Pros and cons of Anderson signing
The Ravens announced the signing of Pro Bowl offensive tackle Willie Anderson today. It was a good move in that in provided depth, but I don't understand why they signed him to a three-year deal. Anderson is 33. John Harbaugh wouldn't commit to Anderson becoming a starter, but if Jared Gaither or Adam Terry struggle, they will quickly get the hook.
***
The good news coming out of practice today was that starting defensive tackle Kelly Gregg participated in some drills with the team. Gregg hasn't practice since having arthroscopic surgery on his left knee. Running back Willis McGahee also didn't miss any reps.
***
Harbaugh said there has been no plans to put quarterback Troy Smith on injured reserve and he plans on having Smith return and compete for the starting job.
Comments
Gaither is pretty much a lock to be our left tackle for the future. But Adam Terry is in the last year of his rookie contract. My guess is that Terry will not return next year because he'll command a pricier free-agent deal than the Ravens think he's worth. So that's why they want Willie Anderson at right tackle for (up to) three years. 3yrs/$11M is a very reasonable contract for a starting-caliber offensive tackle, even if he's 33 years old. It's a good move because it solidifies that position yet doesn't overspend valuable cap money.
Posted by: Teavo | September 5, 2008 2:37 PM
Mike, you know as well as anyone that a 3-yr deal is not necessarily a 3-yr deal. If there aren't any issues with a signing bonus that needs to be prorated over the length of the contract, they could cut him next year no problem. This could easily turn out to be a 1-yr deal, or a 2-yr deal.
Posted by: Jim | September 5, 2008 2:43 PM
They gave a three year deal because they were desperate and Anderson needed the job security after being released. Any other team would have only given him a one year deal and probably been a back up. With the Ravens, hell be starting by week 3 or 4. Shows how weak our line is.
Posted by: Evan | September 5, 2008 2:57 PM
Does it really matter only 3.5 million is guaranteed?
Posted by: tony | September 5, 2008 3:01 PM
Don't pay all that much attention to the 3years/11 million dolllars,... pay more attention to the $1.67 million signing bonus. This was a gift. Ozzie did a great job!
Posted by: G.T. | September 5, 2008 3:09 PM
hey mike you above everbody else knows that just because you sign a 3 year deal doesn't mean he will be here next year.
Posted by: bob lancione | September 5, 2008 3:53 PM
Why did they cut Edgar Jones to make room for Willie Anderson? Hopefully he doesn't get snatched up a la Derek Anderson. I think a better move to make room would have been releasing David Hale, who was not so impressive someone else is likely to claim him. He could have slipped through and been signed to the practice squad. I think another team will claim Jones and move him back to defense.
Posted by: Ray | September 5, 2008 3:55 PM
I welcome the move but hope he doesn't turn out to be another Leon Searcy.
Posted by: Jeff | September 5, 2008 4:01 PM
The 3 year deal is probably what it took to get him. According to ESPN, the Bucs & the Chargers were both in the mix. Both were playoff teams and the Chargers are thinking Super Bowl. So we had to put something else on the table.
Posted by: Alex | September 5, 2008 4:17 PM
3 year deal does not mean 3 years as a Raven. He may be one and done, but if he can play like he used to, he is a keeper.
If he can't he will be gone after this year.
Posted by: Jeremiah | September 5, 2008 6:37 PM
After reading the articul it actualy gave me a little hope for a 8-8 season.Sighning a veteren like Andersen to mentor to the young guys is a huge step.
Posted by: Tim | September 5, 2008 7:21 PM
I know that some fans had commended this decision, but as you said Mike, he's 33 years old - the very same age at which Jonathon Ogden retired. If you think about the free agents the Ravens brought in this year- Neal 38, Bouman 36, and Anderson 33, it seems like Ozzie believes they can compete this year- why else would you sign these older players? However, I think he is mistaken and signing a 33 year old lineman who only played in 7 games last year due to injury to an $11 million contract is going to cost them, cap-wise, down the road. My question- does Ozzie see this as a rebuilding year or does he believe they can contend? I know a lot of foolhardy fans believe they can contend, (when I was 5, I thought the Colts would win 12 games every year and I believed in Santa Claus) but I thought Ozzie was smarter than this.
Posted by: Martin G. | September 5, 2008 8:02 PM
Troy Smith will comeback and compete for the starting job??? So much for the theory "Bouman was chosen because he puts no pressure on Flacco." I guess we took Bouman "the weakest of the three Quarterbacks" because the price was right. The other option is Troy was always the choice and we would not want to bring in a QB that might prevent that. Oz must owe Ohio State BIG !
Posted by: WVMike | September 5, 2008 9:12 PM
Martin G. said...(when I was 5, I thought the Colts would win 12 games every year and I believed in Santa Claus)...
I don't know how old you are now, so I don't know how accurate your Colts' 12 win seasons would hve been (although lately they have been quite good at that). But what is this "believed" in Santa Claus nonsense. I can prove Santa exists. I saw him get attacked in Veterans Stadium. Saw it with my own eyes.
Sheeeesh, man. Welcome to reality.
Posted by: The Other White Bubba | September 5, 2008 10:32 PM
I think it's a win/win situation myself. The Ravens have no quality in back up tackles, we saw that in the preseason. He's less banged up than Odgen is in this point in life. At the very least we have a good back up, a good third tackle for goaline packages.
and as previoulsy mentioned an NFL contract doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.
Posted by: Chuck R. | September 9, 2008 7:45 AM