Quarterbacks this Offseason: Brady, Rogers, and more. Lamar Jackson to the NFC could change a lot of things

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

When the ravens offered Lamar 5/230, it was reported then the guarantees were 133.    
 

Not sure where you’re getting LJ can get 3/150.   I haven’t seen that anywhere.  Balt doesn’t want to Jay him $45m a year.   So I don’t know how they get to $50m a year? 
 

What am I not understanding? 

Oh I got the exact numbers wrong then, my bad. But $133 million is definitely in the ballpark of $150 million guaranteed that they’ll be willing to do instead of him getting it all guaranteed. 
 

It’s like when Cousins bet on himself for a 3 year $87 million guaranteed with the Vikings (hope I got that number right). Lamar could bet on himself and get a lower number but all guaranteed, like a 3 years only all guaranteed contract similarly. That’s something that the Ravens could stomach, IMO

 

The Kirk Cousins 3 years all guaranteed is what led to me to extrapolating for current QB climate, a similar “bet on yourself” contract for $150 million guaranteed. It’s still a fully guaranteed contract but for less years but gives him the option of betting on himself for more later.

[csmopar]

43 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

This is going to turn into a mess with the nfl. This looks really bad what they are doing to Lamar. It doesn’t hurt to talk to him.

This happens all the time. This is just part of business. 

48 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

 

Why are you quoting some random dude on Twitter?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, csmopar said:

This happens all the time. This is just part of business. 

Why are you quoting some random dude on Twitter?

He is not a random dude. Did you bother looking at his profile.

[csmopar]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

He is not a random dude. Did you bother looking at his profile.

Some dude at some random sports blog. Ok

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

34 minutes ago, Solid84 said:

Why?

 

From teams’ perspective I understand completely. Who wants to deal with an amateur who wants 10s (100s?) of million guaranteed and can’t stay healthy?

 

He needs to get an agent and stop this nonsense. 

It sure looks like ravens owner has colluded with the other owners. Earlier this morning before any of this happened I think it was holder who mentioned ravens must have a good idea no one will offer him a deal. 

Just now, csmopar said:

Some dude at some random sports blog. Ok

Lol no.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Yep 

 

 

[Solid84]

3 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It sure looks like ravens owner has colluded with the other owners. Earlier this morning before any of this happened I think it was holder who mentioned ravens must have a good idea no one will offer him a deal. 

Lol no.

I mean, if anyone has nailed down Lamar’s worth it’s got to be the Ravens, right?
What was their rumored offer? 5yr/$230m with $133m guaranteed? I think that’s steep for what he’s actually delivered on top of his questionable  health and he apparently wants MORE? I think that on top of having to deal with him as an amateur negotiator is turning teams off. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

4 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I mean, if anyone has nailed down Lamar’s worth it’s got to be the Ravens, right?
What was their rumored offer? 5yr/$230m with $133m guaranteed? I think that’s steep for what he’s actually delivered on top of his questionable  health and he apparently wants MORE? I think that on top of having to deal with him as an amateur negotiator is turning teams off. 

if Daniel Jones can get 4 year $195 million for 3 bad seasons followed by a fluke or outlier good year, why not Lamar 5 year, 230 million? It's around the same ballpark. So, basically Ravens have offered the same as Giants have given up for Jones. 

 

No wonder Lamar expects more. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

6 hours ago, Solid84 said:

I mean Lamar hasn’t played a full season in 5 due to injuries.

 

I don’t get why the Giants overpayed Jones, but I guess you have a point that Lamar should expect more or at least the same. 

I now see that, after it's updated in Spotrac, that the contract for Daniel Jones  is 4 years $160 million with $82 million guaranteed. There's incentives that could get him more up to a maximum of 35 millions, so that's how another source had said 4 year, 195 million contract. But, for all the incentives to kick in, Jones would need to justify the criteria specified. 

 

If Lamar had an agent, one can assume it probably would have been easier to find all such nuances and ways to find common ground with Ravens earlier, but we also don't know all the details of discussion between them.

 

One thing we hear is Ravens aren't giving closer to 60% of contract in guaranteed amount and not willing to go higher, and Lamar seems to expect closer to 90-100% of that in guarantees allegedly. The gap in that amount seems to make sense why the contract talks haven't been going anywhere towards any agreement between them. 

[Superman]

15 hours ago, csmopar said:

Well I don’t care who he is, the NFLPA can do NOTHING about this. This type of tag has been in use for decades. There’s no nefarious intention here. 

 

I agree that they can't do anything about it, but I think NFL owners are united in trying to snuff out a potential precedent for guaranteed veteran contracts. Everyone is talking about collusion, but what about just an immediate consensus on this topic, mostly based on their revulsion for the Watson contract last year? I don't know how much discussion is needed to understand that owners don't want to agree to five year guaranteed contracts for any player; all we have to do is look at the history of the league. 

 

I'm of two minds on this. First, if NFL owners are "colluding" in any material sense, it's probably going to lead to a lawsuit, which threatens the business of the NFL. So I don't want that to be the case. 

 

But, I strongly believe that fully guaranteed contracts would be bad for the NFL (they're already bad for the NBA and MLB, and NFL players are less likely to maintain their level of performance for multiple years). So it's my hope that the Watson contract does NOT become a precedent, and remains an unrepeated outlier. 

[stitches]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree that they can't do anything about it, but I think NFL owners are united in trying to snuff out a potential precedent for guaranteed veteran contracts. Everyone is talking about collusion, but what about just an immediate consensus on this topic, mostly based on their revulsion for the Watson contract last year? I don't know how much discussion is needed to understand that owners don't want to agree to five year guaranteed contracts for any player; all we have to do is look at the history of the league. 

 

I'm of two minds on this. First, if NFL owners are "colluding" in any material sense, it's probably going to lead to a lawsuit, which threatens the business of the NFL. So I don't want that to be the case. 

 

But, I strongly believe that fully guaranteed contracts would be bad for the NFL (they're already bad for the NBA and MLB, and NFL players are less likely to maintain their level of performance for multiple years). So it's my hope that the Watson contract does NOT become a precedent, and remains an unrepeated outlier. 

The problem is not that they don't want to give fully guaranteed contract to Lamar. The problem is they(all 5-6 teams that should be interested in him) all announced they are not interested in him at all like 10 minutes after he was given the franchise tag. They don't want to even figure out if he wants fully guaranteed long-term contract. This smells so fishy... 

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

The problem is not that they don't want to give fully guaranteed contract to Lamar. The problem is they(all 5-6 teams that should be interested in him) all announced they are not interested in him at all like 10 minutes after he was given the franchise tag. They don't want to even figure out if he wants fully guaranteed long-term contract. This smells so fishy... 

I think it’s widely known around the league he wants a fully guaranteed contract.  He hasn’t exactly kept that secret in his negotiations with the Ravens.  There is no reason to suspect he’d want something different with your team.  Is that collision or just individual Owners saying we aren’t doing that?  I don’t know.  That’s for lawyers to figure out.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, GoColts8818 said:

I think it’s widely known around the league he wants a fully guaranteed contract.  He hasn’t exactly kept that secret in his negotiations with the Ravens.  There is no reason to suspect he’d want something different with your team.  Is that collision or just individual Owners saying we aren’t doing that?  I don’t know.  That’s for lawyers to figure out.

I kind of find this to be an area of unexplored potential. IMO a smart GM can gain significant edge using fully guaranteed contracts. This is especially true for young star players just entering their prime. I have no idea why an owner would want to preemtively limit the possibilities of their GM to do his job. It's like tying your GM's arm behind his back ... 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

It does not hurt anything to just talk to Lamar.  Seems ravens owner colluded with all the other owners. To not even want to talk to him is pretty wild.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

I kind of find this to be an area of unexplored potential. IMO a smart GM can gain significant edge using fully guaranteed contracts. This is especially true for young star players just entering their prime. I have no idea why an owner would want to preemtively limit the possibilities of their GM to do his job. It's like tying your GM's arm behind his back ... 

 

Until recently, good, young QBs don't become available. So let's set QBs aside for a moment.

 

What kind of player would you want your GM to sign to a fully guaranteed contract?

[stitches]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Until recently, good, young QBs don't become available. So let's set QBs aside for a moment.

 

What kind of player would you want your GM to sign to a fully guaranteed contract?

I would have no problem fully guaranteeing a 5 year contract for most of the top QBs in the league - Herbert, Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, Lawrence will probably get there by the time he's FA, Lamar? Deshaun Watson before his scandals and year of absence? Possibly Hurts, but not certain yet... 

 

From the other positions - I have to do some research on longevity... but maybe some of the top receivers - like AJ Brown last year for example... Ja'Mar Chase when he becomes eligible? 

 

Maybe some of the top young DEs and CBs? Of course, here I'm talking about young players, just coming off their rookie scale contracts... 

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, stitches said:

The problem is not that they don't want to give fully guaranteed contract to Lamar. The problem is they(all 5-6 teams that should be interested in him) all announced they are not interested in him at all like 10 minutes after he was given the franchise tag. They don't want to even figure out if he wants fully guaranteed long-term contract. This smells so fishy... 

 

Is it really a mystery what Lamar wants though? 

 

Here's how this goes: The Ravens non-exclusive tag him, but they have the right to match any offer sheet. So a team that wants to talk to him has to, first of all, make an offer that Lamar would be interested in. Secondly, their offer has to price out the Ravens -- either total value, annual value, or guaranteed money, or a combination of the three. 

 

If you already have a QB -- like the Titans -- and you show interest in Lamar but aren't ready to get the deal done, then you have to be prepared for the fallout, like Matt Ryan deciding he wanted out of Atlanta last year. And if you do get the deal done with Lamar, you have to be ready to move on from your guy. The Titans probably should move on from Tannehill anyway, but all indications are that they don't want to do that right now, probably because of the cap ramifications. So you're going to add a big cap obligation by signing Lamar, and then double up on that by trading/cutting Tannehill? That's a tough ask for a lot of teams that everyone thinks should be super interested in Lamar.

 

It's possible that there's collusion. But the non-exclusive tag is collusive by nature. Everyone knows the game. It's a poorly kept secret what Lamar wants to see, and it's a no-brainer that if Lamar agrees to something the Ravens find reasonable, the Ravens will match, leaving the offer sheet team to clean up whatever in-house mess they've now created. I don't think the Ravens need to hear another team say 'we won't negotiate with Lamar if you non-exclusive tag him,' because I think it kind of goes without saying.

 

And the other part that isn't really being discussed is whether Lamar is even good enough to justify the kind of contract he's about to get. I'm not convinced he is.

[stitches]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Is it really a mystery what Lamar wants though? 

 

Here's how this goes: The Ravens non-exclusive tag him, but they have the right to match any offer sheet. So a team that wants to talk to him has to, first of all, make an offer that Lamar would be interested in. Secondly, their offer has to price out the Ravens -- either total value, annual value, or guaranteed money, or a combination of the three. 

 

If you already have a QB -- like the Titans -- and you show interest in Lamar but aren't ready to get the deal done, then you have to be prepared for the fallout, like Matt Ryan deciding he wanted out of Atlanta last year. And if you do get the deal done with Lamar, you have to be ready to move on from your guy. The Titans probably should move on from Tannehill anyway, but all indications are that they don't want to do that right now, probably because of the cap ramifications. So you're going to add a big cap obligation by signing Lamar, and then double up on that by trading/cutting Tannehill? That's a tough ask for a lot of teams that everyone thinks should be super interested in Lamar.

 

It's possible that there's collusion. But the non-exclusive tag is collusive by nature. Everyone knows the game. It's a poorly kept secret what Lamar wants to see, and it's a no-brainer that if Lamar agrees to something the Ravens find reasonable, the Ravens will match, leaving the offer sheet team to clean up whatever in-house mess they've now created. I don't think the Ravens need to hear another team say 'we won't negotiate with Lamar if you non-exclusive tag him,' because I think it kind of goes without saying.

 

And the other part that isn't really being discussed is whether Lamar is even good enough to justify the kind of contract he's about to get. I'm not convinced he is.

I just don't buy any of this. We are talking about Lamar Jackson. We are talking about a 26 year old who has already been an MVP of the league at the most important position in football. we are talking about one of the most dynamic players in the league. Daniel freaking Jones got 40+ per year. Derek Carr at 32 got 100M guaranteed. I see no reason why any team in need of a QB wouldn't AT LEAST ASK about what Lamar is looking for in FA. Ryan Tannehill and his feelings should be of absolutely no consideration for you when deciding on whether you want to pursue a 26 year old MVP of the league or not. And this is true for about half the league... 

 

OK, let me put it like this - I would rather the Colts trade those 2 picks for Lamar Jackson than for Bryce Young or any of the QBs in this draft. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

I just don't buy any of this. We are talking about Lamar Jackson. We are talking about a 26 year old who has already been an MVP of the league at the most important position in football. we are talking about one of the most dynamic players in the league. Daniel freaking Jones got 40+ per year. Derek Carr at 32 got 100M guaranteed. I see no reason why any team in need of a QB wouldn't AT LEAST ASK about what Lamar is looking for in FA. Ryan Tannehill and his feelings should be of absolutely no consideration for you when deciding on whether you want to pursue a 26 year old MVP of the league or not. And this is true for about half the league... 

 

OK, let me put it like this - I would rather the Colts trade those 2 picks for Lamar Jackson than for Bryce Young or any of the QBs in this draft. 

 

Daniel Jones and Derek Carr aren't relevant here. I have little doubt that the Ravens would offer Lamar the Jones/Carr level of contract right now. The standoff is likely because he wants significantly more -- total, guaranteed, average. 

 

Tannehill's feelings aren't necessarily the problem. The question is whether the Titans are ready to move on from Tannehill (apparently not), and compounded with that, whether they can handle the cap elements of both signing Lamar AND getting rid of Tannehill in the same season (it gets rough). And then if you don't cross the finish line with Lamar, you have a problem in the locker room, which is only a secondary consideration, but still a real concern to be aware of.

 

As for Lamar specifically, please make the argument for him without including 'league MVP' anywhere in the discussion. Since that MVP season -- which was dynamic, but still very limited from a pure QB standpoint -- he's regressed as a passer, by every metric. He has missed five games in each of the last two seasons, and for most of the second half of 2022 he was basically off the reservation. At a certain point, his dynamic athleticism won't be as good of a weapon, and you'll be left with a limited passer who can't be used as often as a running weapon. (Does that happen four years into his fully guaranteed contract, or does it happen in Year 1? Has it already happened??) The league has already fully exposed some of his biggest flaws, and he hasn't really adjusted. He's never come close to 4,000 yards passing, which is like the baseline minimum for a functioning passing attack.

 

I wouldn't trade two firsts for any QB in this draft. But I wouldn't do it for Lamar, either. And I think that's a very real element here. For all the accolades and his much earned standing as a dynamic NFL QB, there are still legitimate concerns about his ability to perform. And maybe some of those teams that everyone thinks should be jumping at the chance to talk to him feel the way I do -- he's great and all, but I don't think I want to tie my franchise to him. (By the way, it's fine to disagree on this. Not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. But I'm not all-in on Lamar, and I bet other people feel the same way.)

[Superman]

38 minutes ago, stitches said:

From the other positions - I have to do some research on longevity... but maybe some of the top receivers - like AJ Brown last year for example... Ja'Mar Chase when he becomes eligible? 

 

Maybe some of the top young DEs and CBs? Of course, here I'm talking about young players, just coming off their rookie scale contracts... 

 

The bolded is getting to my point. First, if you're a great young player, you're not even reaching FA (99% of the time).

 

Second, players that you're describing -- high value positions, top performers -- usually get their first 2-3 years guaranteed. Take Buckner, who signed a five year deal with the Colts, but the first three years were effectively guaranteed, for $56m. He probably could have done three years, $60m, fully guaranteed, if he that designation was important to him. Instead, he did five years, $100m. Players don't get fully guaranteed contracts because they prefer the bigger, longer contract. 

 

Which brings me back to my real point. Why would a team want to agree to a fully guaranteed contract for a player who is unlikely to live up to the terms of that contract? The NFL is a hard cap league, unlike the NBA or MLB. If you tie yourself to a fully guaranteed deal, four or five years into the future, you're probably setting yourself up for failure. 

 

AJ Brown, Jamarr Chase, Justin Jefferson -- we'd expect these guys to continue being big time players for the foreseeable future. That's probably what the Saints expected when they signed Michael Thomas. Joey Bosa, TJ Watt, Khalil Mack, all great players, but how many more 5-8 game/sub 10 sack seasons are those teams going to watch before they decide those guys aren't worth $20-30m/year?

 

I don't think it's responsible to go pushing the envelope on guaranteed money because you might perceive it as a competitive advantage. Usually the money that gets spent in big time free agency starts becoming a regret after 2-3 years. That would only be worse if you're extending those guarantees to 4 or 5 years. QB might be an exception, but even then, there are plenty of cautionary tales (Carson Wentz, for instance). 

[stitches]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

As for Lamar specifically, please make the argument for him without including 'league MVP' anywhere in the discussion. Since that MVP season -- which was dynamic, but still very limited from a pure QB standpoint -- he's regressed as a passer, by every metric. He has missed five games in each of the last two seasons, and for most of the second half of 2022 he was basically off the reservation. At a certain point, his dynamic athleticism won't be as good of a weapon, and you'll be left with a limited passer who can't be used as often as a running weapon. (Does that happen four years into his fully guaranteed contract, or does it happen in Year 1? Has it already happened??) The league has already fully exposed some of his biggest flaws, and he hasn't really adjusted. He's never come close to 4,000 yards passing, which is like the baseline minimum for a functioning passing attack.

Why would I make the argument without including "league MVP"? It's important to set the ceiling here. And this is the ceiling - NFL MVP. And he's already done it at age 26. And this is not a chimera or a dream about what could be like with those QBs in the draft... this already happened and not that long ago. So yeah... he was an NFL MVP relatively recently and I think it's important to stress this, so people actually realize what we are talking about and what is within the reasonable range of outcomes for him if you trade for him. 

 

I think it's faulty reasoning to see Lamar Jackson strictly as a passer. Because he doesn't play that role for Baltimore and he won't play that role for any team that wants to have him on their team. He's a weapon and their whole offense is built around Lamar's ability to run. I'm not arguing that he's a high level passer. He's not. But because of how dynamic he is, he doesn't need to be.  I agree he hasn't exactly transcended that role and ideally you would want him to in order to assure a more graceful transition into his later career years... but I don't see much evidence that his dynamism is fading. He just ran for for 764 yard in 11-12 games (6.8 yards per run this year(second mark of his career)). No idea how you feel about PFF's grades for QBs, but he graded at 85.2 PFF grade this year. This was good for 5th best QB this year. Now of course, the injuries are not ideal and any team showing interest will have to do some work on his health, but again ... so far there is no evidence that it's stopping him from producing and for QBing an offense that scored 25 points a game when he was playing(that would have been 8th best in the league). And BTW, he's doing this without an actual legit receiver. The Ravens might actually have worse receivers than us. (edit: just checked... it's not "might", they have MUCH WORSE receivers than us. They can only dream about having a Michael Pittman type)

 

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I wouldn't trade two firsts for any QB in this draft. But I wouldn't do it for Lamar, either. And I think that's a very real element here. For all the accolades and his much earned standing as a dynamic NFL QB, there are still legitimate concerns about his ability to perform. And maybe some of those teams that everyone thinks should be jumping at the chance to talk to him feel the way I do -- he's great and all, but I don't think I want to tie my franchise to him. (By the way, it's fine to disagree on this. Not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. But I'm not all-in on Lamar, and I bet other people feel the same way.)

I don't think there are legitimate questions about his ability to perform. There are legitimate concerns about his health though... I will give you that. And I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the possibility of trading for him AND giving him that huge contract, but I know for sure I don't want ot trade out next 1st for any of the QBs of this draft. It's possible the draft investment along with the money we need to give him would actually make me prefer another option, but I will have to think about it a bit more. 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, stitches said:

Why would I make the argument without including "league MVP"?

 

Let me ask it this way. What's the likelihood that Lamar ever wins another MVP? 

 

We can't tell the future, but he and his performance have not gotten better since 2019, right? He took the league by storm, and then didn't get any better. As a passer, he's worse.

 

And what's the likelihood that any NFL QB can be weaponized as a runner like Lamar has been, and not break down physically? We recently talked about Cam Newton, who was bigger and stronger than Lamar. He was basically done after eight years, with a pretty significant drop off after Year 5.

 

And I'm not even touching his seemingly mercurial personality.

 

Like I said, we don't have to agree in the way we see Lamar. But can we at least agree that there's a conversation to be had? And maybe some of the 'great fit' teams for Lamar are less enthusiastic about having him than the 'league MVP!' headlines would suggest...

[Superman]

18 hours ago, chad72 said:

It’s like when Cousins bet on himself for a 3 year $87 million guaranteed with the Vikings (hope I got that number right).

 

You got that one wrong too! Close though... It was $84m, with incentives that could have taken it to $90m (not sure whether he hit any of those).

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/inside-kirk-cousins-historic-contract-with-minnesota-vikings-0ap3000000921414

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Let me ask it this way. What's the likelihood that Lamar ever wins another MVP? 

 

Whatever the likeliood, it's higher than Bryce Young, CJ Stroud, Will Levis and Anthony Richardson...  

 

I don't know what the likelihood is... 10%? 20? Who knows... but it's very possible if not likely. 

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

We can't tell the future, but he and his performance have not gotten better since 2019, right? He took the league by storm, and then didn't get any better. As a passer, he's worse.

I disagree he's worse as a passer. He might not be much better though...

 

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

And what's the likelihood that any NFL QB can be weaponized as a runner like Lamar has been, and not break down physically? We recently talked about Cam Newton, who was bigger and stronger than Lamar. He was basically done after eight years, with a pretty significant drop off after Year 5.

Lamar unlike Cam, doesn't take as many vicious hits. His injury this year was a sprained PCL and happened on a sack. Something he's actually been very good at avoiding and something that happens to every QB in the league. His injury the previous year was a sprained ankle and was again on a passing play when a defender fell on his leg. But again... so far I see no actual signs of him slowing down. 

 

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

And I'm not even touching his seemingly mercurial personality.

 

Like I said, we don't have to agree in the way we see Lamar. But can we at least agree that there's a conversation to be had? And maybe some of the 'great fit' teams for Lamar are less enthusiastic about having him than the 'league MVP!' headlines would suggest...

I don't fault teams for ultimately deciding to not pursue Lamar after careful consideration, I just don't see how carefully they all could have considered it within the 10 minutes between teh decision to franchise tag him and their almost synchronized statements that they don't have any interest in him without even having spoken to him or trying to see what he might want. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

Whatever the likeliood, it's higher than Bryce Young, CJ Stroud, Will Levis and Anthony Richardson...  

 

Why are you comparing him to unknown quantities, who can be acquired for less than what it will likely take to get Lamar? If we want one of those four, we can just draft him, and have him on a four year contract that will pay less than what Lamar (reportedly) wants yearly. If somehow we could choose between drafting Lamar at #4, and drafting one of those other players, then it's a no-brainer. That's not the case.

 

Without going point for point on the rest, what I'm saying is I think there's a strong chance that we've already seen the best of Lamar.

 

Quote

I don't fault teams for ultimately deciding to not pursue Lamar after careful consideration, I just don't see how carefully they all could have considered it within the 10 minutes between teh decision to franchise tag him and their almost synchronized statements that they don't have any interest in him without even having spoken to him or trying to see what he might want.

 

I think the reality is that the Ravens tagging Lamar was a given, and these teams had already considered what they would do before the move became official. Just like basically everyone on the Internet has been considering for months now.

[stitches]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The bolded is getting to my point. First, if you're a great young player, you're not even reaching FA (99% of the time).

That's the point. What happens if those players know that there is a team in the league willing to actually give them the 5 year top of the market value, fully guaranteed? Would it be 99% of them not reaching FA or would it be much fewer? 

 

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

Second, players that you're describing -- high value positions, top performers -- usually get their first 2-3 years guaranteed. Take Buckner, who signed a five year deal with the Colts, but the first three years were effectively guaranteed, for $56m. He probably could have done three years, $60m, fully guaranteed, if he that designation was important to him. Instead, he did five years, $100m. Players don't get fully guaranteed contracts because they prefer the bigger, longer contract. 

I'm generally talking about long-term deals here - 5 years... with 3 years you very frequently get 2 of them guaranteed anyways.  From the perspective of the player the 100M contract, 60M guaranteed is worse than 3 year 60M fully guaranteed. Because it allows the team to play it perfect and it takes away choise from the player.

 

For the 5/100m(60GTD) If the player performs to the level of the contract or above, the team just exercises the options and keeps paying him the negotiated salary. If not - then the team just cuts the player and saves themselve the last 40M. 

 

For the 3/60M(60GTD) if the player performs above that contract, he can go to the market and get more money after the contract is done. If he's not performing he has the same fate like in the other scenario and doesn't lose a cent over it. 

 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

Which brings me back to my real point. Why would a team want to agree to a fully guaranteed contract for a player who is unlikely to live up to the terms of that contract? The NFL is a hard cap league, unlike the NBA or MLB. If you tie yourself to a fully guaranteed deal, four or five years into the future, you're probably setting yourself up for failure. 

Because it would give that team advantage over other teams when negotiating. And then it becomes a competition of being smart and giving those types of contracts only to players that are highly likely to live up to those contracts. Nobody is forcing teams to give those contracts... but IMO in rare ocassions they might be worth it. 

 

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

AJ Brown, Jamarr Chase, Justin Jefferson -- we'd expect these guys to continue being big time players for the foreseeable future. That's probably what the Saints expected when they signed Michael Thomas. Joey Bosa, TJ Watt, Khalil Mack, all great players, but how many more 5-8 game/sub 10 sack seasons are those teams going to watch before they decide those guys aren't worth $20-30m/year?

Joey Bosa was injured this season and only played 4-5 games. He's been very productive throughout his whole career. And even in the limited snaps this year, he still was one of the better players at the position. IF the Chargers tell me as a Colts GM - you have to take Bosa but have to guarantee his remaining 3 years, I'm jumping striaght up on this opportunity. This is a good contract... even if it was fully guaranteed for the full 5 years. 

 

Michael Thomas is a weird case... there seem to be some other things going on with him that have nothing to do with football. Ideally you would know about his attitude/character concerns and won't be one of the players you would offer fully guaranteed 5 year deal. 

 

TJ Watt has been one of the best defensive players in the league since he got drafted. Even this year he was productive even though he was returning from injury. If the Steelers called and offered him to us on the condition that we guarantee his full contract, we better do it!!! This is a good contract, even if it was fully guaranteed. I want that contract on the Colts now if it was available. 

 

Khalil Mack is kinda old already, and if the Bears gave him 5 year fully guaranteed contract  I think it would have been a pretty good contract overall. The last year would have been bad, but one bad year out of 5 happen all the time and it's within the range of expected. 

 

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't think it's responsible to go pushing the envelope on guaranteed money because you might perceive it as a competitive advantage. Usually the money that gets spent in big time free agency starts becoming a regret after 2-3 years. That would only be worse if you're extending those guarantees to 4 or 5 years. QB might be an exception, but even then, there are plenty of cautionary tales (Carson Wentz, for instance). 

Yeah... I would say you shouldn't be giving them easily and they should be reserved for top tier players that are just entering their prime. Those would be pretty rare... Maybe a couple per year in the whole NFL.. Rare, but possible.

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Why are you comparing him to unknown quantities, who can be acquired for less than what it will likely take to get Lamar? If we want one of those four, we can just draft him, and have him on a four year contract that will pay less than what Lamar (reportedly) wants yearly. If somehow we could choose between drafting Lamar at #4, and drafting one of those other players, then it's a no-brainer. That's not the case.

 

Yeah, for me the combination of both is the killer here - the draft compensation + the money. I'm using those as a comparison because one of the most likely scenarios is that we will give up our 1st next year in order to move up for our choice of one of those 4. 

 

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

Without going point for point on the rest, what I'm saying is I think there's a strong chance that we've already seen the best of Lamar.

 

I think the reality is that the Ravens tagging Lamar was a given, and these teams had already considered what they would do before the move became official. Just like basically everyone on the Internet has been considering for months now.

I just don't trust those teams, This seemed premeditated and it seemed like it was designed to make a point. I don't even think it says much about what they think of Lamar. This seems like something entirely different to me. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Yeah, for me the combination of both is the killer here - the draft compensation + the money. I'm using those as a comparison because one of the most likely scenarios is that we will give up our 1st next year in order to move up for our choice of one of those 4. 

 

I just don't trust those teams, This seemed premeditated and it seemed like it was designed to make a point. I don't even think it says much about what they think of Lamar. This seems like something entirely different to me. 

 

It could be collusive. I'm just saying I don't think it necessarily has to be, as teams were or should have been aware of what was likely to happen, and what they might do in response. 

 

And I do think some teams are completely against the idea of a fully guaranteed five year deal for any player, bottom line, and that probably has a big influence on the response to Lamar being tagged. But I also think Lamar's status is a little overrated in public opinion. Yeah, he's good, but I'm less excited about the prospect of having him than other people are.

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yeah... I would say you shouldn't be giving them easily and they should be reserved for top tier players that are just entering their prime. Those would be pretty rare... Maybe a couple per year in the whole NFL.. Rare, but possible.

 

You're an NBA fan, right? Why are basically all NBA contracts guaranteed? It's not required in the CBA...

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're an NBA fan, right? Why are basically all NBA contracts guaranteed? It's not required in the CBA...

Because the players have much more power than the players in the NFL. There are fewer of them and at the top the competition for their signature is fierce. At this point if you want a top 50 player or thereabout you better give him the exact contract he wants(structure-wise - some might want 3 years, because they want ot be free agents early, some might want 5 years, some might want 4 but with a player option on the last one...) and the teams would just do it because if they don't another team will...

 

Quite possibly another part of the reason might be that the NBA is not as violent of a game too so there is less of a risk of big injuries, so teams don't mind guaranteing those contracts. The salary cap(no hard cap) probably plays a bit of a role too... 

[chad72]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

You got that one wrong too! Close though... It was $84m, with incentives that could have taken it to $90m (not sure whether he hit any of those).

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/inside-kirk-cousins-historic-contract-with-minnesota-vikings-0ap3000000921414

 

So, the likelihood of a similar deal, like 3 years $150 million, all guaranteed for Lamar might be more agreeable to both if a) Lamar wants to bet on himself and b) Ravens should have no issues minimizing their risk to 3 years, IMO.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Because the players have much more power than the players in the NFL. There are fewer of them and at the top the competition for their signature is fierce. At this point if you want a top 50 player or thereabout you better give him the exact contract he wants(structure-wise - some might want 3 years, because they want ot be free agents early, some might want 5 years, some might want 4 but with a player option on the last one...) and the teams would just do it because if they don't another team will...

 

Quite possibly another part of the reason might be that the NBA is not as violent of a game too so there is less of a risk of big injuries, so teams don't mind guaranteing those contracts. The salary cap(no hard cap) probably plays a bit of a role too... 

 

All of those are factors, but the real reason is precedent. It's established that NBA contracts are almost always fully guaranteed. Some rookies and undrafted players will get only partial guarantees, or 1-2 year contracts with options; and at times a veteran will get only a partial guarantee in the 4th year of a contract. Other than those situations, an NBA player can expect his contract to be fully guaranteed. It's not even a discussion, it just happens, because that's SOP.

 

So while your scenario might seem reasonable, what it would actually do is establish a precedent, and eventually expand well beyond the top tier, 1-2 players per year. There will be a FA where the best available MLB is so much better than anyone else on the market, and he signs for four years, fully guaranteed. Then the next year, a MLB with a year remaining on his contract is negotiating with his own team, and comparing himself to the player who just signed, saying 'if he got four years, fully guaranteed, that's my starting point.' And next thing you know, that's just the cost of doing business. Just like the NBA.

 

Except, like you said, the NFL has a hard cap, and players fall off more drastically, and having 10-15% of your cap tied up by an underperforming player for multiple seasons is much more detrimental when you have a 53 player roster. Imagine having the NFL equivalent of Kristaps Porzingis taking up 15% of your cap for multiple seasons... (KP is actually 24% of the NBA cap, but no NFL player reaches that level.)

 

I think that's the reason NFL owners will continue taking the hard line on fully guaranteed contracts for long term deals. Long term deals are already detrimental in a lot of cases. Fully guaranteed long term deals would be terrible for most teams. And once you establish the precedent, the conversation is over, that just becomes SOP for everyone.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

So, the likelihood of a similar deal, like 3 years $150 million, all guaranteed for Lamar might be more agreeable to both if a) Lamar wants to bet on himself and b) Ravens should have no issues minimizing their risk to 3 years, IMO.

 

At that point, the issue becomes cap flexibility, because three years doesn't give you a lot of room to manipulate your cap numbers. But yeah, it sounds like the Ravens have already offered $130m+ guaranteed, no doubt tied to the first three years, so it's not a stretch to think they'd do three years, $150m. Maybe a couple void years to spread out the cap hits... 

[stitches]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

All of those are factors, but the real reason is precedent. It's established that NBA contracts are almost always fully guaranteed. Some rookies and undrafted players will get only partial guarantees, or 1-2 year contracts with options; and at times a veteran will get only a partial guarantee in the 4th year of a contract. Other than those situations, an NBA player can expect his contract to be fully guaranteed. It's not even a discussion, it just happens, because that's SOP.

 

So while your scenario might seem reasonable, what it would actually do is establish a precedent, and eventually expand well beyond the top tier, 1-2 players per year. There will be a FA where the best available MLB is so much better than anyone else on the market, and he signs for four years, fully guaranteed. Then the next year, a MLB with a year remaining on his contract is negotiating with his own team, and comparing himself to the player who just signed, saying 'if he got four years, fully guaranteed, that's my starting point.' And next thing you know, that's just the cost of doing business. Just like the NBA.

 

Except, like you said, the NFL has a hard cap, and players fall off more drastically, and having 10-15% of your cap tied up by an underperforming player for multiple seasons is much more detrimental when you have a 53 player roster. Imagine having the NFL equivalent of Kristaps Porzingis taking up 15% of your cap for multiple seasons... (KP is actually 24% of the NBA cap, but no NFL player reaches that level.)

 

I think that's the reason NFL owners will continue taking the hard line on fully guaranteed contracts for long term deals. Long term deals are already detrimental in a lot of cases. Fully guaranteed long term deals would be terrible for most teams. And once you establish the precedent, the conversation is over, that just becomes SOP for everyone.

I guess I don't see the huge problem with that. Let the market sort it out. Maybe initially there will be a surge of long-term fully guaranteed contracts... but once teams reach their salary cap and are unable to get rid off those contracts they will need to stop giving them and hopefully learn that not everybody should get those contract. The reason those are the norm in the NBA is not because it's established precedent - it's because IT WORKS. In the grand scheme of things it actually works, if you are able to give 3 top 20 players top of the market money, it usually means you will be competitive for the duration of those contracts. And sure, once in a while you get a bad contract that hinders your franchise... but that's where the best GMs and FOs make their money - targeting the right players, getting rid off potentially bad contracts early, etc. 

 

I don't think the same will be true in the NFL. It will simply not work - it will produce worse results rather than better. First, there are much more players playing and contributing to winning and the portion of the contribution is much smaller and relatively evenly distributed(except for QBs). So the reward is much smaller, while the risk is bigger(more injuries, hard cap). You can have the best LT in the league(like the Browns had for a decade with Joe Thomas) and it will mean nothing because because you have 20 other starters that play the same number of snaps as your superstar LT and 20-30 more rotation players that impact winning. In the NBA if you get the best player at any position in the league, you are probably guaranteed ~.500 record almost regardless of who else is on the team. In the NFL the only position like that is QB. 

 

So once the initial fluctuations pass... I would expect the league to be giving those types of contracts mainly to QBs and very rarely to some other high value position superstars just entering their prime. 

[csmopar]

4 hours ago, stitches said:

The problem is not that they don't want to give fully guaranteed contract to Lamar. The problem is they(all 5-6 teams that should be interested in him) all announced they are not interested in him at all like 10 minutes after he was given the franchise tag. They don't want to even figure out if he wants fully guaranteed long-term contract. This smells so fishy... 

it’s more the two first rounders you’d give up for him than anything else. Find me a team that has done that in recent times

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

it’s more the two first rounders you’d give up for him than anything else. Find me a team that has done that in recent times

Rams. For worse QB. 

Broncos for Wilson... 

 

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Rams. For worse QB. 

Broncos for Wilson... 

 

I’m talking about with the Non Exclusive Tag. Both of those were trades 

[stitches]

Just now, csmopar said:

I’m talking about with the Non Exclusive Tag. Both of those were trades 

No idea... I don't think teams use it very often? 

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

No idea... I don't think teams use it very often? 

It’s used all the time, even one where we were involved initially. Alex Mack was that one. Browns matched though. We’ve also used it ourselves.

[esmort]

I'm in the it sets a bad precedent camp. The owners need to put a stop to it, before the rest of the league is forced to give out ridiculous contracts because the "Browns were the Browns" and made a stupid decision.

 

Even outside the fact I believe fully guaranteed contracts are bad for the NFL. I don't believe I would give a Watson level + fully guaranteed contract to Lamar; too many risks.