PDA

View Full Version : Ravens Trade for LT Eugene Monroe


Fire Haley
10-02-2013, 08:38 AM
fuck!

this guy isn't some slob - he's a beast - what a steal


Eugene Monroe improves Baltimore Ravens right away

Monroe is a 6-foot-5, 306-pounder from the University of Virginia selected eighth overall by the Jaguars in the 2009 NFL draft.

Monroe was an upper tier left tackle for the last two seasons in Jacksonville -- arguably the Jaguars' best player. He's only 26 years old and in a contract year... the Ravens only gave up two 3rd day draft picks to get him, which is a very reasonable price

The Wizard of Oz strikes again.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000254401/article/eugene-monroe-makes-ravens-better-now-and-in-future



Jags get screwed again

http://i.imgur.com/7Rh4SLT.gif

Terminator
10-02-2013, 09:02 AM
https://twitter.com/AKinkhabwala/status/385220146941657088

JonM229
10-02-2013, 10:22 AM
https://twitter.com/AKinkhabwala/status/385220146941657088

That made me laugh pretty hard.

JonM229
10-02-2013, 11:09 AM
Deal with it

http://i.imgur.com/81bvlA6.jpg

NSMaster56
10-02-2013, 12:15 PM
Stroke of brilliance by the Ravens once more.

The reason why the Steelers didn't make the move should be obvious though (albeit still logically indefensible): 'contract year'.

ebsteelers
10-02-2013, 12:37 PM
before he made the deal Newsome said: "Fuck it, YOLO!!!!!"

RavenManiac
10-02-2013, 01:27 PM
Stroke of brilliance by the Ravens once more.

The reason why the Steelers didn't make the move should be obvious though (albeit still logically indefensible): 'contract year'.

Yeah, that 'reason' doesn't pass the smell test, imo.

I think the real reason is that you guys were already without a 3rd round pick next year, so if you matched the Ravens offer of a 4th and 5th, you would be pick-less during the real "cheap gems" rounds of the draft.

Brown's contract situation isn't helpful because it is fairly expensive for his talent level. It would be one thing if he was signed for cheap for future years, but he isn't. Of course, Brown's contract isn't harmful either, because you can always release him and owe him nothing (after this year).

In short, as one-year rentals go, Monroe is cheaper and a better player. As long-term contracts go, Brown isn't cheap, especially considering his talent.

I think the main hold-up was the draft pick cost. There is no denying the Ravens paid a lot more than you guys did in that department. A lot more (even if not a ton overall).

JonM229
10-02-2013, 03:22 PM
It seems that an incredibly handsome man was able to ask a question of ESPN's resident Baltimore homer Jamison Hensley:

Jonathan M. (Lake Geneva, WI)

How soon can we expect Monroe to be starting at Tackle?

Jamison Hensley (ESPN)

Judging by the way Harbaugh talked this week, it looks like he'll get a chance to play starting next week. He may not even practice until Friday.

Raven's Chat with Jamison Hensley - ESPN.com (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/49051/ravens-with-hensley)

Confounding Factor
10-02-2013, 04:48 PM
Really does Roger Goodell pay the owners of Jaguars personally just to suck?

Is there something about losing I'm missing here?

NSMaster56
10-02-2013, 04:57 PM
Yeah, that 'reason' doesn't pass the smell test, imo.

I think the real reason is that you guys were already without a 3rd round pick next year, so if you matched the Ravens offer of a 4th and 5th, you would be pick-less during the real "cheap gems" rounds of the draft.

Brown's contract situation isn't helpful because it is fairly expensive for his talent level. It would be one thing if he was signed for cheap for future years, but he isn't. Of course, Brown's contract isn't harmful either, because you can always release him and owe him nothing (after this year).

In short, as one-year rentals go, Monroe is cheaper and a better player. As long-term contracts go, Brown isn't cheap, especially considering his talent.

I think the main hold-up was the draft pick cost. There is no denying the Ravens paid a lot more than you guys did in that department. A lot more (even if not a ton overall).

Very good point.

To be honest, I heard about the Monroe deal before the Brown move.

Bottom line is that the Steelers are idiots and Ravens smart.

Confounding Factor
10-02-2013, 04:58 PM
If a LT is your best player, then you need to figure out WTH is wrong.

Fire Haley
10-02-2013, 08:25 PM
I had no idea my innocent thread would attract Ravens fans like rats to cheese

forgive me my fellow Steelers fans

i82much
10-03-2013, 01:30 PM
If a LT is your best player, then you need to figure out WTH is wrong.

This is a joke, right?

Fire Haley
10-03-2013, 01:40 PM
Jonathan M. (Lake Geneva, WI)

a Rat fan cheesehead ?


there's something poetic there

JonM229
10-03-2013, 01:56 PM
a Rat fan cheesehead ?


there's something poetic there

I'm from Baltimore, spent 5 years in Orlando, and then moved to the northern Illinois-southern Wisconsin area about 4 years ago.

SteelersCanada
10-03-2013, 02:22 PM
This is a joke, right?

He has a point. Cleveland and Jacksonville's best player for a long time was Joe Thomas and Eugene Monroe, respectively. Thomas is still probably Cleveland's best player. Having a great LT is fantastic, but it's not required. Hell, Flacco and Roethlisberger both won Super Bowls with mediocre-to-bad LTs.

If your LT is your teams best player, you do have issues.

SteelersCanada
10-03-2013, 02:24 PM
Very good point.

To be honest, I heard about the Monroe deal before the Brown move.

Bottom line is that the Steelers are idiots and Ravens smart.

Is this a joke?

i82much
10-03-2013, 02:33 PM
He has a point. Cleveland and Jacksonville's best player for a long time was Joe Thomas and Eugene Monroe, respectively. Thomas is still probably Cleveland's best player. Having a great LT is fantastic, but it's not required. Hell, Flacco and Roethlisberger both won Super Bowls with mediocre-to-bad LTs.

If your LT is your teams best player, you do have issues.

Just because you can name some bad teams that have a great left tackle, it does not follow that you can't be a good or great team just because a left tackle is your best player. Imagine a team with, say, Anthony Munoz as the left tackle and Fran Tarkenton, Brett Farve, or even Big Ben as the QB. I would have no qualms saying that Munoz is a better player than any of those QB's. Not a more important player, but a better player. You could win an awful lot of games with those names.

SteelersCanada
10-03-2013, 02:39 PM
Just because you can name some bad teams that have a great left tackle, it does not follow that you can't be a good or great team just because a left tackle is your best player. Imagine a team with, say, Anthony Munoz as the left tackle and Fran Tarkenton, Brett Farve, or even Big Ben as the QB. I would have no qualms saying that Munoz is a better player than any of those QB's. Not a more important player, but a better player. You could win an awful lot of games with those names.

Those are (were) the only teams in the NFL where their best player was a LT. That was his argument. And ultimately, it does. Can you name another team in the NFL where their LT is their best player and have had any success in recent memory? I can't. Go back and look at the last decade of Super Bowl champs. Hell, even further than that and you'll see a pattern.

If your LT is your best player, you have issues with talent on your team. If you're a team like Houston where he's a top 3 player on offense it's different, but Cleveland is the prime example of why that line of thinking doesn't work. They tried to build around Thomas and failed miserably. Jacksonville did the same thing.

Anthony Munoz is the exception. We're talking general rule here.

i82much
10-03-2013, 02:47 PM
Those are (were) the only teams in the NFL where their best player was a LT. That was his argument. And ultimately, it does. Can you name another team in the NFL where their LT is their best player and have had any success in recent memory? I can't. Go back and look at the last decade of Super Bowl champs. Hell, even further than that and you'll see a pattern.

If your LT is your best player, you have issues with talent on your team. If you're a team like Houston where he's a top 3 player on offense it's different, but Cleveland is the prime example of why that line of thinking doesn't work. They tried to build around Thomas and failed miserably. Jacksonville did the same thing.

Anthony Munoz is the exception. We're talking general rule here.

This is a bad line of argument. There are at best 2 or 3 dominant left tackles in the league at any given time, maybe 5 over the past 20 years. Of course, more often than not, the teams that win the Super Bowl don't have one of those dominant left tackles, that is just a numbers game.

Left tackle is probably the second-most important position on the offense, and you can most certainly be a successful football team with a left tackle as your best player. I would argue that the Ravens won a Super Bowl with Ogden as quite possibly their best player, and certainly the best player on their offense.

Don't confuse playmakers that make stats with being the "best player."

SteelersCanada
10-03-2013, 02:52 PM
This is a bad line of argument. There are at best 2 or 3 dominant left tackles in the league at any given time, maybe 5 over the past 20 years. Of course, more often than not, the teams that win the Super Bowl don't have one of those dominant left tackles, that is just a numbers game.

Left tackle is probably the second-most important position on the offense, and you can most certainly be a successful football team with a left tackle as your best player. I would argue that the Ravens won a Super Bowl with Ogden as quite possibly their best player, and certainly the best player on their offense.

Don't confuse playmakers that make stats with being the "best player."

Agree to disagree here I guess.

i82much
10-03-2013, 02:55 PM
Agree to disagree here I guess.

Works for me. I was interpreting the comment to imply a general rule that a team simply couldn't be successful with a LT as their best player. I think you are saying something less sweeping than that.

steelerchad
10-03-2013, 03:45 PM
Those are (were) the only teams in the NFL where their best player was a LT. That was his argument. And ultimately, it does. Can you name another team in the NFL where their LT is their best player and have had any success in recent memory? I can't. Go back and look at the last decade of Super Bowl champs. Hell, even further than that and you'll see a pattern.

If your LT is your best player, you have issues with talent on your team. If you're a team like Houston where he's a top 3 player on offense it's different, but Cleveland is the prime example of why that line of thinking doesn't work. They tried to build around Thomas and failed miserably. Jacksonville did the same thing.

Anthony Munoz is the exception. We're talking general rule here.

Jake Long was probably Miami's best player for the last 5 years and they sucked, then they got rid of him and voila, they're pretty good.
Just giving another example.

i82much
10-03-2013, 03:59 PM
Jake Long was probably Miami's best player for the last 5 years and they sucked, then they got rid of him and voila, they're pretty good.
Just giving another example.

A legit counterexample, but I still think you can have a LT as your best player and be successful. I'd say Munoz was the best player on the Bengals that went to the Super Bowl, and the same argument could be made for Ogden.

NSMaster56
10-03-2013, 05:12 PM
Is this a joke?

Nyet.

Adding a LT who incurs no costs after this year and has a better track record of competence is a better move than acquiring a LT locked up for years at a high price who displays sporadic results.

SteelersCanada
10-03-2013, 07:17 PM
Nyet.

Adding a LT who incurs no costs after this year and has a better track record of competence is a better move than acquiring a LT locked up for years at a high price who displays sporadic results.

Wait to see how much the Ravens are going to have to pay for him compared to what we have to pay for Levi. The Ravens are going to be cap fucked with all of their contracts.

Ozzie is a god though, right?

NSMaster56
10-03-2013, 09:20 PM
Wait to see how much the Ravens are going to have to pay for him compared to what we have to pay for Levi. The Ravens are going to be cap fucked with all of their contracts.

Ozzie is a god though, right?

There's nothing saying the Ravens will retain Monroe. He could be a rental (and he'd be worth the risk even if he was).

If Monroe is better than Brown, it's worth the extra money.

The Ravens were going to be capped fucked no matter what, so might as well make a splash move that positions them for one last hurrah right now.

I'm not a Ravens fan, but Ozzie makes smart moves.

If the Steelers didn't trade for Brown I'd still think adding Monroe was smart for the Ravens. By comparison I merely like their move better.

It just fits better.

EDIT: In hindsight though, it's not that the Steelers are 'stupid', but rather made a less logical move in comparison. I made an overstatement, but the gist stands. The Ravens made the better move.

steelerchad
10-04-2013, 03:15 PM
A legit counterexample, but I still think you can have a LT as your best player and be successful. I'd say Munoz was the best player on the Bengals that went to the Super Bowl, and the same argument could be made for Ogden.


HMM. Certainly those are possible examples. I'm not sure you can say Ogden though. He very well may have been the best single player, but in that case, wouldn't you give that distinction to Ray Lewis and the defense. That D has gone down as one of the best of all time. If indeed Ogden was their best player, he certainly didn't have the most impact on where they ended up.

i82much
10-06-2013, 05:23 PM
HMM. Certainly those are possible examples. I'm not sure you can say Ogden though. He very well may have been the best single player, but in that case, wouldn't you give that distinction to Ray Lewis and the defense. That D has gone down as one of the best of all time. If indeed Ogden was their best player, he certainly didn't have the most impact on where they ended up.

I'm just saying you could definitely win a Super Bowl with a left tackle as your best player. With Ogden or Munoz at left tackle, maybe a Phil Simms or Jim Kelly caliber QB, maybe Roger Craig as your running back and Charles Haley on your defense. A Vonta Leach, a Heath Miller. Just a solid all-around roster with good but not all-time great players, and an exceptional left tackle. You'd be a hell of a team.