QB Lamar Jackson, BAL (14 Viewers)

[Dizzy]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

 

[Faust]

ESPN's Jeremy Fowler writes the Ravens and Lamar Jackson "could possibly be" $100 million apart in contract talks over how much guaranteed money should be in his contract.​

Fowler quotes an executive as saying "And it could become a standoff, because I wouldn't expect him to sign the tag for a while ... And they will be so far apart in the guaranteed money." Lamar Jackson's contract figures to be one of the NFL's premiere offseason sagas even after the Ravens tried to throw cold water on it during a presser in January. Deshaun Watson's fully-guaranteed contract is a massive outlier born of his leverage via a no-trade clause and several teams pursuing him, but it's possible that Jackson gets a large portion of his deal guaranteed from the Ravens or from a team that trades for him.
SOURCE: ESPN
Feb 5, 2023, 1:20 PM ET

 

[fatness]

I think they will add another WR and have Lamer play on a "Super Bowl or Bust" franchise tag in 2023. If he wins the Super Bowl, he - like Flacco - gets the big deal. If he doesn't, they'll tag and trade him.

Not disagreeing, but they need more than one WR to be added.

 

[Chaka]

I think they will add another WR and have Lamer play on a "Super Bowl or Bust" franchise tag in 2023. If he wins the Super Bowl, he - like Flacco - gets the big deal. If he doesn't, they'll tag and trade him.

Not disagreeing, but they need more than one WR to be added.

FA market is thin. They might go after JuJu again and someone like Marquis Goodwin or Mack Hollins.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I think they will add another WR and have Lamer play on a "Super Bowl or Bust" franchise tag in 2023. If he wins the Super Bowl, he - like Flacco - gets the big deal. If he doesn't, they'll tag and trade him.

Not disagreeing, but they need more than one WR to be added.

FA market is thin. They might go after JuJu again and someone like Marquis Goodwin or Mack Hollins.

They will probably also draft one, although they are shorter on pick quantity than normal. In addition, they have 3 talented pass-catching TEs. Andrews & Likely should have been on the field together more. The 3rd - Kollar - was hurt most of the year. They'll get Bateman & Duvernay back from injury, too.

 

[Grahamburn]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

 

[Boston]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

Agreed...he rolled the dice this year, would be very surprised if would do it again after getting banged up this year...if they are $100 million apart something has to give here as that is a big time disconnect between these two.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

https://mobile.twitter.com/nickkorte
Nick Korte
@nickkorte

If
@PFF_Brad
's contract estimations in this article ended up being completely accurate, this chart would indicate how many compensatory free agents each team could lose, and the round of the comp picks they would get if they don't cancel out those losses with signing other CFAs.
LINK to chart
------------------
Shores
@Dat_Dude_Shores
I’m assuming the ravens 3rd would in theory be for Lamar?
Nick Korte@nickkorte

Yes, but it would of course be highly, highly unlikely that Lamar would leave as a compensatory free agent. If he does leave it would be either via the nonexclusive franchise tag (2 1sts) or a tag and trade (more than 2 1sts). I just used a program to spit out those results.

 

[travdogg]

I think they will add another WR and have Lamer play on a "Super Bowl or Bust" franchise tag in 2023. If he wins the Super Bowl, he - like Flacco - gets the big deal. If he doesn't, they'll tag and trade him.

Not disagreeing, but they need more than one WR to be added.

FA market is thin. They might go after JuJu again and someone like Marquis Goodwin or Mack Hollins.

DJ Chark is a name that would make sense to me.

I don't think the WR group is quite as awful as it looked this year. Between Lamar being out, Bateman and Duvernay being out. Andrews being banged up a bit, they had about as much bad luck as possible.

 

[finfansteve]

I think they will add another WR and have Lamer play on a "Super Bowl or Bust" franchise tag in 2023. If he wins the Super Bowl, he - like Flacco - gets the big deal. If he doesn't, they'll tag and trade him.

Not disagreeing, but they need more than one WR to be added.

FA market is thin. They might go after JuJu again and someone like Marquis Goodwin or Mack Hollins.

DJ Chark is a name that would make sense to me.

I don't think the WR group is quite as awful as it looked this year. Between Lamar being out, Bateman and Duvernay being out. Andrews being banged up a bit, they had about as much bad luck as possible.

I think Likely has to get more involved in the middle of the field game plan that Lamar is most successful at

 

[travdogg]

I think they will add another WR and have Lamer play on a "Super Bowl or Bust" franchise tag in 2023. If he wins the Super Bowl, he - like Flacco - gets the big deal. If he doesn't, they'll tag and trade him.

Not disagreeing, but they need more than one WR to be added.

FA market is thin. They might go after JuJu again and someone like Marquis Goodwin or Mack Hollins.

DJ Chark is a name that would make sense to me.

I don't think the WR group is quite as awful as it looked this year. Between Lamar being out, Bateman and Duvernay being out. Andrews being banged up a bit, they had about as much bad luck as possible.

I think Likely has to get more involved in the middle of the field game plan that Lamar is most successful at

Might be a hot take, but I didn't really get the Likely hype. Didn't really see him as any better for them at TE than Josh Oliver was behind Andrews.

I do agree that Lamar does his best work in the middle though. We were in for a really huge Andrews season, when there were other guys to take coverage. Was on a 110-1300-14 pace when Lamar/Bateman were healthy. That would have been better than Kelce or 2021 Andrews.

 

[Tau837]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

Agreed...he rolled the dice this year, would be very surprised if would do it again after getting banged up this year...if they are $100 million apart something has to give here as that is a big time disconnect between these two.

Depends. I would be very surprised if they tag him and he just refuses to sign it and sits out a year, like Leveon Bell did. He would gain no ground and lose a year of $35M+ in earnings that he could never get back.

It seems more likely that he would sign and play, but treat himself with kid gloves, i.e., pull himself out for any injury, even minor injuries he would typically play through.

 

[ChicoCat]

I think they will add another WR and have Lamer play on a "Super Bowl or Bust" franchise tag in 2023. If he wins the Super Bowl, he - like Flacco - gets the big deal. If he doesn't, they'll tag and trade him.

Not disagreeing, but they need more than one WR to be added.

FA market is thin. They might go after JuJu again and someone like Marquis Goodwin or Mack Hollins.

I don't know what's up with BAL's cap room....but I'd imagine that you're going to see several premier WRs, including Mike Evans and Chris Godwin available for the right trade.

 

[Dizzy]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

Agreed...he rolled the dice this year, would be very surprised if would do it again after getting banged up this year...if they are $100 million apart something has to give here as that is a big time disconnect between these two.

Depends. I would be very surprised if they tag him and he just refuses to sign it and sits out a year, like Leveon Bell did. He would gain no ground and lose a year of $35M+ in earnings that he could never get back.

It seems more likely that he would sign and play, but treat himself with kid gloves, i.e., pull himself out for any injury, even minor injuries he would typically play through.

Different position. Bell let PIT run him into the ground. By the time he held out he was shot and I think he knew it. NYJ found out the hard way what Bell knew to be true.

 

[Tau837]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

Agreed...he rolled the dice this year, would be very surprised if would do it again after getting banged up this year...if they are $100 million apart something has to give here as that is a big time disconnect between these two.

Depends. I would be very surprised if they tag him and he just refuses to sign it and sits out a year, like Leveon Bell did. He would gain no ground and lose a year of $35M+ in earnings that he could never get back.

It seems more likely that he would sign and play, but treat himself with kid gloves, i.e., pull himself out for any injury, even minor injuries he would typically play through.

Different position. Bell let PIT run him into the ground. By the time he held out he was shot and I think he knew it. NYJ found out the hard way what Bell knew to be true.

Thanks for pointing out it was a different position.

The point of the post was to respond to the idea that he won't play under the tag. I don't think he will be willing to sit out a season and not earn $35M+. Do you?

 

[pollardsvision]

When would be the earliest that the Ravens can tag and explore trades?

If they really are this far apart, it sounds like the Ravens and Lamar need to get to the business of figuring out what other teams would offer.

I'm not sure how else you break the stalemate.

A lot of teams would bid against themselves but the Ravens don't strike me as that sort of organization.

 

[Dizzy]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

Agreed...he rolled the dice this year, would be very surprised if would do it again after getting banged up this year...if they are $100 million apart something has to give here as that is a big time disconnect between these two.

Depends. I would be very surprised if they tag him and he just refuses to sign it and sits out a year, like Leveon Bell did. He would gain no ground and lose a year of $35M+ in earnings that he could never get back.

It seems more likely that he would sign and play, but treat himself with kid gloves, i.e., pull himself out for any injury, even minor injuries he would typically play through.

Different position. Bell let PIT run him into the ground. By the time he held out he was shot and I think he knew it. NYJ found out the hard way what Bell knew to be true.

Thanks for pointing out it was a different position.

The point of the post was to respond to the idea that he won't play under the tag. I don't think he will be willing to sit out a season and not earn $35M+. Do you?

Eyeroll, thats cute.

My point is... Bell was a washed RB with basically one other suitor (NYJ). Jackson is still very young with possibly 10 years of prime contribution left... apples and oranges.

Why play 1 yr for 35 mil and risk injury (when he just did that) when he can wait and get the full 200?

His agent should never have let him report to... oh yeah... that part of it.

 

[Boston]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

Agreed...he rolled the dice this year, would be very surprised if would do it again after getting banged up this year...if they are $100 million apart something has to give here as that is a big time disconnect between these two.

Depends. I would be very surprised if they tag him and he just refuses to sign it and sits out a year, like Leveon Bell did. He would gain no ground and lose a year of $35M+ in earnings that he could never get back.

It seems more likely that he would sign and play, but treat himself with kid gloves, i.e., pull himself out for any injury, even minor injuries he would typically play through.

Different position. Bell let PIT run him into the ground. By the time he held out he was shot and I think he knew it. NYJ found out the hard way what Bell knew to be true.

Thanks for pointing out it was a different position.

The point of the post was to respond to the idea that he won't play under the tag. I don't think he will be willing to sit out a season and not earn $35M+. Do you?

Eyeroll, thats cute.

My point is... Bell was a washed RB with basically one other suitor (NYJ). Jackson is still very young with possibly 10 years of prime contribution left... apples and oranges.

Why play 1 yr for 35 mil and risk injury (when he just did that) when he can wait and get the full 200?

His agent should never have let him report to... oh yeah... that part of it.

Yeah, you gotta love the unnecessary eye roll...this will be interesting...I would think after rolling the dice and getting injured last year he will be very hesitant playing without a long term deal...so much downside to that...this whole thing is fascinating, just feels a little different than your typical contract negotiation...Lamar is an elite QB and Baltimore is a high-end franchise, he doesn't have an agent and he seems to be pretty dug in getting a Watsonesque contract but right now they are 100 mil apart...even if they meet 1/2-way that is a big gap...at this point I don't think you can discount any scenario.

 

[Tau837]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

Agreed...he rolled the dice this year, would be very surprised if would do it again after getting banged up this year...if they are $100 million apart something has to give here as that is a big time disconnect between these two.

Depends. I would be very surprised if they tag him and he just refuses to sign it and sits out a year, like Leveon Bell did. He would gain no ground and lose a year of $35M+ in earnings that he could never get back.

It seems more likely that he would sign and play, but treat himself with kid gloves, i.e., pull himself out for any injury, even minor injuries he would typically play through.

Different position. Bell let PIT run him into the ground. By the time he held out he was shot and I think he knew it. NYJ found out the hard way what Bell knew to be true.

Thanks for pointing out it was a different position.

The point of the post was to respond to the idea that he won't play under the tag. I don't think he will be willing to sit out a season and not earn $35M+. Do you?

Eyeroll, thats cute.

My point is... Bell was a washed RB with basically one other suitor (NYJ). Jackson is still very young with possibly 10 years of prime contribution left... apples and oranges.

Why play 1 yr for 35 mil and risk injury (when he just did that) when he can wait and get the full 200?

His agent should never have let him report to... oh yeah... that part of it.

It's not really apples and oranges, exactly. The reason what Bell did never made sense doesn't have to do with the fact that he was possibly washed (debatable, he had 1946 YFS and 11 TDs and was 1st team All Pro in 2017, the season before he sat out). The reason what he did didn't make sense is that he completely gave up a year of his max earning potential. Whether or not he played well after that season doesn't change the fact that he could never earn that money he willingly gave up for the 2018 season.

The same would be true for Jackson if he refuses to sign the tag and that resulted in him sitting out a year. Sure, in that scenario, maybe something changes in 2024 and he ultimately signs a $200M contract. That wouldn't change the fact that he would have given up $35M+ for the 2023 season, a max earning year in his prime, and will never make that money back.

 

[Tau837]

Yeah, you gotta love the unnecessary eye roll...

 

[travdogg]

This Bell/Lamar comparison argument is silly. Bell also was nowhere near washed, he was a top-3 RB in the NFL at the time. Frankly, I'd argue he wasn't washed his 1st year on the Jets either, they were just a crap team, and he was an awful fit.

As for Jackson. He's interesting, because whether its true or not, the Ravens had painted a picture that you need to run a very specific offense for Jackson to succeed. We have no real idea if he would play well in a more standard NFL offense, and well I think he'd be fine, there isn't much to prove it.

The biggest issue is that Watson contract. Personally, if I were a GM, I'd just tell every agent (Lamar, Burrow, Herbert, etc.) that, "you aren't getting Watson money, because the Browns are stupid. They are a bad team, that will be in serious cap trouble soon, and grossly overpaid. So, while you represent a better QB, we aren't going to make ourselves the Browns just because they set an awful precedent." If Lamar etc. don't like it, well trade them, yes even Burrow, though I think Burrow is much more of a team player than that and will likely not require a record deal.

 

[Chaka]

Yeah, you gotta love the unnecessary eye roll...

Was that really necessary?

Let's go to the judges and find out...

Yes, the judges will allow it.

 

[Chaka]

This Bell/Lamar comparison argument is silly. Bell also was nowhere near washed, he was a top-3 RB in the NFL at the time. Frankly, I'd argue he wasn't washed his 1st year on the Jets either, they were just a crap team, and he was an awful fit.

As for Jackson. He's interesting, because whether its true or not, the Ravens had painted a picture that you need to run a very specific offense for Jackson to succeed. We have no real idea if he would play well in a more standard NFL offense, and well I think he'd be fine, there isn't much to prove it.

The biggest issue is that Watson contract. Personally, if I were a GM, I'd just tell every agent (Lamar, Burrow, Herbert, etc.) that, "you aren't getting Watson money, because the Browns are stupid. They are a bad team, that will be in serious cap trouble soon, and grossly overpaid. So, while you represent a better QB, we aren't going to make ourselves the Browns just because they set an awful precedent." If Lamar etc. don't like it, well trade them, yes even Burrow, though I think Burrow is much more of a team player than that and will likely not require a record deal.

I'm not sure I don't do a Watson deal for Burrow...or any of the other heavy hitters at QB.

But instead of a guaranteed $ amount I would prefer to see QB contracts pegged to the salary cap.

 

[Grahamburn]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark. Plenty of other stupid organizations out there that would love to trade picks for the opportunity to sign Burrow/Herbert/Jackson to a stupid deal.

 

[Boston]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark. Plenty of other stupid organizations out there that would love to trade picks for the opportunity to sign Burrow/Herbert/Jackson to a stupid deal.

Agreed...that is why Lamar's (and Burrow's contract) are so important...it will determine whether Watson's is an outlier or the new norm...the x-factor in all of this is the Player's Union and how much influence they have on Lamar since he does not have an agent...if it is a lot they will probably push him to get as close to the Watson deal as possible because if that happens it can have a huge trickledown effect.

 

[Grahamburn]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark. Plenty of other stupid organizations out there that would love to trade picks for the opportunity to sign Burrow/Herbert/Jackson to a stupid deal.

Agreed...that is why Lamar's (and Burrow's contract) are so important...it will determine whether Watson's is an outlier or the new norm...the x-factor in all of this is the Player's Union and how much influence they have on Lamar since he does not have an agent...if it is a lot they will probably push him to get as close to the Watson deal as possible because if that happens it can have a huge trickledown effect.

I don't know why Lamar would accept anything less? If he was going to the deal would already be done. He has accomplished more with significantly less baggage. I'm sure that's his thought process. There were multiple teams in on Watson. There will certainly be multiple teams in on Lamar.

 

[Tau837]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark. Plenty of other stupid organizations out there that would love to trade picks for the opportunity to sign Burrow/Herbert/Jackson to a stupid deal.

Agreed...that is why Lamar's (and Burrow's contract) are so important...it will determine whether Watson's is an outlier or the new norm...the x-factor in all of this is the Player's Union and how much influence they have on Lamar since he does not have an agent...if it is a lot they will probably push him to get as close to the Watson deal as possible because if that happens it can have a huge trickledown effect.

I'm not sure why the union would care a lot about this. They represent all players, and collectively all player salaries are constrained by the cap. It doesn't necessarily matter if Baltimore is paying $40M to Jackson in 2023 or not... they will still be spending close to the same amount -- close to $224.8M -- on their roster of players in 2023. Jackson getting more means other players get less.

I could be wrong about this, I just don't see big motivation for the union given the salary cap rules.

 

[massraider]

Jake Burns
@jake_burns18
He was never hitting true free agency. Non-exclusive still in play to let him set his own market and two 1s back but even so, a trade would net them much more than two 1s.
------------------
Dov Kleiman
@NFL_DovKleiman
The #Ravens will be franchise tagging QB Lamar Jackson this offseason, according to @RapSheet Adds that his sense is that it would be the "Exclusive Franchise Tag" which prevents teams from signing him.

And - without an agent to talk some sense into him - Lamar will play, and likely get injured.

I don't think a true "franchise" QB should play under a 1-yr tag. His value can only go down.

I don't think there's any way he plays on a tag.

Agreed...he rolled the dice this year, would be very surprised if would do it again after getting banged up this year...if they are $100 million apart something has to give here as that is a big time disconnect between these two.

Depends. I would be very surprised if they tag him and he just refuses to sign it and sits out a year, like Leveon Bell did. He would gain no ground and lose a year of $35M+ in earnings that he could never get back.

It seems more likely that he would sign and play, but treat himself with kid gloves, i.e., pull himself out for any injury, even minor injuries he would typically play through.

Different position. Bell let PIT run him into the ground. By the time he held out he was shot and I think he knew it. NYJ found out the hard way what Bell knew to be true.

Thanks for pointing out it was a different position.

The point of the post was to respond to the idea that he won't play under the tag. I don't think he will be willing to sit out a season and not earn $35M+. Do you?

I don't.

It's 35 million.

 

[ChiefD]

Agreed...that is why Lamar's (and Burrow's contract) are so important...it will determine whether Watson's is an outlier or the new norm...the x-factor in all of this is the Player's Union and how much influence they have on Lamar since he does not have an agent...if it is a lot they will probably push him to get as close to the Watson deal as possible because if that happens it can have a huge trickledown effect.

I don't see how this can become the new norm. I mean, don't all guaranteed moneys have to be escrowed by the owners? So the owners would have a TON of cash sitting there in an escrow account, and that contract would be on top of all the other guaranteed dollars they have for the rest of the team.

So that's less operating cash available for the teams. That's why every other team is so pissed off at that contract. I don't see any other owner doing this.

 

[Tau837]

He has accomplished more with significantly less baggage.

Watson has played in 60 games, compared to 70 for Jackson. Yet Watson has produced more yards and TDs (combining passing and rushing).

Both of them have won one playoff game -- Watson is 1-2 and Jackson is 1-3 in the playoffs.

Jackson was MVP and 1st team All Pro in 2019. Watson led the league in passing yards and YPA in 2020.

Jackson has a better regular season record, though I would attribute a lot of that to playing for a much better organization than Watson.

I suppose the MVP is enough to justify that Jackson has accomplished more, and there is no doubt about the baggage.

 

[Boston]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark. Plenty of other stupid organizations out there that would love to trade picks for the opportunity to sign Burrow/Herbert/Jackson to a stupid deal.

Agreed...that is why Lamar's (and Burrow's contract) are so important...it will determine whether Watson's is an outlier or the new norm...the x-factor in all of this is the Player's Union and how much influence they have on Lamar since he does not have an agent...if it is a lot they will probably push him to get as close to the Watson deal as possible because if that happens it can have a huge trickledown effect.

I'm not sure why the union would care a lot about this. They represent all players, and collectively all player salaries are constrained by the cap. It doesn't necessarily matter if Baltimore is paying $40M to Jackson in 2023 or not... they will still be spending close to the same amount -- close to $224.8M -- on their roster of players in 2023. Jackson getting more means other players get less.

I could be wrong about this, I just don't see big motivation for the union given the salary cap rules.

You don’t understand why the Union would be motivated to have a system with more guaranteed contracts like the 3 other major sports?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It’s still the benchmark

It doesn’t have to be - it can be treated as an outlier by a desperate team.

 

[massraider]

I don't see how this can become the new norm. I mean, don't all guaranteed moneys have to be escrowed by the owners? So the owners would have a TON of cash sitting there in an escrow account, and that contract would be on top of all the other guaranteed dollars they have for the rest of the team.

So that's less operating cash available for the teams. That's why every other team is so pissed off at that contract. I don't see any other owner doing this

This was all said in other sports at some point, right?

And none of those sports are the NFL.

I agree with sentiment, but everyone has stuff in their contract that used to be unthinkable.

 

[Tau837]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark. Plenty of other stupid organizations out there that would love to trade picks for the opportunity to sign Burrow/Herbert/Jackson to a stupid deal.

Agreed...that is why Lamar's (and Burrow's contract) are so important...it will determine whether Watson's is an outlier or the new norm...the x-factor in all of this is the Player's Union and how much influence they have on Lamar since he does not have an agent...if it is a lot they will probably push him to get as close to the Watson deal as possible because if that happens it can have a huge trickledown effect.

I'm not sure why the union would care a lot about this. They represent all players, and collectively all player salaries are constrained by the cap. It doesn't necessarily matter if Baltimore is paying $40M to Jackson in 2023 or not... they will still be spending close to the same amount -- close to $224.8M -- on their roster of players in 2023. Jackson getting more means other players get less.

I could be wrong about this, I just don't see big motivation for the union given the salary cap rules.

You don’t understand why the Union would be motivated to have a system with more guaranteed contracts like the 3 other major sports?

I guess that makes sense... but the players will collectively get the amount of money dictated by the cap every year. Anything Jackson makes because his contract is fully guaranteed that he wouldn't otherwise have gotten in a non-guaranteed contract simply reduces the amount some other players get. It's a zero sum game.

 

[Grahamburn]

It’s still the benchmark

It doesn’t have to be - it can be treated as an outlier by a desperate team.

There are plenty of desperate teams. Unless all 31 teams collude to treat that contract as an outlier there will be QBs asking for it.

 

[Da Guru]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark. Plenty of other stupid organizations out there that would love to trade picks for the opportunity to sign Burrow/Herbert/Jackson to a stupid deal.

Just because one team made a bad deal doesn't mean another team has to do the same.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It’s still the benchmark

It doesn’t have to be - it can be treated as an outlier by a desperate team.

There are plenty of desperate teams. Unless all 31 teams collude to treat that contract as an outlier there will be QBs asking for it.

You could be right. I can't be sure, but I would predict we don't see many like it - but you're right in that it only takes one team. I'm a fan of a team that's made many blunders at the position, after all.

 

[massraider]

Just because one team made a bad deal doesn't mean another team has to do the same

No, but there is a number. When a certain number of teams do something, the rest have to as well.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Please make this thread end!!! I wish we could hide threads. I just don't have the discipline to stop clicking on it.

 

[Cobbler1]

He has accomplished more with significantly less baggage.

Watson has played in 60 games, compared to 70 for Jackson. Yet Watson has produced more yards and TDs (combining passing and rushing).

Both of them have won one playoff game -- Watson is 1-2 and Jackson is 1-3 in the playoffs.

Jackson was MVP and 1st team All Pro in 2019. Watson led the league in passing yards and YPA in 2020.

Jackson has a better regular season record, though I would attribute a lot of that to playing for a much better organization than Watson.

I suppose the MVP is enough to justify that Jackson has accomplished more, and there is no doubt about the baggage.

That 70 games you stated for Jackson includes 9 games where he appeared as just as a gadget player his rookie year before becoming the starter. Using his 61 games as a starter his comparison to Watson’s 60 seems better IMHO.

 

[menobrown]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark.

After the subsequent Wilson and Murry deals the Watson contract seems more like a one off.

 

[Tau837]

He has accomplished more with significantly less baggage.

Watson has played in 60 games, compared to 70 for Jackson. Yet Watson has produced more yards and TDs (combining passing and rushing).

Both of them have won one playoff game -- Watson is 1-2 and Jackson is 1-3 in the playoffs.

Jackson was MVP and 1st team All Pro in 2019. Watson led the league in passing yards and YPA in 2020.

Jackson has a better regular season record, though I would attribute a lot of that to playing for a much better organization than Watson.

I suppose the MVP is enough to justify that Jackson has accomplished more, and there is no doubt about the baggage.

That 70 games you stated for Jackson includes 9 games where he appeared as just as a gadget player his rookie year before becoming the starter. Using his 61 games as a starter his comparison to Watson’s 60 seems better IMHO.

Doesn't change much, does it?

 

[Boston]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark.

After the subsequent Wilson and Murry deals the Watson contract seems more like a one off.

That is why the Burrow and Jackson deals are so important...they will provide the blueprint to the structure of future QB deals...especially Burrow because he really doesn't have anything you can knock as a player...it will be awfully tough for another QB to ask for the Watson deal if he doesn't get one.

 

[Cobbler1]

He has accomplished more with significantly less baggage.

Watson has played in 60 games, compared to 70 for Jackson. Yet Watson has produced more yards and TDs (combining passing and rushing).

Both of them have won one playoff game -- Watson is 1-2 and Jackson is 1-3 in the playoffs.

Jackson was MVP and 1st team All Pro in 2019. Watson led the league in passing yards and YPA in 2020.

Jackson has a better regular season record, though I would attribute a lot of that to playing for a much better organization than Watson.

I suppose the MVP is enough to justify that Jackson has accomplished more, and there is no doubt about the baggage.

That 70 games you stated for Jackson includes 9 games where he appeared as just as a gadget player his rookie year before becoming the starter. Using his 61 games as a starter his comparison to Watson’s 60 seems better IMHO.

Doesn't change much, does it?

Well 9 games is fairly significant if your point was Watson did more in far less games then it matters. I wasn’t coming here to argue just thought you should be aware that it could make the rest of your very good post seem insincere when you start it with something misleading like that, whether intentional or not.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

It's also kinda funny that Jackson's much better regular season record is considered less of a personal achievement while Watson's yards and TDs come in garbage time of blowout losses.

 

[menobrown]

It doesn’t really matter if the Watson deal was stupid or not. It’s still the benchmark.

After the subsequent Wilson and Murry deals the Watson contract seems more like a one off.

That is why the Burrow and Jackson deals are so important...they will provide the blueprint to the structure of future QB deals...especially Burrow because he really doesn't have anything you can knock as a player...it will be awfully tough for another QB to ask for the Watson deal if he doesn't get one.

Don't forget Herbert in that mix as well.

My strong belief is if any of those 3 QB's sign extensions this off-season with their current teams none of them will be getting a fully guaranteed contract. It would in fact surprise me greatly.

I don't look it at quite the same way as you do, which is that the guarantees are going to be based on the quality of the QB but I beieve instead on the leverage a high quality QB has at his disposal.

Watson's situation was actually unique. Even with the off the field baggage it's pretty easy to make a case in the modern history of the game a young QB of his abilty and standing had never really been made available. Now I'm saying this as someone who believes he was regarded as a top 5-6 QB before his lengthy departure. Wilson's situation was similar in some regards with massive difference of he's not young and concerns had already popped up about a big drop in play whereas the last season Watson had played he was tremendous.

So getting back to Watson he's pretty much the most valuable QB I can recall being made available. That he had the no trade clause enabled him to basically work the system very similar to if he had been an UFA, at least among the teams that he knew would agree to compensate the Texans. This gave him massive leverage, leverage none of these other QB's have at the moment and really the kind of leverage we've not seen another young high end QB have in the modern era. That I can recall I stress, someone please point out if I'm missing someone.

Burrow and Herbert can be tied into their franchises for the next 4 years without an extension. Lamar for the next two. When you look at Burrow and Herbert and QB's in those situations while they can be tied up with their current franchises for 4 years it's basically almost year to year options for the team. As in no long term guarantees. So when you are able to offer QB's in these situations $150+M guaranteed at signing on a long term contract the team has a lot of leverage and is in a position to not feel the need to guarantee the whole contract like the Browns basically had to do if they wanted Watson. That's a massive difference.

Now getting back to Lamar. If he does not sign this off-season and takes this into next off-season, and plays well and is healthy next season, he'll enter next off-season approaching Watson type of leverage. The Ravens will still be able to hold his rights for one more super expensive year but they'll be backed into a corner of risking him losing him for a comp pick.

So in summary my strong belief is neither Burrow, Herbert or Lamar sign fully guaranteed contracts like Watson this off-season. But I think Lamar has a good chance of being the next QB to get a Watson type of contract just because of where his on how many more years the Ravens can control him and that has started to swing the leverage to his side and that only increases abundantly if he's not signed heading into next off-season. Lamar being seemingly deadset on the Watson type of guarantee is super risky. I don't think I could stand the risk myself and would not be able to walk away from someone waving $150'ish guaranteed million at me. That's again why teams have the upper hand when they are trying to extend Qb's after their third season, knowing they can lock them up for next 4 years. But I'll say this, if Lamar does not suffer an incredibly bad injury his patience and risk taking is going to be rewarded. I think some people see him without an agent and try to paint what he is doing not accepting what he's been offered as maybe not being smart. It's risky, but he'll win and he'll win big with the obvious caveats the longer he waits because he just gets more and more leverage as this goes on.

 

[massraider]

Just for the sake of argument:

If Burrow decided his next deal should be fully guaranteed, and played through his franchise tag (or tags), and got to free agency, does he get a guaranteed deal? I think he probably would.

EDIT: There is a huge amount of assumptions in this scenario, but everyone thinks he's a franchise guy, there is no anti-Burrow camp. So let's assume he's a top 5 QB when he hits free agency.

 

[menobrown]

If Burrow decided his next deal should be fully guaranteed, and played through his franchise tag (or tags), and got to free agency, does he get a guaranteed deal? I think he probably would.

Yes, 100%. What I was trying to say in a more long winded way. He'd get , Herbert would get it and so would Lamar if they got to FA in one piece.

 

[Tau837]

Burrow and Herbert can be tied into their franchises for the next 4 years without an extension. Lamar for the next two.

Burrow and Herbert can be tied to their current franchises for the next 5 seasons without an extension:

• 2023 - Year 4 of contract
• 2024 - 5th year option
• 2025 - Franchise Tag #1
• 2026 - Franchise Tag #2 - 120% of the 2025 salary in this scenario
• 2027 - Franchise Tag #3 - 144% of the 2026 salary OR 120% of the average of the 5 highest QB salaries OR the average of the top 5 salaries at the highest-paid position, whichever is higher

Jackson can be tied to the Ravens for the next 3 seasons via 3 franchise tags. So add another year onto this:

Now getting back to Lamar. If he does not sign this off-season and takes this into next off-season, and plays well and is healthy next season, he'll enter next off-season approaching Watson type of leverage. The Ravens will still be able to hold his rights for one more super expensive year but they'll be backed into a corner of risking him losing him for a comp pick.

So in summary my strong belief is neither Burrow, Herbert or Lamar sign fully guaranteed contracts like Watson this off-season. But I think Lamar has a good chance of being the next QB to get a Watson type of contract just because of where his on how many more years the Ravens can control him and that has started to swing the leverage to his side and that only increases abundantly if he's not signed heading into next off-season.

Now, maybe teams won't be willing to pay what the 3rd franchise tag would require. If the QB franchise tag this season ends up around $35M, then franchising Jackson a second time in 2024 would cost $42M and franchising him a third time in 2025 would cost at least $61M... but that would be in 2025, when the cap will have gone up by about $40M over the 2023 cap value. Hard to say if the Ravens would be willing to pay that, but I wouldn't rule it out.

And in that scenario, Jackson would have to take the risk of betting on himself for 3 full seasons, and he would also get 3 seasons closer to the inevitable decline in his running game and need to offset that through improvement in his passing. Those are two big risks IMO.

 

[Tau837]

If Burrow decided his next deal should be fully guaranteed, and played through his franchise tag (or tags), and got to free agency, does he get a guaranteed deal? I think he probably would.

Yes, 100%. What I was trying to say in a more long winded way. He'd get , Herbert would get it and so would Lamar if they got to FA in one piece.

I don't think that is a given, especially given the need to escrow all guaranteed money.

I question how easily a number of franchises would find it to put $500M+ into escrow (in addition to the guaranteed money for all other player contracts), which is presumably what a fully guaranteed contract 5 years from now for an elite QB would require.

And Burrow and Herbert would have to potentially wait 5 years to get there. That's a long time, though of course they would be getting paid very well over that period, especially the last few seasons.