[News] Late For Work 10/5: Four Reasons Ravens Make Another WR Trade, Potential Candidates

[January J]

1. No, in other words, if I can provide a valid definition of the same inherent subjective term (which I clearly did), then the entire concept of it being laughably "generally understood" is patently wrong.

 

2. No, I'm not pretending anything. Fans on THIS BOARD (and this board alone) are talking about Vincent Jackson and Alshon Jeffery because they are sexy. Fans love sexy, far more than they like reality. They don't care about problems like why on Earth the other team would ever want to trade that player (Jeffery's case) or how in the world we could ever afford such a player (Jackson's case). Unfortunately for them, things like salary caps, long-term future of the franchise, etc. exist, and they tend to shatter those dreams almost immediately.

 

The reason guys like Royal and Roberts aren't being discussed by fans (though they are being discussed by reporters) is, conversely, because they aren't sexy. As you implied, they are basically just JAGs, which is exactly what Chris Givens is, yet we acquired him as well. While not as talented as the above guys, they obviously fit the mold of cheaper veteran WRs who would be more likely viewed as rental players, since I doubt anybody is expecting a trade for a player we think will be here for the next five years or more.

 

3. LOL, this one should be fun...

 

Do I really have to go through the (rather lengthy of I spent time on it) list of quality receivers who performed exceptionally well with bad QBs? Even in recent memory, under your scenario, there's no way DeAndre Hopkins has 1200+ yards and 6 TDs with Ryan Mallett and Ryan Fitzpatrick... but he did. There's no way that Sammy Watkins has nearly 1000 yards and 6 TDs with EJ Manuel and Kyle Orton... but he did. And there's no way that Mike Evans posts 1000 yards and 12 TDs with Mike Glennon and whoever else the Bucs sent out there last year... but he did.

 

Not exactly revolutionary that quality receivers seem to produce just fine with poor QBs.

 

4. You're right... what we have was never good enough. Then again, the FO disagreed with that assessment, so all we're doing now is second guessing it. Its convenient for fans obviously, but also pointless. So it appears from the FO's perspective, it is essentially a new priority, because there's really no evidence to suggest it was a priority (or at least a high enough one to warrant action) three months ago. Fans might have thought it was a priority, but that's not really relevant either, given the zero impact on personnel decisions.

fans talk about guys like Vincent Jackson and Alshon bc we have lacked that true number 1 playmaker for a long time. It's not simply bc they are big name guys- it's bc they tend to fit our needs. The main website added fuel to it by posting a lfw article about it too. And either way I have seen plenty of people discussing royal and Roberts. We just want what's best for our team.

[Halshayeji]

He's a terrible option for the exact reason you just said... you can't trade for him unless you're signing him to an extension.

Opening bid for him would be MAYBE a 2nd round pick, and it'd like cost a first. Therefore, trading for him and then losing him in FA less than six months later means you basically swapped a high draft pick for a medium pick... so wheres the gain?

I don't know why fans think we are one WR away from being legitimate contenders. There is nothing you've seen on the football field in the last four games to indicate that.

All a moot point obviously, because there's nothing to suggest the Bears are even remotely considering shopping Jeffery.

1- Everything suggests that the Bears are shopping Jeffery. They are in full rebuild mode. They just traded their MLB who they drafted in the second for peanuts. They traded away their better WR "Marshal" for a bag of peanuts before the season. They are just trading away all their assets and A.Jeffry is next in line. They are going to add a lot of restricted FA over the next few years leaving them with no comp picks. That's why they are trying to get value for him.

2- asking for a second rounder is such a reach. They'd never get that. Especially with the amount of WR that have moved this year and none were traded for more than a 4th.

3- 4 games into the season and it's obvious the O and Trestman are not on the same page. The most glaring need is WR and Jeffrey is the fastest solution both short and long term.

Getting a high comp pick is not ideal but it's a good backup plan if Jeffrey decides to move.

We have the cap space, it's a glaring need, we have a bunch of picks for next years draft. Just make the move!

[riseNConquer81]

1. No, in other words, if I can provide a valid definition of the same inherent subjective term (which I clearly did), then the entire concept of it being laughably "generally understood" is patently wrong.

uh no. not how it works. If EVERYBODY else but you is thinking the same thing, then there is a general understanding...whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

2. No, I'm not pretending anything. Fans on THIS BOARD (and this board alone) are talking about Vincent Jackson and Alshon Jeffery because they are sexy. Fans love sexy, far more than they like reality. They don't care about problems like why on Earth the other team would ever want to trade that player (Jeffery's case) or how in the world we could ever afford such a player (Jackson's case). Unfortunately for them, things like salary caps, long-term future of the franchise, etc. exist, and they tend to shatter those dreams almost immediately.

 

The reason guys like Royal and Roberts aren't being discussed by fans (though they are being discussed by reporters) is, conversely, because they aren't sexy. As you implied, they are basically just JAGs, which is exactly what Chris Givens is, yet we acquired him as well. While not as talented as the above guys, they obviously fit the mold of cheaper veteran WRs who would be more likely viewed as rental players, since I doubt anybody is expecting a trade for a player we think will be here for the next five years or more.

yeah you are. fans on this board are talking about Vincent Jackson and Alshon Jeffrey because they are proven and consistent talent that can improve our team significantly and help us win, and THAT (not how much they are getting paid) is the fans' primary concern. that's why they are "sexy." The reason why the salary cap and all those other things you mention are after thoughts to them is because, as i said before: when someone says something like "big time receiver," everybody (but you) understands that to mean somebody talented. you're just digging yourself a bigger hole by going off on this tangent.

 

3. LOL, this one should be fun...

 

Do I really have to go through the (rather lengthy of I spent time on it) list of quality receivers who performed exceptionally well with bad QBs? Even in recent memory, under your scenario, there's no way DeAndre Hopkins has 1200+ yards and 6 TDs with Ryan Mallett and Ryan Fitzpatrick... but he did. There's no way that Sammy Watkins has nearly 1000 yards and 6 TDs with EJ Manuel and Kyle Orton... but he did. And there's no way that Mike Evans posts 1000 yards and 12 TDs with Mike Glennon and whoever else the Bucs sent out there last year... but he did.

 

Not exactly revolutionary that quality receivers seem to produce just fine with poor QBs.

yes, you do. Although its pointless because you cant stop bending reality to suit your arguments. To start out with, you have an exceptionally loose definition of "bad QB." You can do a lot worse than Ryan Mallet and Ryan Fitzpatrick EJ Manuel or Kyle Orton. and none of them are first year rookies either, so comparing them to 2014 Derek Carr is fallacious from the start. Come talk to me when you got some numbers on receivers who played with ACTUAL bad QBs...and by "bad QBs" i dont mean middle tier backups that you want to pretend are bad.

Tim Tebow, Jamarcus Russell, Geno Smith, Kyle Boller, Christian Ponder...think along those lines. that's what bad QBs look like.

 

 

4. You're right... what we have was never good enough. Then again, the FO disagreed with that assessment, so all we're doing now is second guessing it. Its convenient for fans obviously, but also pointless. So it appears from the FO's perspective, it is essentially a new priority, because there's really no evidence to suggest it was a priority (or at least a high enough one to warrant action) three months ago. Fans might have thought it was a priority, but that's not really relevant either, given the zero impact on personnel decisions.

i'm not second guessing anything, that's been my position since long before Torrey ever signed with niners. its is a priority, always has been. Anybody who has ever spelled the word "football" saw that the entire off season, pre season, and every week leading up to this point. The fact that the front office failed or chose not to act on it doesnt change that fact, nor does it lend any validity to the idea that we're okay now and dont need to try to do anything more just because we've managed to recreate the same insufficient circumstnaces in our receiver corps as before. Edited October 10, 2015 by riseNConquer81

[January J]

1. No, in other words, if I can provide a valid definition of the same inherent subjective term (which I clearly did), then the entire concept of it being laughably "generally understood" is patently wrong.

 

2. No, I'm not pretending anything. Fans on THIS BOARD (and this board alone) are talking about Vincent Jackson and Alshon Jeffery because they are sexy. Fans love sexy, far more than they like reality. They don't care about problems like why on Earth the other team would ever want to trade that player (Jeffery's case) or how in the world we could ever afford such a player (Jackson's case). Unfortunately for them, things like salary caps, long-term future of the franchise, etc. exist, and they tend to shatter those dreams almost immediately.

 

The reason guys like Royal and Roberts aren't being discussed by fans (though they are being discussed by reporters) is, conversely, because they aren't sexy. As you implied, they are basically just JAGs, which is exactly what Chris Givens is, yet we acquired him as well. While not as talented as the above guys, they obviously fit the mold of cheaper veteran WRs who would be more likely viewed as rental players, since I doubt anybody is expecting a trade for a player we think will be here for the next five years or more.

 

3. LOL, this one should be fun...

 

Do I really have to go through the (rather lengthy of I spent time on it) list of quality receivers who performed exceptionally well with bad QBs? Even in recent memory, under your scenario, there's no way DeAndre Hopkins has 1200+ yards and 6 TDs with Ryan Mallett and Ryan Fitzpatrick... but he did. There's no way that Sammy Watkins has nearly 1000 yards and 6 TDs with EJ Manuel and Kyle Orton... but he did. And there's no way that Mike Evans posts 1000 yards and 12 TDs with Mike Glennon and whoever else the Bucs sent out there last year... but he did.

 

Not exactly revolutionary that quality receivers seem to produce just fine with poor QBs.

 

4. You're right... what we have was never good enough. Then again, the FO disagreed with that assessment, so all we're doing now is second guessing it. Its convenient for fans obviously, but also pointless. So it appears from the FO's perspective, it is essentially a new priority, because there's really no evidence to suggest it was a priority (or at least a high enough one to warrant action) three months ago. Fans might have thought it was a priority, but that's not really relevant either, given the zero impact on personnel decisions.

and it's certainly not just fans on " this board" , obviously several other sites entertained the idea as well.