ankles at a CIN guard (B. Williams) that was just standing around, out of the play. I was surprised a flag wasn't thrown. A rookie mistake - and I'm sure he got a talking-to about it by his coaches. IMO, he had a decent rookie season. Flacco suffered some of the "sophomore blues", so to speak, and the club relied a lot on RB Rice for their pass game. That tends to help anybody's ol players. I'm happy for Rice...I thought him a fine college player. Oher may end up at RT. That's fine - getting a staple at RT with the 23rd pick is a nice outcome. CIN got years of good play out of Willie Anderson, and he was a #10. I'd be surprised if they moved Gaither on. I've read the money angle posted by some, and see that point. But if someone really wants to overpay, well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts