Cap room for him? Not really, but moves could be made.
Draft capital for him? Maybe, but we're awfully low in the draft.
Tunsil trade (For record-keeping purposes, the trade saw the Dolphins acquire first-round picks in 2020 and 2021 and a second-round pick in 2021 along with offensive tackle Julién Davenport and defensive back Johnson Bademosi in exchange for Tunsil, wide receiver Kenny Stills, a 2020 fourth-round pick and a 2021 sixth-round selection.)
It only took the Ravens a little over a year to learn their selection of Orlando Brown was a wise one, but they've met a new challenge with the tackle that could be their last.
Brown has expressed his desire to be traded, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported Wednesday. After spending the majority of 2020 on the left side in place of the injured Ronnie Stanley, Brown has found his comfort zone and does not want to return to the right side. He'll only play for a team that will line him up at his preferred left tackle position, per Rapoport.
Rapoport added the Ravens value Brown significantly and would need major compensation in order to do a deal.
Brown's background is on the left side, but he ended up in Baltimore as a right tackle after a poor pre-draft showing saw him slide from a first-round projection to an eventual third-round pick of the Ravens. He blossomed in 2019 and especially in 2020 after switching to the left side to replace Stanley, earning his second straight trip to the Pro Bowl -- and first as an initial selection. Thanks to Brown's quick adjustment to the left side of the line, Baltimore didn't lose much in offensive production following Stanley's injury, finishing as the league's No. 1 rushing offense for a second straight season.
Brown's success on the left side and desire to remain there might very well also be tied to the financial ramifications of the tackle position. As it currently stands, there is a $5 million per year difference between the league's highest-paid right tackle (Philadelphia's Lane Johnson) and left tackle (Green Bay's David Bakhtiari). Of the top 10 highest-paid tackles in the NFL (in terms of average salary per year), only two -- Johnson and Las Vegas' Trent Brown -- are right tackles.
Orlando Brown missed out on significant money typically afforded to first-round picks right around the moment when he racked the bar after just 14 bench-press reps during a nightmarish 2018 NFL Scouting Combine. He's made a little over $1.8 million in base salary total in his first three seasons, and though he will see a significant boost in 2021 (base salary of $3.38 million) due to the structure of his rookie deal, that's still an incredibly far cry from where tackles of his level land in compensation ranking.
After demonstrating his ability to effectively handle the transition from right to left tackle -- a return to his roots, essentially -- Brown is in a prime position to capitalize financially and beyond. He'll maximize his earning potential by remaining a left tackle, and he'll probably enjoy playing the game a bit more in a stance and vantage point that's more familiar to him, anyway.
If that doesn't fit in Baltimore, the Ravens will have to move him. And though this isn't exactly the best way to ensure maximum leverage in a deal, they'll probably still get a haul for him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Shit, you're right. Cross out the part where I said it was easy.
You sure did make it sound like it is that easy.
If you truly understood that it isn’t, you’d understand the logic in bringing in a guy like Okung to give you some flexibility should you not be able to find a trade partner and no day 1 starting LT falls to 31. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
What do you guys WANT them to do?
Drafting a LT isn't good enough if they don't for sure get a day 1 starter, so should they just not draft one at all and leave a gaping ****ing hole there?
You would have thought success would have opened some eyes but instead the tunnel vision here is worse than it's ever been it seems.
I want them to play the guy they draft. I don’t wanna sign a vet. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Do whatever it takes to get a day 1 starter. Whether that means moving up in the draft or scouting well enough to know one will fall to them.
If the guy they draft isn't good enough to be a day one starter, then he won't be good enough to take over when okung gets injured week 5 especially since he won't have had starter reps all off season.
Sewell and Slater can start day 1. Those 2 guys are likely going at 6 and 10, maybe a little later.
After those 2, you have guys that may or may not be able to start day 1. You have several guys who could potentially start day 1 but have really low ceilings.
Trading up just isn't a realistic option and the drafting for a "day 1" need could potentially mean sacrificing a future all-pro talent because you couldn't wait 365 days to play him.
You make it sounds so simple when it really isn't. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Either trade up to get a day 1 starter, or trade that 1st + for a proven commodity.
If they think they can get a day 1 starter sitting right where they are, that's fine too. I trust their scouts to know better than anyone in the media.
I don't know what the answer will be or when it will come. But i know Niang or Remmers at LT isn't going to be the answer.
Hell, this trade that i'm anticipating might not even come till after the draft.
So trade away future firsts, period.
Because that's what it is going to take.
There's some speculation the Patriots want to trade from 15 to 4. To get that high, the compensation being talked about is this year's 1st and 2nd plus NEXT YEAR'S first and 2nd.
I don't understand why people are so eager to move up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
So trade away future firsts, period.
Because that's what it is going to take.
That's the consequence of striking out on the Trent Williams deal. Maybe someone they like will be there at 31. Maybe someone they like will slip into reasonable striking distance. I don't know man. I don't think we have to sit here and say they have to trade into the top 10-15 either. Trade up doesn't have to mean trade to the top.
Sure, it's far from ideal. But it IS the situation we find ourselves in. No one anticipated Fisher blowing his achilles and Schwartz getting a career ending back injury.
But here we are. So it's either trade some assets or go into the 2021 season with huge question marks at tackle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
You sure did make it sound like it is that easy.
If you truly understood that it isn’t, you’d understand the logic in bringing in a guy like Okung to give you some flexibility should you not be able to find a trade partner and no day 1 starting LT falls to 31.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Sewell and Slater can start day 1. Those 2 guys are likely going at 6 and 10, maybe a little later.
After those 2, you have guys that may or may not be able to start day 1. You have several guys who could potentially start day 1 but have really low ceilings.
Trading up just isn't a realistic option and the drafting for a "day 1" need could potentially mean sacrificing a future all-pro talent because you couldn't wait 365 days to play him.
You make it sounds so simple when it really isn't.
Like I said, if they get Okung, whoever they draft is highly likely to play this year no matter what. If they don't want to move up, or feel like they'd have to give up too much to move up, fine, that's fair. But whoever they pick whether it's at 31 or up in the draft, will probably need to play at some point. So they might not be day "1" starters but they're close enough to being one so that's what we should be looking for in the draft. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
That's the consequence of striking out on the Trent Williams deal. Maybe someone they like will be there at 31. Maybe someone they like will slip into reasonable striking distance. I don't know man. I don't think we have to sit here and say they have to trade into the top 10-15 either. Trade up doesn't have to mean trade to the top.
To get a guaranteed day 1 starter with real all-pro upside, yes they'll have to trade to the top. There's 2 guys that satisfy BOTH parameters - Sewell and Slater. That's it.
Darrisaw is very close but still needs work and may not be able to start day 1.
After those 3, you have a cadre of guys that either:
1. Can start Day 1 but don't have a tremendous amount of upside.
2. Have a lot of upside but are too raw to start day 1.
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Sure, it's far from ideal. But it IS the situation we find ourselves in. No one anticipated Fisher blowing his achilles and Schwartz getting a career ending back injury.
But here we are. So it's either trade some assets or go into the 2021 season with huge question marks at tackle.
That's just the thing - unless you're trading for Brown or you're trading into the top 12 to get one of those top 3, you're trading assets and STILL going into the 2021 season with question marks. Trading up makes no sense. It doesn't actually solve the problem, it just provides a placebo effect.
In the end, I think people are making a much bigger deal out of this than it is. They have Thuney on the left side. They can take a high-upside pass blocker and still have him start day 1, even if that's not ideal. There's no need at all to panic. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Like I said, if they get Okung, whoever they draft is highly likely to play this year no matter what. If they don't want to move up, or feel like they'd have to give up too much to move up, fine, that's fair. But whoever they pick whether it's at 31 or up in the draft, will probably need to play at some point. So they might not be day "1" starters but they're close enough to being one so that's what we should be looking for in the draft.
I just don't agree. Being able to play "day 1" or at any point in their rookie season is just an acceptable risk. You take the guy that is the best long-term fit for your team and if he's forced into action, so be it. But you don't pass up long-term talent out of fear that you might have to play him early. That would be like the Chargers passing on Herbert. That would have been monumentally stupid in hindsight, wouldn't you say? [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I just don't agree. Being able to play "day 1" or at any point in their rookie season is just an acceptable risk. You take the guy that is the best long-term fit for your team and if he's forced into action, so be it. But you don't pass up long-term talent out of fear that you might have to play him early. That would be like the Chargers passing on Herbert. That would have been monumentally stupid in hindsight, wouldn't you say?
I'm confused. In this scenario, who are we passing up? I'm the one advocating for drafting a player we can play early whether that means moving up or staying put if possible. I don't understand how you understood that to mean we should pass up on someone for fear he might play early? [Reply]
Throwing this out there. So after watching Simms top O-linemen video in the other thread, he says the C from Alabama, Dickerson, could be the best C in football from day 1.
I will wait a bit for all the haters of C in round 1, and his injury doubters to quit yelling at me.
Okay, that gives you 4/5 of the line being very good. Remmers was very solid on the RT spot, and if Niang beats him out we should be even stronger at that position, so 4/5 of the deal is complete.
Simms also says Little is a franchise LT. (Film vs Notre Dame is a bit underwhelming, but I will defer to Simms) Get him in the 2nd, even if it requires a trade up. Give him a little help if he needs it while he is developing, because the other 4 spots should be good to go.
With the other additions, we should have depth too, and our line problems should be fixed going forward.
I don't expect this will end well, but I just thought I would throw it out there anyway.
