Ravens put non exclusive franchise tag on Lamar Jackson

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh...what the hell are you talking about?

The arguments that you dropped when cherrypicking.

 

[Kevinicus]

The arguments that you dropped when cherrypicking.

I don't think so. What the hell does Dak have to do with anything?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think so. What the hell does Dak have to do with anything?

The argument you decided to pick up. I see all you want is to win a point of fact.

 

[Kevinicus]

The argument you decided to pick up. I see all you want is to win a point of fact.

I was merely correcting an error.

That in no way implies I "picked up" an argument.

That you would make that leap does mean you're just making things up though.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was merely correcting an error.

That in no way implies I "picked up" an argument.

That you would make that leap does mean you're just making things up though.

The two are not mutual exclusive. You are only interested in a point of fact. You can equivocate if it makes you feel better.

And I already said that I had forgotten and recalled the change in 2011 and provided context.

Do you have a point?

Because the point I made about the owners wanting to change the CBA and remove the deductions was their choice demonstrated by their lockout is absolutely cogent.

 

[Kevinicus]

The two are not mutual exclusive. You are only interested in a point of fact. You can equivocate if it makes you feel better.

And I already said that I had forgotten and recalled the change in 2011 and provided context.

Do you have a point?

Because the point I made about the owners wanting to change the CBA and remove the deductions was their choice demonstrated by their lockout is absolutely cogent.

The point is you were wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your "point" is nothing.

Fact is, there are a ton of expenses from running the daily operations of a professional sports team. Expenses that dwarf the very limited deductions and mostly non-football related revenues.

All of that comes out of the just over half that the owners get. So, no, when all is said and done, the owners do not pocket as much as the whole rest of the team.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The point is you were wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your "point" is nothing.

Fact is, there are a ton of expenses from running the daily operations of a professional sports team. Expenses that dwarf the very limited deductions and mostly non-football related revenues.

All of that comes out of the just over half that the owners get. So, no, when all is said and done, the owners do not pocket as much as the whole rest of the team.

Ahh yes the megalomania. I am wrong you are right. Now that you have "put me in my place" you can actually make an argument. How droll.

What did I already admittedly forget about? Is the percentage that the owners get a point of fact?

Boys like you are amusing. You think that just because you didn't think of something before hand that it cannot be something else. Always so desperate to control the uncontrollable. That you intent tis all that matters. A deontological ninny.

Owners start out with 53% of the gross and have refused to allow anyone to do an accounting of their expenses which is what they did have before they decided on another lockout. We have no way of knowing their expenses because of that but your controlling self thinks you can quantify them.

Prima facie the notion that Jerry Jones $1b+ valuated business makes him less that $230m is idiotic for example. So I think it safe to say that the owner Jerry Jones makes a lot more off his club than his players. Plus he gets to enjoy all manner of market fixes that the owners colluded since inception to create.

But hey yeah you're right the owners no longer want their expenses accounted for. You are right on your point of fact. Congratulations for missing the forest for a tree.

 

[Kevinicus]

Ahh yes the megalomania. I am wrong you are right. Now that you have "put me in my place" you can actually make an argument. How droll.

What did I already admittedly forget about? Is the percentage that the owners get a point of fact?

Boys like you are amusing. You think that just because you didn't think of something before hand that it cannot be something else. Always so desperate to control the uncontrollable. That you intent tis all that matters. A deontological ninny.

Owners start out with 53% of the gross and have refused to allow anyone to do an accounting of their expenses which is what they did have before they decided on another lockout. We have no way of knowing their expenses because of that but your controlling self thinks you can quantify them.

Prima facie the notion that Jerry Jones $1b+ valuated business makes him less that $230m is idiotic for example. So I think it safe to say that the owner Jerry Jones makes a lot more off his club than his players. Plus he gets to enjoy all manner of market fixes that the owners colluded since inception to create.

But hey yeah you're right the owners no longer want their expenses accounted for. You are right on your point of fact. Congratulations for missing the forest for a tree.

You don't need to see the accounting of their expenses to understand that everything that goes into the operations of an NFL franchise is substantial. Use your noggin.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't need to see the accounting of their expenses to understand that everything that goes into the operations of an NFL franchise is substantial. Use your noggin.

I used my head for all kinds of points that you ignored to handwave at your tree.

You want people to sympathize for the owners on something they had and forced a lockout to get rid of. The owners do not want their expenses taken into consideration.

There may be some ownerships like Buffalo that are small market and profit less than $225m but Jones, Kraft, Mara, Lurie, and the rest get much much more because of the market being fixed in their favor. At the end of the day we don't know because those you are speaking for do not want it known.

You have no interest in discussing the issue and want to insist on a point of fact that you cannot quantify. It's now very boring. Last word is yours.

 

[Kevinicus]

I used my head for all kinds of points that you ignored to handwave at your tree.

You want people to sympathize for the owners on something they had and forced a lockout to get rid of. The owners do not want their expenses taken into consideration.

There may be some ownerships like Buffalo that are small market and profit less than $225m but Jones, Kraft, Mara, Lurie, and the rest get much much more because of the market being fixed in their favor. At the end of the day we don't know because those you are speaking for do not want it known.

You have no interest in discussing the issue and want to insist on a point of fact that you cannot quantify. It's now very boring. Last word is yours.

You are just wishcasting.
And I never suggested anyone should sympathize with the owners.

Just not try and demonize them like you, perhaps.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are just wishcasting.
And I never suggested anyone should sympathize with the owners.

Just not try and demonize them like you, perhaps.

I am saying it is unknown. You are the only one casting anything. You ignore everything else.

And demonize? How so? I won't hold my breath.

 

[Qcard]

New England Patriots Perfect Fit!!

 

[kskboys]

Lamar is a perfectly competent passer to succeed. These “running QBs can’t win” anecdotes aren’t true, firstly because running QBs have won, and secondly because it removes the context of the situation they were in.

How many times have you thought, “Lamar is clearly on the most talented team in the NFL!” It’s an unrealistic expectation as you’re expecting him to carry a lesser to team to beat multiple more talented teams with classic dropback QBs, and it’s his fault as a runner if he doesn’t win David vs Goliath.

No, he's not.

No, a running QB has never won a super bowl. Hurts almost did, though.

 

[kskboys]

Running QBs don’t last long. I thought lamar was more accurate as a pocket passer than most running QBs. Dak does better when he takes off here and there and rolls out and throws from out of the pocket. Lets him use his legs to get in space and draws defenders towards the line. I think lamar may need to do the same.

For some reason, and I don't think anyone has figured out why, Lamar is beyond terrible at throwing sideline passes. Really strange.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

No, he's not.

No, a running QB has never won a super bowl. Hurts almost did, though.

Russell Wilson between 2013 and 2014 averaged over 100 carries a season while completing fewer passes per attempt than Lamar Jackson’s career average completion %, while throwing for fewer than 3500 yards both seasons despite starting every game. He would have won back to back SBs if not for the bad Oline call at the end of the second one. He became a better downfield passer later in his career, but definitely was not at that level yet in year 2

 

[cnuball21]

Russell Wilson between 2013 and 2014 averaged over 100 carries a season while completing fewer passes per attempt than Lamar Jackson’s career average completion %, while throwing for fewer than 3500 yards both seasons despite starting every game. He would have won back to back SBs if not for the bad Oline call at the end of the second one. He became a better downfield passer later in his career, but definitely was not at that level yet in year 2

He was a QB that could run…not a running QB.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

He was a QB that could run…not a running QB.

How do you define the difference? What is the line?

Russell Wilson ran 94 times in 2013, 118 times in 2014. That’s an incredible amount. That’s designed runs, that’s constant sneaks, that’s him abandoning passing plays and taking off repeatedly. With how little they asked him to pass the ball and his lower completion %, he was running the football every 2.5 completions, running a huge ratio of the time.

In context, RGIII’s rookie year was 120 attempts. Michael Vick’s career high is 123. If they’re not running QBs then who is?

Russell developed and threw a lot more later in his career, but not when he was young

 

[Flamma]

How do you define the difference? What is the line?

Russell Wilson ran 94 times in 2013, 118 times in 2014. That’s an incredible amount. That’s designed runs, that’s constant sneaks, that’s him abandoning passing plays and taking off repeatedly. With how little they asked him to pass the ball and his lower completion %, he was running the football every 2.5 completions, running a huge ratio of the time.

In context, RGIII’s rookie year was 120 attempts. Michael Vick’s career high is 123. If they’re not running QBs then who is?

Russell developed and threw a lot more later in his career, but not when he was young

I have to agree with the others as well. How do you define it? An offense based on a run game that features the quarterback. Not just because the QB can run. The 2019 Ravens and last years Eagles were perfect examples of that. The two super bowls the Seahawks were in did not feature Wilson as a back. He was a pocket passer that scrambled. Similar to John Elway. Or some might say Steve Young. Not nearly as good as those two, but he had a defense to carry him.

 

[Hadenough]

What did he turn down? He was looking for the same deal Watson got from the Browns.

But he wanted it all guaranteed. Pretty sure the Ravens offered him same amount with 150mil guaranteed and he said no. You gotta remember he is doing his own negotiating along with his mother. These big shots don't want to talk to the help directly.

 

[mardwin]

But he wanted it all guaranteed. Pretty sure the Ravens offered him same amount with 150mil guaranteed and he said no. You gotta remember he is doing his own negotiating along with his mother. These big shots don't want to talk to the help directly.

He doesn't have an agent?