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

By TheBigKat,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

SmokinwithWilly Grand Master

SmokinwithWilly

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

he is a mvp and in play for another one this season, in theory he was much cheaper draft capital wise then our current midget qb.  Hindsight is 20 20 for sure but holy hell Jackson is on a completely different stratosphere then young as far as ability

 

2 firsts for jackson pairing him with moore and another 2nd round pick is interesting to think about.

No disagreement from me there as far as ability goes. At the time, I believe the Ravens were asking for 3 1sts and 2nds (before the non exclusive), plus the guaranteed money to Lamar would have made it difficult to put weapons around him, which was the exact scenario he was pissed about in Baltimore. The thing is after the non exclusive, all they had to do was match the offer so it wasn't likely going to happen for that reason alone unless there was a poison pill in the contract. 

It was always about team building strategy with LJ. Wouldn't matter though because Fitts is definitely the wrong person for that job and we'd have a Ferrari QB cruising in the merge lane in this offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokinwithWilly Grand Master

SmokinwithWilly

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, AceMan said:

Lol that sounds like the Huddle.

I remember wayyyyy back in 2009, you would have half the forum defending Jake Delhomme as a starter even after the 2009 opener against the Eagles and Cardinals meltdown.

The Huddle loves mediocre at best QBs. Huddle wants Underdog, not Superman.

spacer.png

We had Superman, but we broke up for 2 gloves. 

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
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      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
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      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.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...