Results 13 to 21 of 21
Thread: Jamal Waived
-
02-28-2007, 07:16 PM #13Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Posts
- 4,260
Re: Jamal Waived
If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Jamal being a Raven next season.
PP
-
02-28-2007, 07:32 PM #14
Re: Jamal Waived
I was not happy with the running game last year. Championship teams have at least an above average running game and an above average passing game. They both go hand in hand.
I am personally tired of the type of running game the Ravens use, the straight up the middle, run off tackle type. Why can't we get someone who can cut back, and be more elusive? Since we are replacing some of our "O" line, maybe we can start drafting more versitile linemen.
As far as losing our free agents, I am to the point that I just trust the Ravens front office. It really is a compliment to our organization that other teams covet our players so much. This shows that our front office knows college talent and is able to replace key players every year. This keeps our team young and fresh. We just need to improve a bit in the second and third rounds of the draft. As they say "Next Man Up."
-
02-28-2007, 07:32 PM #15
Re: Jamal Waived
He'll probably be back, which is what irritates me. Just cut ties! He isn't good anymore!
-
02-28-2007, 07:39 PM #16
Re: Jamal Waived
Seriously. I loved Jamal, but the guy is no longer a good back.
IF Jamal was willing to stay and get 5-10 carries a game, I'd take him back. But, that won't happen. He thinks he deserves a starting role, and Billick is too loyal to him. For those reasons, it's better than we not resign him.
-
02-28-2007, 07:47 PM #17Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Posts
- 2,486
Re: Jamal Waived
You can stop right there -- he complained the past two seasons when he only got 15 to 20 carries a game, so you know he'd bitch up a storm over being a part-time player. He would need a significant attitude adjustment to accept such a role. I'm not sure he has it in him, at least not yet.
-
02-28-2007, 07:54 PM #18Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Posts
- 4,260
Re: Jamal Waived
I gotta disagree with your wording High.
Complaining and wanting the ball are two different things IMO.
Jamal's attitude was fine last year. He's actually well liked more than just about anyone on the team. When a reporter asks the guy if he wanted the ball more during a game, what's he supposed to say? No? Any RB is gonna want the ball as much as possible.
He was as frustrated at his production as anyone. Jamal has most definitely lost a step, but watching the OL run block last season was embarassing.
I think the FO realizes that as well which is why they are interested in bringing him back.
Guys like Barry Sanders, who produced big time without run blocking, only come around once a generation.
If we bring him back, fine. If not, that's fine too. But if this OL doesn't start run blocking, everyone here clamouring for a new RB thinking that's the sole answer is gonna be real pissed this time next year.
PPLast edited by purplepoe; 02-28-2007 at 08:10 PM.
-
02-28-2007, 08:07 PM #19Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Posts
- 2,486
Re: Jamal Waived
Agreed -- I want a RB who wants the ball -- but IMHO, he was complaining from time to time in the past two years. I'm referring to his argument that he needs 25 to 30 carries to be effective, which has always sounded to me like an excuse for not performing. If you can't be effective in the first three quarters, why should you get the ball in the fourth? He was very productive in the first half in his really good years, so his reasoning that he needs to wear down the defense doesn't seem to have a lot going for it.
I'm totally with you on this point. The pass blocking finally improved last year, but the run blocking took a step backwards.
-
02-28-2007, 09:48 PM #20
-
02-28-2007, 09:53 PM #21
Bookmarks