John Harbaugh for "Change is Good" (and So am I)

The last thing you would think about doing if you are the Super Bowl Champions is trying to change too much. However, that just seems to be the cards that the Ravens are dealt with... or playing?

Baltimore's off-season has been mostly about losing players after their Super Bowl win in February. They have lost Ray Lewis to retirement and two other linebackers to other teams, Anquan Boldin in a trade to the 49ers for a 6th round pick, and other notable starters along the way. Ed Reed's days in Baltimore also look like they are over as he's getting looks from other teams like the Texans.

The only thing that they have been able to do is keep Joe Flacco with a 6 year $120 million plus contract to eat up a lot of cap space.

Despite all of this, the PR department known as John Harbaugh has spun it the best way he can. "The worst mistake you can make is trying to hold a team together," Harbaugh said in an interview. "It's impossible." He also cited Bo Schembechler's (the late family friend) advice of  "if you try to stay the same you end up getting worse."

Full article at http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9066834/john-harbaugh-baltimore-ravens-roster-change-part-nfl

An interesting question gets raised by all this: Is all this "change" better for the team/John Harbaugh long term? Also, is it best to break up a Super Bowl team rather than try and keep it together nowadays?

I'm not sure anyone can ever answer the second question perfectly but the first one seems to be a yes. The Ravens team that won it all was old and heading down the other side of the hill anyway. They certainly made a great postseason push with a deer antler charged Ray Lewis leading the pack. But now with the Ray Lewis era is over in Baltimore, the Ravens took it as a sign to start a new era with some different players.

While they did lose players in their prime, they also let aged veterans go like Ed Reed (34) and Anquan Boldin (32). Keeping them would've been too hard with the cap restrictions what they are and even if they had managed to do so, they might only be productive for a couple more seasons. (I must reiterate that I still like that the 49ers got Boldin).

The next couple of the years for the Ravens will have them trying to return to contender status. But don't despair, Baltimore. They weren't predominantly seen as contenders last season. As you all have seen, anything can happen once you get into the postseason and with a quarterback like Joe, getting to January is always a possibility.

P.S. Now my best shot at answering the 2nd question: I'm leaning towards saying yes. Just look at the Super Bowl winners over the past decade or so. Except for the Pats about ten years ago, there have been no repeat winners. It's not that Super Bowl teams haven't been contenders the season after they've won it. It's just that the path to the Super Bowl nowadays is too chaotic to navigate and predict.

Lately, it hasn't been what are considered the great teams that end up winning the Super Bowl. The last three winners have just been teams that have gotten hot at exactly the right time.

Also, of the teams that have won it multiple times over the past ten years, the common denominator is that they had great quarterbacks. The Pats have Brady, the Steelers have Ben, and the Giants have Peyton's younger brother. By that logic, the Ravens think they are set for the foreseeable future seeing how well Joe Flacco performed this past postseason.

With quarterback being the far and away clear centerpiece of a team today, everything else is interchangeable. Just look at how Bill Belichick and the Patriots deal with players not named Brady. He casually let's players go or trades them the instant he thinks their ability will tank. He then manages to find suitable enough replacements (not always the best) and gems in the draft to keep the team afloat.

While they haven't been able to close the deal since February of 2005, the Pats have been in the playoff hunt every season except for two since their first Super Bowl title at the end of the 2001 season.

Unless you have a great defense, a great quarterback, and a lot of luck, there are no dynasty's anymore in the NFL. Talent level is pretty well spread out in the league, even at the quarterback position. That's right, even at QB.

Let's name the QB's that have been good enough to lead a team to the Super Bowl: Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Peyton's younger brother, Joe Flacco, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Ben Roethlisberger. Now quarterback's that possibly join the list above as soon as next season? Colin Kaepernick (HA!!!), Matt Ryan, and Matt Schaub (bit of a stretch).

Now quarterbacks that are just good enough to get their team to the postseason at the present time: Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, Matthew Stafford, Robert Griffin III, Russell Wilson, and Andrew Luck.

If the standard nowadays is just getting into the postseason while hoping your team is peaking at the right time, I count 16 quarterbacks that are eligible for the job. That's not even counting quarterbacks that have potential to become that or those that have faded away.

If that's the case, it's about finding the right parts for your ever changing team year after year. You can't have too many star players on your team too long because of that pesky salary cap and winning a Super Bowl just has everyone able to renegotiate at that time chirping for more money. It's today's NFL and it's what champions now have to do to remain in contention.

P.P.S. Is my P.S. longer my than original post?