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!

     

Interesting twist regarding Lamar Jackson...


Proudiddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

We don’t know, and probably will never know, the full story with any of these former and current players 

I feel the Panthers are better to draft the QB they want.

 If it takes 3 firsts, it takes 3 firsts for someone who could lead this team for years and provide stability at  the position 

Given the number of ‘teachers’ on the coaching staff, all indications are drafting a QB

they also need a backup, 17 game season demands it   they have Eason and Corral. Eason has a history with Reich 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

There are legitimate concerns with Lamar Jackson, but I don't see you accepting any of them.

There are legitimate mitigating factors with Derek Carr, but again you don't acknowledge them.

There are pros and cons to both of them, but until you actually acknowledge that fact it's kind of pointless debating with you.

Jackson's biggest concern is injury, point blank and simple. And, yes, I have mentioned that in relation to his contractual expectations (if not in this thread, then the other one). 

Carr is Carr. He's had good coaches (or at least ones that know QBs in particular), and he's had weapons, especially this past season. He's 32 years old and seems to have a limited ceiling. I believe his ceiling is good, but not great. I don't believe that he can put a team on his shoulders and will them to victory like a true franchise QB can. If he could do it, he'd have probably done it already, especially this past year when he had the best receiver in the game, a top three TE, a top RB, and others. His career passer rating is 91.8. No one is going to mistake Carr for being on Lamar Jackson's level (no one serioa anyway). 

The Ravens would sign Lamar Jackson in a heartbeat if they could get to the right number (provided that Jackson still wants to be there). The Raiders dumped Carr like yesterday's leftovers. It's not that hard to figure out why someone would be excited about Jackson and not so excited about Carr. If your goal is "maybe getting into the playoffs," then Carr is your man. If your goal is to try and actually compete for Super Bowls, then Jackson is your guy hands down.

Edited by top dawg
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Proudiddy said:

I haven't read it or seen it anywhere else across the numerous threads, but was listening to ESPN radio while taking the kids to school, and they shared that Peter King said the Ravens are very likely to use the non-exclusive franchise tag on Lamar, meaning it would only require the contract plus 2 first-round picks. That's also very different than the "windfall of picks" stuff we heard about previously.

It seems a more realistic possibility than the "windfall" talk.  Still, giving up the picks plus the mega contract is scary for a team trying to build out its roster, but does that change how you feel about the possibility of Jackson?

If you're telling me I get Lamar Jackson for two first round picks (regardless of the size of the contract) I'm sprinting to that deal. It makes so much sense for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, top dawg said:

See that's your problem? You're the one trying to assign fault. 

The Ravens haven't been the best team, and mostly any NFL type will tell you that. Blame it on Jackson all you like, but if you do you're simply being disingenuous.

Over the last 20 years, the Ravens clock in at 5th in number of wins since 2000.

Meaning, that is a VERY well run team who didn't get lucky like the Packers, Pats, Steelers, or Colts during that time and have a 15 year all time great starter.

During that time, the Ravens have started the likes of Elvis Grbac, Kyle Boller, Joe Flacco, and Lamar Jackson...with some others sprinkled in.

Long story short, this team thinks that it can compete with a lower tier QB than most, and pay them as such....and they've proven it.

Like I've been saying, the Ravens value Lamar a lot less than he does....and that should make other teams very nervous.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Look no further than Green Bay, Denver or Cleveland to realize overinflated egos can handcuff a team financially and drive away essential supporting talent.  

Drive away talent? Who was driven away? A-Rod is known for being an A-hole. He makes it about him with his little off-season games of stringing the Packers along. The Packers gave Adams essentially the same type of contract financially. If A-Rod  hadn't been A-Rod, the Packers would've been a legit contender had Adams stayed.

Lamar Jackson is not an asshole by all reports. He just wants to be paid what he feels he is worth. 

Cleveland didn't lose anyone irreplaceable because they signed Watson. A a matter of fact, it's still way to early to even be alluding to any type of failure at this point. The jury is still out.

Denver has talent. Who did they lose? And the fact is that Wilson's contract ain't even in the class of Watson's or whatever people think that Jackson may get. Wilson's contract surely didn't stop another talented a-hole with a huge ego in Sean Payton. I think we're all going to find out what a difference time actually makes in the form of better coaching and chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Over the last 20 years, the Ravens clock in at 5th in number of wins since 2000.

Meaning, that is a VERY well run team who didn't get lucky like the Packers, Pats, Steelers, or Colts during that time and have a 15 year all time great starter.

During that time, the Ravens have started the likes of Elvis Grbac, Kyle Boller, Joe Flacco, and Lamar Jackson...with some others sprinkled in.

Long story short, this team thinks that it can compete with a lower tier QB than most, and pay them as such....and they've proven it.

Like I've been saying, the Ravens value Lamar a lot less than he does....and that should make other teams very nervous.

And yet, they have only one championship.

They have their way of doing things that works for them. It just doesn't work for me as a fan as I look at today's NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Varking said:

I’d rather just trade up and get CJ Stroud on a rookie contract vs doling out hundreds of millions of dollars and losing the picks too. 

ONLY if you think that he is a legit franchise QB. If we trade all that and he flops, the QB teeadwill will continue and we won't have the draft capital to do anything for two to three years. He (or Young) would just have to be the guy, especially with what will likely be a superior '24 class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This is basically Baltimore signaling that they think two 1sts is the absolute ceiling for what they could get for Lamar in a trade offer.

I just don't see it. If Baltimore isn't willing to guarantee him $200M+ with no draft pics involved, why would another team trade away 2 1st round picks to pay him that much? Maybe before the Watson and Wilson deals, those are looking like a couple of horrible decisions. Is his mom still technically his agent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, top dawg said:

And yet, they have only one championship.

They have their way of doing things that works for them. It just doesn't work for me as a fan as I look at today's NFL.

They have 2.  Tied with the Steelers, KC, and Giants for 2nd place behind the Patriots during that time.

Yea, "in todays NFL" if you want more than that over a 23 year period, you need an unremarkable white pocket passer and to call New England home.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

ONLY if you think that he is a legit franchise QB. If we trade all that and he flops, the QB teeadwill will continue and we won't have the draft capital to do anything for two to three years. He (or Young) would just have to be the guy, especially with what will likely be a superior '24 class.

I’d say Stroud has less chance of flopping than Jackson does of missing significant time with injuries. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

If you get a star franchise QB, at some point you're going to have to pay that star franchise QB. I don't care if you draft him or you acquire him in free agency. If you do draft him, you're lucky, but the clock starts ticking just as soon as there is a realization that he is one. At some point, he's going to want the top money of the day. The smart franchises just know how to manipulate that cap reality and their personnel better than others.

If I was a team who was lucky enough to draft a star rookie, and have success with him for 4 or 5 years, I would almost be tempted to trade them for a windfall of picks and then draft another highly touted rookie on a rookie deal.  The cost of these good QBs these days is getting insane, and its only getting worse.  Having to pay 1 player 25-30% of you entire cap is not a good way to build a good, well rounded team.  I think starting over with one of the top guys every 5 years or so isn't too crazy of an idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thefuzz said:

They have 2.  Tied with the Steelers, KC, and Giants for 2nd place behind the Patriots during that time.

Yea, "in todays NFL" if you want more than that over a 23 year period, you need an unremarkable white pocket passer and to call New England home.

Sure, but that's actually more than two decades which is what I thought that we were talking about. It's been awhile. 

Perhaps ironically, they paid Flacco, but refuse to pay Jackson. They should've let Flacco walk.

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

    • Keep away from North Winston,  you should be fine. West Winston towards Clemmins is cool. If you're ever at the Peterscreek Walmart, the Pepsi guy is 😎. 
    • Game-winning drives have been credited to QBs since the beginning of time
    • A lot of people have been slobbing all over this last draft but I hate the way that Fitterer/Morgan have built this offense since drafting Bryce. Anyone with eyes knew our IOL was crap but we didn't invest there and instead took project receivers and an injured RB. If you want a lesson in how build for your QB wrong, IMO, this was it. Draft him, protect him, THEN get him weapons. Its pretty much a rule, draft interior linemen, pay tackles. We're paying everyone. We had the opportunity to draft a center instead of Brooks, or perhaps instead of trading up for XL, trade back and take 2 guards/center. We could have paid Lewis and still drafted 2, but Hunt at 100m was just an overpay. And it's not like the guys many of us were begging us to draft were long shots. They're solid starters from day 1. Injuries happen. That's why all your starters can't be high value players. You need rookie contracts mixed in to be able to absorb those inevitable losses on the line. An offensive line playing an entire season together is an abnormality.  Factor into that also paying Moton 44m this offseason with a huge signing bonus when we didnt need to do right now to do him a "solid".  Now we have to sign Icky and possibly Bryce and it's a mess with more money tied up in the offense, inevitable cuts and dead cap coming. That's not even factoring in shifting Corbett to C last year after major injury to start at a position he's never played for an NFL season. It's all stuff that was foreseeable and pretty easily avoided.  The $$ and picks we've spent trying to surround Bryce outside of Tmac (Mitchell and Horn are TBD) have been used inefficiently IMO. Smarter drafting and FA with the line could have let us get more reliable weapons than XL and Sanders in FA. It might not be popular opinion, but I'll take a Bersin with hands that can get 6-8 85% of the time vs a big play XL with greasy fingers.  The part about hitting guys in stride was more about placement, which Bryce has struggled with. Obviously not every route is run to be hit in stride, but they do need to have the ball placed well to give the receivers a chance to do something after the catch. I just used Hill as an example because he's the biggest YAC threat I could think of over the past 5 years.   Receivers can feast on dink and dunk if it's schemed right. But to make it work, that vertical threat has to be there, if not the deep pass then the high speed routes that can spring someone for the huge YAC to keep the safeties from cheating into that 20 yard box all game.  I hope DC and Bryce can keep up what they did in the last game and it isnt just an Atlanta thing. But no matter what, I really want to see some better long term strategy coming from the FO. 
×
×
  • Create New...