• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

Lamar Jackson

UPennChem said:
I know people can say of course John isn't going to he super transparent with injuries. And I'm actually agreeing he should just not comment or if he does he should be extremely transparent with constant updates. Whichever he prefers. But he shouldn't do what he constantly does which is downplay every injury after it happens and then go radio silence after what he said was totally wrong.

Last year we thought Lamar would be back, he never made it back.

This year we thought Lamar would be back, he did not make it back for the regular season. There's conflicting reports between rapsheet and Chris simms about the playoffs.

But both times John said he'll be back and this time he said week to week. Like a whole 7 weeks IF HE COMES BACK FOR THE PLAYOFF GAME, is not a week to week injury. It's literally bullshit John said and for what reason idk why.
Click to expand...
I would trust Chris Simms over Rapsheet
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Then you didn't do a good job of making your point. If your point was that average Joe's can't sympathize with a player who can rest an injury and still get paid to do it, then sure. But those same average Joe's are the one's spending discretionary income to be entertained by people they can't sympathize with. So that says something about the average Joe also...

Its an exercise in skills and what society values. Not an exercise in "sympathy".
Click to expand...
No, it seems some members are upset over the talk on this thread. My point was maybe a member that has a tough physical blue collar job and is never ever going to feel 100% during the week may have a different opinion about playing when they are not 100% perfect than another member that works from home doing sales calls or computer processing. People are going to have different opinions and there needs to be tolerance because not everything is black and white. I am sure everyone of us has speculated in our lives at some point about something when we didn’t have all the information, it is only natural. Let’s not get too bent out of shape and start calling each other out for an opinion we don’t agree with. Just respectfully say how you disagree and state why. In the end, we may have to agree to disagree. We should be able to do that with without being snarky to each other.
 
cobrajet said:
No, it seems some members are upset over the talk on this thread. My point was maybe a member that has a tough physical blue collar job and is never ever going to feel 100% during the week may have a different opinion about playing when they are not 100% perfect than another member that works from home doing sales calls or computer processing. People are going to have different opinions and there needs to be tolerance because not everything is black and white. I am sure everyone of us has speculated in our lives at some point about something when we didn’t have all the information, it is only natural. Let’s not get too bent out of shape and start calling each other out for an opinion we don’t agree with. Just respectfully say how you disagree and state why. In the end, we may have to agree to disagree. We should be able to do that with without being snarky to each other.
Click to expand...
And now I understand why I didn't get the point of your original message. Because none of this came from that.
 
UPennChem said:
I know people can say of course John isn't going to he super transparent with injuries. And I'm actually agreeing he should just not comment or if he does he should be extremely transparent with constant updates. Whichever he prefers. But he shouldn't do what he constantly does which is downplay every injury after it happens and then go radio silence after what he said was totally wrong.

Last year we thought Lamar would be back, he never made it back.

This year we thought Lamar would be back, he did not make it back for the regular season. There's conflicting reports between rapsheet and Chris simms about the playoffs.

But both times John said he'll be back and this time he said week to week. Like a whole 7 weeks IF HE COMES BACK FOR THE PLAYOFF GAME, is not a week to week injury. It's literally bullshit John said and for what reason idk why.
Click to expand...
I mean 7 weeks is "week to week". That's what it means. He didn't say how many weeks.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
I mean 7 weeks is "week to week". That's what it means. He didn't say how many weeks.
Click to expand...
Sir I made this point to I think Rossi about one of our supposed day to day injuries earlier this season. If the injury extends well last into the next unit of time it's not that type of injury.

Bateman was day to day and then was out over 3 weeks as I recall before his setback. That's not day to day, that was week to week.

Being week to week and the approach 1 week off of 2 months is not week to week. That's a month to month injury.

John consistently downplays things when he shouldn't. Idek why Lamar didn't go on IR. They knew he wouldn't be back before Pitt at the EARLIEST. Definitely knew it would be more like playoffs. If John thinks pretending Lamar isn't hurt is some competitive advantage, it's not.
 
UPennChem said:
Sir I made this point to I think Rossi about one of our supposed day to day injuries earlier this season. If the injury extends well last into the next unit of time it's not that type of injury.

Bateman was day to day and then was out over 3 weeks as I recall before his setback. That's not day to day, that was week to week.

Being week to week and the approach 1 week off of 2 months is not week to week. That's a month to month injury.

John consistently downplays things when he shouldn't. Idek why Lamar didn't go on IR. They knew he wouldn't be back before Pitt at the EARLIEST. Definitely knew it would be more like playoffs. If John thinks pretending Lamar isn't hurt is some competitive advantage, it's not.
Click to expand...
Are you certain they knew he wouldn't be back earlier? Or is it possible that injury timelines aren't consistent from person to person and that new information becomes available?

I think fans are giving way, way, way too much credit in thinking doctors are unbelievably good at prognosticating future scenarios.

Putting him on IR does what, exactly? Who's this high quality player who's not playing because Lamar is inactive each week? And if Pittsburgh is the earlier he comes back, that's why you don't put him on IR. IR means Cincy is the earliest he can come back. IR also prevent him from practicing.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Are you certain they knew he wouldn't be back earlier? Or is it possible that injury timelines aren't consistent from person to person and that new information becomes available?

I think fans are giving way, way, way too much credit in thinking doctors are unbelievably good at prognosticating future scenarios.

Putting him on IR does what, exactly? Who's this high quality player who's not playing because Lamar is inactive each week? And if Pittsburgh is the earlier he comes back, that's why you don't put him on IR. IR means Cincy is the earliest he can come back. IR also prevent him from practicing.
Click to expand...
This is funny.

To the first section, the answer is John don't be a fucking idiot and say it's a week to week injury.

To thr second section you literally earlier in this thread used the fact that the doctors are very accurate to make an alternative contrarian point lolol. Can't have it both ways.

The IR one I can see it both ways. You probably don't do it in hopes he comes back earlier than expected. And that's especially so when you factor in your point about it does not really allow you to get another good guy in there. But if you really knew there was no chance he'd back, you could get AB on the 53 without having to cut someone else.
 
UPennChem said:
This is funny.

To the first section, the answer is John don't be a fucking idiot and say it's a week to week injury.

To thr second section you literally earlier in this thread used the fact that the doctors are very accurate to make an alternative contrarian point lolol. Can't have it both ways.

The IR one I can see it both ways. You probably don't do it in hopes he comes back earlier than expected. And that's especially so when you factor in your point about it does not really allow you to get another good guy in there. But if you really knew there was no chance he'd back, you could get AB on the 53 without having to cut someone else.
Click to expand...
Ok, then...
1. What should he say? It's month to month and then he comes back in two weeks and looks like a fool? If the answer is "say nothing", I agree with you. But again, that just means you either have less info, or it means you're depending on the Adam Schefter's of the world for your injury insights. Good luck with that. That's where the 1-3 week timetable came from.
2. When did I say doctors are very accurate? Please provide the post. Pretty sure it had nothing to do with the context of how quickly a player recovers from an injury.
3. You're missing the point of the IR window though. 4 weeks is 4 weeks of no practice as well. That means nothing. As for whether Brown takes somebody else's spot, who cares. Again, show me the high quality players we've cut so Brown can be the backup.
Putting him on IR would be critical when you have a lot of injuries at one time. We don't have that right now. Half of our inactives each week are healthy scratches.
 
If there is not a pathway to an AFC North division Championship and the 3 seed. Personally, it does not matter to me if Lamar plays in week 18. However if Huntley’s shoulder is not right, I would like us to play someone who can get the ball down the field.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Ok, then...
1. What should he say? It's month to month and then he comes back in two weeks and looks like a fool?
2. When did I say doctors are very accurate? Please provide the post. Pretty sure it had nothing to do with the context of how quickly a player recovers from an injury.
3. You're missing the point of the IR window though. 4 weeks is 4 weeks of no practice as well. That means nothing. As for whether Brown takes somebody else's spot, who cares. Again, show me the high quality players we've cut so Brown can be the backup.
Putting him on IR would be critical when you have a lot of injuries at one time. We don't have that right now. Half of our inactives each week are healthy scratches.
Click to expand...
1) As I said he shouldn't give a timetable at all. It will basically always be wrong.
2) I'll find it.
3) I get what you're saying. Prospectively you don't put him on IR. Retrospectively you could have. But retrospectively does not matter
 
UPennChem said:
1) As I said he shouldn't give a timetable at all. It will basically always be wrong.
2) I'll find it.
3) I get what you're saying. Prospectively you don't put him on IR. Retrospectively you could have. But retrospectively does not matter
Click to expand...
Your quote sire

"Would also point out that, most often than not, the injury timelines the Ravens have given for most players are pretty accurate also. Already listed a couple from this very season alone."
 
UPennChem said:
Your quote sire

"Would also point out that, most often than not, the injury timelines the Ravens have given for most players are pretty accurate also. Already listed a couple from this very season alone."
Click to expand...
lol, OK, and this is a contrarian take how? "most often that not" pretty much speaks for itself.
And comically, the very injury we're talking about is the one that falls into the "not" category.

Also this has nothing to do with Doctors. This has to do with what John tells the public. John told the public December for Marcus Williams. When did he come back? John said Campbell and Peters were short term injuries and wouldn't miss much time. They missed two weeks. Both likely to play this week.

Remember the context of this. These ideas are coming from clowns who think because John's timeline for Lamar wasn't what the public though it was, that he "always" whiffs on injuries. The last guy who made this claim had to go back like 7 years to support his narrative. I think a few hundred injuries may have occurred during that time that he skipped through.
 
UPennChem said:
This is funny.

To the first section, the answer is John don't be a fucking idiot and say it's a week to week injury.

To thr second section you literally earlier in this thread used the fact that the doctors are very accurate to make an alternative contrarian point lolol. Can't have it both ways.

The IR one I can see it both ways. You probably don't do it in hopes he comes back earlier than expected. And that's especially so when you factor in your point about it does not really allow you to get another good guy in there. But if you really knew there was no chance he'd back, you could get AB on the 53 without having to cut someone else.
Click to expand...

i mean i cant criticise Harbs for using the word "week-to-week" - prior injuries of that nature were 1-4 week injuries and slightly tougher ones were 4-6 weeks... they're basically just monitoring the swelling i guess to work out whether he's ok and if it doesnt go down as expected then he cant practice and they reevaluate every week to see...

that feels like the definition of week to week to me...
 
UPennChem said:
1) As I said he shouldn't give a timetable at all. It will basically always be wrong.
2) I'll find it.
3) I get what you're saying. Prospectively you don't put him on IR. Retrospectively you could have. But retrospectively does not matter
Click to expand...
I agree. I'd prefer he didn't speak on injuries. I just think the public doesn't have the balls to accept not having injury updates. And if they don't get them, they'll seek out people less qualified to give them, and still be pissed when they're not met.
See the "1-3 week timeline" as an example. Didn't come from the Ravens, yet people ran with it. They'll have to explain why they did.

I don't care if its prospective or retrospective. If you've got a critical player that has an injury in the timeline of his injury, it really benefits the team in no way to put them on IR. If they can come back sooner, you fucked up massively by putting him on IR. If he's on normal timeline, you're not risking a quality player being cut by not doing it. And most importantly, he can practice whenever he's able to, and not bound to a rule that doesn't allow him to.
 
rossihunter2 said:
i mean i cant criticise Harbs for using the word "week-to-week" - prior injuries of that nature were 1-4 week injuries and slightly tougher ones were 4-6 weeks... they're basically just monitoring the swelling i guess to work out whether he's ok and if it doesnt go down as expected then he cant practice and they reevaluate every week to see...

that feels like the definition of week to week to me...
Click to expand...
Somebody explain to me what you would call a 4-6 week injury without saying its a 4-6 week injury.

Is that week-to-week or is that month-to-month?

Feels like people are getting caught up in semantics or trying to force a narrative they want.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Somebody explain to me what you would call a 4-6 week injury without saying its a 4-6 week injury.

Is that week-to-week or is that month-to-month?

Feels like people are getting caught up in semantics or trying to force a narrative they want.
Click to expand...
The singular narrative I want to roll with is that if John gives the media an inch by saying week to week then it opens up the chaos of what has happened here. With uninformed people spewing nonsense. And then lots of not very meaningful discussion.
 
RC’s the GOAT

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top