Updated: Ravens not signing OT Jake Long

[LosT_in_TranSlatioN]

30 minutes ago, trevorsteadman said:

I thought it was a good move before more information came out about his knee health updates, and I still believe he would have been.

Problem is the knee was worse than initially thought. So why spend money on a guy that will not sign an injury waiver after information came out about his knee? He was an upgrade over Hurst if healthy. 

Pretty much this. Even I've gone out of my way to say I'm not happy about the situation. But sure I'm a hypocrite.

[usmccharles]

1 hour ago, wizard1 said:

Jeez Louise, first you guys are singing the praises of Jake Long and the next minute you are saying we are better off without him and we don't need him and any other kind of whatevers. I said in my post that the guy wasn't worth a plug nickle and I stand by that. You all make it quite hilarious to peruse this board  and it makes for some good belly laughs. Thanks to all !!!!

You are just not able to look at anything objectively are you?  You first think its funny people are happy that we are signing him, then you bash people for being happy that we didn't sign someone who couldn't pass a physical....love the logic.  It was be a great signing...if he was healthy.  He's not healthy. Pretty simple.

[RaineV1]

5 hours ago, JO_75 said:

Yeah he's healthy so it makes me wonder if now that he knows he is healthy he is going to wait it out for a starting job to open up somewhere else.

I don't think he's waiting for a starting job, but for someone that'll give him guaranteed money.

[Ravenseconbeast]

Thats too bad.   Jake could've been a great depth signing.   Signing a waiver clause is typically common, especially if you have torn it multiple times.   Considering he played 11 snaps with Falcons last year, it would be hard pressed for Jake to find a team willing to pay him guaranteed amount.    

[JoeyFlex5]

1 hour ago, wizard1 said:

Jeez Louise, first you guys are singing the praises of Jake Long and the next minute you are saying we are better off without him and we don't need him and any other kind of whatevers. I said in my post that the guy wasn't worth a plug nickle and I stand by that. You all make it quite hilarious to peruse this board  and it makes for some good belly laughs. Thanks to all !!!!

A healthy long makes for cheap veteran depth. An injured long isn't worth a roster spot. 

 

Pretty self explanatory. 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

2 hours ago, wizard1 said:

Jeez Louise, first you guys are singing the praises of Jake Long and the next minute you are saying we are better off without him and we don't need him and any other kind of whatevers. I said in my post that the guy wasn't worth a plug nickle and I stand by that. You all make it quite hilarious to peruse this board  and it makes for some good belly laughs. Thanks to all !!!!

Well, people form opinions based on the information they're given. 

At first, we found out we were getting a former multiple time pro bowler, who was only available bc of past injuries for near the minimum while being the healthiest he's been in years - and only needing him to be a mentor and quality depth. 

Thats a pretty low risk/high reward proposition. 

Then, while he ultimately passed the physical it required a second opinion which indicates he wasn't quite as healthy as originally reported.... Which is - say it with me now - NEW INFORMATION. 

And what can people do when there's new information available? 

Understand it. Evaluate it. And adjust your opinion as necessary. 

So the Ravens ask for an injury clause which would save them money and potential cap space should the injury resurface. You know, minimizing risk. The player didn't agree to it. 

Some more new information. 

What do we do? Understand it, evaluate, and adjust if necessary. 

 

Now, some think we'll I would've loved to have had the guy if it was true he was completely healthy OR if he would have shown some faith in his own health by agreeing to the injury clause.

But neither happened. 

So now, those same ppl can reasonably think that since he's not quite 100% and he wouldn't bet on his health - it's smarter for us not to be the ones betting on it. Bc if we commit there and he gets injured not only do we not have a backup, it'll probably be too late to find one and our other option Hurt/Wesley/Lewis won't have gotten the necessary reps and experience to be counted on. 

So better now to let those guys get the reps and continue to evaluate the market waiting for a cut or maybe a guy like Beatty. 

 

Your attempt at calling people out is foolish. 

You're basically saying that if my brother brings a girl home and says he's going to marry her.... And after meeting her just once I think she's really nice, pretty, funny, smart - all around a good woman for him and so I give my blessing....

i can't then, after finding out that she cheated on him, change my mind and no longer think they should get married. 

Nope -- only a laughable fool would do that. The real smart people stick by any opinion they have regardless of any new info that becomes available. 

 

Please refute that comparison. Please. I can't wait to see what you say. 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, wizard1 said:

Jeez Louise, first you guys are singing the praises of Jake Long and the next minute you are saying we are better off without him and we don't need him and any other kind of whatevers. I said in my post that the guy wasn't worth a plug nickle and I stand by that. You all make it quite hilarious to peruse this board  and it makes for some good belly laughs. Thanks to all !!!!

 Wiz, have to agree with you........The reverse pirouettes from "the Flock" are like a great comedy club.  They leave you in stitches due to the unfathomable audacity!  I use those big words just for them, they rile them up in a similar manner and it gives one such a chuckle to imagine them reaching for a dictionary!  

But what I find even more incredulous is that the reports I have read indicate Jack Long was pleased with the knee evaluation by our Dr. but was advised the club would not conclude the deal without a re-injury waiver.  Likely Vet minimum and the Raven's in extreme jeopardy on experience at the KEY position? and a injury waiver is required when the Odd Couple just ate millions of Dead Monroe Money?  It's ......."bizarro world".  This could only happen with this decade Raven's Team. but we know where this  waiver precondition originated.  This one has the DeCosta Code's signature all over it.  And here's why.  My god, this is getting way too easy.   Bisciotti....someone that knows Bisciotti, tune into this and if I'm wrong, ignore it all forever, but when I'm right ask yourselves very carefully how did he know?

Mr. DeCosta Code.  He's the guy that was going to play "Trade Back" and hope on Flacco when we HAD to have a decent QB.   Young fans, if you don't know, it was the QB position that held us back for years when we were stacked.  Bisciotti moved in and shook DeCosta up, because DeCosta wanted to gamble on Flacco in deminimis circumstances.   DeCosta takes risks and just loves to push his luck even when "the guy" is available, because at heart,  the man is a confirmed gambler.  You can see it in our Drafts as well.

Now...How bad was that knee over Vet Minimum wages? Do I have your ear yet Ownership?

Edited July 30, 2016 by Danny D

[wizard1]

Interesting analogy. Where did you read that on the back of a box of Frosted Flakes. The fact is, we should have known before offering Long a contract that he was unable to play football. Did one other team jump at the chance to bring in a former pro-bowler. No ! Instead we let an oft-injured but one who had 2 strong knees walk into retirement without offering him a penny in Monroe. Do you think the coaches got a good look at Stanley and possibly realized there is no way he will be ready for week 1 and now they are scrambling to find someone to shove into a hole that they created? Do you think that's even possible? To suggest otherwise simply adds to my belief that there are people in this organization that simply are not in tune with the rest of the league. Continuity is essential to success in 2 places on a football team. No.1 is the secondary and running a close 2nd is the O-Line. So much happens at the line of scrimmage. Our O-line was arguably our weakest point last year. How have we possibly done anything to fix that problem? I suggest we get on the phone and see if Eugene might be interested in coming out of retirement.

Edited July 30, 2016 by wizard1

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, wizard1 said:

Interesting analogy.

Wiz if you really were a Raven's fan you would have asked the legitimate questions earlier and would realize they have already been raised. You're late and out of the loop again.

But if you're a Steelers fan basking in our down time, you'd tune in sporadically and wouldn't even know the details of our injuries and needs until you read them and adopted them as your own. You see, I pay attention, most all the time and that's why my argument is more than merely trying to rub folks noses in the dirt when there's been a fall.

Post your predications and begone

[Inqui]

4 hours ago, flynismo said:

Welp, this should land Long in Harbs' doghouse for sure

He'll be there for a Long time it seems.

[wizard1]

Aww shucks can't we all just get along?  I hate the Freakin Steelers.  Come on man!!!

[JoeyFlex5]

does anyone else find it hilarious that the biggest troll on the board, and the ultimate doomsayer who pops up once a year like some prophet... are seriously at eachothers throats?

[Tru11]

9 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

Well, people form opinions based on the information they're given. 

At first, we found out we were getting a former multiple time pro bowler, who was only available bc of past injuries for near the minimum while being the healthiest he's been in years - and only needing him to be a mentor and quality depth. 

Thats a pretty low risk/high reward proposition. 

Then, while he ultimately passed the physical it required a second opinion which indicates he wasn't quite as healthy as originally reported.... Which is - say it with me now - NEW INFORMATION. 

And what can people do when there's new information available? 

Understand it. Evaluate it. And adjust your opinion as necessary. 

So the Ravens ask for an injury clause which would save them money and potential cap space should the injury resurface. You know, minimizing risk. The player didn't agree to it. 

Some more new information. 

What do we do? Understand it, evaluate, and adjust if necessary. 

 

Now, some think we'll I would've loved to have had the guy if it was true he was completely healthy OR if he would have shown some faith in his own health by agreeing to the injury clause.

But neither happened. 

So now, those same ppl can reasonably think that since he's not quite 100% and he wouldn't bet on his health - it's smarter for us not to be the ones betting on it. Bc if we commit there and he gets injured not only do we not have a backup, it'll probably be too late to find one and our other option Hurt/Wesley/Lewis won't have gotten the necessary reps and experience to be counted on. 

So better now to let those guys get the reps and continue to evaluate the market waiting for a cut or maybe a guy like Beatty. 

 

Your attempt at calling people out is foolish. 

You're basically saying that if my brother brings a girl home and says he's going to marry her.... And after meeting her just once I think she's really nice, pretty, funny, smart - all around a good woman for him and so I give my blessing....

i can't then, after finding out that she cheated on him, change my mind and no longer think they should get married. 

Nope -- only a laughable fool would do that. The real smart people stick by any opinion they have regardless of any new info that becomes available. 

 

Please refute that comparison. Please. I can't wait to see what you say. 

 

real smart people dont jump to conclusions based on a 1st impression.
you dont really know someone after meeting them just once.

same can be said for anything tbh.

real smart people wait till they get more information before forming an opinion and jumping to conclusions.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

7 hours ago, Danny D said:

 

Now...How bad was that knee over Vet Minimum wages? Do I have your ear yet Ownership?

trust me, you dont.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

trust me, you dont.

This is another area that we disagree. 

The faithful insist it's fruitless to identify and discuss our Front Office's transgressions.  My view on the other hand is that the sooner fans understand the degree of malfeasance that we have been experiencing and the more those misdeeds are discussed, the sooner the discontent will percolate universally to the surface and the faster the inevitable change will occur to the benefit of the Baltimore Ravens.

Besides, if you didn't know by now, I have a degree of the "Spidey Sense" and it tells me otherwise.

Dang this coffee is really rich and flavorful this morning!  Maybe all Newsome needs is some good coffee. If he's drinking the Sanka, its no wonder he can't wake up in the morning. 

It sure sounds like the man passed the physical days prior but the Ravens in their wisdom chose to quarrel over a modest amount.  Is this a riot or what!!! Someone here asked me if I agree with anything Newsome does, I answered No and here again the gang that can't shoot straight make me a visionary at each and every opportunity.

We should accept Long's terms or inform Monroe we'll honor his contract, but what we'll do is pick up somebody's castoff.  However, competent Left Tackles do not litter the cuts. Maybe someone will want to swing another Monroe type deal with us.  Fischer or  someone like that.

You have to respect Long, he resisted a "strong arm" attempt. The variable we don't know is the amount of the contract. Perhaps they were offering him substantially more than we contemplate.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Danny D

[JoeyFlex5]

I'll have whatever Danny's smoking.

[Moderator 3]

Where did anyone see reported that we only offered the vet minimum?  Despite all the posts saying that, I never saw it reported nor did I ever assume that to be the case.  I would expect an injury waiver to be attached to a larger, guaranteed, contract.

[Tiznut]

2 minutes ago, Moderator 3 said:

Where did anyone see reported that we only offered the vet minimum?  Despite all the posts saying that, I never saw it reported nor did I ever assume that to be the case.  I would expect an injury waiver to be attached to a larger, guaranteed, contract.

Pretty much. A one yr vet minimum just doesn't seem likely to draw that much concern from the FO. 

[Tiznut]

1 hour ago, Danny D said:

This is another area that we disagree. 

The faithful insist it's fruitless to identify and discuss our Front Office's transgressions.  My view on the other hand is that the sooner fans understand the degree of malfeasance that we have been experiencing and the more those misdeeds are discussed, the sooner the discontent will percolate universally to the surface and the faster the inevitable change will occur to the benefit of the Baltimore Ravens.

Besides, if you didn't know by now, I have a degree of the "Spidey Sense" and it tells me otherwise.

 

He said the FO isn't worried about what posters here think about players and when it comes to evaluation of talent and determination of pay they do not.  We are no names posters with no verifiable credentials making our opinions public on a mb.  Nothing in that says that anyone here is worth listening to in regards to what players need to be signed and for what pay.   Being an anonymous message board poster there's no real accountability in your assessments being wrong which leads itself to people being able to make asinine claims and absurd predictions about which players will and won't pan out. 

[BmoreBird22]

9 hours ago, Danny D said:

 Wiz, have to agree with you........The reverse pirouettes from "the Flock" are like a great comedy club.  They leave you in stitches due to the unfathomable audacity!  I use those big words just for them, they rile them up in a similar manner and it gives one such a chuckle to imagine them reaching for a dictionary!  

I'll tell you what really gives me a chuckle- knowing most of those big words probably came from a thesaurus and aren't even used in the correct context.

Oh, and by the way, I just finished reading the rest of your post. De minimus (it has a space in there) is a term used to refer something too trivial for law. Furthermore, you reference malfeance. How is the front office intentionally trying to worsen the franchise? That's exactly what I was talking about with the above.

Edited July 30, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[BmoreBird22]

9 hours ago, Danny D said:

You see, I pay attention, most all the time

You really could have fooled me

Edited July 30, 2016 by BmoreBird22

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

3 hours ago, Tru11 said:

real smart people dont jump to conclusions based on a 1st impression.
you dont really know someone after meeting them just once.

same can be said for anything tbh.

real smart people wait till they get more information before forming an opinion and jumping to conclusions.

 

It's human nature to form opinions right away. 

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. 

It's just that reasonable people understand their own limitations and fallibility, and leave their opinions open to change upon gathering more information. 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

53 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I'll tell you what really gives me a chuckle- knowing most of those big words probably came from a thesaurus and aren't even used in the correct context.

Oh, and by the way, I just finished reading the rest of your post. De minimus (it has a space in there) is a term used to refer something too trivial for law. Furthermore, you reference malfeance. How is the front office intentionally trying to worsen the franchise? That's exactly what I was talking about with the above.

That's the best part. 

Not only do most of his obviously forced attempts as using a more diverse vocabulary NOT include "big words," half the time those "big words" are used entirely in the wrong context. 

Thats the thing with these types of higher level vocab words... They don't have generally applicable definitions like "good," "nice," or "fun." 

They tend to have very specific connotations and the context within which they are used is more precise. Thesauri don't often give the true essence of their meaning or the context in which the word becomes synonymous - and that's where he clearly falls short and it becomes obvious they aren't a part of his true vernacular. 

But I'm sure it works and impresses a certain crowd.