UFA Mark Clayton Visiting Rams

[20ReedsAll]

Former Ravens 1st round draft pick Mark Clayton has been waived by the Rams. [url="https://twitter.com/#!/RavensInsider/status/101499660253925376"]https://twitter.com/...499660253925376[/url]

BRING HIM BACK!!!!

EDIT- OP originally read tweet as Mark Clayton having been waived; he is actually an unrestricted free agent and is visiting the Rams, his 2010 team.

[RavensAllTheWay]

While I wouldn't be too against bringing him back, there must be something the Rams know that we don't about his health/play/something else, since they cut him. This does kind of come as a surprise since he was by far their best WR before tearing his ACL.

[theFRANCHISE]

I would take Mark Clayton back for several reasons:

1) He'd be a cheap pick-up
2) He's familiar with the QB and the offense
3) He's had almost a full year to recover from his injury
4) He was showing signs that he was great in the slot for both teams in limited action, rather than being forced to play exclusively outside as in previous years
5) He's only 29 years old

People who write off Clayton always point to his drop of a potential game-winning catch in New England, and his years of disappointing production following his breakout 2006 season. What people forget, however, is that he was going through a nasty divorce after 2006 and was battling nagging injuries during that time. A player's emotional state can have a huge factor on his play; just look at how rejuvenated Clayton looked in games outside of that New England game in 2009, as well as the great games he had in 2010 with the Rams.

[Jamal]

No thanks. I'd go for a speedster or no one at all.

[AsianRice]

Not a big fan of Clayton, but we need an extra vet on our wr corps. Beside, he comes in cheap and knows our system. It should work out fine when Torrey and Doss can learn from both vets for their speedy progression. Our future WR project is Torrey, Doss and of course D. Reed.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' timestamp='1313035454' post='743918']
I would take Mark Clayton back for several reasons:

1) He'd be a cheap pick-up
2) He's familiar with the QB and the offense
3) He's had almost a full year to recover from his injury
4) He was showing signs that he was great in the slot for both teams in limited action, rather than being forced to play exclusively outside as in previous years
5) He's only 29 years old

People who write off Clayton always point to his drop of a potential game-winning catch in New England, and his years of disappointing production following his breakout 2006 season. What people forget, however, is that he was going through a nasty divorce after 2006 and was battling nagging injuries during that time. A player's emotional state can have a huge factor on his play; just look at how rejuvenated Clayton looked in games outside of that New England game in 2009, as well as the great games he had in 2010 with the Rams.
[/quote]
You're right, and I would take him back as well. HOWEVER, I feel like the Rams know something we don't.

This is a very peculiar situation: A player goes to a new team and instantaneously breaks out with outstanding production only to be injured shortly after. Next offseason, the team decides there is no place for him on the roster anymore. How often does [i]that[/i] happen?

Fishy? Yes, at least [i]I[/i] think so, but I would take him back too. Given a little more time to shake off the ACL tear, he could do very well in the slot I believe. He would also give us familiarity in the offense as you said. That would be much needed starting off against the vaunted Steelers defense.

[20ReedsAll]

For some reason, the link I provided in the original post now takes you to a tweet saying that "Mark Clayton visited the Rams today, per a league source." It definitely said that Mark Clayton was waived earlier, I'm not blind lol. So I guess this thread should be locked.

[AsianRice]

[quote name='20ReedsAll' timestamp='1313037153' post='743941']
For some reason, the link I provided in the original post now takes you to a tweet saying that "Mark Clayton visited the Rams today, per a league source." It definitely said that Mark Clayton was waived earlier, I'm not blind lol. So I guess this thread should be locked.
[/quote]
trying to stir the pot huh lol

[20ReedsAll]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1313036493' post='743931']
You're right, and I would take him back as well. HOWEVER, I feel like the Rams know something we don't.

This is a very peculiar situation: A player goes to a new team and instantaneously breaks out with outstanding production only to be injured shortly after. Next offseason, the team decides there is no place for him on the roster anymore. How often does [i]that[/i] happen?

Fishy? Yes, at least [i]I[/i] think so, but I would take him back too. Given a little more time to shake off the ACL tear, he could do very well in the slot I believe. He would also give us familiarity in the offense as you said. That would be much needed starting off against the vaunted Steelers defense.
[/quote]

Well the reason the Rams brought in Clayton in the first place was because their number 1 wideout in Donny Avery went down for the year with an injury. Clayton was no more than an injury replacement for them. Even after that, Amendola was the primary target for Bradford. The Rams let go of Clayton because they're more than comfortable with Mike Sims-Walker, Donny Avery, and Amendola leading that WR core...and who wouldn't be?

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='20ReedsAll' timestamp='1313037153' post='743941']
For some reason, the link I provided in the original post now takes you to a tweet saying that "Mark Clayton visited the Rams today, per a league source." It definitely said that Mark Clayton was waived earlier, I'm not blind lol. So I guess this thread should be locked.
[/quote]
I corrected it. Basically, Clayton's an unrestricted free agent because the Rams let his contract expire. He wasn't waived because he wasn't under contract.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='20ReedsAll' timestamp='1313037341' post='743945']
Well the reason the Rams brought in Clayton in the first place was because their number 1 wideout in Donny Avery went down for the year with an injury. Clayton was no more than an injury replacement for them. Even after that, Amendola was the primary target for Bradford. The Rams let go of Clayton because they're more than comfortable with Mike Sims-Walker, Donny Avery, and Amendola leading that WR core...and who wouldn't be?
[/quote]
But I think regardless of why he was brought in originally, he shined bright those first four and a half or so games. Sims-Walker is also injury prone, and I'm not so sure Donny Avery can be a consistent number 1 threat. Amendola certainly was not last year, but if you move him down the depth chart to number 3 or even 4, you're in serious business. The Rams did not mean to have Clayton be their long term future at WR, but it definitely worked out before going down. Not sure exactly what they're doing over there by letting him go, it seemed like a misunderstanding that worked out and should continue to work out for the better. Oh well for them....That said, I would take Clayton back for the reasons I mentioned before and because of his ability to stretch the field, which is what we desperately need.

[20ReedsAll]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1313038706' post='743952']
But I think regardless of why he was brought in originally, he shined bright those first four and a half or so games. Sims-Walker is also injury prone, and I'm not so sure Donny Avery can be a consistent number 1 threat. Amendola certainly was not last year, but if you move him down the depth chart to number 3 or even 4, you're in serious business. The Rams did not mean to have Clayton be their long term future at WR, but it definitely worked out before going down. Not sure exactly what they're doing over there by letting him go, it seemed like a misunderstanding that worked out and should continue to work out for the better. Oh well for them....That said, I would take Clayton back for the reasons I mentioned before and because of his ability to stretch the field, which is what we desperately need.
[/quote]

I agree completely. I'm just making the point that we shouldn't look too far into the Rams not being interested in resigning Clayton since he was never a part of their long term plan in the first place.

[ROH522155]

I always liked Clayton and defended him against all the haters. I'd love to see him back in Baltimore!

[Guest I-70WestRaven]

I would'nt be totally against Clayton coming back. He did look alot better with the Rams. Living in Ill. I got to see some Ram games (not by choice) and he did look really good.

[Irish Raven]

I'd take him back for sure.
However his injury is meant to be horrendous from what I've read. Yes, he's had almost a year to recover but he'll have to pass a physical first. Can't take for granted he'll ever be the same player

[FlaccoFlicker]

Wouldn't mind him back but I think he wants to be with the Rams.

[ravensfan2424]

Yahoo!.com has Clayton playing for the giants:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7198;_ylt=AkHH2igHfXqTRrIqIBl919L.uLYF