riseNConquer81

Like Joe, he shows up big in the playoffs. You gotta love that!

he shows up big whenever he's on the field, he's just been crippled for two years, and spent two others on the bench while they were trying to make Ed Dickson (the 3rd round pick) a thing.

bet a million Ozzie goes after that Ifo kid the Browns just cut

3 hours ago, BR News said:

This is the fifth year in a row in which NFL.com's writers have ranked the divisions, and it's the first time since 2012 that the NFC West has not taken the top spot.

which is nonsense since we put 3 teams in the playoffs AGAIN, in 2014. but whatever

39 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

 

So you're just going to keep referencing 7 years ago when myself and others have repeatedly mentioned that Suggs came in over weight LAST OFF-SEASON when he was completely healthy??  He said it for himself and you don't see why someone would question his work ethic or motivation coming into this season?

Never mind, you said it yourself, you're "so sound and accurate about everything around here", so you're ALWAYS right even when proven wrong!!     

yeah, cuz 7 years ago is all you got. 
Suggs didnt play last year, he got taken out in week 1, so whatever he did or didnt do last offseason is irrelevant, unless you're trying to blame his injury on his offseason program which i think you already know is a nonsense reach. You cant make the argument that Suggs slacking last offseason affected his play because he didnt play.
not to mention, as i already said, being a little overweight at the start of training camp doesnt really mean anything. Define "over weight." 5 pounds? 10? anybody can easily gain AND drop that in a matter of days or a few weeks.  once again, thats you blowing something trivial out of proportion. Every other year minus 2009, he fixed it, and put up double digit sacks. Where's your evidence that (assuming he didnt get hurt week one) we shouldve expected that to change last year? 
oh yeah: you have none. 
 

p.s.: noticed how you decidded not to highlight my quote about my sound reasoining in red as well, opting instead to rewrite it to pretend i think im always right. nice touch. thats not petty at all.

1 hour ago, billiejean said:

The reason people are worried about this season is two fold. One, By suggs' own admission he showed up out of shape last year. Two, it is difficult to stay in shape when you are nursing a torn achilles. I am sure you will find flaws with all of these sources. The bottom line is that it is not such an outlandish idea to wonder if TS has stayed in shape over the offseason.
 

Wondering if he's stayed in shape this offseason because he has an injury that hinders his ability to do so is completely different from calling him a slacker.

Everybody is editing the issue on the fly here. 
Are there a lot of reasons Suggs might not be in form and might not BE ABLE to be in form? sure. and they are mostly outside of his control. 

757 was questioning his work ethic, and no one has provided any legit reason why doing so is justifiable. 

1 hour ago, 757RavensFan said:

Like he took care of business last off-season when he admittingly showed up not at his "fighting weight" and that was when he was healthy.

This was my initial post on this thread and I stand by it.

"As much as I love Suggs, I'm not convinced he has the internal fire to be dominant again as he was 2 years ago. Just last off-season he talked about retirement, how losing Ngata affected him and we know he's dealing w/ personal issues.  I hope he has it in him to give us one more great year."  

 

I'll let you to continue to argue.  Especially after you asked me to prove you wrong which I did but of course you won't admit that.  

I'm done!  Peace!

 

dude, i gave you your precious cookie on your irrelevant tangential argument about 7 years ago, several comments ago. keep up. 
(See Fish Called Yanda, this is the problem. I'm generally so sound and accurate about just about everything i say around here, some of these people view proving me wrong as a trophy and will start any dumb little argument to get a crack at doing so.)

weight fluctuates and its hard to keep in a specific range as you get older. Showing up at camp a little over your ideal weight doesnt mean you're a slacker. 
And suggs is an outside linebacker, not a receiver or running back. his weight isnt even really an issue unless its affecting his conditioning. 

But to summarize: 
You think you have room to question Suggs' work ethic and the evidence/justification you cite for that is that once upon a time seven years ago, Suggs had a bad season. 

cool. got it. that sounds totally rational. 

2 hours ago, A Fish Called Yanda said:

Is there a single article on this website on which you haven't gotten into an argument with at least one person?

possibly.

i go on vacations and get busy with work sometimes, anything posted then is a good bet. 
some people really like to argue with me though, i have regulars lol. 

8 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

Here's the Sun article. 

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-09-12/sports/bs-sp-preston-column-0913-20110912_1_terrell-suggs-ray-lewis-ed-reed

 

The original question from JRavens1313 was, "Have you honestly seen a year where Suggs didn't bring his all? Or wasn't the most dominant player on the field wearing Purple and Black?"  That question was answered, it was you who took the conversation left. Heck even you answered JRavens1313 question by stating above that Suggs had a sup par season.  So what's your beef? 

Yeah, and thats when i said your one example was hardly worth remembering...because it really isnt. you were just nitpicking at JRavens very accurate main point: which is that Suggs' effort isnt really up for questioning right now. He's taking care of business.

so like i said: what's 7 years ago got to do with now, especially in light of the rest of his career?
What you're taking about is akin to firing firing Steve Jobs because he stole a candy bar from a gas station when he was 8. 
if we were heading into the start of the 2010 or even 2011 season, it MIGHT have been worth bringing up. 
its 2016. 

20 minutes ago, billiejean said:

Is the Baltimore Sun a reliable source?

*eye rolls*
I dont see any Baltimore Sun links here. 
and really, some player, coach, or front office testimony would be great, because fans, blogs, and news outlets make up stuff actual people in the NFL dont agree with at all, all the time. 

But this is a tangent, almost completely beside the point, so for the sake of argument, you can have it. 

That way you can start coming up with an answer to this question, getting back to my original point:
What does one sub par season from almost a decade ago that none of you could even be bothered to remember beyond vague mention have to do with the work ethic and effectiveness of a player that has been nothing like that in any of the rest of his 13 seasons, in this upcoming September?

32 minutes ago, Halshayeji said:

2009 was like 7 years ago lol

heck who cares if Suggs was 200 or 300 pounds. It was 2009!

hey its BR.com, you know how it is here. 
14 season careers are defined by the reachy fan conceived inferences about one long gone season all the time, its the law of the land. lol

28 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

OK:

 http://baltimoresportsreport.com/ravens-roster-countdown-55-terrell-suggs-8221.html

http://thepurplechaos.com/2011/09/13/terrell-suggs-in-prime-position-to-become-ravens-next-defensive-leader/

 

http://russellstreetreport.com/2014/04/29/street-talk/which-terrell-suggs-will-show-up-in-2014/

 

 

 

you got links to 3 small time blogs that are presenting speculative opinions that amount to exactly what i said before; fans blowing his weight way out of proportion because he had ONE mediocre season.
Two of them copied the same paragraph word for word into their pieces (and didnt cite each other), which means not only are we talking about speculative opinions, but theyre not even independent speculative opinions. 

you could at least find a BR,com article about it, if you're going to bother. 
You're scraping the bottom of the barrel on the internet, which is pretty hard to do.
that should tell you something...
 

26 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

I clearly stated I didn't remember the year but I remember it wasn't a good one.  Pat yourself on the back for knowing it was 2009.  I SERIOUSLY doubt you knew that Suggs had less than double digit sacks in 2009 w/out hitting up Google first. But hey if you want me to believe that, so be it.

 It's funny you state that Suggs could have easily gotten 3 sacks in the last 3 games and then in your last sentence try to state I'm presenting a presumption as a fact.  Kinda of ironic, wouldn't you say? Saying Suggs could have easily got 3 sacks in the games he missed is like saying Flacco could have thrown for 400 yards and went 6-0 in the games he missed.  It's nothing more than wishful thinking and shouldn't even be used in an discussion.

You didnt remember the year, because the year didnt exist. 
You just latched on 2009 after i mentioned because it was the nearest thing that made you sound like you made sense. 
Problem with that though is that you cant find the story stating that Suggs was overweight in 2009. Because it doesnt exist. 
In 2009 the stories were:
Kelly Gregg is old.
Foxworth's knees are disintegrating.
Frank Walker sucks.
Chris Carr isnt worth that much money.
hopefully our defense doesnt suck now that Rex is gone. 
we still need more pass rushers, cuz Kruger is not it. 
Suggs had a domestic violence thing that year. 
nothing about him being overweight. 
feel free to prove me wrong. 

 i seriously hope you dont expect me to apologize for doing homework before i speak about something. I wont. informed commentary is really the only way to go, especially since Google is SOO easy to use. Dont be mad at me for choosing to know what im talking about before i speak. 

and no thats not ironic at all. I presented a possibility as a possibility. 
Saying "Suggs COULD HAVE gotten 3 sacks in one of those games" is not the same as saying 'Suggs IS bad because we never got to see what he could produce in the part of the season he missed." 
see the difference?
Besides, what is your point even supposed to be with that whole train of thought? the only thing you're really doing there is further invalidating your own argument.
 

12 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

What part of "all most a full season" did you not comprehend? You're obviously only reading what you want to read.   

no, im reading someone who made a nonsense comment flailing to save face on it. 

you made up some story about Suggs slacking, couldnt back it up, and then pretended you were talking about 2009 as soon as I brought it up. 

hello spade. 

worst part about that is: 2009 doesnt even make your point. He couldve easily gotten 3 sacks in any one of those 3 games he missed (or one sack in each) and then you'd be stuck trying to move the goal post again. 
Also worth noting: 2009 was Greg Mattison's first year as defensive coordinator and he had a penchant for 3 man rushes. 
youre presenting a presumption as fact. not how it works. 

1 minute ago, 757RavensFan said:

Thanks for making my point.  When you only have 4.5 sacks in almost a full season(2009) when you were averaging almost 8 sacks a season is considered a good year? Umm, no! 2009 was the year he signed his 1st big contract and there was a lot of people talking about how he didn't perform to the level of his contract.  Stop acting like you don't know what I'm talking about.   Peace and have a good day. 

Thanks for demonstrating that you're just talking out of your rear.

He only played 13 games in 2009. 

you're obviously making this up as you go. 

17 minutes ago, 757RavensFan said:

As noted by Budman above you, it's obviously worth mentioning b/c I'm not the only one who remembered that bad year Suggs had.  I clearly remember how bad it was, I just don't remember what year it was.  

I do know it was BEFORE his first Achilles injury.  

budman said he remembered a slow start. thats a few bad games, not a bad year. 
so yeah, you kind of are the only one who remembers it. 

Last time suggs played more than half a season and saw less than double digit sacks is 2009. 
In 2010, he had a sack credit in all but 4 weeks through week 15, and he started 2011 with 3 sacks against pittsburgh in week 1, so even budman's slow start memory seems grossly exaggerated. 
whatever you're talking about isnt as serious as youre trying to make it out to be. 
some trivial thing fans blew out of proportion as they are apt to do around here frequently. 

  21 minutes ago, jravens1313 said:

Have you honestly seen a year where Suggs didn't bring his all? Or wasn't the most dominant player on the field wearing Purple and Black? Suggs is a battle tested warrior. Be grateful for how long he has played and that he is still on this team. We need more guys like Sizzle.

Yes I have.  I can't remember the year, I'm sure someone will chime in.  But it was year when he was tremendously overweight and it wasn't a year after his Achilles injury.  

a year of allegedly bad performance that wasnt even bad enough for you to remember hardly seems worth mentioning.

5 hours ago, balfan23 said:

I thought Buckner was a DE. They are saying in the article that he's not a fit because he's an interior lineman and that is not a need for us. I think having one of the 3 players shown fall to us is about a 50-50 proposition and Buckner is a guy I thought we'd still be interested in, if that's who is left. Definitely will be watching draft night and praying to not hear these 3 names as the first 5 select.

Our defensive base is 3-4, and DEs (especially if they arent adept pass rushers) are interior linemen in a 3-4 scheme with OLBs taking the edges. 

With Wallace joining the squad and presuming Perriman gets on the field and is actually useful there, the biggest need this team has is coverage ability...anywhere. Which makes Jack a cant lose proposition because we can play him just about anywhere. He's Deon Buchannon but with more prototypical linebacker size. I kinda think that should be our guy.

After that youthful pass rusher depth and an OL upgrade or two are the next best things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ramsey has very few interceptions, I'm not sure why we would want to import him if that is the case. I just don't see him as an advantage for us.

yea its college.
they only play 13 games a season, everybody is running a spread offense with lots of option, and college defenses are generally porous anyway. so if Ramsey is flawless in coverage, opponents spent all their time taking advantage of somebody else.

Its easy to be a good corner with no picks in college.

4 hours ago, Halshayeji said:

 

Do these people not understand the concept of jet lag? It's freakin hillarious! Playing a game in London with 3-4 hour difference is one thing. Flying 18 hours to China and playing a game at 7 pm China time is like playing a game at 10 am ET in the players biological clock. Then flying back in 5 days or so and good luck fixing the jetlag again before next weeks game.

London is 6 hours ahead of U.S. EST

Crossing the Atlantic and 2 and a half continents is the WORST and longest possible route you could take to China. i wouldnt want to fly that either, lol

  33 minutes ago, ravensnj said:

Eagles, 49ers ,Rams, Bears, Giants and Chargers all need Qb's

Yes, but there's a definite difference between needing a replacement down the line and not having a starting level QB now. The teams you mention all have legit starting QB's for the next season.

in the Eagles and niners case: that's debatable.
The Rams have nothing lol

normally i'd laugh at somebody drafting a backup QB with the #2 overall pick, but in the Browns' case: its a more than warranted decision lol.

  1 hour ago, stixfix69 said:

i would be very happy if we re-sign UPSHAW, AND DRAFT Jack....

Upshaw is puzzling. Just think about it:
- he was our top pick at that draft;
- he had great vets to learn from, throughout his rookie contract;
- he has no known injuzry issues and tendencies: he was healthy throughout his rookie contract;
- he has no off-the-field and presonal issues;
- ha had his chance to prove himself.
- he has an absolutely thin market, so he could alkmost surely be brought back on the cheap, and would surely require no bidding war or any kind of stretch to get him.

Still, Ozzie doesn't seem to be in any kind of hast to re-sign him.

What can be the reason? What else than him not delivering the kind of performance he was expected to?

inefficiency.
a two down OLB is a waste of roster space and money. We use him to keep Dumervil fresh, but im sure Oz and Harbaugh are more than comfortable making Elvis a full time player.

Unless somebody picks him up before then, Upshaw is probably going to have to wait until after the draft before he sees an offer from us, assuming we dont get the edge rusher we're looking for during it.

21 hours ago, TheConquerorWorm said:

You're only looking at it from one side. You ASSUME that if the Ravens offered the same (or more) money Freeney would have automatically signed. What if the guy didn't want to sign with the Ravens, regardless of salary? Not every FA signs with the team that offers the most money. And even though he got the vet minimum, he got $100K per sack after the first 4 (50K for each of those). So in essence his contract was $1.6 million last year (for 13 games).

same thing i said to Jacket: you're talking outlier possibilities. There's a million things that are possible merely because you never say never, but possible and likely are two different things. 

 Guy like Freeney is a beggar, not a chooser.
i never heard anything about him not wanting to play in Baltimore, and there's no reason to believe that'd be the case, 
We dont have Arizona's secondary, and certainly dont have a linebacker that can cover like Buchannon, so i wouldnt take his 8 sacks for granted if he came here, Even Dumervil only got 6. I dont think he wouldve broken us.