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

[csmopar]

Just now, esmort said:

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 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.

Exactly. People are quick to point to some tinfoil hat theories about collusion or racism etc. but they completely over look the fact that Lamar himself has asked for a fully guaranteed contract. Unlike Watson, Lamar has had ONE great season, and 2 seasons in a row where he’s been subpar and not even played more than 7 games in either of those two seasons. 
 

Any interested team would have to A: have enough capspace to give such a deal

B: be willing to give up not one but TWO consecutive first round picks 

C: be willing to take such risk as not having Lamar for a portion of each season.

 

this is business folks being smart and looking at this from a risk weighed ROI. 
 

not even Mahomes has a fully guaranteed deal and he’s arguably the best QB in the league since Peyton retired and Mahomes came in

[Superman]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

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. 

 

The bolded is exactly what's happening, right? And the push back is that it's unfair collusion.

 

I think once the dam breaks -- if it ever happens -- it will bring a huge change to the way contracts are done in the NFL. I don't think NFL teams are good at measured changes. It's like you said, start using fully guaranteed contracts as a competitive advantage to snag the FAs you want, and then teams will be off to the races. 

[stitches]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The bolded is exactly what's happening, right? And the push back is that it's unfair collusion.

 

I think once the dam breaks -- if it ever happens -- it will bring a huge change to the way contracts are done in the NFL. I don't think NFL teams are good at measured changes. It's like you said, start using fully guaranteed contracts as a competitive advantage to snag the FAs you want, and then teams will be off to the races. 

No, this looks more like a business cartel rather than the market sorting it out.

[NewColtsFan]

45 minutes ago, stitches said:

No, this looks more like a business cartel rather than the market sorting it out.

One issue I heard on ESPN today about why teams are so publicly shying away is this…..

 

Lamar doesn’t have an agent.  He represents himself.   And that takes delicate negotiations to an entirely different level.   Few, if any teams want to deal with that.   In their own way, they’re telling him to get an agent asap.   Thought that was an interesting point. 

[stitches]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

One issue I heard on ESPN today about why teams are so publicly shying away is this…..

 

Lamar doesn’t have an agent.  He represents himself.   And that takes delicate negotiations to an entirely different level.   Few, if any teams want to deal with that.   In their own way, they’re telling him to get an agent asap.   Thought that was an interesting point. 

I think it's the other way around. IMO teams are hoping players never get agents. Agents and their agencies actually have connections and pull with media, with other teams, etc. They can exercise collective leverage to get the best for their clients. 

 

The Ravens have been playing Lamar for 2 years now, instead of getting an extension. He's been playing for minimal benefit from his exceptional early career success. Just a comparison - Josh Allen signed contract extension TWO YEARS ago with severely bumped up salary. And you can argue Lamar has been more successful in the NFL than Allen. Can you imagine lets say... CAA letting this thing go through for 2 years after Josh Allen got his big contract a year after Lamar won the NFL MVP? 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

I think it's the other way around. IMO teams are hoping players never get agents. Agents and their agencies actually have connections and pull with media, with other teams, etc. They can exercise collective leverage to get the best for their clients. 

 

The Ravens have been playing Lamar for 2 years now, instead of getting an extension. He's been playing for minimal benefit from his exceptional early career success. Just a comparison - Josh Allen signed contract extension TWO YEARS ago with severely bumped up salary. And you can argue Lamar has been more successful in the NFL than Allen. Can you imagine lets say... CAA letting this thing go through for 2 years after Josh Allen got his big contract a year after Lamar won the NFL MVP? 

 

 

I think you have it backwards.    Teams would rather deal with professionals than deal with amateurs.   Dealing with a person who does not have an agent is MUCH HARDER.   Because there’s no buffer.   You can’t speak candidly and talk about the real reasons why they’re not being rewarded because you’re dealing with the player themself.   To steal from the movies, They can’t  handle the truth.    Lamar has been injured the past two years.  He doesn’t want to deal with that.   And he’s doing this — no agent — to save money.   And the reality is, that LJ has cost himself real money by representing himself.   By being cheap, he’s cost himself money. 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think you have it backwards.    Teams would rather deal with professionals than deal with amateurs.   Dealing with a person who does not have an agent is MUCH HARDER.   Because there’s no buffer.   You can’t speak candidly and talk about the real reasons why they’re not being rewarded because you’re dealing with the player themself.   To steal from the movies, They can’t  handle the truth.    Lamar has been injured the past two years.  He doesn’t want to deal with that.   And he’s doing this — no agent — to save money.   And the reality is, that LJ has cost himself real money by representing himself.   By being cheap, he’s cost himself money. 

Oh he's definitely cost himself money, don't get me wrong. I'm not defending him here by any means... but I think you are mistaking ease of negotiations with preferable outcomes. I bet it would be easier for the Ravens to negotiate with an agent. But it would also be much more expensive for them. So if they have to deal with a bit of a turbulent negotiations, they would and already have  saved a ton of money. 

[Superman]

9 hours ago, stitches said:

No, this looks more like a business cartel rather than the market sorting it out.

 

Meh. It's like six teams who have said no thanks. So far...

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Meh. It's like six teams who have said no thanks. So far...

It's all teams that actually need a QB. 

 

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens over the next month or so... 

[Superman]

On 3/9/2023 at 8:30 AM, stitches said:

It's all teams that actually need a QB. 

 

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens over the next month or so... 

 

Coming back to this, now with more clarified and recent info having come out. What do you think Lamar wants? Is he tired of the Ravens, and wants to go to a new team? Does he just want the Watson contract? Is it a matter of proving everyone wrong who says he needs to have an agent?

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Coming back to this, now with more clarified and recent info having come out. What do you think Lamar wants? Is he tired of the Ravens, and wants to go to a new team? Does he just want the Watson contract? Is it a matter of proving everyone wrong who says he needs to have an agent?

No idea... do we know if even one team has reached out to Lamar to figure out what he actually wants? It feels like this is actually perfect scenario for teams to reach out and it be left a secret - Lamar is not leaking, so if a team has interest they can pretty harmlessly figure out if they can make an offer that would at the same time be accepted by Lamar and passed on by the Ravens. 

 

I still am not sure the Ravens would reject to match any offer. Lets say the Colts offer 4/200 fully guaranteed. Do they match? What about the if it was the Commanders? 

 

It's really hard to figure out a player's motivations in his pursuit of a contact when he's not saying anything and when there is no agency behind him to pump up narratives in the media... 

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

No idea... do we know if even one team has reached out to Lamar to figure out what he actually wants? It feels like this is actually perfect scenario for teams to reach out and it be left a secret - Lamar is not leaking, so if a team has interest they can pretty harmlessly figure out if they can make an offer that would at the same time be accepted by Lamar and passed on by the Ravens. 

 

I still am not sure the Ravens would reject to match any offer. Lets say the Colts offer 4/200 fully guaranteed. Do they match? What about the if it was the Commanders? 

 

It's really hard to figure out a player's motivations in his pursuit of a contact when he's not saying anything and when there is no agency behind him to pump up narratives in the media... 

 

That was the same number that was in my head. If Irsay has the money to put into an escrow account for that much, giving up 2 first rounders for Lamar as opposed to what we all thought would be necessary for a rookie at No.1 would be a better return on investment. Just put the 4th year as a team option to exercise should the player fail to be healthy entering into the 4th year, essentially making it a 3 year $150 million guaranteed. 

[stitches]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

That was the same number that was in my head. If Irsay has the money to put into an escrow account for that much, giving up 2 first rounders for Lamar as opposed to what we all thought would be necessary for a rookie at No.1 would be a better return on investment. Just put the 4th year as a team option to exercise should the player fail to be healthy entering into the 4th year, essentially making it a 3 year $150 million guaranteed. 

3/150 or 4/200(150 guaranteed) get matched almost certainly IMO. The hard part is to make an offer that the Ravens won't match but you are happy with... 4/200 fully guaranteed might be getting closer... or does it need to be 5/250? I don't know if they don't match even that one... 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

No idea... do we know if even one team has reached out to Lamar to figure out what he actually wants? It feels like this is actually perfect scenario for teams to reach out and it be left a secret - Lamar is not leaking, so if a team has interest they can pretty harmlessly figure out if they can make an offer that would at the same time be accepted by Lamar and passed on by the Ravens. 

 

I still am not sure the Ravens would reject to match any offer. Lets say the Colts offer 4/200 fully guaranteed. Do they match? What about the if it was the Commanders? 

 

It's really hard to figure out a player's motivations in his pursuit of a contact when he's not saying anything and when there is no agency behind him to pump up narratives in the media... 

 

Did you see this?

 

 

I don't think it's a mystery, but I'm asking what you think because you seem unconvinced. What's questionable to me is whether he just wants to leave the Ravens, maybe because of how they operate, or the way they've handled the WR position, etc. But I think it's pretty obvious that the primary driving factor is the contract details.

 

He's pretty much confirmed that Schefter's report of the Ravens' offer of $133m guaranteed is legit, and he didn't accept that offer.

 

So I'm wondering, based on all of this, what you think it would take for Lamar to sign an offer sheet, and whether you think the Ravens would match. And I guess a connected question is what you think another team has to offer for Lamar to sign and the Ravens to decline the match. 

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

3/150 or 4/200(150 guaranteed) get matched almost certainly IMO. The hard part is to make an offer that the Ravens won't match but you are happy with... 4/200 fully guaranteed might be getting closer... or does it need to be 5/250? I don't know if they don't match even that one... 

 

That is what it will take, IMO. Or they could wait till the feud gets worse and Lamar doesn't sign the tag. The Ravens then trade him for a 1st and two 2nds or something with a sign and trade. 

 

More than the money, it is the 2 first rounders that is the bigger hurdle, IMO.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, chad72 said:

That is what it will take, IMO. Or they could wait till the feud gets worse and Lamar doesn't sign the tag. The Ravens then trade him for a 1st and two 2nds or something with a sign and trade. 

 

He already said he'll play on the tag... Maybe something an agent would have told him to keep his mouth shut about, but oh well.

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't think it's a mystery, but I'm asking what you think because you seem unconvinced. What's questionable to me is whether he just wants to leave the Ravens, maybe because of how they operate, or the way they've handled the WR position, etc. But I think it's pretty obvious that the primary driving factor is the contract details.

 

He's pretty much confirmed that Schefter's report of the Ravens' offer of $133m guaranteed is legit, and he didn't accept that offer.

 

So I'm wondering, based on all of this, what you think it would take for Lamar to sign an offer sheet, and whether you think the Ravens would match. And I guess a connected question is what you think another team has to offer for Lamar to sign and the Ravens to decline the match. 

 

Cleveland Browns have really messed it up for the rest of the NFL owners. However, there were several deals signed AFTER Watson's deal that showed the Browns' deal was an outlier. Yet, Lamar chooses to be hung up on that.

 

I don't think it is possible to make Lamar happy outside a 5/230 guaranteed deal like that of Watson. He is obviously getting bad advice.

[stitches]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Did you see this?

 

 

I had not seen that. So he's only gotten the 3 years guaranteed at 133M? The rest I see as a spin by Schefter in help of the Ravens. Injury guarantee means nothing unless he's injured. and the final one is again NOT guaranteed no matter how many times Schefter says the word "guaranteed" and includes qualifiers towards that "guaranteed" word... the fact is ... It's NOT guaranteed. They can cut him and he's not owed that money. This is the OPPOSITE of guaranteed!  They can cut him after the 3d year unless he's injured and he will have gotten 133M. And not a cent more. This is what I'm getting from this. I'm sorry but I understand the player here. Daniel Jones got about the same in guaranteed money. How is that even close to what Lamar deserves? This is why Lamar actually needs an agent. Can you imagine what an agency like CAA would have done in case a team tried to pull this nonsense against their client? 

 

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't think it's a mystery, but I'm asking what you think because you seem unconvinced. What's questionable to me is whether he just wants to leave the Ravens, maybe because of how they operate, or the way they've handled the WR position, etc. But I think it's pretty obvious that the primary driving factor is the contract details.

I THINK he wants fair pay before anything else. And yes, of course the details are the important bit. What Schefter calls "200 guaranteed" here, he would have presented as "133M guaranteed" if he actually signed that one, because that's the number the team would have given him if Lamar signed that contract. 

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

He's pretty much confirmed that Schefter's report of the Ravens' offer of $133m guaranteed is legit, and he didn't accept that offer.

I wouldn't accept it either if I was him. The difference is, I would have had an agent to do my dirty work. 

 

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

So I'm wondering, based on all of this, what you think it would take for Lamar to sign an offer sheet, and whether you think the Ravens would match. And I guess a connected question is what you think another team has to offer for Lamar to sign and the Ravens to decline the match. 

I think he probably signs 4/200 fully guaranteed. I think it would depend on who makes the offer... there's difference between getting the no. 4 pick vs getting a pick in the 20s for example. I think 4/200 is a 50/50 proposition. Anything less both in years and in money probably gets martched. You might need to go higher than 4/200 if you don't want them to match. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

I had not seen that. So he's only gotten the 3 years guaranteed at 133M? The rest I see as a spin by Schefter in help of the Ravens. Injury guarantee means nothing unless he's injured. and the final one is again NOT guaranteed no matter how many times Schefter says the word "guaranteed" and includes qualifiers towards that "guaranteed" word... the fact is ... It's NOT guaranteed. They can cut him and he's not owed that money. This is the OPPOSITE of guaranteed!  They can cut him after the 3d year unless he's injured and he will have gotten 133M. And not a cent more. This is what I'm getting from this. I'm sorry but I understand the player here. Daniel Jones got about the same in guaranteed money. How is that even close to what Lamar deserves? This is why Lamar actually needs an agent. Can you imagine what an agency like CAA would have done in case a team tried to pull this nonsense against their client? 

 

I agree that some of this is spin to cover the Ravens -- and they're the likely source of the info, since Lamar and his mom aren't talking to anyone. The total guarantee of $200m includes all the future guarantees, but apparently the $133m is what would have been fully guaranteed at signing.

 

BUT -- let's compare apples to apples, right? Like you said, all the triggered future guarantees -- likely to be earned or not -- are not the issue here. Just focusing on what Lamar himself repeated, the guarantee is $133m, over three years; I'm assuming that's fully guaranteed at signing. Daniel Jones got $81m guaranteed at signing, not even close to $133m.

 

So if that's the Ravens' best offer so far, it's pretty much in line with what every other NFL QB has done in recent years. Except for Watson. Kyler Murray's guarantee at signing was $103m; with future guarantees it would total $189.5m. Russell Wilson, $124m at signing, $161m total guaranteed. Aaron Rodgers in 2022, $101.5m at signing, $150.8m total guaranteed. All numbers per Spotrac, and all three contracts done after Watson's deal. Obviously, Murray is the most relevant comp, but the precedent is well established.

 

To your comment about CAA's response if 'a team tried to pull this nonsense'? It's the structure of every QB contract in recent history -- except Watson. Josh Allen is represented by CAA, look at his contract: $100m guaranteed at signing, $150m including future guarantees, $258m total contract value. This is typical, and CAA knows that. (By the way, CAA represented Daniel Jones, until recently, since you mentioned his contract structure. Can't imagine they were arguing for something dramatically different than what he finally got, right?)

 

This reported offer for Lamar beats Murray's contract in initial guarantee, and future guarantee, and the structure is right in line with industry standard. You're talking about it as if it's an insult to Lamar. 

 

Quote

I think he probably signs 4/200 fully guaranteed. I think it would depend on who makes the offer... there's difference between getting the no. 4 pick vs getting a pick in the 20s for example. I think 4/200 is a 50/50 proposition. You might need to go higher if you don't want them to match. 

 

So you think the Ravens might not match if the Colts offer 4/200, but would potentially match if the Bucs offered the same, because the Colts pick at #4 and the Bucs pick at #19? 

 

Let's accept that, for the sake of this conversation. Are you in favor of signing Lamar for four years, $200m, fully guaranteed, and giving up #4 this year, plus our first rounder next year? 

 

What about if you're picking in the late teens or 20s, and think you have to go higher to make sure the Ravens don't match? Would you do the Watson contract, plus two first rounders? 

[throwing BBZ]

49 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

I had not seen that. So he's only gotten the 3 years guaranteed at 133M? The rest I see as a spin by Schefter in help of the Ravens. Injury guarantee means nothing unless he's injured. and the final one is again NOT guaranteed no matter how many times Schefter says the word "guaranteed" and includes qualifiers towards that "guaranteed" word... the fact is ... It's NOT guaranteed. They can cut him and he's not owed that money. This is the OPPOSITE of guaranteed!  They can cut him after the 3d year unless he's injured and he will have gotten 133M. And not a cent more. This is what I'm getting from this. I'm sorry but I understand the player here. Daniel Jones got about the same in guaranteed money. How is that even close to what Lamar deserves? This is why Lamar actually needs an agent. Can you imagine what an agency like CAA would have done in case a team tried to pull this nonsense against their client? 

 

I THINK he wants fair pay before anything else. And yes, of course the details are the important bit. What Schefter calls "200 guaranteed" here, he would have presented as "133M guaranteed" if he actually signed that one, because that's the number the team would have given him if Lamar signed that contract. 

I wouldn't accept it either if I was him. The difference is, I would have had an agent to do my dirty work. 

 

I think he probably signs 4/200 fully guaranteed. I think it would depend on who makes the offer... there's difference between getting the no. 4 pick vs getting a pick in the 20s for example. I think 4/200 is a 50/50 proposition. Anything less both in years and in money probably gets martched. You might need to go higher than 4/200 if you don't want them to match. 

 

Good man stitch you wrote an awful lot of words based on being totally off comparing Jones to Lamar.
 And really, let some other sucker pay him, cause it won't happen here.

[stitches]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree that some of this is spin to cover the Ravens -- and they're the likely source of the info, since Lamar and his mom aren't talking to anyone. The total guarantee of $200m includes all the future guarantees, but apparently the $133m is what would have been fully guaranteed at signing.

 

BUT -- let's compare apples to apples, right? Like you said, all the triggered future guarantees -- likely to be earned or not -- are not the issue here. Just focusing on what Lamar himself repeated, the guarantee is $133m, over three years; I'm assuming that's fully guaranteed at signing. Daniel Jones got $81m guaranteed at signing, not even close to $133m.

 

So if that's the Ravens' best offer so far, it's pretty much in line with what every other NFL QB has done in recent years. Except for Watson. Kyler Murray's guarantee at signing was $103m; with future guarantees it would total $189.5m. Russell Wilson, $124m at signing, $161m total guaranteed. Aaron Rodgers in 2022, $101.5m at signing, $150.8m total guaranteed. All numbers per Spotrac, and all three contracts done after Watson's deal. Obviously, Murray is the most relevant comp, but the precedent is well established.

 

To your comment about CAA's response if 'a team tried to pull this nonsense'? It's the structure of every QB contract in recent history -- except Watson. Josh Allen is represented by CAA, look at his contract: $100m guaranteed at signing, $150m including future guarantees, $258m total contract value. This is typical, and CAA knows that. (By the way, CAA represented Daniel Jones, until recently, since you mentioned his contract structure. Can't imagine they were arguing for something dramatically different than what he finally got, right?)

 

This reported offer for Lamar beats Murray's contract in initial guarantee, and future guarantee, and the structure is right in line with industry standard. You're talking about it as if it's an insult to Lamar. 

A lot of those were before Watson's contract. I understand NFL teams want to pretend like this never happened and are trying to cartel this thing into oblivion but it actually happened and it happened for a player with much more serious concerns than Lamar and much less accomplished than Lamar. None of the recent signings(after Watson) are at the level of Lamar and none of them should be benchmark for what Lamar gets. Josh Allen's contract was like.. .2 years ago. The market has moved since then. I don't think Murray is at the same level as Lamar. Rodgers is old, Daniel Jones is not in the same galaxy of Lamar. I don't think there is a good comp in the last year or so to what Lamar should be getting. Watson is probably the best comp... if he wasn't a serial sexual predator ... and Lamar is still more accomplished than him. 

 

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

So you think the Ravens might not match if the Colts offer 4/200, but would potentially match if the Bucs offered the same, because the Colts pick at #4 and the Bucs pick at #19? 

Not sure. I'm just guessing. No idea what they are thinking... but it would be of consideration if it's close. If they have some set sum they won't go over, they might match one offer and not the other around that sum depending on the picks they will be getting.  I would guess their evaluation of the QBs in the draft might have something to do with it too, since they will be needing a new QB if they let him go. 

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

Let's accept that, for the sake of this conversation. Are you in favor of signing Lamar for four years, $200m, fully guaranteed, and giving up #4 this year, plus our first rounder next year? 

I don't think it's outrageous. I think it's probably better than trading up to no. 1 this year. Which I didn't want. I think the combination of the two is the real killer here... the money AND the picks. I would be in favor of doing it if I had any trust in Ballard to do all the additional moves that need to be done if we are going this route. But I don't trust him to do it so... I think I am going to stick with either drafting RIchardson or going the full tank mode for next year... but again, I don't believe Ballard would do that either so I'm left with the middle ground - take Richardson... hope you develop him... if by any chance you get really high pick next year... draft Maye or WIlliams... 

 

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

What about if you're picking in the late teens or 20s, and think you have to go higher to make sure the Ravens don't match? Would you do the Watson contract, plus two first rounders? 

Again, depends on how close you think the team is. I don't think we are close and I don't trust Ballard to make the moves required to get us close.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

A lot of those were before Watson's contract. I understand NFL teams want to pretend like this never happened and are trying to cartel this thing into oblivion but it actually happened and it happened for a player with much more serious concerns than Lamar and much less accomplished than Lamar. None of the recent signings(after Watson) are at the level of Lamar and none of them should be benchmark for what Lamar gets. Josh Allen's contract was like.. .2 years ago. The market has moved since then. 

 

I'll give you Rodgers, his deal happened around the same time as Watson's, and was probably in the works for a few weeks before it got done. 

 

But Murray and Wilson were well after Watson's deal, by months.

 

You say the market has moved since Allen's contract. That's reflected in Murray's annual average ($46m/year, vs $43m/year), which is established precedent. What's not established is that the next guy will dramatically change contract structure, which is why Murray's structure looks basically the same as Allen's. And I would bet that the structure of the Ravens' best offer to Lamar looks basically the same as everyone else's -- except Watson's.

 

I don't agree that one contract changes the market, especially as it relates to structure. The question is whether one contract -- Watson's, in this case -- will change the market, or be treated as an outlier. Just because the Browns agreed to a fully guaranteed contract for Watson doesn't mean every notable QB that comes after should expect a fully guaranteed contract. The fact that Kyler Murray signed four months later, and did not reinforce the Watson structure as a new standard, shows that the market has NOT moved. Not yet.

 

Quote

I think I am going to stick with either drafting RIchardson or going the full tank mode for next year... but again, I don't believe Ballard would do that either so I'm left with the middle ground - take Richardson... hope you develop him... if by any chance you get really high pick next year... draft Maye or WIlliams... 

 

Set aside what you think Ballard would do to follow up. I'm asking if you think it's a good move and an acceptable value. 

 

Also pointing out that you don't sign a 6th year vet to a fully guaranteed contract, and then give any real consideration to drafting another QB in the top five the following year. So this is a huge commitment, at least 4-5 years, and sets the direction of your franchise. And if you're not right, there's no mulligan. 

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I'll give you Rodgers, his deal happened around the same time as Watson's, and was probably in the works for a few weeks before it got done. 

 

But Murray and Wilson were well after Watson's deal, by months.

 

You say the market has moved since Allen's contract. That's reflected in Murray's annual average ($46m/year, vs $43m/year), which is established precedent. What's not established is that the next guy will dramatically change contract structure, which is why Murray's structure looks basically the same as Allen's. And I would bet that the structure of the Ravens' best offer to Lamar looks basically the same as everyone else's -- except Watson's.

 

I don't agree that one contract changes the market, especially as it relates to structure. The question is whether one contract -- Watson's, in this case -- will change the market, or be treated as an outlier. Just because the Browns agreed to a fully guaranteed contract for Watson doesn't mean every notable QB that comes after should expect a fully guaranteed contract. The fact that Kyler Murray signed four months later, and did not reinforce the Watson structure as a new standard, shows that the market has NOT moved. Not yet.

That's the thing. I don't think Murray is of the same tier of QB that Lamar is at. Jones is not on the same planet as Lamar. Rodgers is old, as is Wilson... Weirdly enough Watson is probably the best comparison(sans serial sexual predatory behavior). Young QB coming off rookie deal having shown a lot of promise and having established himself as a franchise QB you can win with... and most importantly - just entering his prime, rather than being on the downslope(Rodgers, Wilson). 

 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

 

Set aside what you think Ballard would do to follow up. I'm asking if you think it's a good move and an acceptable value. 

I think it is. If you think he is a franchise QB and if you think you can win with him at the highest level, I think the value is OK. I'm having trouble with doing both money AND picks, but ultimately I think the value is OK. 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

Also pointing out that you don't sign a 6th year vet to a fully guaranteed contract, and then give any real consideration to drafting another QB in the top five the following year. So this is a huge commitment, at least 4-5 years, and sets the direction of your franchise. And if you're not right, there's no mulligan. 

Yep. I understand that. There would be no mulligan for Ballard either no matter what he chooses. I doubt he will be given the chance to pick a second QB if the first one he picks this year fails. 

[Superman]

23 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's the thing. I don't think Murray is of the same tier of QB that Lamar is at. Jones is not on the same planet as Lamar. Rodgers is old, as is Wilson... Weirdly enough Watson is probably the best comparison(sans serial sexual predatory behavior). Young QB coming off rookie deal having shown a lot of promise and having established himself as a franchise QB you can win with... and most importantly - just entering his prime, rather than being on the downslope(Rodgers, Wilson). 

 

Jones isn't relevant, his contract isn't in the same stratosphere as those other guys.

 

Murray vs Lamar is an interesting conversation. I said earlier, I think Lamar is overrated on the surface, especially looking long term. Yeah, he's a former MVP, well deserved, and he's really good. But the conversation is a lot more nuanced, IMO. You say he's just entering his prime, and I think my biggest question is whether he's actually able to continue being a dynamic playmaker, and develop as a passer. And outside of that MVP, I don't think there's too much overall separation between Lamar and Murray or Watson, in terms of value to the passing game. Watson is a far better passer, for starters.

 

I'm staying away from the Watson accusations for this conversation; maybe there were a handful of teams that didn't even consider him, but obviously the Browns weren't worried about it, nor were the other 4-5 teams that tried to get him. I think it's clear that the off the field stuff had no impact on his market value, so it doesn't make sense to me to apply a premium to Lamar for his lack of off the field stuff. 

 

Quote

 

I think it is. If you think he is a franchise QB and if you think you can win with him at the highest level, I think the value is OK. I'm having trouble with doing both money AND picks, but ultimately I think the value is OK. 

 

Yep. I understand that. There would be no mulligan for Ballard either no matter what he chooses. I doubt he will be given the chance to pick a second QB if the first one he picks this year fails. 

 

 

I'm not hung up on Ballard, just trying to establish Lamar's value to a QB-needy team. 

 

I'd do this for Herbert, Burrow, Mahomes (of course), probably Allen... I wouldn't do it for Lamar, or Hurts, or Murray. I have Watson ahead of those three as a passer, but I have concerns about his development, and I probably wouldn't do it for him either.

 

And the bolded is the key. I think a QB can rely on his legs as a weapon for a short period of time, and after that, he has to be able to rely on his passing ability be a dynamic playmaker. And I don't think Lamar has demonstrated the required ability as a passer. He's been aggressively mediocre in the playoffs, and at other times defenses have shut him down with simple concepts (which is why his complete domination of the Colts in 2021 is so frustrating). 

 

We might see Lamar very differently, and I'm good with that. But I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the discussion, which is why I'm dismissive of the 'NFL COLLUDING AGAINST FORMER MVP' storyline.

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'd do this for Herbert, Burrow, Mahomes (of course), probably Allen... I wouldn't do it for Lamar, or Hurts, or Murray. I have Watson ahead of those three as a passer, but I have concerns about his development, and I probably wouldn't do it for him either.

What about Lawrence? I get that he's a bit of a projection still... but...? It's possible Hurts is on the Josh Allen trajectory as development so I would probably do it for him too. I wouldn't do it for Murray but that's more about his attitude/character concerns I think. 

 

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

And the bolded is the key. I think a QB can rely on his legs as a weapon for a short period of time, and after that, he has to be able to rely on his passing ability be a dynamic playmaker. And I don't think Lamar has demonstrated the required ability as a passer. He's been aggressively mediocre in the playoffs, and at other times defenses have shut him down with simple concepts (which is why his complete domination of the Colts in 2021 is so frustrating). 

 

We might see Lamar very differently, and I'm good with that. But I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the discussion, which is why I'm dismissive of the 'NFL COLLUDING AGAINST FORMER MVP' storyline.

I agree reasonable people can disagree on this one. I just don't agree that it's reasonable to not even call Lamar and see what he wants before you go out and declare you have no interest in him. Because this is exactly what those 5-6 teams did. No idea what it is if not collusion. It may not be against him specifically. Maybe they would have done the exact same thing to say... Herbert or Burrow if he was a free agent. Do you think they would have? But there is definitely some behind the scenes... 'understanding' between the teams that at the very least they won't give anyone fully guaranteed contract anymore. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

What about Lawrence? I get that he's a bit of a projection still... but...? It's possible Hurts is on the Josh Allen trajectory as development so I would probably do it for him too. I wouldn't do it for Murray but that's more about his attitude/character concerns I think. 

 

I agree reasonable people can disagree on this one. I just don't agree that it's reasonable to not even call Lamar and see what he wants before you go out and declare you have no interest in him. Because this is exactly what those 5-6 teams did. No idea what it is if not collusion. It may not be against him specifically. Maybe they would have done the exact same thing to say... Herbert or Burrow if he was a free agent. Do you think they would have? But there is definitely some behind the scenes... 'understanding' between the teams that at the very least they won't give anyone fully guaranteed contract anymore. 

 

I didn't consider Lawrence yet. He has one forgettable season, and one more promising season that was still kind of shrug-worthy, IMO. I've always felt he's a little overrated, and I'm trying not to be biased. As of right now, it's a no for me, but it's too early. 

 

I think, in a different year, the "consensus" among NFL owners wouldn't really matter. It might not matter this year; Daniel Snyder could consider this a giant middle finger to the NFL establishment, and sign Lamar for $300m fully guaranteed on his way out the door -- the escrow money isn't required to be paid until the following year, so Snyder wouldn't care. But the big money Waltons are on the hook with Russell Wilson in Denver, and the Rams are trying to reshape their situation (but maybe don't count them out just yet). I just think the teams that are easily liquid are already committed to big QB contracts, and so are out of the running.

 

If things were to drag along with the Chargers or Bengals -- two teams that are NOT easily liquid -- then two years from now, the landscape might be different. All it takes is one team to pull the trigger, and the Browns proved that there's always a wildcard somewhere. I'm not sure there is a behind the scenes understanding, not that all the owners are on board with. There could be and I'm just being naive, but I think the evaluation of Lamar as a QB is a legitimate factor. If Burrow -- who is repped by CAA, by the way -- got the non-exclusive tag from the Bengals in two years, I think he could expect a market-redefining offer sheet. 

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't consider Lawrence yet. He has one forgettable season, and one more promising season that was still kind of shrug-worthy, IMO. I've always felt he's a little overrated, and I'm trying not to be biased. As of right now, it's a no for me, but it's too early. 

 

I think, in a different year, the "consensus" among NFL owners wouldn't really matter. It might not matter this year; Daniel Snyder could consider this a giant middle finger to the NFL establishment, and sign Lamar for $300m fully guaranteed on his way out the door -- the escrow money isn't required to be paid until the following year, so Snyder wouldn't care. But the big money Waltons are on the hook with Russell Wilson in Denver, and the Rams are trying to reshape their situation (but maybe don't count them out just yet). I just think the teams that are easily liquid are already committed to big QB contracts, and so are out of the running.

 

If things were to drag along with the Chargers or Bengals -- two teams that are NOT easily liquid -- then two years from now, the landscape might be different. All it takes is one team to pull the trigger, and the Browns proved that there's always a wildcard somewhere. I'm not sure there is a behind the scenes understanding, not that all the owners are on board with. There could be and I'm just being naive, but I think the evaluation of Lamar as a QB is a legitimate factor. If Burrow -- who is repped by CAA, by the way -- got the non-exclusive tag from the Bengals in two years, I think he could expect a market-redefining offer sheet. 

For whatever it's worth, Burrow is rumored to be negotiating extension with the Bengals so I wonder what he would agree to? Some of those QBs IMO have the power to shift the market completely... Burrow and Herbert will be the next two. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

For whatever it's worth, Burrow is rumored to be negotiating extension with the Bengals so I wonder what he would agree to? Some of those QBs IMO have the power to shift the market completely... Burrow and Herbert will be the next two. 

 

Any really good QB can try. I just think most players value having the big contract partially guaranteed now, vs having the prolonged standoff to get to free agency, while risking their future earning potential. And I think the long established contract structure will generally be enough, especially for guys coming off their rookie contract. (At other positions, players are upset if they DON'T get the big contract offer after three years; no one is really trying to put off the next contract.)

 

Herbert and Burrow are eligible for new contracts now. If they get the Josh Allen/Kyler Murray type offer now, do they sign now? Or would they say 'no, I'll play out one more year of my rookie deal, plus the 5th year option, and prepare to be tagged two years in a row, so I can negotiate a fully guaranteed contract'? The player is assuming all the risk, while the team goes year to year with no long term commitment and doesn't have to pay any signing bonus. And if the player gets hurt, or stops producing, the team can release or trade him with basically no future financial obligation.

 

This is the game Lamar has been playing for two years now. He still has two years to go before he can expect true free agency. And already, he's been hurt twice, and there are questions about his development, and even his commitment to his team. What if he gets hurt again? I think most players will take the partially guaranteed contract now, rather than accepting the risk for 3-4 years to have a chance at a fully guaranteed contract later. I don't think the appetite for full guarantees is as big as the media noise would suggest, especially not when it's time for the player to decide whether he'll say no to the second contract a year or two early.

 

The Watson thing was really a perfect storm: A team with a new GM that was motivated to move on from the young QB, the QB who wanted to leave, and a rare no-trade clause that gave the QB a great deal of leverage. No one coming off a rookie contract will have a no-trade clause.

[RollerColt]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Any really good QB can try. I just think most players value having the big contract partially guaranteed now, vs having the prolonged standoff to get to free agency, while risking their future earning potential. And I think the long established contract structure will generally be enough, especially for guys coming off their rookie contract. (At other positions, players are upset if they DON'T get the big contract offer after three years; no one is really trying to put off the next contract.)

 

Herbert and Burrow are eligible for new contracts now. If they get the Josh Allen/Kyler Murray type offer now, do they sign now? Or would they say 'no, I'll play out one more year of my rookie deal, plus the 5th year option, and prepare to be tagged two years in a row, so I can negotiate a fully guaranteed contract'? The player is assuming all the risk, while the team goes year to year with no long term commitment and doesn't have to pay any signing bonus. And if the player gets hurt, or stops producing, the team can release or trade him with basically no future financial obligation.

 

This is the game Lamar has been playing for two years now. He still has two years to go before he can expect true free agency. And already, he's been hurt twice, and there are questions about his development, and even his commitment to his team. What if he gets hurt again? I think most players will take the partially guaranteed contract now, rather than accepting the risk for 3-4 years to have a chance at a fully guaranteed contract later. I don't think the appetite for full guarantees is as big as the media noise would suggest, especially not when it's time for the player to decide whether he'll say no to the second contract a year or two early.

 

The Watson thing was really a perfect storm: A team with a new GM that was motivated to move on from the young QB, the QB who wanted to leave, and a rare no-trade clause that gave the QB a great deal of leverage. No one coming off a rookie contract will have a no-trade clause.

Can’t speak for all of them, but Burrow seems to really want to stay in Cincy long term. And it feels like he understands the need to help the team out in keeping key players. 
 

He could sign a huge deal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s actually a little less compared to some of the other mega contacts out there. The again, we did make Andrew Luck the highest paid QB at one point…

[stitches]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Any really good QB can try. I just think most players value having the big contract partially guaranteed now, vs having the prolonged standoff to get to free agency, while risking their future earning potential. And I think the long established contract structure will generally be enough, especially for guys coming off their rookie contract. (At other positions, players are upset if they DON'T get the big contract offer after three years; no one is really trying to put off the next contract.)

If I were a high end QB of that sort, I would rather just sign the 3 year fully guaranteed deal and revisit the contract in 3 years, when the market would be much higher. I really think NFL players(especially high end QBs) don't use their leverage enough. What are the Bengals going to say when Burrow says I want all my years guaranteed. For the life of me I don't know why they agree for any non-guaranteed money. If the team doesn't want to give 5 years guaranteed ... tell them - OK, you pick the number of years, but I want them all guaranteed. Would you rather have Burrow signed to a 3 year deal guaranteed or 5? Or 7?

 

8 hours ago, Superman said:

Herbert and Burrow are eligible for new contracts now. If they get the Josh Allen/Kyler Murray type offer now, do they sign now? Or would they say 'no, I'll play out one more year of my rookie deal, plus the 5th year option, and prepare to be tagged two years in a row, so I can negotiate a fully guaranteed contract'? The player is assuming all the risk, while the team goes year to year with no long term commitment and doesn't have to pay any signing bonus. And if the player gets hurt, or stops producing, the team can release or trade him with basically no future financial obligation.

This is practically the game Kirk Cousins played for years and he's been rewarded richly. Now, he's not gotten injured so the downside is not there for him now... but... keep in mind we are talking about high end players here. Especially in the case of Burrow and Herbert, they are high level processors of the game ... IMO an injury wouldn't even be a blip on their earning potential. Lets say Burrow suffers ACL in the off-season he's a free agent in. I bet there will be at least 5 teams that will PAY HIM TO SIT that year(I would hope the Colts would do that too), as long as they can have him for 3 years after that injury. You don't expect players like that to be significantly impacted by a single injury. 

8 hours ago, Superman said:

This is the game Lamar has been playing for two years now. He still has two years to go before he can expect true free agency. And already, he's been hurt twice, and there are questions about his development, and even his commitment to his team. What if he gets hurt again? I think most players will take the partially guaranteed contract now, rather than accepting the risk for 3-4 years to have a chance at a fully guaranteed contract later. I don't think the appetite for full guarantees is as big as the media noise would suggest, especially not when it's time for the player to decide whether he'll say no to the second contract a year or two early.

Again... if it's partially guaranteed and only guaranteed for the first 3 years. If I were Lamar, I would just ask for the 3 fully guaranteed years. The non-guaranteed years are ENTIRELY in favor of the team. If I'm top tier QB, I would just scrap the notion that a team can have me and not pay me everything guaranteed. If they want to guarantee 3 years, OK... I'm good with it. But you only get those 3 years. None of that non-guaranteed years after. And we meet again in 3 years, but this time the average for QB won't be 40M but it will be 60... 

8 hours ago, Superman said:

The Watson thing was really a perfect storm: A team with a new GM that was motivated to move on from the young QB, the QB who wanted to leave, and a rare no-trade clause that gave the QB a great deal of leverage. No one coming off a rookie contract will have a no-trade clause.

The Watson thing was mind-boggling to me. They gave a player with 20+ sexual assault lawsuits a fully guaranteed contract and they structured it in a way that he would lose measely 1 mil because of suspension. This was sooooooooo gross... And we were in on the "fun" too. So next time Ballard tells us how much he values character I would like some of our amazing reporters to just stop him and ask what his evaluation of Watson's character was. 

[Superman]

10 hours ago, stitches said:

If I were a high end QB of that sort, I would rather just sign the 3 year fully guaranteed deal and revisit the contract in 3 years, when the market would be much higher. I really think NFL players(especially high end QBs) don't use their leverage enough. What are the Bengals going to say when Burrow says I want all my years guaranteed. For the life of me I don't know why they agree for any non-guaranteed money. If the team doesn't want to give 5 years guaranteed ... tell them - OK, you pick the number of years, but I want them all guaranteed. Would you rather have Burrow signed to a 3 year deal guaranteed or 5? Or 7?

 

There are cap ramifications for the team on the shorter deals, though. Burrow isn't going to sign for less than $50m/year, right? The Bills have Josh Allen at $43m/year, and his cap hits the first two years were $10m and $16m. You can't work anything like that into a three year deal.

 

Let me ask you this. Why are you so attached to the idea of fully guaranteed contracts for QBs? 

 

(Side note: Just read that Darius Slay wants a three year deal, fully guaranteed. He'll be a free agent. I'm interested to see what happens.)

 

Quote

This is practically the game Kirk Cousins played for years and he's been rewarded richly. Now, he's not gotten injured so the downside is not there for him now... but... keep in mind we are talking about high end players here. Especially in the case of Burrow and Herbert, they are high level processors of the game ... IMO an injury wouldn't even be a blip on their earning potential. Lets say Burrow suffers ACL in the off-season he's a free agent in. I bet there will be at least 5 teams that will PAY HIM TO SIT that year(I would hope the Colts would do that too), as long as they can have him for 3 years after that injury. You don't expect players like that to be significantly impacted by a single injury. 

 

That's a fair point, but no one knows what will happen in three years. And it changes the accounting for the team. If I hit you with the 5th year extension, plus two tag years, I'm paying you weekly. If I sign you to a three year contract, fully guaranteed, there's probably a big signing bonus, plus I'm putting the full amount in escrow. 

 

Also, these staggered and/or rolling future guarantees are mostly for the purpose of avoiding the escrow funding rule. 

 

Quote

Again... if it's partially guaranteed and only guaranteed for the first 3 years. If I were Lamar, I would just ask for the 3 fully guaranteed years. The non-guaranteed years are ENTIRELY in favor of the team. If I'm top tier QB, I would just scrap the notion that a team can have me and not pay me everything guaranteed. If they want to guarantee 3 years, OK... I'm good with it. But you only get those 3 years. None of that non-guaranteed years after. And we meet again in 3 years, but this time the average for QB won't be 40M but it will be 60... 

 

But three years, $133m was apparently not sufficient for Lamar.

 

To the bolded, Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, and Deshaun Watson have already paved the way for constant renegotiations and pay increases. Aaron Donald has done it as a non QB. There are other examples. We saw this with Kenny Moore. If he had a little more leverage and a lot more backbone, he could have forced his way to a new contract, probably with a different team, but that's the business. But I think it's easy to talk about using one's leverage when we're not the ones putting anything on the line.

 

Quote

The Watson thing was mind-boggling to me. They gave a player with 20+ sexual assault lawsuits a fully guaranteed contract and they structured it in a way that he would lose measely 1 mil because of suspension. This was sooooooooo gross... And we were in on the "fun" too. So next time Ballard tells us how much he values character I would like some of our amazing reporters to just stop him and ask what his evaluation of Watson's character was. 

 

Meh. Not remotely surprising to me.

 

Regarding Ballard, I've never seen him as a 'we only want good guys' type of decision maker. I think that's a distortion of his position, one that's been repeated over and over, but doesn't actually line up with what he's said or done.

 

I also think there's a huge difference between saying 'we'd like to talk' and signing him to a fully guaranteed deal with a structure designed to shield him financially.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There are cap ramifications for the team on the shorter deals, though. Burrow isn't going to sign for less than $50m/year, right? The Bills have Josh Allen at $43m/year, and his cap hits the first two years were $10m and $16m. You can't work anything like that into a three year deal.

 

Let me ask you this. Why are you so attached to the idea of fully guaranteed contracts for QBs? 

 

(Side note: Just read that Darius Slay wants a three year deal, fully guaranteed. He'll be a free agent. I'm interested to see what happens.)

Oh I'm just discussing what IMO makes sense for players of that ilk and explaining why IMO they have the leverage to ask for fully guaranteed contracts. I don't really care what they do. In fact, for the team(and hopefully we are in that position in 4-5 years time) it's much better if they keep signing contracts based on the established frameworks, rather than wanting it all guaranteed. 

 

On the structure of the contracts... a bit below. 

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

That's a fair point, but no one knows what will happen in three years. And it changes the accounting for the team. If I hit you with the 5th year extension, plus two tag years, I'm paying you weekly. If I sign you to a three year contract, fully guaranteed, there's probably a big signing bonus, plus I'm putting the full amount in escrow. 

 

Also, these staggered and/or rolling future guarantees are mostly for the purpose of avoiding the escrow funding rule. 

If I'm a player of that level, as long as everything is guaranteed and I'm not strapped for cash immediately(and most of them are not after already being top of the league QBs for 4-5 years), I don't care about how you structure it. I would give the team all the freedom they need to structure it any way they like and any way they feel will be beneficial to the team. If they want to put everything in a bonus, I'm good with that, If they want it all to be salary - sure. If they want to attach fake years, do it... whatever you need. But I want it all guaranteed. 

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But three years, $133m was apparently not sufficient for Lamar.

Because it wasn't 3 years 133m. It was 5 years with only the first 3 guaranteed(133M). Also, don't know what he wants... maybe he won't accept 3/133 fully guaranteed either. I'm just saying what I would do if I were in their shoes. 

 

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

To the bolded, Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, and Deshaun Watson have already paved the way for constant renegotiations and pay increases. Aaron Donald has done it as a non QB. There are other examples. We saw this with Kenny Moore. If he had a little more leverage and a lot more backbone, he could have forced his way to a new contract, probably with a different team, but that's the business. But I think it's easy to talk about using one's leverage when we're not the ones putting anything on the line.

I wouldn't have minded Kenny trying to get new contract if he had performed at a high level that year. But IMO he didn't. He performed below his contract at the time, let alone trying to get higher pay... 

 

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Meh. Not remotely surprising to me.

 

Regarding Ballard, I've never seen him as a 'we only want good guys' type of decision maker. I think that's a distortion of his position, one that's been repeated over and over, but doesn't actually line up with what he's said or done.

 

I also think there's a huge difference between saying 'we'd like to talk' and signing him to a fully guaranteed deal with a structure designed to shield him financially.

Oh yeah, of course we didn't offer the full max(and AFAIR we didn't even get past the Texans negotiations phase), but still.. we had very serious interest in the same guy. Who knows what we would have offered... 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Oh I'm just discussing what IMO makes sense for players of that ilk and explaining why IMO they have the leverage to ask for fully guaranteed contracts. I don't really care what they do. In fact, for the team(and hopefully we are in that position in 4-5 years time) it's much better if they keep signing contracts based on the established frameworks, rather than wanting it all guaranteed. 

 

Got it. There's always this push for players to get fully guaranteed contracts, and it seems like you're pushing it. But the real world ramifications would be, I think, disastrous for the NFL. And I don't think people -- fans, media, players, whatever -- realize how bad it would be. 

 

Quote

If I'm a player of that level, as long as everything is guaranteed and I'm not strapped for cash immediately(and most of them are not after already being top of the league QBs for 4-5 years), I don't care about how you structure it. I would give the team all the freedom they need to structure it any way they like and any way they feel will be beneficial to the team. If they want to put everything in a bonus, I'm good with that, If they want it all to be salary - sure. If they want to attach fake years, do it... whatever you need. But I want it all guaranteed. 

 

That's reasonable, but I don't think it's representative of players and agents in the NFL. And if there's no bonus money, there are no void years.

 

Quote

Because it wasn't 3 years 133m. It was 5 years with only the first 3 guaranteed(133M). Also, don't know what he wants... maybe he won't accept 3/133 fully guaranteed either. I'm just saying what I would do if I were in their shoes. 

 

I'm convinced he wants the Watson contract, or more. Bottom line. I don't think he'd take a three year fully guaranteed contract, unless it comes with a huge premium.

 

Quote

I wouldn't have minded Kenny trying to get new contract if he had performed at a high level that year. But IMO he didn't. He performed below his contract at the time, let alone trying to get higher pay... 

 

My point was that it takes leverage and backbone, and not every player has the right combination of those two elements.

 

Quote

Oh yeah, of course we didn't offer the full max(and AFAIR we didn't even get past the Texans negotiations phase), but still.. we had very serious interest in the same guy. Who knows what we would have offered... 

 

They didn't get past 'can we contact his agent?' The Texans immediately shut it down, and I think reports were that Watson would not have been interested. 

[richard pallo]

I think the Ravens are really open to taking those first round picks and moving on from LaMar.  If they really wanted to secure him they could have placed the exclusive tag on him which would put him on the hook for around 42m I believe.  That’s about the same amount they fully guaranteed for three years with their five year offer.  So why not do it and keep him all to yourself.  Keep working on a contract.  They decided to let him test the market.  I think they are counting on teams coming in with five year offers as well.  Which they would be inclined to match with the guarantees staying at three years which most teams will most likely do.  I think the way to secure LaMar is with a shorter contract fully guaranteed.  Start at four years but go to three if necessary.  As someone said the shorter contract lets the player hit the market again.  I think the player would like that. The team also has the franchise tag in their back pocket as a hedge.  As far as money the numbers are moving up every year.  I would think 50m a year for either 3 or 4 would not be matched by the Ravens.  They would not approach that number with a five year contract offer with 150 guaranteed in the first three years.  I think they would stay away from the shorter contract.   Where the draft pick sits could have a bearing.  The Colts 4th pick is extremely valuable in the current situation.  That pick coupled with the shorter contract with the higher guaranteed value would be enough for the Ravens not to match.  JMO.

[Superman]

 

 

Whoa.

[Tsarquise]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

Whoa.

Wow.... Is this guy.... Legit?

Edit: Nevermind, I see he is. 

 

They're just considering. It probably doesn't mean much. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Tsarquise said:

Wow.... Is this guy.... Legit?

 

He's a guy on Twitter who sometimes knows some stuff. Nothing to get too worked up over, but it's eyebrow raising.

[Superman]

Actually, Reddit says this guy is a hack, so maybe disregard...

 

@Tsarquise

[Tsarquise]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

Actually, Reddit says this guy is a hack, so maybe disregard...

 

@Tsarquise

Thought he was legit since his Twitter handle says he is featured on ESPN and Yahoo. Guess I was being naive. 

[richard pallo]

Just read on Pro Football Talk that LaMar can call teams.  Didn’t realize that.  I thought he had to wait for the call.