Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

If the Ravens are moving on from Lamar should we knock on that door?


TheBigKat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Personally Lamar is my favorite player and I don’t understand the perpetual disrespect he gets.

 

I don’t blame him one bit not forcing himself to go out and play this weekend. The Ravens are straight garbage without him

 He’s worth every bit and then some over Watson.

 

Tepper can write that fully guaranteed contract 

  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fitt said we wanna get sexy (sure he meant in the draft but I'll use it a bit broader

Idk whats more sexy on offense then

QB: Lamar
RB: Foreman/Chuba/Blackshear
WR: DJ Moore, Quentin Johnston (Rd 1), Terrace Marshall Jr
TE: Darnell Washington (Rd 2)

That offense would put some points up. In fact it probably breaks every team record from 2015 with a competent offensive coaching staff. 

Edited by SteveSmithTD89
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TLGPanthersFan said:

Lamar Jackson has not been able to finish the past two season and it looks like he probably won’t play this weekend. So I say pass. 
His body just isn’t capable of standing up to the way he plays QB anymore. 
So unfortunately, I say pass. 

Is it the way he plays or the way the Ravens, like Rivera and the old Panthers did with Cam, have designed an offense where he is forced to play like a battering ram on the eve of his massive payday due to the team's injuries and failure to address the WRs. 

They are dog poo without him out there because nobody can throw the ball when your leading receivers are some guy named Isaiah Likely and the ghost of Sammy Watkins. 

Get him some weapons and protection and go back to allowing him to be at his most dangerous when a play breaks down the way it was during his MVP season rather than forcing him to be the focal point of the entire offense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oft-injured and wanting a huge fully guaranteed contract? Hmm, what could be wrong with that, right?

Had this been week 6 when asked, I'd have a different opinion. Now, I just don't think you pony up MSRP for a car when the wheels are falling off and the mileage has gone up.

Let's pass on this.

  • Pie 4
  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Season 4 No GIF by The Office

Even if we walked back the guaranteed contract it would still be a no for me. Availability is the best ability IMO.

If the Ravens get a haul for him then they are doing a hell of a job. Anyone trading a haul for him should be fired soon. Could get interesting but as long as it's not us I am happy.

Edited by Waldo
  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...