Why Maurice Jones-Drew's Holdout Is a 'Lose-Lose' for Jacksonville Jaguars
Jake Roth-US PRESSWIRE
Jones-Drew has held out for nearly a month, and has shown no signs of reporting to camp anytime soon.
New owner Shad Khan has made it clear that he is planning to move on without MJD in the backfield.
For the Jags, there won't be any good news once this fiasco has run its course.
It's less than three weeks until they open the season against the Minnesota Vikings and their most productive player hasn't even reported to camp yet.
Simply put: the Jaguars need MJD.
The extremely versatile Jones-Drew led the NFL in rushing last season by running for over 1,600 yards and eight touchdowns.
Now, he wants more money.
Perhaps he should swallow his pride instead and take a look at other notable holdouts within the last couple of seasons.
Whose side are you on?
Why should this situation be any different for MJD?
History has shown that extended holdouts result in nothing but disappointment, something that has to worry the Jaguars.
Even though MJD was the Jaguars last season, missing real-game experience and beginning the regular season cold will cost him dearly.
Not to mention the fact that he's already lost over $800,000 in fines since his holdout began.
MJD needs to honor the contract he signed, and return to Jags camp sooner rather than later for his sake.
If this holdout gets even more out of hand than it already has, Jones-Drew will have a terrible year, and the Jaguars will have to rely on the abysmal Blaine Gabbert to run the show in Jacksonville.
Is that really what they want to happen? Of course not.
But in a world where athletes feel they are bigger than the game itself, it's a real possibility that must be slowed down immediately.
Until Jones-Drew swallows his pride and reports to camp, the Jaguars will have to plan on being without their best offensive weapon in 2012.
Even if he does report by Week 1, there's no way he'll be the player he's been his entire career.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?