Tweet
I don't know if anyones posted this or seen this, but it sounds like the Raiders are about to release him........ He was phenomenal when he was starting this season, how he went from starting to benched to asking for his release is kinda suspicious. But why not take a chance on the guy, we have a pretty crowded backfield as it is but this guy is pretty damn good. I had him on almost all my fantasy teams to start the year and he really carried my teams.
-
-
Re: Lamont Jordan?
On the contrary, with Priest Holmes out and Larry Johnson out I'd be absolutely shocked if Al Davis released Jordan. The Chiefs would sign him in 5 seconds flat. Davis would never allow that.Originally posted by footballfever -
He'd be a nice pickup. I doubt it would happen, but I'd be very happy if it did. Grant/Jordan/Jackson is a lot better than Grant/Jackson/Morency. It might be the piece that gets us to the SB.Formerly known as JustinHarrell.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by footballfever
Yes, I've heard the reports. Why would the Raiders allow the Chiefs to pick up a running back?Comment
-
Why would Jordan choose the Chiefs if the Packers were willing to sign him. I'd guess that if the Packers wanted him for the year, he'd be theirs well before the Chiefs. That's the perk of being a SB contender.Originally posted by RastakFormerly known as JustinHarrell.Comment
-
Fat and useless.Can't even sniff the field now for one of the worst teams in the league.Comment
-
If they release him the Chiefs can claim him and they'll have rights before GB.Originally posted by JustinHarrell
I wonder what the real deal is here ? Jordan has talent; I wonder if he's a chemistry concernTERD Buckley over Troy Vincent, Robert Ferguson over Chris Chambers, Kevn King instead of TJ Watt, and now, RICH GANNON, over JIMMY JIMMY JIMMY LEONARD. Thank you FLOWERComment
-
You think the RAIDERS are concerned with chemistry?
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg JenningsComment
-
Well, he'd have to be released, and clear waivers, wouldn't he? A team would have to be willing to assume his current contract, but they could pick him up before he becomes an FA. The Chiefs, with a worse record, would get a shot before us.
Is this how it works?--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...Comment
-
Originally posted by Bretsky
Some players, based on years played, aren't subject to the waiver wire (I THINK). I don't know if Jordan fits the criteria or not.Comment
-
Where in the hell is Patler anyways ? Our statman has been MIA for too long now
TERD Buckley over Troy Vincent, Robert Ferguson over Chris Chambers, Kevn King instead of TJ Watt, and now, RICH GANNON, over JIMMY JIMMY JIMMY LEONARD. Thank you FLOWERComment
-
Not sure if he's subject to waivers or not but don't you think the Chiefs with no running backs would outbid anyone else?Originally posted by gbpackfanComment
-
This is the same team that couldn't get much out of Randy Moss and now look at him. The whole organization appears to be poorly run from top to bottom and any players that leaves there likely will be better by default.Originally posted by lod01
LaMont Jordan was decent for the Jets and was solid for the Raiders when healthy. I'm guessing he's in Whisenhunts doghouse or they want to stick with youth (ala Fargas) and look to next year.
Not sure if he's needed in GB since Grant is playing well and I still think Jackson will be solid if unspectacular at some point but depth is always good at the right price.60% of the time it works every time.Comment
-
I'd rather we pick up Lamont Cranston.Who Knows? The Shadow knows!Comment
Comment