Mark Clayton Signs His Tender

[Romo Ravens]

[quote name='lowrider' date='21 May 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1274463638' post='412859']
What does having artificial talent mean? In the NFL, everyone has natural talent. I have no idea what point your making with that.

His second point was just saying that we have had successful wide recievers in our system. The point of "our system was bad, so you can't blame our recievers" isn't relevant here because we have had successful receivers with a "bad system" and bad quarterbacks. Clayton has no excuse.

Then your last point is almost as confusing as the artificial point. Mason and Heap succeed because they are good. If anything it proves that they are so much better than Clayton, because Clayton sucks so bad and
gets shut down by a number two or three corner, they double Heap and Mason and they still put up numbers.

I have a confession. Last year I defended Clayton and said that he would be a 1,000 yard reciever, and tried to believe in him as best as I could. I came up with every reason why he wasn't bad and there was reasons for his lack of numbers. I was wrong. I have learned my lesson.
[/quote]

I have natural talent as a QB, so I can enter the NFL now, at this moment, and succeed? Artificial is a word similar to potential, but not literally. It's there, but it's not. That was my point. Yea, he has talent, and it's shown, but it's not fully there yet.

Lol we've had good WR's? Who, Mason? Don't say Heap because he is a TE. That's a whole different situation, and TE's are essentially blankets for QB's. Mason is the only WR who was good on our roster. I sure hope you don't mean Boldin or Stallowrth, because yea they're excellent, but they haven't played in a game for us. Did I ever say our system was bad? If we've had Mason and Heap succeed in our system, two is better than none? So your point makes no sense.

My last point was a joke. There are usually three skill-position players on the field at the same time. I'm excluding the RB. If one of them suck, then shouldn't the other two benefit from the lack of production from the other WR. There's really no answer, I was just getting my Noam Chomsky on. Slow day at work.

[lowrider]

[quote name='Romo Ravens' date='21 May 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1274466850' post='412874']
I have natural talent as a QB, so I can enter the NFL now, at this moment, and succeed? Artificial is a word similar to potential, but not literally. It's there, but it's not. That was my point. Yea, he has talent, and it's shown, but it's not fully there yet.

Lol we've had good WR's? Who, Mason? Don't say Heap because he is a TE. That's a whole different situation, and TE's are essentially blankets for QB's. Mason is the only WR who was good on our roster. I sure hope you don't mean Boldin or Stallowrth, because yea they're excellent, but they haven't played in a game for us. Did I ever say our system was bad? If we've had Mason and Heap succeed in our system, two is better than none? So your point makes no sense.

My last point was a joke. There are usually three skill-position players on the field at the same time. I'm excluding the RB. If one of them suck, then shouldn't the other two benefit from the lack of production from the other WR. There's really no answer, I was just getting my Noam Chomsky on. Slow day at work.
[/quote]
I was only using Heap and Mason as examples to say that that it isn't necessarily the system that has the problem, it is Clayton. I won't disagree with you that we haven't had success at wide receiver, but I was mearly trying to explain since there are successful receivers in our system, that it can't be an excuse to defend Clayton. There is no more excuses for Clayton. He is a bust. He is the equivilent to Travis Taylor in my mind.

[Romo Ravens]

[quote name='lowrider' date='21 May 2010 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1274467677' post='412879']
I was only using Heap and Mason as examples to say that that it isn't necessarily the system that has the problem, it is Clayton. I won't disagree with you that we haven't had success at wide receiver, but I was mearly trying to explain since there are successful receivers in our system, that it can't be an excuse to defend Clayton. There is no more excuses for Clayton. He is a bust. He is the equivilent to Travis Taylor in my mind.
[/quote]

I hear ya. I can no longer disagree with you as well. Clayton is a bust, and hopefully he'll find himself buried in the depth chart this year.

[Milton145]

I wouldn't say Mason is exactly playing like he's 36. He isn't THAT fast but he can still make plays on the deep ball and is a very polished route runner and can make the tough catch. He was a [i]good[/i] Number 1 for us last year. He'll be a great Number 2. Remember, he was double covered most of the time and still topped 1,000 yards. While stats aren't everything, that's still pretty impressive.

Clayton was a beast on the reverses we did with him. Maybe it can translate in the return game?

[TSizzle00]

If I hear one more person say Clayton is Masons clone Im going to lose my mind!

Mason can run routes and catch the ball. Clayton struggles with both of those things. Only thing Clayton has on Mason is that he is faster, like that really matters come gameday.

[BloodRaven]

What I find strange is after all these years Clayton hasn't picked up anything from Mase, he just has no clue how to shake his corner.

[tweety]

[quote name='flynismo' date='20 May 2010 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1274405166' post='412627']
And OP, plesae don't ever mention Clayton and Mason in the same sentence ever again.
[/quote]
The difference between Clayton and Mason is route running. For ever drop of Clayton's, there's one of Mason. Every amazing possession catch Mason snags, Clayton has a spectacular catch. Of course you have to factor in the significant amount of throws Mason gets over Clayton, which is just Mason being open and Clayton being covered.

[flynismo]

[quote name='tweety' date='21 May 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1274502816' post='413029']
The difference between Clayton and Mason is route running. For ever drop of Clayton's, there's one of Mason. Every amazing possession catch Mason snags, Clayton has a spectacular catch. Of course you have to factor in the significant amount of throws Mason gets over Clayton, which is just Mason being open and Clayton being covered.
[/quote]


I guess thats one way of looking at it.
Or the other difference between Mason and Clayton is about 500 yards a year and nearly 20% higher catch percentages per target.
The last stat in particular is most interesting to me; not only does Clayton not get open nearly as often, which results in less targets, but the opportunities that he does get he screws up.

Anywho, not trying to turn this into a pissing match, merely saying that the Mason comparisons are very insulting to Mase, because Mase has played at or near Pro Bowl levels nearly his whole career. Clayton, well, not so much...

[Rav'n Maniac]

As the topic states: "Mark Clayton Signs His Tender". What is so bad about that? It doesn't mean that he will be here come September. But, then again so what if he is? True, he has never lived up to his draft status but as a #4 he may become a different player "IF" he makes it on the field. At worst, he can be an insurance policy in case one of our big three go down. Or, in a 4 wide set I'm sure he will smoke some linebackers. The man has the knowledge of our system, something that our rooks don't possess yet.

No one has contacted me from the Ravens to tell me they are raising my ticket prices because they need an additional $2.5 mill to cover his salary this year! Hey, wait a minute. I remember reading somewhere this is an uncapped year! So really, what harm would it do to keep him one more season. The only way I see him leaving this year is if one of the rooks step up and burn him, that may or may not happen.

[T-ray]

Mason is great, but Clayton has the potential to be just as good. All he needs is some route running ability and the confidence to catch every pass he gets thrown, and he'll be right up there with him. Clayton IS Mason's clone.......

[gilgamesh]

[quote name='T-ray' date='22 May 2010 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1274542141' post='413081']
Mason is great, but Clayton has the potential to be just as good. All he needs is some route running ability and the confidence to catch every pass he gets thrown, and he'll be right up there with him. Clayton IS Mason's clone.......
[/quote]
He is only like Mason physically. You can't call him a Mason clone, though. What defines Mason? His craftiness at running routes and getting open. Clayton is nowhere near as good as Mason is in that respect, so how can he be a Mason clone if he doesn't have the one trait that defines Mason? It's kinda like saying "He's a Kobe clone, he just needs to get clutch" or "He's a Nash clone, he just needs to improve his vision and shooting". Maybe he can learn it like you said, but we have been waiting five years for that to develop. What makes you think it will? You get to a point and "potential" is just an excuse for no production.

[T-ray]

I'm guessin you didn't see the end of my post, because it would have told you I was just joking?

[gilgamesh]

[quote name='T-ray' date='22 May 2010 - 10:57 AM' timestamp='1274543833' post='413093']
I'm guessin you didn't see the end of my post, because it would have told you I was just joking?
[/quote]
The emotes? I thought they were just random ones. I can't really tell the difference. Wish there was a :sarcasm: one, would make life much simpler.

[T-ray]

I agree haha. They need to make one especially for me, because I'm full of sarcasm lol

[Romo Ravens]

Mason doesn't have time to teach little WR's who really don't even try. I don't even know why we assigned such a high mark on him anyway. He's really worth a fourth. Let the young bucks who actually want to prove themselves step up; Justin Harper, Marcus Smith, David Reed. Who cares if Clayton is familiar with the system. He's been familiar for like four years and still sucks. Like I said, there's no reason to keel developmental WR's anymore. I bet you anything we will be very surprised when one of those three players I said step up. There's no more pressure on them anymore to be "that guy" for Baltimore.

[Shammy]

[quote name='Boldinmore' date='20 May 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1274389436' post='412504']
That's where I stopped reading. That is very disrespectful to say. Mason is amazing.

Clayton signed for 2.5 million for one year. That's a lot of money for a 4th string WR. So basically if he doesn't beat out Stallworth, he is gone. Guaranteed.
[/quote]

Well theres a couple guys who aren't starting and are making decent money pryce and mcgahee

[T-ray]

We wouldn't be complaining about all that money Clayton is gonna be making if he actually put his best into the game. He has talent, but he's just not putting it together. Besides, how much do the Ravens use 4 recievers?? Not often. Pryce and McGahee both contribute very much to the team. McGahee may be the backup runner, but last time I checked, the Ravens go by a running-back-by-committee approach. Pryce not only contributes experience to the line, but he also led the teams in sacks last year. Granted, it was only 8, but it was a contribution nonetheless.

[JO_75]

[quote name='berad' date='20 May 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1274407314' post='412634']
Fabian Washington and Sam Koch signed, too.
[/quote]

I know this sort of off topic, but regarding Sam Koch, I know there is that 20% or 30% rule that limits long term contracts, but with Koch since he is a Punter and would come cheap until we can get a long term contract set when the cap comes back, but could we get something done to where we add 1-3 years on his Tender until we could give him a 5-6 year long term extension?

[berad]

[quote name='JO_75' date='22 May 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1274556463' post='413141']
I know this sort of off topic, but regarding Sam Koch, I know there is that 20% or 30% rule that limits long term contracts, but with Koch since he is a Punter and would come cheap until we can get a long term contract set when the cap comes back, but could we get something done to where we add 1-3 years on his Tender until we could give him a 5-6 year long term extension?
[/quote]

The 30% rule only applies to the 2010 season, as in their 2010 salary can only be 30% more than their 2009 salary.

[url="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-chris_johnson_and_the_30percent_rule_html-2010429"]LINK[/url]
[quote]
The 30-percent rule, found in Article XXIV, Section 8 B of the CBA, states that [b]renegotiations/extensions entered into in the 2010 league year may not increase per year from 2009 to 2010 or beyond more than 30 percent of the 2009 salary.[/b][/quote]

The Ravens could back-load the contract so that he receives more money after 2010, when (hopefully) the cap is reconstituted and the restrictions are lifted. But yeah, the 30% rule makes it difficult to do contract negotiations for deserving players who have outplayed their rookie deals.

[JO_75]

[quote name='berad' date='22 May 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1274557101' post='413144']
The 30% rule only applies to the 2010 season, as in their 2010 salary can only be 30% more than their 2009 salary.

[url="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-chris_johnson_and_the_30percent_rule_html-2010429"]LINK[/url]


The Ravens could back-load the contract so that he receives more money after 2010, when (hopefully) the cap is reconstituted and the restrictions are lifted. But yeah, the 30% rule makes it difficult to do contract negotiations for deserving players who have outplayed their rookie deals.
[/quote]

Thanks. Yeah I was thinking too that we could do something similar to what the 49ers did with Patrick Willis to give him Koch a long term contract but looking at what you said I'm not sure if it would work. Koch is a great Punter and even though we have seen punters come & go, Koch needs to be locked in long term and if anything he could come cheaper especially if we back load the contract. I just want Koch off his tender and know he's here for more than a year because if Koch has a great season and finally gets a Pro Bowl nod, he'll command more money and could get more money from another team than what we are willing to pay him.

[Shammy]

[quote name='T-ray' date='22 May 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1274553995' post='413128']
We wouldn't be complaining about all that money Clayton is gonna be making if he actually put his best into the game. He has talent, but he's just not putting it together. Besides, how much do the Ravens use 4 recievers?? Not often. Pryce and McGahee both contribute very much to the team. McGahee may be the backup runner, but last time I checked, the Ravens go by a running-back-by-committee approach. Pryce not only contributes experience to the line, but he also led the teams in sacks last year. Granted, it was only 8, but it was a contribution nonetheless.
[/quote]

i agree i like both pryce and mcgahee ... i think clayton we contribute a lot better in the slot and special teams

[Rav'n Maniac]

[quote name='Romo Ravens' date='22 May 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1274553504' post='413123']
Mason doesn't have time to teach little WR's who really don't even try. I don't even know why we assigned such a high mark on him anyway. He's really worth a fourth. Let the young bucks who actually want to prove themselves step up; Justin Harper, Marcus Smith, David Reed. Who cares if Clayton is familiar with the system. He's been familiar for like four years and still sucks. Like I said, there's no reason to keel developmental WR's anymore. I bet you anything we will be very surprised when one of those three players I said step up. There's no more pressure on them anymore to be "that guy" for Baltimore.
[/quote]
I get it bud! You really dislike Clayton, that's o.k. you're entitled. Didn't mean anything personal with my post. My point was knowing that Riley, Harper and Smith, all having 1, 2 & 3 years experience respectively in our system, haven't impressed the coaching staff enough to even make it on the field to this point. Maybe this new kid Reed will have what it takes to step up. I hope your right, we need a proven threat at the 4th spot that can get better separation and make the tough catches. At that point I would agree and say cut Clayton loose.

[BloodRaven]

At the very least Clayton could be a serviceable slot, thats if Reed doesn't outplay him for the spot. I'm convinced Clayton has no potential to improve.