Ravens Get Lamar Jackson Signed
NFL Offseason - Apparently, it is done! It's a five-year contract through 2027, early financial reports say $260 million total including $185 million guaranteed. Yes, that makes Jackson the highest-paid player in the NFL, because the most recently signed star quarterback is always the highest-paid player in the NFL.
Sources: Lamar Jackson and the #Ravens have agreed to terms. He has his deal.
— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) April 27, 2023
Comments
64 comments, Last at 02 May 2023, 12:20pm
#1 by theslothook // Apr 27, 2023 - 5:04pm
Obviously I'll be curious what the total guarantees are; but either way; after expressing reservations about contract extensions for Hurts and Allen; I am fully on board with Lamar being extended and would have been even going back to last year.
Lamar, even with many seasons removed from his MVP campaign, is still a really good player and we have far more certainty with respect to Tanier's QB math. At worst, he's a very high floor QB and teases a higher potential ceiling. I also disagree with others; he's not a remedial passer hiding in the body of a running back. If anything; he's a puzzling passer - capable of threading some real dimes down the middle but struggling on some of the simpler, routine stuff that should be well within him. I am overall quite bullish on Lamar long term, provided injuries down sap away any athleticism. 5 years is also long enough to avoid any extreme downsides due to aging that befell Cam Newton.
Also, give the Ravens brass a lot of credit for handling this situation with class and professionalism. A lesser franchise would have allowed inside sources to bad mouth the QB; with the coach, gm, or even the owner lashing out like a jilted lover about how betrayed they felt. There is a lot of wisdom in saying nothing/saying all of the right things. Woody Johnson wouldn't be able to help himself were he in a similar boat.
#14 by guest from Europe // Apr 27, 2023 - 7:16pm
So, do you agree with these signings of Beckham and Jackson or not?
Me: no to Beckham, yes to Jackson. Jackson is now overpaid because the Ravens were waiting too long. I suspect somebody in their front office didn't want to sign him and somebody did.
#21 by guest from Europe // Apr 27, 2023 - 7:48pm
Yes, problems made by both Jackson and Ravens. Jackson wanted $230M Watson's contract. Last year Ravens were giving $230M, $175M guaranteed for injury. Probably there was an out after 2 years $120M.
Now they made a compromise. Jackson gets more money but is now basically a liar. Ravens are paying significantly more money (if it's structured like Hurts' contract, there is no out after 2 nor 3 years). Probably 4 years guaranteed.
#12 by guest from Europe // Apr 27, 2023 - 7:05pm
When we were discussing this on the "Jackson requests a trade" article, you wrote you wouldn't give Jackson the $230M guaranteed contract because of injury concerns. You thought his 14th place in DVOA rankings for 2022 and even worse DVOA 2020 and 2021 made it a "hard no" to his contract demands. This was all very reasonable and his stats aren't great and i couldn't persuade you he was worthy of a long contract. Injury concerns and perceptions. And i kind of agreed with you, a shorter one 3 years would be better, let's say fairer to team because of injury concerns.
Now you wrote the above. The contract has $185M guaranteed for injuries. This is probably the same contract that Hurts got. This is more than $230M!!! The team has an out after 4 years, so 5th year is unguaranteed. Probably 4 years and $205M or 3 years $185M. (What i read on overthecap analysis of Hurts' contract: the Eagles have no practical way out of that contract until the last unguaranteed year when there would be $100M dead cap number. No way out)
How is this good for the Ravens? I see a team that now will pay more money per year after not giving a lower contract last year because they didn't want to guarantee it. Nothing has changed in this 1 month. Injury concerns are still there. They completely botched the free agency period, some players left the team, they signed Beckham after injuries to largest WR contract in 2023 free agency and now Jackson to the largest contract... what the hell were Ravens management doing???
5 years is also long enough to avoid any extreme downsides due to aging that befell Cam Newton.
What do you mean by this?
For comparison, Newton had injury problems during or after his 8th year. R. Wilson after his 10th year. Jackson's style of play is probably more similar to R. Wilson. Prescott has played 7 years and had more injuries than Jackson.
#15 by theslothook // Apr 27, 2023 - 7:20pm
The big difference is one is completely guaranteed and the other isn't. To pay Jackson that kind of money, all of it guaranteed; he would need to have either mostly pristine health and be really good or be ridiculously great and have checkered health. In reality, he is really good and has checkered health.
Now comes the contract. Hurts perhaps is better than Lamar, but he's less proven. Just like Allen was. Lamar, by contrast, has proven he's at least pretty good and has a chance to be better than that as the MVP showed. Maybe that will never come to pass. but there is a fairly large middle ground between his floor season and his upper mvp season. Given that reality; you are unlikely to do better with another QB and even if you end up with a slightly better QB; the same financial realities are going to be starring you in the face.
People who have read my comments know I am still not quite sure how I feel about all of this. Take someone like Prescott. I was against him making 45 million. He has played basically as I expected him to; top 10 Qb but not one of these tier 1/2 guys who flirts with MVPS. When his next extension comes up(might be next year); he will likely ask to be the highest paid player in the NFL. What do you do then; especially knowing he is NOT a top 3 QB but also knowing that moving on from him can be extremely painful. I am still wrestling with this. But Lamar has a chance to be a top 5 QB maybe still. Also, his floor is higher than someone like Goff. So that also has value.
Also, Lamar is 26. By the end of this contract, he will be around 32-33. That's usually a good point where if a QB isn't going to stave off decline, you will know. Russ, for example, is 34.
#17 by guest from Europe // Apr 27, 2023 - 7:31pm
You are saying Watson-type contract is too risky for Jackson because of injury concerns and Hurts-type contract isn't?
Check on overthecap the article about Hurts' contract. There is practically no way out. Last year is officially unguaranteed, but practically this is 4 years $200M+ another extension needed.
Frankly, those additional $30M from Watson's contract look cheaper for an additional year, 2027, when cap will be way higher.
#26 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 3:50am
Yes. If i need to remind, i was for Jackson getting a contract. Me and NewAroundTheseParts. Everyone else was against it because of injury concerns, because the franchise tag is cheaper, because his stats are average... i have put the link to those comments below. You can read your own thoughts there.
(This doesn't mean i am right and somebody else is wrong)
What changed your mind now? 2 or 3 weeks ago you wrote a "hard no" for him getting a large contract because of injury concerns. You were consistent then.
This contract is more expensive than Watson's for the first 4 practically guaranteed years ! I think they should have given him Watson-contract during last season or traded him away.
#34 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 12:31pm
Last year Jackson wanted watson-contract. 230M or 231M, not 250M. This 185M is guaranteed for injury if there is an injury in first 3 years. If it's the same as hurts-contract, (and all the reported numbers point to that) than the guarantees kind of roll in advance: 2023 and 2024 immediately guaranteed + part of 2025, rest of 2025 and part of 2026 become guaranteed some time after 2023, probably in March 2024, all of 2026 is guaranteed in March 2025... like that.
This is from Barnwell article:
I would expect Jackson to have more than $110 million fully guaranteed at signing and more than $210 million in practical guarantees over the next five seasons after you consider what he was already owed by the Ravens for 2023.
So it will be 1 year $110M or 2 years $140-150M or the most likely 4 years $200-210M practically guaranteed. They would have to release Jackson after 2024 season to be less than 200M.
There is no big difference between 4 years $205M practically guaranteed and 5 years $230M fully guaranteed.
There are rumours that Jackson wanted Beckham and his $15M. So Ravens are guaranteeing now 185M (Jackson)+15M (Beckham)= 200M
#35 by theslothook // Apr 28, 2023 - 12:36pm
The timelines still provide flexibility in ways a 240 million contract does not. Also, I believe Jackson wanted more than Watson and all of it guaranteed. That was the scuttlebutt I kept reading about.
I also am not a cap expert, but having salary non guaranteed allows for flexibility in moving money around. if it's all guaranteed, then all you can do is renegotiate an extension.
#29 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 28, 2023 - 11:09am
Not an easy one, but as I read it they could Post June 1st cut Hurts in 2027 and eat 44 million in dead cap split over two years. Not ideal by any means but considering the increases in cap over those next four seasons it should be manageable.
But yeah, until then... Yeesh.
#32 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 12:02pm
No. Dead cap money for Hurts is always around $100M, slightly more. Just in the last year $93M. Eagles are now lowering his cap hit, borrowing from the future money, thus dead cap number will be very high. They would split $100M dead cap to 2 years.
This is from the article i linked below:
"The first real out year for the Eagles I assume would be 2027 at which point he would be a June 1 cut. On a June that year I believe the cap would be $47.9M taken in 2027 and $54 million deferred to 2028. If they pay out the 2027 option the June 1 in 2028 would be $35.8 million and $57.8 million in 2029. My assumption is the Eagles have a contingency to split the 2029 dead money."
#38 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 28, 2023 - 2:23pm
I see the issue - Hurts actually signed a nine year contract with four automatically voided years. The option bonuses appear to keep triggering and getting pushed onto those void years, then all the cap hits come due when it happens.
#39 by Noahrk // Apr 28, 2023 - 2:34pm
Yes, it's a curious contract and part of the reason it's structured this way is the Eagles want to keep his cap hits low the first few years. I see no reason for the Ravens to use this structure unless they want the same benefit. Considering the Eagles have their own particular contract practices, making assumptions about the Jackson contract structure seems pretty premature at this point.
#42 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 3:10pm
These void years and option bonuses are used to manipulate the cap number in any particular year. However, the actual money paid to the player, number of years, guarantees and so on is similar in all these contracts, Jackson just got $5M more than Hurts. Only Watson and Cousins are different, their contract are NBA-style.
Prescott, Mahomes, Allen, R. Wilson also have these roll-up guarantees in advance and it's reported as "practical guarantees". For example, Josh Allen got now in March 2023 a large part of 2025 bonus guaranteed and he will get another part in 2024 and so on.
i learned this in the last 2 weeks.
#45 by theslothook // Apr 28, 2023 - 3:42pm
Yea the article does a good job distilling what is going on in these contracts. And now we can add a new term, "practical guarantees" to the arcane vocabulary that is NFL contracts.
All this begs the question. If the "practical guarantees" were 210 million, just why are they so hung up on the $250 million? fully guaranteed Is that difference of $40 million really worth potentially ruining the relationship/losing him to a rival team?
I guess the way to think about it is that practical guarantees are a kind of insurance against a total catastrophe. In the case Hurts suffers a truly awful injury that he won't likely ever recover from or becomes a toxic personality that gets you accused of being an evil organization; they wouldn't owe the full boat of the contract. So in that universe; they are hosed for $110 million, but not the full $250 million. Sure that possibility exists, but it also seems exceedingly rare and as Barnwell said; every year that ticks by; an ever larger sum of the contract becomes guaranteed. By 2027; even if Hurts is just OK as a starter; are the Eagles going to cut him to avoid the rest of the deal? And consider a more likely bad outcome scenario. What if Hurts has exactly the same season as Kyler Murray just had a year ago, where he plays poorly and tears his ACL. Even in that world, would it be enough for the Eagles to hit the escape button? I doubt it.
Which brings us back to the original question. If the headline difference between the fully fully guaranteed contract and the mostly guaranteed contract is insurance against a really tiny event from happening; shouldn't the wise play be to guarantee all of it and reduce the headline figure? Lamar can get 220, all of it guaranteed, and then they would have saved $40 million. I guess that's only 8 million over 5 years but still.
#52 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 5:49pm
Which brings us back to the original question. If the headline difference between the fully fully guaranteed contract and the mostly guaranteed contract is insurance against a really tiny event from happening; shouldn't the wise play be to guarantee all of it and reduce the headline figure? Lamar can get 220, all of it guaranteed, and then they would have saved $40 million. I guess that's only 8 million over 5 years but still.
Exactly. You wrote using other words what i asked when Hurts got his contract. I don't see a big difference between watson-contract and hurts-contract. Hurts or Jackson can be released earlier if they immediately turn into Mayfield, but in such a case it will cost a lot more money in APY terms. Teams would probably give them more chances to start until they turn into Rosen. The difference is in case of career-ending injury within first 3 years: 185M (Jackson) or 230M (Watson). Injury during 4th or 5th year, no difference. Player goes to IR and can't be released, i think.
21st century history of such injuries: A. Smith. Anybody else?
#53 by theslothook // Apr 28, 2023 - 6:06pm
I think another interesting question will be, what do the Cowboys do with Dak Prescott? Right now, Hurts is viewed as a tier 2 QB. Some people think in a vacuum, Lamar Jackson is the second best QB in the league. When Kyler Murray signed his contract, there was a big expectation that his career would continue to grow so it was at least in part based on projection.
Well, what about Dak Prescott? His extension is going to come after Burrow and Herbert's. So far, his career has been kind of volatile, but likely somewhere in the back half of the top 10. If he wants this same setup except now the per annum figure climbs to $270 or $280 million a year, do you not even blink and give it to him? What about Goff? If he once again repeats or comes close to last year's performance, can he also credibly ask for that amount of cash?
#54 by guest from Europe // Apr 29, 2023 - 2:06am
Prescott has played for 7 years and his contract is for 2 more years. His stats are very, very good. Probably they give him extension for another 2-3 years or 2 franchise tags. At the end of it he will be in R. Wilson territory: at some point he will fall off. Maybe he gets 3 years $180M, 2 years guaranteed.
Prescott DVOA in the last 4 yaers: 11th, 3rd, 8th, 6th. Rookie year 3rd. For comparison Burrow in the last 2 years: 14th and 9th.
It's not easy to find a better player than him somewhere.
If fans and NFL with rules changes want pass offense all the time, than QBs will get a lot of money. Basically anything they want.
#47 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 28, 2023 - 4:12pm
Prescott, Mahomes, Allen, R. Wilson also have these roll-up guarantees in advance and it's reported as "practical guarantees". For example, Josh Allen got now in March 2023 a large part of 2025 bonus guaranteed and he will get another part in 2024 and so on.
Usually a team can restructure a guy's deal to turn salary into bonuses - lowering the current year's cap hit and pushing it into future years. Which, of course, leads to a massive balloon hit sitting at the end of the deal as the piper comes due. It seems like the Eagles basically did all that up front - Hurts' actual salary never climbs over 1.5 million, but he's getting massive rolling bonuses every year. Pre-restructuring. Pre-structuring.
#4 by serutan // Apr 27, 2023 - 5:49pm
IIRC it was fairly bad from the early 70s to the mid 90s - AFC at first, then NFC.
The balance is definitely in favor of the AFC at the moment, not yet convinced it's seriously imbalanced although how next season goes might well convince me.
#8 by JIPanick // Apr 27, 2023 - 6:46pm
Don't know how to exactly measure "bad", it was really rough in the early 00s. Roughly between Warner getting hurt/droppign off at one end and the Brees switch & Romo breakout at the other.
In 2005, with McNabb hurt and Favre on a low ebb, the top eight QBs by passing DYAR were seven AFC guys and Matt Hasselbeck.
#33 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 28, 2023 - 12:17pm
In say, 1986, the AFC had Marino, Esiason, Kosar, O'Brien, Kelly, Moon, Fouts, and the corpse of Plunkett.
The NFC had Simms and half a season of Montana. Schroeder and Tommy Kramer were your NFC Pro Bowlers.
The AFC had four HOFers and four more HoVG QBs. The NFC had half a HOFers and a guy who made two PBs, but was pretty good in Super Bowls.
The Giants won the SB by 19 points.
In the 1980s, the AFC had all the QBs and the NFC had all the dynasties.
#43 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 3:21pm
In the 1980s, the AFC had all the QBs and the NFC had all the dynasties.
Why was this? Did the style of play change so much compared to 21st century? Rules change? Can you explain in more than 1 sentence?
Why do people obsess so much over QBs nowadays? There is more passing, less running now than before...
#44 by serutan // Apr 28, 2023 - 3:38pm
Two reasons rooted in the fact that the rules were much more defense friendly at that time.
1. Running backs were a huge part of the offense in those days. At that time WRs had more difficulty getting open increasing the value of a running back. And this meant you could get away with a non elite QB.
2. It was possible to shut down most offenses with a good defense, again allowing one to get away with a non-elite QB. The Niners, Redskins, Bears, and Giants had such defenses even though the first two weren't famous for that.
#51 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 5:24pm
At that time WRs had more difficulty getting open increasing the value of a running back.
Why? Again rules of DB contact with WRs past 5-yards of scrimmage line or something else? (There were brutal hits over the middle of the field.)
I remember how 2 decades ago Reid was ridiculed for never seeing a pass he didn't like, not running enough, bad time management... now passing is considered waaay more efficient than running and Reid is adored.
#63 by IlluminatusUIUC // May 01, 2023 - 2:33pm
Why? Again rules of DB contact with WRs past 5-yards of scrimmage line or something else? (There were brutal hits over the middle of the field.)
There's a lot to it, but I think the elevator pitch of it is that coaches used to think passing was inherently dangerous ("There's 3 things that can happen and 2 are bad") so they would only do it when they were forced to - when they were down late or behind the sticks, so it was always in the hardest situations.
#30 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 28, 2023 - 11:21am
In the 1992 Pro Bowl (for the 91 season), the AFC QBs were Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, John Elway, and Ken O'Brien. The NFC QBs were Mark Rypien, Troy Aikman (with a screamin 11/10 TD/INT ratio), and Chris Miller. Montana was injured, Steve Young was only starting to come into his own, Phil Simms was over the hill, and Tom Tupa was still playing QB.
#6 by Cythammer // Apr 27, 2023 - 6:04pm
Man, Lamar Jackson has had a weird career. In a vacuum, without knowing anything else about a guy, if you knew a player was the youngest ever MVP winner and was only the second player to win unanimously that year, you would think he was shoo-in HOFer who would be consistently one of the best QBs in the league at least into his early 30s.
Instead, four years later, it's hard to even make a serious case that he's a top five QB in the league. His passing DVOA has been mediocre for three full seasons. Before an uptick in '22, he actually had two straight years of negative passing AND rushing DVOA. Mahomes, Burrow, and Allen are probably the consensus top three. Jackson is well behind those three. There's a lot of contenders for 4th and 5th but Jackson isn't really one of them.
His very odd career arc reminds me of Derrick Rose, the youngest ever NBA MVP. Rose, however, was ruined by injuries.
#9 by JIPanick // Apr 27, 2023 - 6:53pm
"There's a lot of contenders for 4th and 5th but Jackson isn't really one of them."
I disagree. I think he's short-list. Brady's gone, Rodgers is 39 and coming off a decidedly not top 5 season, Herbert and Tua and Lawrence and Purdy have shown flashes but none have Jackson's resume. That more or less leaves Hurts, Dak, and Jackson for 4th and 5th, no? Maybe Goff?
#11 by theslothook // Apr 27, 2023 - 6:56pm
I still regards Hurts as an unknown and have far more certainty that Lamar is a really good QB. Circumstances matter of course, but if it were me, my rankings would be Mahomes, Allen/Burrow, Herbert, and then Lamar.
#36 by Lost Ti-Cats Fan // Apr 28, 2023 - 1:00pm
Swap the playmakers Jackson has played with over the past two years with the playmakers that either Allen or Burrow have had. Do you think your rankings above hold? Because, personally, I think if Allen or Burrow had to play with the Ravens' WR room, they wouldn't even be in the conversation of the top QBs. Now Mahomes, that's a different subject, which is why I'd have him as a clear no. 1. But I think Jackson is the clear no. 2 with any sort of offense built around him, while Allen & Burrows (and Rodgers) are 3a/3b/3c. Should have a better sense after this year, since BAL looks like they're investing resources on offense for a change.
As for including Herbert in the list, I wouldn't. Tua or Lawrence or Wilson (R, not Z) or Watson would all make more sense than Herbert, but I wouldn't include any of them. And I'm not 100% certain that Allen and Burrows don't end up down here if they weren't surrounded by such a strong overall team.
#37 by theslothook // Apr 28, 2023 - 1:16pm
The supporting cast arguments make a lot of this subjective and make the whole thing hard to judge. And it cuts both ways. Roddy White didn't do anything with Mike Vick but did really well when Matt Ryan was the QB.
Are the Bears offensively bad because they have no talent around Fields or is Fields the reason? You could have had similar questions around Zach Wilson before Mike White made him look really bad. You could have also forgiven Josh Rosen for his 1 horrible year, especially when Sam Bradford was equally horrible.
Some more examples. The broncos had poor receivers until Peyton Manning showed up. Russel Wilson was held back by Seattle and its bad offensive line and its antiquated philosophy and he would show the world what he was capable of in Denver.
Even with Mahomes, a person could argue he's benefiting from a Hall of Fame right end, a QB whisperer in Reid, and maybe the best offensive line in football. What would be be on the Ravens, especially with Stanley hurt?
Doing the subjective assessments in my head, I came up with the list I did altho I have acknowledged, based on your matter of taste, Jackson could be considered the 2nd best QB in football.
#40 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 2:43pm
I don't think we will ever see Jackson in a "fully functional offense". Ravens have had that when? in 2014 with Kubiak scheme? Under Roman it was more of run-options offense with low pass volume, similar to his days with Kaepernick in San Francisco.
Ravens just don't develop WRs. They already have a WR drafted in round 1 and now have drafted another one and before that Hollywood Brown and... it's so dissapointing that they can't have at least a top 50 WR.
Jackson has already played 5 years. He has probably 3-5 years left. Then it will be injuries or aging like R. Wilson. He will definitely run less, the legs will go away first.
Who knows what he could have done? His highlights are so great, his volume stats and advanced stats so average. Just sad. Maybe he is top 3, maybe he is in 10-15 range like majority of commenters here write.
#59 by armchair journ… // Apr 29, 2023 - 4:24pm
(If my other comment isn’t clear) I think comparing Ravens WR talent is somewhat irrelevant/misguided when the offense is specifically tailored as a running attack with a TE escape valve. The apparent approach has been to pair that with a “deep threat” component, but whats been lacking is the blocking/underneath receiver that the old Steelers offenses used to have. Seems to me less a WR talent issue per se than a coherent WR strategy period.
In any event.. Comparing to the other QBs is apples/oranges.. the schematic expectations are different.
#10 by theslothook // Apr 27, 2023 - 6:55pm
Not to play the side of a Ravens fan, but I believe part of his on play tailspin was covid related. And he's been injured too so that likely factors in. The deal come with plenty of risk.
That said, Lamar is a tricky player to evaluate. One could compare him to Jimmy G, another qb with similar injury pattern. But here I think most people agree, Lamar feels far more of an offense unto himself whereas Jimmy G feels far more context dependent. That may just be perception and a sb loss thats playing into it but I tend to have a generally positive view of Lamar when he's on the field.
#64 by Hoodie_Sleeves // May 02, 2023 - 12:20pm
" In a vacuum, without knowing anything else about a guy, if you knew a player was the youngest ever MVP winner and was only the second player to win unanimously that year, you would think he was shoo-in HOFer who would be consistently one of the best QBs in the league at least into his early 30"
Sure, but the guy most similar to Jackson on the list of young MVPs is Cam Newton, and he certainly didn't have that career. Run-first QBs get hurt, a lot, and very few of them have long careers. And Jackson runs way more than Newton did. (Jackson averages about 27 pass attempts, 11 rush attempts, and 2.1 sacks per game - Newton about 31 pass attempts, 7.6 rush attempts, and 2.4 sacks.) Even Michael Vick only took off 8.x times per game. In the current crop of good "mobile" qbs, Allen rushes about 7 times a game, Mahomes 3, and Hurts 5.
IE, I don't think there's anything 'odd' about his career arc - QBs who run a lot get hurt. Jackson is currently 5th all time rushing for a QB in the NFL (and he's like 1500 yards behind Vick). The guys above him have all started 150+ games and rush less than half as often. That sounds impressive, but what it really means is that nobody who rushes at anywhere near the pace he has survives.
#19 by KnotMe // Apr 27, 2023 - 7:37pm
Honestly, this seems fine. No great for the Ravens but given the "every top 10 QB must beat the previous top 10 contract" ....it seems fine. Lamar didn't beat Watson's guarantee's either (those were crazy). It sounds like they compromised and everyone is a little mad but will get over it.
This feels like "the situation picked the most boring option".
#23 by guest from Europe // Apr 27, 2023 - 8:23pm
Here are the comments that many people wrote here how Jackson is unworthy of such a contract, he is overplaying his hand, he is high maintenance, his track record is average, he is 14th best by DVOA, he is a giant injury risk, no team should trade for him and so on:
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2023/lamar-jackson-requests-trade
Here is the explanation of practical parts of Hurts' contract, how it's basically guaranteed:
https://overthecap.com/thoughts-on-jalen-hurts-255-million-contract-with-the-eagles
I am assuming that Jackson got a similar contract. I am assuming that there is no practical way out of such a contract (only by trade) and that Jackson got what he wanted for 4 years. 5th year is unguaranteed.
Edit: for what it's worth Barnwell wrote a long article on ESPN that says what i wrote in the last 2 sentences above.
Jackson will save additional $6-8M out of this contract because he doesn't have an agent.
#46 by GwillyGecko // Apr 28, 2023 - 3:50pm
Many(possibly most) people who criticized Jackson were criticizing his refusal to back down from a 100% guaranteed contract. Jackson eventually backed down from it to sign basically the "going-rate QB carousel contract", which is more or less what those people were advocating as his best move.
#50 by guest from Europe // Apr 28, 2023 - 5:12pm
There was also a lot of criticism that he doesn't have an agent, doesn't know what he is doing and so on.
The "going-rate contract" is 70% guaranteed now for injury and about 80% likely practically guaranteed. Basically the last, 5th year, is team-option. The difference isn't that big to 100%.
However, this is a very large contract. The highest average -per-year. 13% higher than Watson + 3% more for no agent. It's no walking-injury-risk-player contract. In exchange for a team-option they are paying 13% more.
I actually think it's an overpay although i wanted Jackson to get paid. The Ravens waited too long.