QB Lamar Jackson, BAL (10 Viewers)

[-OZ-]

I agree with you about Atlanta making the most sense, which has been true from the start of this saga IMO. In addition to the pros you listed, a move like trading for Jackson could enable them to take control of their weak division for at least the next few years, with Tampa, Carolina, and New Orleans all in various states of rebuilding. They haven't made the playoffs since 2017, but this move would put them in position not only to make the playoffs, but host at least one playoff game each of the next few years. To me, they seem like the team that would get the best ROI on trading for Jackson, and it's not particularly close.

I'm less certain about New England.

Both of those teams would have some cap maneuvering to do to make it work.

If all QBs were equal, I think the Falcons would have run away with the NFC South last season. I mean, they were 1 game out, with Mariota/Ridder. They would have won that division (probably by more than 1 game) if Jacoby Brissett was their QB. 100% agree Lamar would make them the clear favorite, unless the rookie Carolina takes really hits the ground running.

Lamar wouldn't have the same win/loss value in NE, but I do think he's a clear upgrade and Belichick loves him. Even with him though, there is no lock they wouldn't be 4th in that division.

Tennessee would make some sense too, if they don't want to start over completely, but it sounds like they are more looking at rookie QBs, and possibly trading up with Arizona. But that is another division that is very wide open for the taking. Indy too.

If Baltimore had interest in Tannehill (which imo they probably should), a deal with Tennessee makes sense in theory. Chig has Andrews type potential and Burks > Bateman (Probably) But I think everyone in Nashville recognize they’re in a rebuild. Which needs to include the OL.

 

[Stoneworker]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

 

[Faust]

Ravens general manager Eric DeCosta said there's a "possibility" the team will take a quarterback in the first round of the 2023 draft. ​

DeCosta said it "depends on the board," adding that the Ravens have quarterbacks ranked among their top-31 players. Baltimore has the 22nd pick in the first round. DeCosta held a Wednesday press conference and refused to talk about Lamar Jackson's contract situation, one of the biggest stories in the professional sports world. Instead DeCosta talked mostly about the upcoming NFL Draft. With no movement on Jackson's long-term prospects in Baltimore, the Ravens could take Jackson's eventual replacement. Jackson in March requested a trade, though there are curiously no suitors for the 26-year-old former league MVP. Hendon Hooker, a mobile quarterback coming off an ACL tear, could be on the board when the Ravens pick in the first round. Hooker recently met with the Titans, Commanders, and Saints.
SOURCE: Jamison Hensley on Twitter
Apr 5, 2023 at 12:17 PM ET

 

[Tau837]

Long reported to have offered Jackson $133M fully guaranteed, the Ravens proposed the former MVP a deal with $175M in total guarantees. The $42M injury guarantee would have shifted to a full guarantee early over the course of the contract, Albert Breer of SI.com reports. An additional $25M — present in the fourth year of the contract — would have become guaranteed in Year 3 of the deal, Breer adds. Overall, that 2022 offer topped $290M over six years.

Here is a possible way this could have been structured:

• 5 year extension, $50M signing bonus, $133M fully guaranteed plus another $42M guaranteed for injury
• 2022 (age 25 season) - $23M - fully guaranteed at signing (note this is the 5th year option amount)
• 2023 (age 26 season) - $28M - fully guaranteed at signing
• 2024 (age 27 season) - $32M - fully guaranteed at signing
• 2025 (age 28 season) - $42M - not initially guaranteed, but becomes guaranteed in 2024, likely within the first 1-2 weeks of the league year
  • To avoid this $42M guarantee, the Ravens would have to release or trade Jackson at the start of the 2024 league year
    • Releasing him would mean taking a dead cap hit of $62M - the guaranteed $32M in salary plus the remaing amortized signing bonus that would have hit the cap in 2024, 2025, and 2026; this seems extremely unlikely
    • Trading him would mean the new team would pay his 2024 $32M salary and the 2025 $42M salary, so the Ravens would be left with a $30M dead cap hit to avoid paying him $74M in 2024-2025; this seems like an unlikely scenario, since the reasons they might want to trade him in early 2024 (disgruntled, injuries, playing poorly) would seem to affect his trade market
    • So it seems very likely to me that the Ravens would keep him through at least 2025
• 2026 (age 29 season) - $50M - not guaranteed; Jackson could be released or traded in the offseason with a $10M dead cap (the last year of the amortized signing bonus), clearing $40M in cap space; if released, he would be a 30 year old UFA
• 2027 (age 30 season) - $65M - not guaranteed; Jackson could be released or traded in the offseason with no dead cap hit, clearing the full $65M; if released, he would be a 31 year old UFA
• Total - $290M

Obviously, there are a huge number of variables that could differ, this is just an example of how it might have been structured.

It is effectively a 4 year, $175M contract, and it is very easy to release him after the 4th year. That is a $43.75 APY, presumably less than Jackson wants, and he probably wanted/expected more than 4 years in duration.

On the other hand, he would have been paid $50M more in 2022 (the signing bonus), and, worst case, he would have earned $175M total in 2022-2025 and would be set to hit free agency again at age 29 in the 2026 offseason. IMO the only real reason not to like this deal is if he is afraid he won't have a good free agent market in 2026, due to age, poor performance, injuries, and/or off field issues.

Seems like a pretty strong offer from the Ravens IMO, especially since the offer almost certainly came before the Wilson and Murray contracts and may have come before the details of Watson's contract were released.

 

[Chaka]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

First NFL offseason? Believe nothing anyone says openly or anonymously. That's NFL Offseason 101

 

[travdogg]

I agree with you about Atlanta making the most sense, which has been true from the start of this saga IMO. In addition to the pros you listed, a move like trading for Jackson could enable them to take control of their weak division for at least the next few years, with Tampa, Carolina, and New Orleans all in various states of rebuilding. They haven't made the playoffs since 2017, but this move would put them in position not only to make the playoffs, but host at least one playoff game each of the next few years. To me, they seem like the team that would get the best ROI on trading for Jackson, and it's not particularly close.

I'm less certain about New England.

Both of those teams would have some cap maneuvering to do to make it work.

If all QBs were equal, I think the Falcons would have run away with the NFC South last season. I mean, they were 1 game out, with Mariota/Ridder. They would have won that division (probably by more than 1 game) if Jacoby Brissett was their QB. 100% agree Lamar would make them the clear favorite, unless the rookie Carolina takes really hits the ground running.

Lamar wouldn't have the same win/loss value in NE, but I do think he's a clear upgrade and Belichick loves him. Even with him though, there is no lock they wouldn't be 4th in that division.

Tennessee would make some sense too, if they don't want to start over completely, but it sounds like they are more looking at rookie QBs, and possibly trading up with Arizona. But that is another division that is very wide open for the taking. Indy too.

If Baltimore had interest in Tannehill (which imo they probably should), a deal with Tennessee makes sense in theory. Chig has Andrews type potential and Burks > Bateman (Probably) But I think everyone in Nashville recognize they’re in a rebuild. Which needs to include the OL.

The tough part for the Titans, at least in my opinion, is that its a really bad time to rebuild. The Texans and Colts both have leg ups on them, and the Titans were the best team in the division before Tannehill went down.

I know I can't be alone in thinking the Jaguars aren't exactly contenders yet, despite a playoff win, they were still barely over .500.

 

[-OZ-]

I agree with you about Atlanta making the most sense, which has been true from the start of this saga IMO. In addition to the pros you listed, a move like trading for Jackson could enable them to take control of their weak division for at least the next few years, with Tampa, Carolina, and New Orleans all in various states of rebuilding. They haven't made the playoffs since 2017, but this move would put them in position not only to make the playoffs, but host at least one playoff game each of the next few years. To me, they seem like the team that would get the best ROI on trading for Jackson, and it's not particularly close.

I'm less certain about New England.

Both of those teams would have some cap maneuvering to do to make it work.

If all QBs were equal, I think the Falcons would have run away with the NFC South last season. I mean, they were 1 game out, with Mariota/Ridder. They would have won that division (probably by more than 1 game) if Jacoby Brissett was their QB. 100% agree Lamar would make them the clear favorite, unless the rookie Carolina takes really hits the ground running.

Lamar wouldn't have the same win/loss value in NE, but I do think he's a clear upgrade and Belichick loves him. Even with him though, there is no lock they wouldn't be 4th in that division.

Tennessee would make some sense too, if they don't want to start over completely, but it sounds like they are more looking at rookie QBs, and possibly trading up with Arizona. But that is another division that is very wide open for the taking. Indy too.

If Baltimore had interest in Tannehill (which imo they probably should), a deal with Tennessee makes sense in theory. Chig has Andrews type potential and Burks > Bateman (Probably) But I think everyone in Nashville recognize they’re in a rebuild. Which needs to include the OL.

The tough part for the Titans, at least in my opinion, is that its a really bad time to rebuild. The Texans and Colts both have leg ups on them, and the Titans were the best team in the division before Tannehill went down.

I know I can't be alone in thinking the Jaguars aren't exactly contenders yet, despite a playoff win, they were still barely over .500.

I hear you but disagree on the jaguars. They’re young and strong, adding Ridley will help their offense (yes I think he’ll bounce back alright) and TLaw is soon to be one of the truly elite QBs.
That doesn’t mean Tennessee should just give up and rebuild in a vacuum, they could even contend for the division again if all went perfectly. But I don’t expect perfection.
I actually don’t think the colts have a leg up, other than a higher pick this year.

 

[TwinTurbo]

My take is Jackson is a rare talent that is worth

What we have yet to see......do many teams want expensive 30+ year old running QB's?

Maybe they won't play out their contracts, but Allen is signed through age 32, with Watson and Murray through age 31,

Good point.
I'm not sure I'd call Watson a "running QB', at least anywhere near Lamar's class. He'll likely never ever run for 500 yards in a season again.

Either way, he and Murray were given contracts that the team will almost certainly regret. Not helping Lamar at all.

I'm on record saying Allen's contract is going to be a problem long-term. I know most don't agree. He's Cam Newton 2.0, IMO.
Nothing about this will age well if he's still Buffalo's main runner and goal line running back a few years from now.

But yes, you're right, apparently some teams will. 2 of the 3 will almost absolutely regret it. I'd say the other probably will.

And of the many ways that timing is hurting Lamar here, Watson and Murray really hurt.

Whether teams should give out the contracts they do really isn't what I have been arguing. Teams do stupid things all the time (whether that be for running, passing, or otherwise mediocre QBs. I don't think Lamar is worth $50M . . . but I don't think most of the QBs in the league are worth what they make.

Yes most of the QBs in the league are not worth what they make. And so if you have a shot to get a Lamar Jackson, you have to overpay. Otherwise you get stuck with a mediocre QB on a huge deal, see Kirk Cousins. It's either shoot your shot for a potential top 5 QB or go with a lower priced QB on a rookie contract.

 

[travdogg]

I agree with you about Atlanta making the most sense, which has been true from the start of this saga IMO. In addition to the pros you listed, a move like trading for Jackson could enable them to take control of their weak division for at least the next few years, with Tampa, Carolina, and New Orleans all in various states of rebuilding. They haven't made the playoffs since 2017, but this move would put them in position not only to make the playoffs, but host at least one playoff game each of the next few years. To me, they seem like the team that would get the best ROI on trading for Jackson, and it's not particularly close.

I'm less certain about New England.

Both of those teams would have some cap maneuvering to do to make it work.

If all QBs were equal, I think the Falcons would have run away with the NFC South last season. I mean, they were 1 game out, with Mariota/Ridder. They would have won that division (probably by more than 1 game) if Jacoby Brissett was their QB. 100% agree Lamar would make them the clear favorite, unless the rookie Carolina takes really hits the ground running.

Lamar wouldn't have the same win/loss value in NE, but I do think he's a clear upgrade and Belichick loves him. Even with him though, there is no lock they wouldn't be 4th in that division.

Tennessee would make some sense too, if they don't want to start over completely, but it sounds like they are more looking at rookie QBs, and possibly trading up with Arizona. But that is another division that is very wide open for the taking. Indy too.

If Baltimore had interest in Tannehill (which imo they probably should), a deal with Tennessee makes sense in theory. Chig has Andrews type potential and Burks > Bateman (Probably) But I think everyone in Nashville recognize they’re in a rebuild. Which needs to include the OL.

The tough part for the Titans, at least in my opinion, is that its a really bad time to rebuild. The Texans and Colts both have leg ups on them, and the Titans were the best team in the division before Tannehill went down.

I know I can't be alone in thinking the Jaguars aren't exactly contenders yet, despite a playoff win, they were still barely over .500.

I hear you but disagree on the jaguars. They’re young and strong, adding Ridley will help their offense (yes I think he’ll bounce back alright) and TLaw is soon to be one of the truly elite QBs.
That doesn’t mean Tennessee should just give up and rebuild in a vacuum, they could even contend for the division again if all went perfectly. But I don’t expect perfection.
I actually don’t think the colts have a leg up, other than a higher pick this year.

Yeah, we disagree on the Jags. I like Lawrence, and he may soon be elite, but he was still very uneven last season. The OL is a big issue, Ridley is a question mark in my eyes (2020 is a pretty big outlier right now) and the defense has some good players but has even more question marks. They still feel like a 7 to 9 win team, and if Houston or Indy aren't pushovers next year (Houston if they get Young especially) repeating could be tough.

ETA: If Lamar went to the Titans (or even Indy) I think they'd be the favorites for the division.

 

[TwinTurbo]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

 

[Stoneworker]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

 

[ghostguy123]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

I'd much rather listen to what people here have to say. What's the point listening to someone obviously lying to your face?
I'd rather listen to random interwebs rationale for why they have their opinions.
Neither thing is worth much, but the owners and GMs talking is worth less than nothing.

 

[Chaka]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

You've chosen an interesting place to hang out.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt

Good point, but most people still need to stay on a low salt diet.

 

[humpback]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

I'd much rather listen to what people here have to say. What's the point listening to someone obviously lying to your face?
I'd rather listen to random interwebs rationale for why they have their opinions.
Neither thing is worth much, but the owners and GMs talking is worth less than nothing.

Well in this case, their actions are matching their words as he remains unsigned (and seemingly not even in discussions).

 

[ghostguy123]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

I'd much rather listen to what people here have to say. What's the point listening to someone obviously lying to your face?
I'd rather listen to random interwebs rationale for why they have their opinions.
Neither thing is worth much, but the owners and GMs talking is worth less than nothing.

Well in this case, their actions are matching their words as he remains unsigned (and seemingly not even in discussions).

So do contracts fall out of the sky or something?

 

[massraider]

https://twitter.com/koestreicher34/status/1643644066192674816?t=Frfa1ievlPbhC7ijQDm7aw&s=19

Geez

 

[TwinTurbo]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

Fair enough. There are some super smart people on this forum. I don't claim to be one of them.

 

[Chaka]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

I'd much rather listen to what people here have to say. What's the point listening to someone obviously lying to your face?
I'd rather listen to random interwebs rationale for why they have their opinions.
Neither thing is worth much, but the owners and GMs talking is worth less than nothing.

Well in this case, their actions are matching their words as he remains unsigned (and seemingly not even in discussions).

I'm not sure what actions the assistant to the office manager of the training room cleaning supplies is empowered to make.

 

[humpback]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

I'd much rather listen to what people here have to say. What's the point listening to someone obviously lying to your face?
I'd rather listen to random interwebs rationale for why they have their opinions.
Neither thing is worth much, but the owners and GMs talking is worth less than nothing.

Well in this case, their actions are matching their words as he remains unsigned (and seemingly not even in discussions).

So do contracts fall out of the sky or something?

They did for all of the other players who signed very quickly. But you're probably right, these guys are all publicly lying as part of some dubious plan to keep his market low and then swoop in and sign him to a lowball contract (that he'll never sign), even though it doesn't make any sense since if several teams actually do want him he'll have a hot market so his price would shoot up. Yeah, that's probably it. Or something.

 

[ghostguy123]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

I'd much rather listen to what people here have to say. What's the point listening to someone obviously lying to your face?
I'd rather listen to random interwebs rationale for why they have their opinions.
Neither thing is worth much, but the owners and GMs talking is worth less than nothing.

Well in this case, their actions are matching their words as he remains unsigned (and seemingly not even in discussions).

So do contracts fall out of the sky or something?

They did for all of the other players who signed very quickly. But you're probably right, these guys are all publicly lying as part of some dubious plan to keep his market low and then swoop in and sign him to a lowball contract (that he'll never sign), even though it doesn't make any sense since if several teams actually do want him he'll have a hot market so his price would shoot up. Yeah, that's probably it. Or something.

As mentioned over a dozen times, teams don't want to alienate their current QB rooms. At least 10 teams want him. If they all come out and say that, then 9 teams are going to have ticked off QB rooms.
Short memory? You don't remember last offseason?

 

[humpback]

“The issue with Lamar is, the way he plays, no one has ever really played that way for a long time, and you have to completely change your team to do it,” another exec said. “That is fine on a rookie deal, but you are not doing it at $50 million after two injury-plagued years.”

Does this part truly hold up to scrutiny? You have to completely change your team? Really? Really? There is no other way to possibly incorporate a QB who can run very well and completes 63% of his passes into an offense? The entire team needs to go through a sea change! 100% roster turnover! Centers and defensive tackles living together! MASS HYSTERIA!!!

I'm sure he meant "the offense" but I actually left out the most hyperbolic comment from that article.

Not sure if you read it but another exec said something along the lines of "We all know he can't win in the playoffs". He did go on to say Baltimore should have worked something out with him two years ago because they had no better option, but it's that first line was a lot to take it. There are some fair criticisms IMO on Lamar but to say "We all know he can't in the playoffs" seems way over the top because "has not" is not the same as "can't" and "We all know" assumes everyone totally agrees he can't win in the playoffs. That's all a little much to me.

These articles were anonymous league execs get quoted are fun reads, they say some wild stuff, makes me think of a lot of them as meat heads. But there are for sure interesting and informative things you can pick up

Wow. I love the Athletic but articles like this are just tools to push agendas during NFL misinformation season.

Good Lord. Conspiracy theory much?

Those quotes are useful because they express unvarnished (and likely consensus) views from people who are actually accountable for such decisions. Not the typical filtered (and therefore often worthless) PR-speak.

And it's no coincidence that injury and longevity concerns, playoff underperformance and misperception by Jackson of his own market value are the exact same themes expressed in this thread the last several weeks.

Agree 100% with @Chaka . I take what random NFL execs say too with a grain of salt, because like most NFL QBs, many of them are also overpaid and not very good at what they do. These are the same guys that let Lamar Jackson drop to #32 and selected Mayfield, Darnold and Rosen instead. If he was fine to take on a rookie deal, why didn't they draft him then?

Thanks. I take the opinion of random internet dudes with an even larger grain of salt.

I'd much rather listen to what people here have to say. What's the point listening to someone obviously lying to your face?
I'd rather listen to random interwebs rationale for why they have their opinions.
Neither thing is worth much, but the owners and GMs talking is worth less than nothing.

Well in this case, their actions are matching their words as he remains unsigned (and seemingly not even in discussions).

So do contracts fall out of the sky or something?

They did for all of the other players who signed very quickly. But you're probably right, these guys are all publicly lying as part of some dubious plan to keep his market low and then swoop in and sign him to a lowball contract (that he'll never sign), even though it doesn't make any sense since if several teams actually do want him he'll have a hot market so his price would shoot up. Yeah, that's probably it. Or something.

As mentioned over a dozen times, teams don't want to alienate their current QB rooms. At least 10 teams want him. If they all come out and say that, then 9 teams are going to have ticked off QB rooms.
Short memory? You don't remember last offseason?

So they're willing to lose out on this generational MVP never seen before opportunity because they don't want to upset the great Desmond Ridder, Nick Foles/Gardner Minshew, Mac Jones (who's apparently openly on the trade block), Sam Howell/Brissett, etc? And in order to actually talk to him and sign him, they're going to have to risk alienating their QB rooms eventually, correct? Will their feelings be any less hurt next week/month?

Doesn't make any sense. Occam's razor seems to apply here- the market for his services is less robust than he (and many in here) thought it would be. He's still likely to get a very large contract and it only takes 1 to make it record breaking but the excuses are comical at this point.

 

[Chaka]

Doesn't make any sense. Occam's razor seems to apply here- the market for his services is less robust than he (and many in here) thought it would be. He's still likely to get a very large contract and it only takes 1 to make it record breaking but the excuses are comical at this point.

This is a great comment and speaks true in a lot of ways.

The only real side factor IMO is no FA QB of this caliber has ever entered the market with the potential lateral pressure of something like the Watson deal.

I think it is fair, and honest, to suggest that had an extreme chilling effect on his initial market.

 

[Yenrub]

Doesn't make any sense. Occam's razor seems to apply here- the market for his services is less robust than he (and many in here) thought it would be. He's still likely to get a very large contract and it only takes 1 to make it record breaking but the excuses are comical at this point.

This is a great comment and speaks true in a lot of ways.

The only real side factor IMO is no FA QB of this caliber has ever entered the market with the potential lateral pressure of something like the Watson deal.

I think it is fair, and honest, to suggest that had an extreme chilling effect on his initial market.

No player on the franchise tag is really a free agent.
We don’t get a true idea of what those players market value really is.

 

[humpback]

Doesn't make any sense. Occam's razor seems to apply here- the market for his services is less robust than he (and many in here) thought it would be. He's still likely to get a very large contract and it only takes 1 to make it record breaking but the excuses are comical at this point.

This is a great comment and speaks true in a lot of ways.

The only real side factor IMO is no FA QB of this caliber has ever entered the market with the potential lateral pressure of something like the Watson deal.

I think it is fair, and honest, to suggest that had an extreme chilling effect on his initial market.

Not sure what you mean by "lateral pressure of something like the Watson deal"? For starters, Lamar and the Ravens started negotiating long before the Watson deal was even a thing and couldn't agree on a contract then either.

Why would it have an "extreme chilling effect on his initial market"? Plenty of QBs have signed since the Watson deal, they must've had a more realistic view of the market. The Watson deal is very likely a factor, but it's only because Lamar has seemingly made it a line in the sand so that's on him. It's like saying the market for your home "had an extreme chilling effect" because your neighbor sold theirs for an insane amount of money. No, it very likely increased your market value, it would only be a problem if you now insisted on getting more than they did.

No player on the franchise tag is really a free agent.
We don’t get a true idea of what those players market value really is.

Here we go. Can we just get a running list of excuses so we can get them all out of the way?

I'm not saying there isn't some truth to this, obviously it isn't a completely free market when someone is on the tag, but that was all well known to everyone on the planet and Lamar and lot's of people still thought teams would be tripping over themselves to get him and it hasn't happened. Heck, the interest has (seemingly) been even less than I thought it would be.

So no, we don't know what his true market value really is and we never will, but his current market is very clearly lower than what he (and many others) thought it would be. That shouldn't be controversial.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

... we don't know what his true market value really is and we never will, but his current market is very clearly lower than what he (and many others) thought it would be. That shouldn't be controversial.

contradiction definition: 1. the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from….

 

[massraider]

Plenty of QBs have signed since the Watson deal, they must've had a more realistic view of the market.

Beg pardon?

 

[humpback]

... we don't know what his true market value really is and we never will, but his current market is very clearly lower than what he (and many others) thought it would be. That shouldn't be controversial.

contradiction definition: 1. the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from….

I'm sure you think this is some clever "gotcha", but it's not. For starters there's a difference between market value and market, but let's assume you missed that. "True" market value would be in a perfectly free market, which doesn't apply. Current market value is the going rate under actual conditions. Maybe stick to cutting and pasting twitter hot takes?

Plenty of QBs have signed since the Watson deal, they must've had a more realistic view of the market.

Beg pardon?

Self explanatory. The Watson contract didn't have an "extreme chilling effect" for the other QBs who have since signed, if anything it's the opposite.

 

[massraider]

for the other QBs who have since signed

None of these players are comps.

 

[Synthesizer]

for the other QBs who have since signed

None of these players are comps.

This gets to the root of the problem. There are no true comps for a QB/RB hybrid like Jackson. Part of him is like 27 year old Deshaun Watson, part of him is like 27 year old Ezekiel Elliott.

 

[massraider]

This gets to the root of the problem.

No it doesn't. Someone is trying to equate Mariota/Garoppolo signings with Lamar.

 

[Chaka]

This gets to the root of the problem.

No it doesn't. Someone is trying to equate Mariota/Garoppolo signings with Lamar.

Russell Wilson is probably the best comp as he was traded for then given a new contract.

 

[massraider]

Russell Wilson is probably the best comp as he was traded for then given a new contract.

Lamar is going to wind being a 'loser' like Kirk Cousins.

 

[Chaka]

Russell Wilson is probably the best comp as he was traded for then given a new contract.

Lamar is going to wind being a 'loser' like Kirk Cousins.

If Lamar did, in fact turn down a 3 year, $150 million fully guaranteed contract as was rumored, I am not sure what exactly would work for him.

 

[menobrown]

This gets to the root of the problem.

No it doesn't. Someone is trying to equate Mariota/Garoppolo signings with Lamar.

Pretty sure they are equating Wilson, Kyler and Rodgers extensions.

 

[humpback]

This gets to the root of the problem.

No it doesn't. Someone is trying to equate Mariota/Garoppolo signings with Lamar.

Someone is continuing to resort to strawmen because they have no argument.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

... we don't know what his true market value really is and we never will, but his current market is very clearly lower than what he (and many others) thought it would be. That shouldn't be controversial.

contradiction definition: 1. the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from….

I'm sure you think this is some clever "gotcha", but it's not. For starters there's a difference between market value and market, but let's assume you missed that. "True" market value would be in a perfectly free market, which doesn't apply. Current market value is the going rate under actual conditions. Maybe stick to cutting and pasting twitter hot takes?

Plenty of QBs have signed since the Watson deal, they must've had a more realistic view of the market.

Beg pardon?

Self explanatory. The Watson contract didn't have an "extreme chilling effect" for the other QBs who have since signed, if anything it's the opposite.

Which QBs that have sgined?
Daniel Jones got like 4yr/$160M which is way too much
I think Watson's contract has impacted most of the QB deals, Murray got a ton more than he likely would have after he saw Watson sign and then he "unfollowed" the Cards on social media if you recall.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Please chill on the shots at each other. And keep this 100% focused on Lamar Jackson.

 

[Anarchy99]

Not that this will cover any new ground, but Lamar is essentially a unicorn in all of the following:

- IIRC, no other QB has ever been signed to an offer sheet on a franchise tag.
- No other top tier franchise QB has missed time / playoff games the two seasons before his contract was set to expire (as best as we can tell).
- To the best of my knowledge, no 26-year-old QB with a .738 winning percentage has ever hit semi-free agency before.
- No QB that has averaged 10 rushing attempts per game has ever been eligible for a contract extension before.
- Very few players looking for the money Lamar is seeking have done so without an agent.

All of those are part of the issue for Jackson, as no one really has a good way to assess his market value when all of those things are first time occurrences.

 

[Chaka]

... we don't know what his true market value really is and we never will, but his current market is very clearly lower than what he (and many others) thought it would be. That shouldn't be controversial.

contradiction definition: 1. the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from….

I'm sure you think this is some clever "gotcha", but it's not. For starters there's a difference between market value and market, but let's assume you missed that. "True" market value would be in a perfectly free market, which doesn't apply. Current market value is the going rate under actual conditions. Maybe stick to cutting and pasting twitter hot takes?

Plenty of QBs have signed since the Watson deal, they must've had a more realistic view of the market.

Beg pardon?

Self explanatory. The Watson contract didn't have an "extreme chilling effect" for the other QBs who have since signed, if anything it's the opposite.

Which QBs that have sgined?
Daniel Jones got like 4yr/$160M which is way too much
I think Watson's contract has impacted most of the QB deals, Murray got a ton more than he likely would have after he saw Watson sign and then he "unfollowed" the Cards on social media if you recall.

Wilson, in particular, and Murray are the best comps but the problem with that is we have no idea if they even attempted to pursue fully guaranteed deals. If they didn't, they aren't great comps.

 

[humpback]

... we don't know what his true market value really is and we never will, but his current market is very clearly lower than what he (and many others) thought it would be. That shouldn't be controversial.

contradiction definition: 1. the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from….

I'm sure you think this is some clever "gotcha", but it's not. For starters there's a difference between market value and market, but let's assume you missed that. "True" market value would be in a perfectly free market, which doesn't apply. Current market value is the going rate under actual conditions. Maybe stick to cutting and pasting twitter hot takes?

Plenty of QBs have signed since the Watson deal, they must've had a more realistic view of the market.

Beg pardon?

Self explanatory. The Watson contract didn't have an "extreme chilling effect" for the other QBs who have since signed, if anything it's the opposite.

Which QBs that have sgined?
Daniel Jones got like 4yr/$160M which is way too much
I think Watson's contract has impacted most of the QB deals, Murray got a ton more than he likely would have after he saw Watson sign and then he "unfollowed" the Cards on social media if you recall.

I'm not sure if you meant to quote me but I'm saying that the Watson contract has helped other QBs, the other guys are arguing that it "had an extreme chilling effect on Lamar's initial market" for some reason. The only way it makes any sense that it could have had a chilling effect is if Lamar drastically upped his asking price after Watson signed, but again, that would be 100% on Lamar and his misreading the market.

 

[Boston]

Not that this will cover any new ground, but Lamar is essentially a unicorn in all of the following:

- IIRC, no other QB has ever been signed to an offer sheet on a franchise tag.
- No other top tier franchise QB has missed time / playoff games the two seasons before his contract was set to expire (as best as we can tell).
- To the best of my knowledge, no 26-year-old QB with a .738 winning percentage has ever hit semi-free agency before.
- No QB that has averaged 10 rushing attempts per game has ever been eligible for a contract extension before.
- Very few players looking for the money Lamar is seeking have done so without an agent.

All of those are part of the issue for Jackson, as no one really has a good way to assess his market value when all of those things are first time occurrences.

A lot of good points...such a unique situation for many reasons.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Anyone been to Lamar Jackson's website...pretty amateurish
His work off the field and anything not related directly to his performance throwing a football leaves a lot to be desired.
I do believe he has played his last down of football for the Baltimore Ravens

Jackson does have $32M+ in his back pocket right now.
That's the absolute worst he can do
Whereas the Ravens on the other hand...there's a lot that can go wrong.

 

[humpback]

Not that this will cover any new ground, but Lamar is essentially a unicorn in all of the following:

- IIRC, no other QB has ever been signed to an offer sheet on a franchise tag.
- No other top tier franchise QB has missed time / playoff games the two seasons before his contract was set to expire (as best as we can tell).
- To the best of my knowledge, no 26-year-old QB with a .738 winning percentage has ever hit semi-free agency before.
- No QB that has averaged 10 rushing attempts per game has ever been eligible for a contract extension before.
- Very few players looking for the money Lamar is seeking have done so without an agent.

All of those are part of the issue for Jackson, as no one really has a good way to assess his market value when all of those things are first time occurrences.

No two situations are exactly alike (so there is no "perfect" comp for anyone), and we can never really assess anyone's market value in advance as that's up to the current market to determine. Sure, he has a few more considerations than most, but the market works the same way. The disconnect seems to be that Lamar (and his bois) aren't factoring in the negatives as much as the market is.

 

[Da Guru]

Not that this will cover any new ground, but Lamar is essentially a unicorn in all of the following:

- IIRC, no other QB has ever been signed to an offer sheet on a franchise tag.
- No other top tier franchise QB has missed time / playoff games the two seasons before his contract was set to expire (as best as we can tell).
- To the best of my knowledge, no 26-year-old QB with a .738 winning percentage has ever hit semi-free agency before.
- No QB that has averaged 10 rushing attempts per game has ever been eligible for a contract extension before.
- Very few players looking for the money Lamar is seeking have done so without an agent.

All of those are part of the issue for Jackson, as no one really has a good way to assess his market value when all of those things are first time occurrences.

Jacksons biggest blunder is not having an agent so he could have stayed detached, and let the agent deal with teams, media and all the BS.

 

[menobrown]

I did not realize until yesterday that a lot of players actually are represented by multiple agencies. One that handles contracts, another that handles marketing. I believe both Stroud and Young have gone this route with both having David Muluguheta(Watson's agent) to negotiate with NFL teams but CAA to handle marketing. As far as I know Lamar has no agent for either of these things.

Nothing else to add to that, just seems like way to much for Lamar and his family to try and handle on their own and it might not just be NFL money he's costing himself.

 

[Chaka]

it might not just be NFL money he's costing himself.

He is absolutely costing himself more than NFL money.

I tried to look it up and as far as I can tell he has (had?) one national endorsement deal (Oakley).

After his MVP season he should have had at least one full off season of GEICO (or whatever) ads. Nope.

No shoe deal either. That's crazy.

He has his own apparel company, Era 8 apparel, and they have very few products (including Night Lights unisex cologne and a children's book) on an amateurish website.

 

[-OZ-]

it might not just be NFL money he's costing himself.

He is absolutely costing himself more than NFL money.

I tried to look it up and as far as I can tell he has (had?) one national endorsement deal (Oakley).

After his MVP season he should have had at least one full off season of GEICO (or whatever) ads. Nope.

No shoe deal either. That's crazy.

He has his own apparel company, Era 8 apparel, and they have very few products (including Night Lights unisex cologne and a children's book) on an amateurish website.

Having a unisex cologne and children’s book as your main side business might just be the weirdest thing about all this.

 

[menobrown]

I tried to look it up and as far as I can tell he has (had?) one national endorsement deal (Oakley).

I was thinking of national endorsements before I posted and recall a brief spot on a Madden commercial the year he was on the cover and this Bose commercial a year or so ago:Bose commercial

They both seemed like one-offs more then a long term marketing type deal.

Like you said hard to believe no shoe or major athletic deal I can remotely recall. Like when Nike was giving us the Mike Vick experience adds, Lamar should have had that lined up after his MVP season.

 

[Jakey]

it might not just be NFL money he's costing himself.

He is absolutely costing himself more than NFL money.

I tried to look it up and as far as I can tell he has (had?) one national endorsement deal (Oakley).

After his MVP season he should have had at least one full off season of GEICO (or whatever) ads. Nope.

No shoe deal either. That's crazy.

He has his own apparel company, Era 8 apparel, and they have very few products (including Night Lights unisex cologne and a children's book) on an amateurish website.

The guy is truly uneducated and/or has really unskilled/uneducated people advising him.