QB Lamar Jackson, BAL (4 Viewers)

[Boston]

And it will continue to be when he can't play or gets knocked out in the first round.

Gotcha. My crystal ball is in the shop so I was just speculating.

Obviously just my opinion. Lamar hasn't shown he can win in or get to the playoffs consistently in his 4 years as a starter on his rookie deal with an offense tailored completely to his strengths.

Question...with the weapons he has had how many QBs not named Mahomes or Allen do you think could have done better?

 

[humpback]

And sorry, but Lamar has only played ~2/3rds of a season of mediocre football the last 2 years.

You have an odd definition of mediocre.

You honestly believe Bryce Young wins more games in Houston over the next two seasons Or Levis/Richardson in Indy (and whichever team the other one goes to) will win more games over the next two seasons?

As a well known poster in here has said enough times to become his personal Mr. Burns catchphrase [tents fingers] Preposterous! [/tents fingers]

At that point Lamar's team is out from picks price and the salary cap will be $20-$30 mil higher (or more) and, if necessary the cap shenanigans can begin. They can go on with a known high end QB commodity, that's 28 years old, while and the QB attrition of this year's QB class begins.

I can see the headlines "When will the Colts move on from Levis?" and "How many more concussions can Bryce Young endure? Will the Texans pick up his 5th year option?"

Etc etc etc...

Seems pretty much the textbook definition. Lamar was 16th in passer rating last year, 22nd the year before. 21st in completion % last year, 26th the year before. 33 total passing TDs vs. 20 INTs. His rushing is what gets him back up to mediocre because his passing has been less than. He's only had 5 rushing TDs combined the last 2 years so let's not act like he's running like he did in 2019 either.

Can you please stop with the strawmen? The comparison is not Bryce Young vs. Lamar, it's Bryce Young plus another 1st round pick plus multiple high caliber players with the $30-$40 mil in additional cap space. Good chance there would be other picks involved as well since it's highly unlikely he's traded straight on the tag. You can still think the team would be better off with Lamar than all of that but it absolutely is not a 1 vs 1 comparison and it's disingenuous to keep saying it.

As for the cap, yes it will go up and yes teams can play with the numbers to make it fit, but it's still a factor. The cap is going to go up for every team and every team can manipulate the numbers, it's all relative. Allocating a huge amount to any one player will put you at a disadvantage to the rest of the league when it comes to retaining/signing other players.

 

[Grahamburn]

And it will continue to be when he can't play or gets knocked out in the first round.

Gotcha. My crystal ball is in the shop so I was just speculating.

Obviously just my opinion. Lamar hasn't shown he can win in or get to the playoffs consistently in his 4 years as a starter on his rookie deal with an offense tailored completely to his strengths.

Question...with the weapons he has had how many QBs not named Mahomes or Allen do you think could have done better?

That's my point. If he can't elevate the other players around him to win in the playoffs why would you pay him like those guys? And how will the Ravens, or especially his new team, afford to put better talent around him if he's taking up 25% of the cap and was traded for two 1sts.

Everyone thought Seattle was so stupid last year for letting Wilson go. Who's laughing now?

 

[-OZ-]

The teams that are consistently winning in the NFL have QBs on rookie deals or they have QBs who have proven they can win big games in spite of roster turnover.

Lamar is neither of those things.

Let’s say we agree with that. There are a a limited number of starting caliber QBs on rookie deals. Probably fewer who have proven they can win big games in spite of weak rosters or turnover (Mahomes might be the only one). What do the other 16-20 teams do when there’s probably half that many “quality” starting caliber QBs remaining?
Fwiw, I wouldn’t give Lamar what he seems to want. Wouldn’t have come close to Watson, Murray, or others. But its a tough position.

Is your question rhetorical? Numerous teams have addressed the QB position via trade, free agency, and will in the draft as well. You can be in QB purgatory with a moderately priced vet, a rookie, or a player on an albatross contract like Watson/Murray/Wilson. Guess which one Lamar would be. Lamar has shown he cannot win in the playoffs, or isn't available to play, even on his rookie deal. He's had 4 years as a starter to prove otherwise. His playoff performances are brutal. Good teams shut him down when it counts and that is why the Ravens have refused to meet his demands.

Not rhetorical. Truly asking what YOU would do in the Ravens position. (Maybe you’ve answered that already).
Presuming they think they’re a Playoff team with him, and they have been, but think they’re not likely to with the SB with him. Do you just start over? Despite what they say, it seems their hope is some other team signs him and they start over at the position. Clearly better if it’s Indianapolis or Houston than the Bucs or commanders.
Maybe that’s the right way, I’m not sure. My team is in a similar spot but more likely to rebuild right now. They’re stuck with an overpriced Tannehill but if things came together they probably could still win the division (tougher now that Lawrence is squarely in the sweet spot for a couple years and could be among the elite).
I do think that’s what many teams will do - if you’re not among the top 5-7 QBs why pay you? But a few teams clearly haven’t chosen that path including the giants this year.
Fwiw, I think trading for and paying Rodgers is worse than signing Lamar but neither is optimal.

I'd do exactly what they've done, and I think they've played this perfectly. They're saying they like him, but they don't love him, because they haven't won anything with him, and therefore need enough $$ to continue to put pieces around him so they can. If he wants all of the cap space for himself it's time to move on and get a couple picks for him so they can start over.

Do you see the giants as making a mistake or is their situation different enough to make their decision make sense?
I can certainly see both courses, I think I agree with you but am not totally sold.

 

[Chaka]

BUT, I definitely don't think paying the mega contract to a fringe elite QB is the way to go.

Worked for the Rams.

 

[Grahamburn]

The teams that are consistently winning in the NFL have QBs on rookie deals or they have QBs who have proven they can win big games in spite of roster turnover.

Lamar is neither of those things.

Let’s say we agree with that. There are a a limited number of starting caliber QBs on rookie deals. Probably fewer who have proven they can win big games in spite of weak rosters or turnover (Mahomes might be the only one). What do the other 16-20 teams do when there’s probably half that many “quality” starting caliber QBs remaining?
Fwiw, I wouldn’t give Lamar what he seems to want. Wouldn’t have come close to Watson, Murray, or others. But its a tough position.

Is your question rhetorical? Numerous teams have addressed the QB position via trade, free agency, and will in the draft as well. You can be in QB purgatory with a moderately priced vet, a rookie, or a player on an albatross contract like Watson/Murray/Wilson. Guess which one Lamar would be. Lamar has shown he cannot win in the playoffs, or isn't available to play, even on his rookie deal. He's had 4 years as a starter to prove otherwise. His playoff performances are brutal. Good teams shut him down when it counts and that is why the Ravens have refused to meet his demands.

Not rhetorical. Truly asking what YOU would do in the Ravens position. (Maybe you’ve answered that already).
Presuming they think they’re a Playoff team with him, and they have been, but think they’re not likely to with the SB with him. Do you just start over? Despite what they say, it seems their hope is some other team signs him and they start over at the position. Clearly better if it’s Indianapolis or Houston than the Bucs or commanders.
Maybe that’s the right way, I’m not sure. My team is in a similar spot but more likely to rebuild right now. They’re stuck with an overpriced Tannehill but if things came together they probably could still win the division (tougher now that Lawrence is squarely in the sweet spot for a couple years and could be among the elite).
I do think that’s what many teams will do - if you’re not among the top 5-7 QBs why pay you? But a few teams clearly haven’t chosen that path including the giants this year.
Fwiw, I think trading for and paying Rodgers is worse than signing Lamar but neither is optimal.

I'd do exactly what they've done, and I think they've played this perfectly. They're saying they like him, but they don't love him, because they haven't won anything with him, and therefore need enough $$ to continue to put pieces around him so they can. If he wants all of the cap space for himself it's time to move on and get a couple picks for him so they can start over.

Do you see the giants as making a mistake or is their situation different enough to make their decision make sense?
I can certainly see both courses, I think I agree with you but am not totally sold.

I think the big difference there is the structure of the contract. The Giants essentially gave Jones a two year deal and $81M guaranteed. They can get out of the deal in 2025 for $18M in dead cap if he doesn't show more these next two seasons. He's in more of a "stop gap vet" status similar to Carr and JG in my opinion where the Giants still have enough cash to sign other players to put around him.

Lamar is clearly asking for a whole lot more than that. If he truly turned down a 3 year deal fully guaranteed for $130M or whatever he's a dope.

 

[Grahamburn]

BUT, I definitely don't think paying the mega contract to a fringe elite QB is the way to go.

Worked for the Rams.

Kinda. Lol.

 

[-OZ-]

BUT, I definitely don't think paying the mega contract to a fringe elite QB is the way to go.

Worked for the Rams.

I think our opinions about a healthy Stafford are different.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Kinda. Lol.

Kinda won the Superbowl.
What is the goal of every NFL team?

 

[Grahamburn]

BUT, I definitely don't think paying the mega contract to a fringe elite QB is the way to go.

Worked for the Rams.

I think our opinions about a healthy Stafford are different.

He's making a crack about them signing Goff.

 

[Grahamburn]

At least I took it as a joke about the contract they gave Goff.

 

[-OZ-]

BUT, I definitely don't think paying the mega contract to a fringe elite QB is the way to go.

Worked for the Rams.

I think our opinions about a healthy Stafford are different.

He's making a crack about them signing Goff.

At least I took it as a joke about the contract they gave Goff.

Could work either way I guess, I took it as Stafford. Mostly because I mentally can’t put Goff and “fringe elite” together. But he’s competent and doing alright in Detroit.

 

[Boston]

And it will continue to be when he can't play or gets knocked out in the first round.

Gotcha. My crystal ball is in the shop so I was just speculating.

Obviously just my opinion. Lamar hasn't shown he can win in or get to the playoffs consistently in his 4 years as a starter on his rookie deal with an offense tailored completely to his strengths.

Question...with the weapons he has had how many QBs not named Mahomes or Allen do you think could have done better?

That's my point. If he can't elevate the other players around him to win in the playoffs why would you pay him like those guys? And how will the Ravens, or especially his new team, afford to put better talent around him if he's taking up 25% of the cap and was traded for two 1sts.

Everyone thought Seattle was so stupid last year for letting Wilson go. Who's laughing now?

I'm confused...are you saying unless you are Mahomes you wouldn't pay a QB market value? I get the guaranteed thing with Lamar makes this a different situation (and injury concerns are valid as well), but you seem to be saying you should treat QB more like RB and not as a premium position...as for Wilson I do not include him in the conversation because he was horrible last year...if it was Wilson of his heyday it would be a different conversation whether he is worth it or not...whether one is a Lamar supporter or not I don't think anyone believes he is suddenly going to be really bad at age 26.

 

[Anarchy99]

And it will continue to be when he can't play or gets knocked out in the first round.

Gotcha. My crystal ball is in the shop so I was just speculating.

Obviously just my opinion. Lamar hasn't shown he can win in or get to the playoffs consistently in his 4 years as a starter on his rookie deal with an offense tailored completely to his strengths.

Question...with the weapons he has had how many QBs not named Mahomes or Allen do you think could have done better?

That's my point. If he can't elevate the other players around him to win in the playoffs why would you pay him like those guys? And how will the Ravens, or especially his new team, afford to put better talent around him if he's taking up 25% of the cap and was traded for two 1sts.

Everyone thought Seattle was so stupid last year for letting Wilson go. Who's laughing now?

People are a bit all over the map on Jackson. Not trying to single you out, but in this post you knock Lamar for not elevating his team and not winning in the playoffs . . . but you then bring up Wilson (who has a 9-7 post season record and won and loss a SB)? Wilson did all the things you wanted Jackson to do (win in the playoffs), but then commend the Seahawks for trading him. To be clear, SEA wasn't wrong to cash in by trading him, it was the way he was mentioned here that struck me as odd.

Similarly, it seems like some people are knocking Jackson for only having a 1-3 record (for now) in the post season . . . but not knocking other QBs that had multiple years where they did not make the playoffs. For example, people rave about Justin Herbert and how much talent the Chargers have. In Herbert's first two seasons, LAC missed the playoffs. They made the playoffs in Year 3 (and promptly lost to the Jags). Is anyone in any shape or form suggesting that Herbert can't win? That he is a paper tiger? That he can't elevate his teammates? That he isn't worth a huge extension? His career record is 25-25.

Deshawn Watson, he of the albatross mega contract, is 1-2 in the playoffs and carries a combined career record of 32-30. Matthew Stafford was 0-3 in the playoffs before moving to the Rams. He missed the playoffs in 9 other seasons in DET. By his first season with the Rams, he had already collected $220M.

Matt Ryan started off 0-3 in the playoffs with ATL (now 4-6). By the time he got to his MVP / SB season, he had made $118M and was 1-4 in the playoffs. I don't remember people saying Ryan was a bum and wasn't worth the 5-year/$150M/$94.5M extension he signed. Daniel Jones just got a $40M a year deal . . . and carries a combined 22-32-1 record as a starter.

My point being, people seem predisposed to come up with reasons to not like Lamar. Or to find justifications why he isn't worth CONTRACT X. That's fine, but there are a lot of other QBs that meet the same criteria as Lamar, yet people don't bring those things up (or don't care). IMO, that's the definition of a double standard.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

And it will continue to be when he can't play or gets knocked out in the first round.

Gotcha. My crystal ball is in the shop so I was just speculating.

Obviously just my opinion. Lamar hasn't shown he can win in or get to the playoffs consistently in his 4 years as a starter on his rookie deal with an offense tailored completely to his strengths.

Question...with the weapons he has had how many QBs not named Mahomes or Allen do you think could have done better?

That's my point. If he can't elevate the other players around him to win in the playoffs why would you pay him like those guys? And how will the Ravens, or especially his new team, afford to put better talent around him if he's taking up 25% of the cap and was traded for two 1sts.

Everyone thought Seattle was so stupid last year for letting Wilson go. Who's laughing now?

People are a bit all over the map on Jackson. Not trying to single you out, but in this post you knock Lamar for not elevating his team and not winning in the playoffs . . . but you then bring up Wilson (who has a 9-7 post season record and won and loss a SB)? Wilson did all the things you wanted Jackson to do (win in the playoffs), but then commend the Seahawks for trading him. To be clear, SEA wasn't wrong to cash in by trading him, it was the way he was mentioned here that struck me as odd.

Similarly, it seems like some people are knocking Jackson for only having a 1-3 record (for now) in the post season . . . but not knocking other QBs that had multiple years where they did not make the playoffs. For example, people rave about Justin Herbert and how much talent the Chargers have. In Herbert's first two seasons, LAC missed the playoffs. They made the playoffs in Year 3 (and promptly lost to the Jags). Is anyone in any shape or form suggesting that Herbert can't win? That he is a paper tiger? That he can't elevate his teammates? That he isn't worth a huge extension? His career record is 25-25.

Deshawn Watson, he of the albatross mega contract, is 1-2 in the playoffs and carries a combined career record of 32-30. Matthew Stafford was 0-3 in the playoffs before moving to the Rams. He missed the playoffs in 9 other seasons in DET. By his first season with the Rams, he had already collected $220M.

Matt Ryan started off 0-3 in the playoffs with ATL (now 4-6). By the time he got to his MVP / SB season, he had made $118M and was 1-4 in the playoffs. I don't remember people saying Ryan was a bum and wasn't worth the 5-year/$150M/$94.5M extension he signed. Daniel Jones just got a $40M a year deal . . . and carries a combined 22-32-1 record as a starter.

My point being, people seem predisposed to come up with reasons to not like Lamar. Or to find justifications why he isn't worth CONTRACT X. That's fine, but there are a lot of other QBs that meet the same criteria as Lamar, yet people don't bring those things up (or don't care). IMO, that's the definition of a double standard.

Peyton Manning was 0-3 in his first three playoff games and 2-6 at one point.

 

[Apple Juice]

So, do the people arguing in favor of Lamar think NFL GMs are colluding or being dumb, and that teams SHOULD give up picks and pay Lamar whatever he wants based on precedent? The teams that have done this, like Denver and Cleveland, don't seem like sparkling examples of why it's a good idea. If you're resigning a guy who knows your system and is on board I understand it more.

 

[Stoneworker]

Peyton Manning was 0-3 in his first three playoff games and 2-6 at one point.

And Manning deservedly took heat for that record until he proved otherwise. Others, like Philip Rivers and Tony Romo, were perpetual playoff underperformers.

Until he proves otherwise, Jackson owns a putrid postseason record as part of his body of work.

Which should objectively discount his market value.

 

[Ilov80s]

So, do the people arguing in favor of Lamar think NFL GMs are colluding or being dumb, and that teams SHOULD give up picks and pay Lamar whatever he wants based on precedent? The teams that have done this, like Denver and Cleveland, don't seem like sparkling examples of why it's a good idea. If you're resigning a guy who knows your system and is on board I understand it more.

Timing is everything. Wilson playing so poorly is probably going to hurt Lamar's chances of getting that trade which is kind of silly because they are two independent events. I don't think any team should make that trade now. After the draft, perhaps. That pushes the picks to 24 and 25 where you hope to be picking later.

I've mentioned it seems to make sense for New England. I think it also makes a lot of sense for Atlanta. They are in a terrible division and Lamar would instantly be maybe the best QB in the conference. Atlanta would instantly become a legit contender. Their alternative is likely a poor season with Ridder and the owner cleaning house again. Lamar is absolutely a risk but sometimes teams are in positions where they need to take a swing to avoid perpetual mediocrity.

I don't know if the league is engaging in full on collusion but I am sure there have been many conversations that they did not like the Watson deal and do not want guaranteed contacts to become the norm. Also, Baltimore has the option to match whatever the offer is so there is the chance that by making the claim on Lamar, it reveals to the whole organization that you aren't actually happy with your QB, you jack up the going rate for a QB and you don't even get Lamar. I am sure there are teams that genuinely don't think Lamar is going to last long term or that he's overrated. However, I would imagine there are NFL personnel who think Lamar is worth it and would totally energize their offense. Kind of like on this message board we have people all over the map on him.

The one comment I thought was odd was Arthur Blank's comment about how Lamar misses time and it's a concern so this is nothing like the Watson deal. Watson had 2 torn ACLs and when signed was coming in with the understanding that he was likely going to miss about a full year.

 

[Ilov80s]

And Manning deservedly took heat for that record until he proved otherwise. Others, like Philip Rivers and Tony Romo, were perpetual playoff underperformers.

Until he proves otherwise, Jackson owns a putrid postseason record as part of his body of work.

Which should objectively discount his market value.

It didn't seem to impact team's desire to aggressively go after Stafford or Watson.

 

[Grahamburn]

Seattle won the Super Bowl with Wilson on his rookie deal.

 

[Catbird]

I think its the running QB thing that worries many fantasy guys and probably many teams who would otherwise be glad to pay for Lamar's production. There haven't been hardly any this successful for very long. Runners take far more hits. Lamar has been exceptional already. NFL RBs generally are losing speed, and so effectiveness, by 28 or 29. Pocket QBs typically play at top levels into their mid-30s. No one wants to be paying 40 million to a guy who has lost his running advantage and is an average, at best, passer. I realize he has said he doesn't need the whole deal guaranteed, but if he wants 4 years of 5 guaranteed or some such, that requires a team to still risk paying potentially for a couple or even three years after his mobility is worn down by injury or just age and the beating an NFL rusher suffers. His style of game is unique and you can't blame people for worrying about what his skills he will 2-3 years down the road where the salary is still guaranteed. It didn't matter all that much that Stafford or Brady lost their legs at 29 or 30. For Jackson its what makes him great.

 

[Stoneworker]

And Manning deservedly took heat for that record until he proved otherwise. Others, like Philip Rivers and Tony Romo, were perpetual playoff underperformers.

Until he proves otherwise, Jackson owns a putrid postseason record as part of his body of work.

Which should objectively discount his market value.

It didn't seem to impact team's desire to aggressively go after Stafford or Watson.

People pay based on their perceptions and unique needs. Doesn't refute what I wrote.

 

[humpback]

People are a bit all over the map on Jackson. Not trying to single you out, but in this post you knock Lamar for not elevating his team and not winning in the playoffs . . . but you then bring up Wilson (who has a 9-7 post season record and won and loss a SB)? Wilson did all the things you wanted Jackson to do (win in the playoffs), but then commend the Seahawks for trading him. To be clear, SEA wasn't wrong to cash in by trading him, it was the way he was mentioned here that struck me as odd.

Similarly, it seems like some people are knocking Jackson for only having a 1-3 record (for now) in the post season . . . but not knocking other QBs that had multiple years where they did not make the playoffs. For example, people rave about Justin Herbert and how much talent the Chargers have. In Herbert's first two seasons, LAC missed the playoffs. They made the playoffs in Year 3 (and promptly lost to the Jags). Is anyone in any shape or form suggesting that Herbert can't win? That he is a paper tiger? That he can't elevate his teammates? That he isn't worth a huge extension? His career record is 25-25.

Deshawn Watson, he of the albatross mega contract, is 1-2 in the playoffs and carries a combined career record of 32-30. Matthew Stafford was 0-3 in the playoffs before moving to the Rams. He missed the playoffs in 9 other seasons in DET. By his first season with the Rams, he had already collected $220M.

Matt Ryan started off 0-3 in the playoffs with ATL (now 4-6). By the time he got to his MVP / SB season, he had made $118M and was 1-4 in the playoffs. I don't remember people saying Ryan was a bum and wasn't worth the 5-year/$150M/$94.5M extension he signed. Daniel Jones just got a $40M a year deal . . . and carries a combined 22-32-1 record as a starter.

My point being, people seem predisposed to come up with reasons to not like Lamar. Or to find justifications why he isn't worth CONTRACT X. That's fine, but there are a lot of other QBs that meet the same criteria as Lamar, yet people don't bring those things up (or don't care). IMO, that's the definition of a double standard.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that people are a bit all over the map on Jackson, he's a unique player and his performance has been a bit all over the map.

That said, football is a team sport and each situation is unique. The Chargers were 5-11 before Herbert and have improved every season he's been there. Most people don't think Watson is worth the contract he got, and he and Stafford played for abysmal organizations which obviously negatively impacted their records. Stafford and Ryan's career earnings are skewed by having been drafted under the old rookie wage scale (6 year deals btw), and neither got their biggest paydays until after they got to the SB. Etc.

I've said this several times now but essentially no one is saying that Lamar stinks, he'll never do anything in the playoffs, or he isn't worth a big contract. I think a double-standard is warranted because we're talking about potentially the largest contract in NFL history. All of the "knocks" are more about how large of a contract/guarantees he is "worth".

Honestly I think signing something similar to what the Ravens reportedly offered him would be best for him. It would give him the opportunity to bounce back from the last 2 disappointing seasons and sign a monumental contract at age 28/29. If he doesn't bounce back, well $135 mil or whatever is still multi-generational wealth and more than he would've gotten had he not signed it and played poorly/gotten injured.

 

[Yenrub]

And it will continue to be when he can't play or gets knocked out in the first round.

Gotcha. My crystal ball is in the shop so I was just speculating.

Obviously just my opinion. Lamar hasn't shown he can win in or get to the playoffs consistently in his 4 years as a starter on his rookie deal with an offense tailored completely to his strengths.

The Ravens have been to the playoffs in 4 of the 5 seasons since drafting Lamar.
They missed the playoffs the 3 seasons before drafting him.

 

[Chaka]

BUT, I definitely don't think paying the mega contract to a fringe elite QB is the way to go.

Worked for the Rams.

I think our opinions about a healthy Stafford are different.

Injury prone, aging, losing regularly and coming off three statistically decent, at best, seasons.

Miracle career year, in which he led the league in INTs plus had 5 fumbles, at 33 and right back to the status quo.

 

[Chaka]

BUT, I definitely don't think paying the mega contract to a fringe elite QB is the way to go.

Worked for the Rams.

I think our opinions about a healthy Stafford are different.

He's making a crack about them signing Goff.

Nope. I was talking about Stafford.

 

[Yenrub]

Kinda. Lol.

Kinda won the Superbowl.
What is the goal of every NFL team?

#1 goal is to make as much money as possible

 

[Da Guru]

I can`t wait until Jackson gets traded and this is over.

I know the NFL loves this soap opera playing out in the dead period but sick of seeing him on the news everyday.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

How long can Lamar go without signing the franchise tag and still get credit for a NFL season?

How long can Lamar go without signing the franchise tag and still get credit for a NFL season?

He has until week 10 I believe according to the CBA. He would then get paid the prorated amount left on the contract and move to next year.

He can wait until 3 days before Week 1 kick off to occur ZERO Penalties according to the CBA
As I said from the start, just the fact he can skip reporting all summer with a NEW OC no less makes things very difficult IMHO
Jackson can let this play out in the media, eventually a team is going to reach out and speak to him.

I think the question was different, Yen was asking about getting credit and I think Jakey is probably right.
I just wanted to add the 3-Days prior to the season and think it's an important date as well as Week 10
I hope it doesn't get anywhere close to that.
June 1st is a big date, the Miami Dolphins will inherit almost $15M in 2023 salary cap space when Byron Jones is officially released

The Browns only needed a $1M salary in '22 to acquire Watson

Sure the Browns only needed $1M and sure the Dolphins can trade future 1sts, but the Ravens still have the chance to match any offer and render the previous aspects moot.

 

[-OZ-]

Kinda. Lol.

Kinda won the Superbowl.
What is the goal of every NFL team?

#1 goal is to make as much money as possible

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money, as does having players fans want to watch and support. This is a big part of where I start to lean back on the LJ train. By all accounts he’s an exciting player and is well liked by most. Seems like a decent person to cheer. Whether his contract is worth it relies less on whether the ravens win a championship and more on whether it was the best use of capital to make more money.

 

[menobrown]

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money,

I'm not so sure winning is all that important to making money in a revenue sharing business where most of the money comes from broadcast rights.

 

[Boston]

Seattle won the Super Bowl with Wilson on his rookie deal.

Yup...this is a great way to do things but if drafting a stud QB in the 3rd round was easy everyone would be doing it.

 

[Ilov80s]

Kinda. Lol.

Kinda won the Superbowl.
What is the goal of every NFL team?

#1 goal is to make as much money as possible

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money, as does having players fans want to watch and support. This is a big part of where I start to lean back on the LJ train. By all accounts he’s an exciting player and is well liked by most. Seems like a decent person to cheer. Whether his contract is worth it relies less on whether the ravens win a championship and more on whether it was the best use of capital to make more money.

I am not totally sold that every NFL team's goal is to make as much money as possible. For starters, it depends how you define "team". There are only likely a couple people in the organization that actually really pay attention to profits so most of the people involved with the team aren't even thinking about making money. So lets just what he really meant was "the owners". Even then, I don't think making as much money as possible is all of their goals. For example, I firmly believe if Jerry Jones could spend triple the cap he would do it for another Super Bowl.

 

[-OZ-]

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money,

I'm not so sure winning is all that important to making money in a revenue sharing business where most of the money comes from broadcast rights.

Fair point. Long term I think it helps when different teams are competitive and more helps create more local fans.

 

[Anarchy99]

Leaving out Tom Brady (who claims he is retired), here is a list of all the QBs that played in the league last year that have won a playoff game as a starter:

Patrick Mahomes 11-3
Aaron Rodgers 11-10
Joe Flacco 10-5
Russell Wilson 9-7
Joe Burrow 5-2
Nick Foles 4-2
Jimmy Garoppolo 4-2
Matthew Stafford 4-3
Josh Allen 4-4
Matt Ryan 4-6
Brock Purdy 2-1
Jalen Hurts 2-2
Ryan Tannehill 2-3
Jared Goff 2-3
Dak Prescott 2-4
John Wolford 1-0
Case Keenum 1-1
Trevor Lawrence 1-1
Daniel Jones 1-1
Baker Mayfield 1-1
Marcus Mariota 1-1
Deshawn Watson 1-2
Lamar Jackson 1-3
Kirk Cousins 1-3

Here is a list of other QB that have started a playoff game but haven't won one yet:

Justin Herbert 0-1
Kyler Murray 0-1
Derek Carr 0-1
Carson Wentz 0-1
Teddy Bridgewater 0-1
Mac Jones 0-1
Geno Smith 0-1
Taylor Heinicke 0-1
Brian Hoyer 0-1
Tyler Huntley 0-1
Skylar Thompson 0-1
Mitchell Trubisky 0-3
Andy Dalton 0-4

There aren't a ton of "OMG these QBs light it up in the post season" guys on those lists. Plenty of them got huge contracts, if not once, maybe twice. Jackson led the Ravens to the post season in 4 of his 5 years with the team (even if he couldn't play in them).

Playoff appearances over the past 5 seasons:
5: KC
4: BAL, BUF, PHI, SEA
3: DAL, GB, LAR, NE, NO, SF, TB, TEN
2: CHI, CIN, HOU, IND, LAC, MIN, PIT
1: ARI, CLE, JAX, LV, MIA, NYG, WAS
0: ATL, CAR, DEN, DET, NYJ

People looking for reasons that Lamar isn't worth a sizable contract are doing exactly that. They are focusing on things that should preclude him from being worth a big contract (without considering why he would be worth it). IMO, people saying Lamar isn't or won't be worth it have a point . . . as long as those same people say most other QBs with gigantic contracts aren't worth it either. But I don't agree with folks that suggest Dak and Daniel Jones are worth $40M and Watson and Murray are worth $46M but Lamar is demanding too much money and teams shouldn't give it to him. They haven't done as much as Jackson.

 

[Anarchy99]

Yup...this is a great way to do things but if drafting a stud QB in the 6th round was easy everyone would be doing it.

Fixed.

 

[menobrown]

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money,

I'm not so sure winning is all that important to making money in a revenue sharing business where most of the money comes from broadcast rights.

Fair point. Long term I think it helps when different teams are competitive and more helps create more local fans.

I would add that I do think some owners are motivated by creating excitement for the franchise that is not financially driven. They want to matter, they want to be relevant.

Why I'm a bit surprised Atlanta just said they are out. Arthur Smith might be a good coach but he's dull, the franchise feels dull, the cup of excitement is not runneth over. Matt Ryan had a great career but segments of that fan base that was around for Vick still miss him. I think Lamar would have loved Atlanta and they would have loved him back and on the field the weapons and scheme are ideal. I've said in this thread a few times since we got a few days into FA that the Colts are the only team I think might make an offer to and for him but the biggest team that should have is Atlanta. I feel that's probably a national consensus.

 

[Boston]

Yup...this is a great way to do things but if drafting a stud QB in the 6th round was easy everyone would be doing it.

Fixed.

All it takes is a 6th round pick and a year on the practice squad and it is nothing but rings after that.

 

[Ilov80s]

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money,

I'm not so sure winning is all that important to making money in a revenue sharing business where most of the money comes from broadcast rights.

Fair point. Long term I think it helps when different teams are competitive and more helps create more local fans.

I would add that I do think some owners are motivated by creating excitement for the franchise that is not financially driven. They want to matter, they want to be relevant.

Why I'm a bit surprised Atlanta just said they are out. Arthur Smith might be a good coach but he's dull, the franchise feels dull, the cup of excitement is not runneth over. Matt Ryan had a great career but segments of that fan base that was around for Vick still miss him. I think Lamar would have loved Atlanta and they would have loved him back and on the field the weapons and scheme are ideal. I've said in this thread a few times since we got a few days into FA that the Colts are the only team I think might make an offer to and for him but the biggest team that should have is Atlanta. I feel that's probably a national consensus.

Lamar in Indy just feels wrong. I can't imagine Lamar would love Indy as a landing spot for any reason other than $$$.

 

[Faust]

ESPN's Jeremy Fowler believes Lamar Jackson isn't demanding a fully-guaranteed contract, "just that the guaranteed portion of it be larger than [Deshaun] Watson's."​

Fowler cited sources at this week's NFL owners meetings who believe Jackson, who has requested a trade from Baltimore, isn't holding out for a fully-guaranteed deal as long as he gets more than the $230 million in guarantees that Watson inexplicably got from the Browns in 2022. NFL team after NFL team has come out against the concept of a full-guaranteed contract, with coaches and owners saying they have no interest in Jackson, a 26-year-old former MVP. While Jackson's injuries in 2021 and 2022 are often cited by his critics, Watson has suffered two torn ACLs -- injuries that did not stop him from receiving the league's first fully-guaranteed contract. Perhaps the clarity provided by Fowler will generate a market for the elite quarterback no one seems to want. Fowler added "the Ravens seem to be the team that wants him the most, for whatever that's worth."
SOURCE: ESPN.com
Mar 30, 2023 at 11:48 AM ET

 

[Boone22]

ESPN's Jeremy Fowler believes Lamar Jackson isn't demanding a fully-guaranteed contract, "just that the guaranteed portion of it be larger than [Deshaun] Watson's."​

Fowler cited sources at this week's NFL owners meetings who believe Jackson, who has requested a trade from Baltimore, isn't holding out for a fully-guaranteed deal as long as he gets more than the $230 million in guarantees that Watson inexplicably got from the Browns in 2022. NFL team after NFL team has come out against the concept of a full-guaranteed contract, with coaches and owners saying they have no interest in Jackson, a 26-year-old former MVP. While Jackson's injuries in 2021 and 2022 are often cited by his critics, Watson has suffered two torn ACLs -- injuries that did not stop him from receiving the league's first fully-guaranteed contract. Perhaps the clarity provided by Fowler will generate a market for the elite quarterback no one seems to want. Fowler added "the Ravens seem to be the team that wants him the most, for whatever that's worth."
SOURCE: ESPN.com
Mar 30, 2023 at 11:48 AM ET

So a 20 year, $231M guaranteed contract will get it done?

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, duh, it doesn't matter if he wants fully guaranteed or not.
He simply wants too much guaranteed.

 

[Boston]

ESPN's Jeremy Fowler believes Lamar Jackson isn't demanding a fully-guaranteed contract, "just that the guaranteed portion of it be larger than [Deshaun] Watson's."​

Fowler cited sources at this week's NFL owners meetings who believe Jackson, who has requested a trade from Baltimore, isn't holding out for a fully-guaranteed deal as long as he gets more than the $230 million in guarantees that Watson inexplicably got from the Browns in 2022. NFL team after NFL team has come out against the concept of a full-guaranteed contract, with coaches and owners saying they have no interest in Jackson, a 26-year-old former MVP. While Jackson's injuries in 2021 and 2022 are often cited by his critics, Watson has suffered two torn ACLs -- injuries that did not stop him from receiving the league's first fully-guaranteed contract. Perhaps the clarity provided by Fowler will generate a market for the elite quarterback no one seems to want. Fowler added "the Ravens seem to be the team that wants him the most, for whatever that's worth."
SOURCE: ESPN.com
Mar 30, 2023 at 11:48 AM ET

I can just picture Lamar and his Mom (and there has to be an Uncle Curly involved as well) thinking the Ravens would love this offer and never figure out what they were doing...it's like Spinal Tap when the volume went up to 11.

 

[Stoneworker]

People looking for reasons that Lamar isn't worth a sizable contract are doing exactly that. They are focusing on things that should preclude him from being worth a big contract (without considering why he would be worth it). IMO, people saying Lamar isn't or won't be worth it have a point . . . as long as those same people say most other QBs with gigantic contracts aren't worth it either. But I don't agree with folks that suggest Dak and Daniel Jones are worth $40M and Watson and Murray are worth $46M but Lamar is demanding too much money and teams shouldn't give it to him. They haven't done as much as Jackson.

So assuming the report of >$230 million fully guaranteed is accurate, is that a) a "sizable", b) "big" or c) "gigantic" contract as per your definitions?

 

[ghostguy123]

Ok so if I'm Baltimore I ask if a 10 year deal for 300 million with 231 million fully guaranteed works.

 

[humpback]

I'm sure the offers are going to come flooding in now. "Oh, we thought you wanted a $235mil fully guaranteed contract. Why didn't you say that you only wanted a $275mil contract with $235mil guaranteed?"

Maybe he did hire MOP after all?

 

[BassNBrew]

Kinda. Lol.

Kinda won the Superbowl.
What is the goal of every NFL team?

#1 goal is to make as much money as possible

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money,

I'm not so sure winning is all that important to making money in a revenue sharing business where most of the money comes from broadcast rights.

Most profitable NFL franchises of 2021

The NFL has some of the most valuable entities, but not all are equally profitable.

www.sportskeeda.com

Exactly. The profitable side of owning an NFL franchise is the appreciation of the asset. Most of these teams don't make money. I realize there is creative accounting in the mix, but most of these owners would be better off investing the coin elsewhere if making money was a priority. Personally I think it's the ego boost that drives most of these owners.

 

[menobrown]

I'm sure the offers are going to come flooding in now. "Oh, we thought you wanted a $235mil fully guaranteed contract. Why didn't you say that you only wanted a $275mil contract with $235mil guaranteed?"

Yeah, I got the vibe that Lamar's camp wanted that info out as he thought it would play better to the public/teams. Bad read if so.

 

[-OZ-]

Kinda. Lol.

Kinda won the Superbowl.
What is the goal of every NFL team?

#1 goal is to make as much money as possible

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money, as does having players fans want to watch and support. This is a big part of where I start to lean back on the LJ train. By all accounts he’s an exciting player and is well liked by most. Seems like a decent person to cheer. Whether his contract is worth it relies less on whether the ravens win a championship and more on whether it was the best use of capital to make more money.

I am not totally sold that every NFL team's goal is to make as much money as possible. For starters, it depends how you define "team". There are only likely a couple people in the organization that actually really pay attention to profits so most of the people involved with the team aren't even thinking about making money. So lets just what he really meant was "the owners". Even then, I don't think making as much money as possible is all of their goals. For example, I firmly believe if Jerry Jones could spend triple the cap he would do it for another Super Bowl.

You’re probably right about Jerry.
But if the league stopped increasing profits, every person involved would be affected. Do you think most owners keep front office personnel if they’re not making money?

Kinda. Lol.

Kinda won the Superbowl.
What is the goal of every NFL team?

#1 goal is to make as much money as possible

Too many people miss this point or refuse to admit it. The NFL is a business. Winning helps a franchise make money,

I'm not so sure winning is all that important to making money in a revenue sharing business where most of the money comes from broadcast rights.

Most profitable NFL franchises of 2021

The NFL has some of the most valuable entities, but not all are equally profitable.

www.sportskeeda.com

Exactly. The profitable side of owning an NFL franchise is the appreciation of the asset. Most of these teams don't make money. I realize there is creative accounting in the mix, but most of these owners would be better off investing the coin elsewhere if making money was a priority. Personally I think it's the ego boost that drives most of these owners.

The jaguars being that high is a surprise imo, especially in 2021. But most of those franchises have a history of winning and a big market and a national following.

 

[humpback]

BUT, I definitely don't think paying the mega contract to a fringe elite QB is the way to go.

Worked for the Rams.

Kinda. Lol.

Kinda won the Superbowl.
What is the goal of every NFL team?

Who wants to tell them that they didn't pay the mega contract to Stafford until after he won the Super Bowl?

No, it didn't work for the Rams. What worked for the Rams is the same thing that worked for the Pats- elite production at less than an elite price. Now they're about to see the other side of the coin.