Lamar Jackson Requests Trade
NFL Offseason - Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson took to Twitter on Monday to announce that he had requested a trade earlier this month.
"A letter to my Fans," Jackson wrote. "I want to first thank you all for all of the love and support you consistently show towards me. All of you are amazing and I appreciate y'all so much. I want you all to know not to believe everything you read about me.
"Let me personally answer your questions in regards to my future plans. As of March 2nd I requested a trade from the Ravens organization for which the Ravens has not been interested in meeting my value, any and everyone that's has met me or been around me know I love the game of football and my dream is to help a team win the super bowl. You all are great but I had to make a business decision that was best for my family and I. No matter how far I go or where my career takes me, I'll continue to be close to my fans of Baltimore Flock nation and the entire State of Maryland. You'll See me again Truzzzzz."
The Ravens used the non-exclusive franchise tag on Jackson on March 7. The tender is worth $32.4 million in 2023, and they'll have until July 17 to reach a multi-year extension.
Comments
194 comments, Last at 05 Apr 2023, 5:00am
#2 by dmb // Mar 27, 2023 - 1:50pm
I get that he made the request before the Ravens applied the non-exclusive Tag, but I nevertheless find it a bit strange for Jackson to publicize a trade request at a time when he could be negotiating to sign directly with any other team. I guess maybe he's trying to discourage the Ravens from matching any offers he receives? Personally I'd only do that if I had an offer in-hand that seemed like a better situation than the Ravens. Even if he wants out, I'd find it surprising if his desire is truly "anywhere but Baltimore."
#4 by dryheat // Mar 27, 2023 - 2:01pm
I didn't think a free agent could be traded, so maybe it's an indication that he's amenable to a sign-and-trade? But that would be silly, because then he couldn't choose his destination, and he would be in the same boat, contract-wise.
Maybe the Ravens could trade his RFA rights to another team...but I don't think that's allowed either.
I guess it's just a way of telling Baltimore that he's through negotiating with them, and isn't coming back. That way if he can negotiate a contract with another team, they can give up something less than two firsts for him.
#7 by rpwong // Mar 27, 2023 - 2:15pm
I think it's as simple as "Lamar Jackson doesn't have an agent", which is how you get this and last week's "please don't talk to Lamar's non-NFLPA representative" memo (which the NFLPA should 100% support). Regardless of how much time Jackson has spent studying the CBA and all of the other aspects of NFL contracts, he's almost certainly below the expertise and experience of a certified agent.
It's totally understandable that he doesn't know how to handle this process and is making mistakes. Any of us would. What's less understandable is that he chooses not to employ an expert when he has the means to do so. Some of that has to be his own stubbornness, but it's fair to think that he's getting bad advice from the people around him.
#11 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 27, 2023 - 2:52pm
I think it's as simple as "Lamar Jackson doesn't have an agent", which is how you get this and last week's "please don't talk to Lamar's non-NFLPA representative" memo (which the NFLPA should 100% support).
I've seen announcements like that for guys who do have agents.
#22 by BigRichie // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:17pm
If you're an agent whose Huge Client wants a yes-man, then you become so.
My first analysis was that yeah, Lamar really needed an agent. But upon further reflection, any agent who told Lamar "No you're not the best player (along with Mahomes) in the NFL", Lamar would just fire anyway.
#27 by rpwong // Mar 27, 2023 - 5:14pm
This led me to wonder: did he ever have an agent? Apparently not, according to this SI article.
There's a lot to be said for an agent providing a buffer between a player and team.
#56 by rpwong // Mar 28, 2023 - 1:26pm
I guess so. As the last pick of the first round, his parameters would have been by the book, and the negotiation would have been minimal. Plus, whatever contract he signed would already have been more money than he had previously imagined.
#5 by ImNewAroundThe… // Mar 27, 2023 - 2:09pm
Doesn't change much. I guess teams now know he prefers a new destination (that values him better) but so many were already out on him without even talking to him.
I guess it gave the Ravens more incentive to trade him before the tag but now it's just 2 1sts.
#6 by theslothook // Mar 27, 2023 - 2:12pm
I don't see how this changes anything. He's been effectively eligible for a trade for a while now. Requesting a trade isn't exactly a shock to anyone.
In reality, the fact that a trade hasn't happened suggests to me that this won't shake much of anything either. My best guess, unless he's willing to go full L. Bell, is a year spent playing on the FT and then the FT next year.
I admire Lamar's conviction to this cause; but I think his decisions are ultimately going to cost him long term.
#8 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 2:33pm
He's been effectively eligible for a trade for a while now. Requesting a trade isn't exactly a shock to anyone.
It's just letting teams know that if they negotiate with him, the Ravens won't just match the offer.
but I think his decisions are ultimately going to cost him long term.
It's just risk. If he stays healthy and productive, playing on multiple franchise tags without a doubt results in more money. Part of the problem, though, is that the franchise tag this year is artificially low, so the direct benefit to the player isn't that large.
#9 by theslothook // Mar 27, 2023 - 2:46pm
I feel like every year since his MVP campaign has depressed his contract value.
It adds more data points to suggest he's not the same player who won the MVP and won't be + he may never be healthy over a full season.
#47 by dryheat // Mar 28, 2023 - 10:04am
I think something that's lost here is that players can get fully-guaranteed contracts. Adam Vinatieri negotiated a fully-guaranteed contract with the Patriots decades ago, for example, and other non-marquee players have....but it's a give-and-take negotiation. If the top of the quarterback market is 45-million per annum, Jackson could go to the Ravens and ask for a 5-year, fully-guaranteed contract for 165 million, the deal would likely be done quickly. But when a player (or his agent) asks for a fully-guaranteed contract that also establishes a new high-water mark...well, good luck, I guess. Maybe in the next CBA, the union can establish fully-guaranteed contracts in exchange for giving up a significant benefit to the players. However, the owners are going to respond by cutting back the dollars and the years. "OK, Player X, our offer is a one-year, guaranteed contract of 3 million dollars. And we'll give you a signing bonus of a set of steak knives and a $500 Amazon gift card. See you same time, next year." And while such contracts would be a shining example of the free market, given the injury risks and overcrowded job market, I don't think the players will like that outcome much.
Remember that farcical contract dollars/years have two root causes. 1) Spreading out salary cap hit for the signing bonus by including years that the player won't be on the team, and 2) Allowing the agent to crow that he got his player a contract worth X amount of dollars by including imaginary money in years that the player won't be on the team. I would love for a GM and agent to just be transparent about it and announce a 5-year deal with a $25m signing bonus and salaries of 5, 5, 5, 300, and 600 million dollars. And the agent can boast that he negotiated a 5-year contract for his client that averages $188 million per year. Over the years, we've grown accustomed to these contracts being represented as being much more rich than they actually are. But now that some players are insisting on all those dollars being actually paid, there will have to be a significant paradigm shift in the business in order to accommodate.
#65 by Eddo // Mar 28, 2023 - 2:34pm
All this. Quarterbacks have even signed fully-guaranteed contracts, and not that long ago; Kirk Cousins signed a three-year, $84 million contract in 2018.
#113 by guest from Europe // Mar 29, 2023 - 4:32pm
Why does no team offer such contract to Jackson? 3 years, guaranteed, the same 17-18 cap% that Cousins got. So it is more money because cap is growing since 2018. It is more than franchise tags. Why not the Ravens themselves?
#12 by theslothook // Mar 27, 2023 - 2:53pm
Whenever I see contracts squabbles play out like this, I remember something Jeff Van gundy said on the Zach low podcast.
" Whenever someone says it's not about the money, remember this: It is about the money!!"
That's not to say I blame Lamar. He has a right to hold out for the best offer he can get. But I don't think the FT tag or The Ravens are preventing him from getting the contract he desires
#19 by BigRichie // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:03pm
Yup, it's entirely a negotiating tactic. Talk the Ravens down from the two 1sts thing.
(to the extent that Lamar has thought this part through at all; as opposed to just being stubborn [we humans do that sometimes])
#37 by serutan // Mar 27, 2023 - 10:03pm
Except that the 2 firsts are non-negotiable if it's done via the tag. Only if he signs the tag w/ the Nevermores can he be traded for anything other than 2 firsts.
You are right about the stubborn part - and I think that also includes an unwillingness to admit that he lost the bet he made on himself on December 4 in Denver.
#23 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:43pm
It's not just "5 years guaranteed." A five year contract (starting now, not a 5 year extension) starts getting talked about in 3 years (again, see Dak Prescott). Which means any difficulty you have with Lamar negotiating now, gets you... three seasons before you have to do it all again. And, I mean, if he doesn't like... win the Super Bowl for you (likely, because... most teams don't) or win MVP again (again, likely since most don't) you've probably got a lower opinion of him than he does.
The "fringe benefit" of getting a QB who works in a "standardized" fashion isn't necessarily small.
#30 by guest from Europe // Mar 27, 2023 - 6:28pm
At some point that QB X becomes a real player, not an unknown draft pick. It should be calculated what is the probability that X will become a rosen, a haskins, a fields, a lance, a love, a jones, a winston, a wentz, a mayfield, a wilson, a darnold...... and not a mahomes nor a jackson.
#17 by Caw Caw // Mar 27, 2023 - 3:57pm
Who wants to trade for a guy who:
- Wants $230M+ guaranteed
- Will hold out if he can't get it
- Will apparently try to depress his own trade value if you do move on from him
- Hurt and ditched a good team that did everything to build around him, kiss his ass and walk on eggshells around him throughout negotiations
- Didn't even travel for the wildcard game against the Bengals
That's gotta give even the really stupid owners some pause, right? Lamar's not gonna turn back into a team guy all of a sudden if someone else pays him.
It's a shame, this will probably end with him refusing to sign the tag and ending up on a team he hates.
#21 by jackiel // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:16pm
This is what I think people are missing. The Lamar saga has certainly become quite dramatic and I think that you have to believe that he is a bit high maintenance at this stage. Also, I think that he's overplaying his hand. Why would another team give him a fully guaranteed contract after Herbert, Burrow, and Hurts presumably don't insist upon it in their extensions?
Also, one of the big recent trends is that there are over 32 players in the league that can provide reasonable starting QB play and more will be coming into the league via the draft. For example, has it dawned upon Lamar that the Ravens can trade up this year to draft his replacement, knowing that they'll be able to recoup some of that draft capital if they move him after the draft? So the notion that teams will be lining up at his door if he were to miss a season is highly speculative. Currently, there are only a handful of teams that could plausibly want him this year. Why would that number be higher a year from now? I think that this saga ends up becoming a replay of the Bell situation. Lamar is going to cost himself at least $100M in career earnings at this rate.
#24 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:44pm
Also, one of the big recent trends is that there are over 32 players in the league that can provide reasonable starting QB play and more will be coming into the league via the draft.
The second part, perhaps.
To the first part, about 25% of the league is actively firing their QBs/desperately looking for an improvement because their old starters (at their current team) are replacement level (~-10% DVOA) or worse.
And that does not include Brissett and Flacco, who teams don't want to be a long-term option.
#25 by theslothook // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:53pm
To piggy back on this; football at the end of the day is a relative sport. Today's marginal starter might be miles ahead of that person 20-30 years ago, but that still squarely puts him as marginal starter because his competition has risen in lockstep, more or less.
Depending your matter of taste, Lamar is somewhere between the 2nd and 10th best QB in the league when healthy. Or if you prefer tiers, like I do, he's somewhere between a tier 2 and a very high end tier 3. And quite honestly, he's an extremely high floor player who appears far less dependent on roster construction than all but a handful of other quarterbacks. That's a very valuable player and a very rare player.
The issue isn't his on the field value, but rather the follow:
A) He wants a contract that frankly only one person in the world could credibly demand(and he didn't).
B) Both his style of play and recent results paint him as an injury risk.
Combine both and it looks like a true buyer beware contract.
#38 by jackiel // Mar 27, 2023 - 10:56pm
Wins and roster spots are zero growth opportunities. The best roster is capped at 17 regular season wins and the worst roster's floor in 0 wins. Similar dynamic with QB1 spots. There are only 32 of them and teams like Washington (Brissett/Howell), Tampa (Baker/Trask), NO (Carr), and Atlanta (Ridder/Heinecke) have made it clear through their action that they aren't killing themselves to obtain a valuable player like Lamar at the moment. If teams didn't think that replacement-level players could be obtained easily and that they couldn't design productive offenses with them, then demand for Lamar would be higher. Based upon their behavior, teams feel that they can achieve their objectives without paying up for a top-tier QB.
#43 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 3:24am
If teams behave rationally, your explanation is very plausible.
Somebody wrote that there is an unwritten rule between the team owners, not to go for a player on a franchise tag, so some collusion would be another reason.
A 3rd explanation would be that teams value 1st round draft picks higher than actual players, especially after last year's Watson and R. Wilson trades. Panthers just gave a lot of picks for #1 draft slot, not for a player.
#78 by KnotMe // Mar 28, 2023 - 8:51pm
I think it's probably a reflection of specific situation too.
Basically, if Mahomes was in the exact same situation (non-exclusive tag + demanding a 250m fully guaranteed contract)...I suspect there would alot more takers. Twitter would need a new server.
#81 by jackiel // Mar 29, 2023 - 1:04am
I don't understand why people treat the non-exclusive franchise tag as collusive. It's restricted free agency. In order to sign a player away from another team, they have create an offer sheet (which takes up cap space), give the incumbent team a few days to match (which precludes the new team from being able to make roster moves in the interim and the incumbent team has every incentive to wait until the deadline before making a decision for competitive reasons), and send the incumbent team draft capital and/or players. On its face, that doesn't sound like good business in any scenario, even if the player promises to be a massive difference maker.
Yes, I imagine that Mahomes could get a different reception. But I don't think that it'd be significantly different in this case since he'd still be under team control and the incumbent team would likely let the world know that it's making a significant effort to try to keep him. People seem to forget that Washington and Houston had no interest in keeping Cousins and Watson, respectively. That's why they were relatively easy to get.
In addition, I think that the owners aren't too impressed with Lamar's business acumen. Lost in all of the noise is the fact that Lamar is getting hung up on about $30M in compensation (I believe that he could easily get a deal that effectively guarantees him $200M over 5 years from Baltimore versus the $235M over 5 years that he seems to want in order to beat Watson). This isn't a massive gap when you consider that Lamar has other endorsement opportunities to make up the difference. He already gave up $20M by playing on the 5th year option last year instead of signing a new deal at $40M+. If he signs his franchise tender at $30M this year, that's another $20M or so that he's missing out on. I have to imagine that such decision making gives owners pause. It's obvious that pride is trumping money at the moment. Would you want to want to negotiate with someone like this once they start to decline a bit?
#83 by guest from Europe // Mar 29, 2023 - 5:19am
Jackson is no financial expert.
Lost in all of the noise is the fact that Lamar is getting hung up on about $30M in compensation (I believe that he could easily get a deal that effectively guarantees him $200M over 5 years from Baltimore versus the $235M over 5 years that he seems to want in order to beat Watson).
Do you really think this is the problem? They are negotiating for more than a year about $30M? What is $30M over 5 years to any team? If this is true, than Ravens are screwing themselves.
Isn't it more probable that they are afraid of Flacco scenario and are offering just first 2 years out of 5 guaranteed? Why they don't settle on a 3-year guaranteed contract $140-150M, i have no idea.
Texans wanted Watson and he was holding out, didn't want to play for them if i remember correctly. Browns gave a lot to get him.
If another team offers a fully guaranteed contract, Ravens can match, but it is guaranteed then. No way out. This is what Jackson wants.
This is the best QB in the history of Ravens. He would be the best in the modern history (after 1978) of many teams that would get him, such as Bears, Jets, Texans... this is no ordinary player. Ravens offense without him is horrible! They score 16-17 points.
As i wrote above, your scenario where teams prefer cheaper players such as Dalton and Heinicke and Brissett is plausible. Such a contract is too expensive for them. Or they now value draft picks more than any player.
On the other hand teams really had to sign D. Jones or Carr for slightly less money.
Everything you write about business acumen and negotiations is true. That is business and corporations and not sports competition. Do people want to cheer for teams as corporations which are doing good business? If so, then Texans are doing very good business. They are making profit. There are no overpaid players. They sign everyone cheap. They have good draft capital...they "don't let prisoners to run the jail".
#87 by jackiel // Mar 29, 2023 - 10:32am
Yes, he turned down $175M guaranteed last year (link). I believe that Baltimore would bump that up to $200M this year.
Yes, Watson wanted out of Houston. However, the team made him a healthy scratch in 2021 while his legal situation played out and traded him at the first chance they got in 2022. Do you really think that he could've come back to Houston, the place where the alleged behavior that generated the lawsuits occurred, after his suspension? What value does a highly paid QB have on a rebuilding team?
#89 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 29, 2023 - 11:21am
Do you really think that he could've come back to Houston, the place where the alleged behavior that generated the lawsuits occurred, after his suspension?
I'm not sure a rational-actor analysis applies to either Watson or the Houston Texans.
#107 by guest from Europe // Mar 29, 2023 - 3:56pm
Texans gave Watson a $156M contract in September 2020. All sides were satisfied during 2020 season. Watson didn't want to play for them in 2021. He is or isn't a serial rapist. Watson is a lesser player than Jackson. He was traded in March 2022 for 3 1st round picks+other picks. This is the summary of their saga.
Now, i wrote that Watson was in-demand (by other teams). Look at the number of draft picks they got. More draft picks for a lesser play than Jackson, who wanted out for a whole year, unlike Jackson. I just read now on ESPN where Falcons owner said he wanted Watson, as well. This was not just one lunatic team wanting him.
And now for Jackson, only maybe the Colts would consider him? Irsay gave an interview, where he says money is not the problem. He can pay that. He is thinking about injuries. i read this 1 hour ago on ESPN.
So, for a better player, less draft picks would be traded away than in Watson case. Money would be the same.
Do you really think that he could've come back to Houston, the place where the alleged behavior that generated the lawsuits occurred, after his suspension?
You missunderstood something. I don't know what. Texans did great in that trade. In 2020 they wanted Watson and vice versa. In 2021 Watson didn't want them and they were paying a player a lot of money to stay away. They are very lucky to get anything for him, in my opinion.
Is all of the above rational behaviour by various teams??? I don't think it is and that runs contrary to your explanation what is going on here.
Yes, he turned down $175M guaranteed last year (link). I believe that Baltimore would bump that up to $200M this year.
It's $133M. The rest is in case of injury.
If they would pay $200M, why not $235M? This behaviour of contract struggle would not be rational by either side. Again, what is $35M to any team? It is possible that they don't want to increase the offer above $130-140M. After the 2022 injury, they may give a lower offer. This is just meaningless speculation. Let's not go there.
#108 by Eddo // Mar 29, 2023 - 4:06pm
"If they would pay $200M, why not $235M?"
Because there's a limit somewhere. Otherwise, it just becomes a chain: "If they would pay $235M, why not $260M?"... "If they would pay $260M, why not $300M?"... and so forth. Especially when the $200M figure included was already an increase from what they had offered before.
#111 by BigRichie // Mar 29, 2023 - 4:26pm
You speak of Lamar being a "better player" than DeShaun like it's self-evident. Other than Lamar's 1 MVP year - and DeShaun's miserable last December - DeShaun has been the better QB.
4 years ago is a LONG, LONG! time in NFL years.
#128 by guest from Europe // Mar 30, 2023 - 4:26am
Jackson was 3 years ago. MVP season. Watson's good season was 2 years ago. That was Watson's only top 10 season. Watson had a big injury in his rookie year. Jackson had injury in his last year.
They are both talented. Let's say their baseline is similar. Jackson's ceiling is much higher. Watson has shown nothing in the last 2 years, he was a negative player for 2 teams. Without Jackson Ravens' offense is really bad. No WRs. There is only TE Andrews. With Jackson they are a top 7 team and a Super Bowl contender as Schatz was writing every week in DVOA articles.
My point: for such an unknown player who was out for a whole year at least 2 teams, Browns and Falcons, competed. For Jackson, no team.
If some team doesn't want Jackson, Rodgers is available. The MVP a year ago. If the $50M money is too high, then all the veteran QBs at $41-45M are overpaid. They are no MVPs. (Please, leave Mahomes and his weird contract out of this) D. Jones was just paid $41M/year + incentives!
If 2 1st round picks are too much, Packers will get maybe a 2nd round pick for Rodgers.
#137 by Eddo // Mar 30, 2023 - 9:30am
It's also that the criticism of the Watson trade and contract is influencing how teams act now. Of course, a lot of that was around Watson the person and his behavior, but there was still plenty of criticism of how much the Browns paid for his on-field track record. Teams are very quick to react - and overreact.
#112 by theslothook // Mar 29, 2023 - 4:31pm
Watson is a lesser player than Jackson.
Is this true, especially when we are comparing apples to apples. Coming into that trade, Watson's most recent season saw him finish 5th in DVOA. A season where the team went 4-12 and it came without DeAndre Hopkins. Rightly or wrongly, Watson at that time was seen as a football hero who's incredible play wasn't enough to Peyton Manning his team to a winning record.
As of this writing, Lamar Jackson is 14th in DVOA. I realize he has an MVP and Watson does not, but recent seasons get weighted much more than past seasons.
But even if I granted that Jackson is better than Watson was then; Watson wasn't dogged by injury concerns and the fact that the Browns aren't involved. Maybe if they were, Jackson would be in a Browns uniform.
This latter point cannot be understated. The Browns were starring at either overpaying Baker Mayfield or letting him walk and wasting a playoff ready roster. Since both would have looked like disasters if they happened and here was a top 5 dvoa QB with age on his side who is available. Only, he didnt want to go to Cleveland and I believe had a no trade clause. To sell him on Cleveland, they made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
#168 by guest from Europe // Mar 31, 2023 - 4:26pm
Watson wasn't dogged by injury concern. He was dogged by not wanting to play for his team! He wanted out! Is there a greater sin for NFL owners? His last season wasn't 2020, but 2021 where he was sitting on a couch collecting money.
At least Browns and Falcons wanted him. Browns outbid Falcons. Falcons owner said so.
#169 by theslothook // Mar 31, 2023 - 4:59pm
Here's the thing. At the time his trade request came out, absolutely no one faulted him. The Texans had just traded their best receiver for a 2nd round pick while Diggs had gone for a first. At that time, Hopkins was among the best players in the NFL. And then note, the team was being run by its Champlain. And of course, despite his best efforts, the team finished 4-12. I don't think he came off as a malcontent at all for wanting to get the hell out of Houston.
Its really vital to remember what the optics were at the time. Watson had just come off a healthy season where he finished with the 5th ranked DVOA season while playing for a lousy team.
Lamar Jackson is coming of a season where he finished 14th in DVOA and it's been a consecutive season which has been ruined by his injuries.
Right now, its questionable if Burrow or Herbert deserves a 5 year, 250 million dollar contract fully guaranteed. Lamar appears to be a worse player than Burrow and more injury prone along with questions about how he will age in the next 3-5 years. Is this a player you feel comfortable trading 2 first rounders + handing this contract to? I don't. I didn't with Watson either so I am at least consistent there.
#170 by guest from Europe // Apr 01, 2023 - 3:47am
This is all true for 2020 season and i remember this. But 2021 happened. This must be the most important to the owners. Paying a lot of money for a player who doesn't play. And is suspended in 2022 and doesn't play again!
Irsay said in an interview that he would want Jackson, money is no problem (i guess that means $250M), but he is worried about injuries. Meaning he would pay the money and player wouldn't be able to play. This is exactly Watson's scenario! And everyone knew this in March 2022. Watson wasn't traded in December 2020.
As far as optics, 2022 Ravens were a contender with Jackson in a flawed offense. They were on a level of Cowboys and Bengals. Without him, they sank! Burrow has great WRs, Jackson not so much. If we really go by optics and guessing, than no: Burrow appears worse than Jackson. Take away Bengals WRs and see what happens to Burrow. We don't know. Ravens' WRs are really bad, worse than Patriots'.
I can do this for any player like it's done here for Rodgers and Jackson. For everyone some risk of injury exists, or contract is too long or whatever story. Josh Allen had throwing arm injury in 2022, so injury concerns. Prescott contract was too expensive, as Pat wrote many times and he was injured.... Mahomes had high ankle sprain in this playoffs. A few years ago his knee was almost broken backwards and Henne had to play. So injury concerns. Both Allen and Mahomes run around carelessly.
For a team like Steelers or Seahawks i would prefer Rodgers and be a contender immediately. For a team like Bears or Giants or Commanders i would prefer Jackson. Bears have a lot of draft picks and have never developed a QB. Giants signed D. Jones to a large contract. He is a running QB. Injury risk and not high quality. Vikings could trade for Jackson and give back Cousins on an expiring contract instead of a draft pick...
A lot more was paid in terms of draft picks for Stafford or Watson or this year #1 draft slot than 2 1st round picks. There is no right or wrong in this...
#171 by theslothook // Apr 01, 2023 - 12:34pm
Jim Irsay can and does say a lot of things. Not all or even most are cogent. Who knows if he's sincere.
Sticking with the Watson vs Lamar comparison. I think the teams that did their due diligence, concluded Watson wasn't going to be arrested or charged with a crime. Thus, there was no risk other than ugly optics. You can point to him missing the season as evidence of additional risk, but I don't think it's the same as injury risk and permanent decline.
At the end of the day, you have one guy who's last season was top 5 and another guy who's 14th. And one guy who missed the last 2 years with injuries vs a guy who missed a season because he was/is a ghoulish scumbag.
But above and beyond that, I don't think any team but the Browns was prepared to give Watson the contract he got. If the Browns had not made the Watson trade, they probably trade for Lamar and give him the same contract he wants.
All of this can be traced to the actions of one desperate franchise.
#172 by guest from Europe // Apr 01, 2023 - 2:26pm
Come on, you are usually more precise than this. Falcons wanted Watson as well. We don't know what contract they would give him. But it is at least 2 teams, not one desperate. If Broncos didn' t get R. Wilson a few days earlier, maybe they go after Watson.
My point is why are there no rumours or reports that any team is interested for Jackson. If some team would give an interview and say, "we were interested to sign Jackson, we negotiated, he asks for too much money", that would be fine.
As far as the player performance goes, you usually look at the whole career. I guess you are now looking at the last year, because that is what teams do? If so, why did no team give Brissett a bigger contract? In 2022 he was good, 7th by DVOA if you will. If we go by stats like that, he was better than Burrow, Hurts, Herbert, Carr, Jackson, Watson, D. Jones, G. Smith... Brissett's stats are better than these players signed this month to large contracts, better than players coming up for $250M contracts (Burrow, Hurts...) and Brissett got 1 year $8M contract. Literally no team but Commanders is interested and even they not really. Ravens could have gone for Brissett, as well.
There is no evidence that teams do these contracts based on pure performance. In my opinion it is just erratic and based on narratives. 2021 Rams won with Stafford trade, so teams traded for Wilson and Watson. This year Purdy and Hurts appeared, so now Colts GM is saying "you can draft QBs in any round". Purdy is now the hot thing, Watson and Wilson flopped and teams don't want Rodgers and Jackson.
Also, Ravens could give Jackson a long contract: 10 years, $400M, guaranteed $235M. He gets more than Watson, they take a risk for 4 or 5 guaranteed years, if it works later in Y5-Y10 it is below market when all future contracts are signed. Giants are risking on D. Jones contract, Cardinals on Murray contract, Rams on Stafford, Broncos on Wilson, Bills on Allen... this would be 2 years longer risk. They can borrow money from the future and make cap hit low when necessary.
Or Ravens could have signed someone else in free agency. There were many QBs available.
I mean, a lot of logic-gymnastics has to be performed to think that all of the contracts above are fine, but not Rodgers' for 2 years. And all teams think now Rodgers is finished? 1 bad year (by his standards) while playing injured and that's it. I think Rodgers is the smallest risk of all players written above. Allen hasn't reached his level.
Whenever i write that Rodgers is available, there is zero response by anybody.
#173 by theslothook // Apr 01, 2023 - 3:04pm
Here's my general position. Unlike other QBs, Lamar and his camp have been explicit. We want something like 5 years and 250 million dollars and every penny of it guaranteed. Do not bother counter offering because we aren't listening. Really, all of this discussion stems mostly behind this position he has taken.
Ok, if that's the case; then at that point, you need to ask yourself IS Lamar worth that kind of commitment just based on his play? In my opinion, no. Now factor in the injury concerns and that's a hard no from me. I think that's all thats working against him here.
You can bring up Watson, but I think the circumstances and landscape are different now. Back then, Cleveland had the right cocktail of desperation to ink that deal; effectively coming off multiple decades of failure and had a hungry stomach for high stakes gambling than any other franchise. And look what's happened; that deal looks completely horrible. And then you toss in how the Russ deal looks to have the Broncos in financial jail for years and you can see why people are queasy handing out rich contracts like that.
#174 by guest from Europe // Apr 01, 2023 - 5:37pm
I agree with all of this. There was a link in these comments to an article that says Jackson wants more guaranteed than Watson. Not that he wants a fully guaranteed contract, don't bother with anything else. So, Mahomes-type very long contract 10+ years might be an option for Ravens. Guarantees on Watson-level.
But those are negotiations. Some team might be able to negotiate something better for them. Jackson might take some other deal during negotiations if he is that angry at the Ravens. Someone should give him the number of Kirk Cousins and Cousins can explain to him all the advantages of a 2-year contract. In 2 years he would get a richer contract.
D. Jones got a 4 year $160M contract. Less guaranteed, but barring a career-ending injury or horrible, horrible play, he is getting that money. QBs just do. Wentz got 83% of his total contract. Goff is still getting his after playing some years good, some bad. Only Carr got released. A team that guarantees 150M out of 250M total contract won't give up on a player after 2 years nor 3 years unless such player is totally unplayable. They will fire coaches first, change schemes, add WRs, linemen... Bears are doing that for Fields who is on a cheap contract. Broncos will stay with Wilson, Cardinals with Murray. Titans aren't releasing Tannehill.
I wouldn't pay any of these QBs $250M. Including Burrow. I would let them play out their contract to get more information on them. I wouldn't have extended Stafford, nor Wilson, nor Murray...Cowboys with Prescott did well. Rookie contract, franchise tag and then a short expensive contract. And Prescott has had more severe injuries than Jackson!
In 2023 free agency i would choose Rodgers. Next choice Garoppolo (but people don't like him). Then someone cheap and stable for short time like Dalton or Brissett. And only then Jackson on this expensive $230-250M contract. If a team has no other option, but to give such a contract, better risk it on a player who can reach MVP-level. Not on Murray, D. Jones, Carr, Goff, Watson, Hurts, Herbert. Ravens at the moment have no other option. They have the franchise tag and Jackson doesn't play or leaves next year or sits on a couch like Watson in 2021. He is their best QB ever. They can draft someone in 2nd round? They are no Packers or Colts or Cowboys or Chargers with great QBs forever. And they were a clear contender every year with Jackson. This is not some future project like Chargers or Jaguars. I just don't know that a player tweets goodbye to a team and comes back long-term. Garoppolo came back last year for half a season.
#85 by ImNewAroundThe… // Mar 29, 2023 - 8:56am
I don't understand why people treat the non-exclusive franchise tag as collusive.
That's not why people think that. It's the fact that so many teams immediately said they weren't even going to try to go after an unanimous MVP (they didn't do it w/Brady who was much older). Seems pretty right as teams continue to double down.
Lost in all of the noise is the fact that Lamar is getting hung up on about $30M in compensation
Same could be said for teams too then.
#86 by LondonMonarch // Mar 29, 2023 - 10:03am
This is surely a function of his having made clear that he wanted 250m/5yrs guaranteed? The incentive to negotiate seems quite limited where either (a) he stick to his guns, which is something teams are not going to pay; or (b) he relents and agrees something more reasonable, in which case the Ravens likely match.
#88 by jackiel // Mar 29, 2023 - 10:41am
+1.
I don't see the big deal about the other teams' announcements about being uninterested. Isn't it similar to teams' immediate announcements that they were interested in making a deal for Watson last year or Rodgers being allowed to negotiate with NYJ, possibly influence their FA moves, and unilaterally announce that he will be playing in NY while still being under contract with GB?
#91 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 29, 2023 - 11:26am
No.
Announcing you are interested is competitive behavior. Even if you do not sign the player, you are attempting to drive the price of that player upwards, which functionally lowers the talent/dollar for the team who eventually signs that player.
In effect, by doing so, you either make yourself better or make your competition worse. You are spiting the cartel in your own interest. This is competitive behavior.
(Saying nothing functions basically the same way -- you still have the silent threat of an unannounced pursuit)
This is the opposite. This is anti-competitive behavior. (In the economic sense) By loudly announcing your disinterest, you are signaling to the other teams that they have less competition/demand and can lower their asking price. This functionally increases the talent/dollar for the team who eventually signs that player.
In effect, by doing so, you do not make yourself better and also make your competition better. You are doing a fellow cartel member a favor, and have virtue-signaled this to the group. This is collusive behavior, and is anti-competitive.
#93 by BigRichie // Mar 29, 2023 - 11:48am
Or you loudly announce your disinterest, thus signaling the Ravens they can lower their offering price. Which a prideful Lamar refuses and doesn't report, or he does but then as a very unhappy camper who sits out and stays out with whatever 'Owies!' come up in the course of an NFL season.
Sure worked great for the Ravens' competitors in the '22 season.
#120 by ImNewAroundThe… // Mar 29, 2023 - 8:30pm
It wasn't clear. They were rumors. The least you can do it take a couple days to call and find out...and then keep it to yourself (like other teams did).
But coming right out and saying you're not interested in a 26 year old MVP is NOT normal and I simply won't have such a thing be twisted as such. Especially when it was done by numerous teams.
#131 by dryheat // Mar 30, 2023 - 8:01am
I agree. I find that point confusing. An NFL team isn't trading for and signing 2019 Lamar Jackson. They would be trading for and signing, and paying an enormous sum to, the 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027 Lamar Jacksons.
Why would someone expect a team to throw all this money at a player based on his accomplishments from three seasons ago?
#135 by guest from Europe // Mar 30, 2023 - 9:14am
So, a team can take Rodgers. Better player, shorter contract. 2 years, $100M, 2 more virtual years to lower the cap hit.
Why did teams sign Carr and D. Jones a few weeks ago? Why R. Wilson and Watson last year? Why Murray, Prescott, Cousins, Stafford, Goff? None of these players is Rodgers' quality.
Bucs were happy with Brady. 2008 Jets were happy with Favre until he got injured. 2009 Vikings happy with Favre. 2019- 2020 Saints happy with old Brees. (Ryan and Rivers are not that quality of Rodgers.)
I understand that some teams want draft lottery and are totally rebuilding: Panthers, Colts, Texans. Chiefs and Bills are happy with their $45M/year QBs. 49ers will go with unicorn Purdy. Other teams?? They all have better players than Rodgers and Jackson?
The only cheaper contract is Garoppolo's and people don't want him because "there is no healthy Garoppolo".
#136 by ImNewAroundThe… // Mar 30, 2023 - 9:30am
How is it confusing?
Are we really going to pretend becoming the youngest MVP doesn't mean anything (before Lamar it was...Mahomes, pretty good after wasn't he)? Are we really going to use that as an excuse for prematurely admitting you're out on a multi time pro bowler?
Yeesh. Why did the Bucs sign Brady?
#144 by dryheat // Mar 30, 2023 - 11:38am
We're not pretending. Why are you pretending the years 2020-2022 didn't happen? The MVP in 2019 doesn't mean squat. Because what Lamar Jackson was able to accomplish 3 seasons ago, and hasn't come 1000 miles of since, is irrelevant to the football seasons of 2023-2027. It's more or less the same reason, although not as extreme, GMs aren't falling all over themselves to sign RG3. Why do you insist on repeatedly making the point that Jackson was the youngest MVP? It's beyond irrelevant. Someone's always the youngest to do something...make a Pro Bowl, start the Pro Bowl, named 1st team All-Pro, start a Super Bowl, win a Super Bowl, win two Super Bowls. Who. Cares?
It's a horrible businessman that ties compensation to what the employee did years prior. There are two horrible businessmen in the NFL. One already made that mistake with Watson. The other won't be an owner in a couple of months.
Brady was not asking for a top-of-the market, fully guaranteed contract. I don't see the parallel....nor to the post above referencing Rodgers, Favre, Carr, etc. NOBODY, not even Watson, has ever asked for this contract before.
#154 by ImNewAroundThe… // Mar 30, 2023 - 4:00pm
You mean his 2nd pro bowl year?
The MVP in 2019 doesn't mean squat.
Patently and objectively false. As if a team isn't trying to trade for Rodgers right now too.
It's more or less the same reason, although not as extreme, GMs aren't falling all over themselves to sign RG3.
If it's not as extreme what's the similarity? Seriously, answer away.
Why do you insist on repeatedly making the point that Jackson was the youngest MVP?
I wasn't! It's your buddy that tried to make it the main point!
It's beyond irrelevant.
Even though it's not.
Brady was not asking for a top-of-the market, fully guaranteed contract.
And guess what? Neither is Lamar! If only the teams inquired first instead of just assuming! My whole entire point!
But none of this is a good defense of possible collusion. But of COURSE yall got hung up on someone saying Lamar has a track record of great play. But I, of course get downvoted because I'm opposing what is clearly the majority. Like I said elsewhere, never about the quality of argument. No matter the facts.
#156 by guest from Europe // Mar 31, 2023 - 3:32am
I was referencing Favre and Carr and others with regards to Rodgers, not Jackson. Rodgers is available now. Saints chose Carr. Giants chose D. Jones. Seahawks chose G. Smith, Commanders chose Brissett etc. All of them could have chosen Rodgers. Those are not players of Rodgers quality.
Comparison to Rodgers now is 2008 Favre, 2009 Favre, 2012 Manning, 2020 Brady.
2 very high quality QBs are available. If Jackson's demands are too high, there is Rodgers under set contract. No negotiations necessary. Just a 2nd round pick.
I don't have an explanation what is going on here.
What are Packers, Bears, Vikings, Seahawks, Giants, Commanders, Lions, Patriots, Steelers, Saints, Falcons thinking that they don't want any of these 2 QBs? Jets want at least one. Raiders signed DVOA-darling Garoppolo. Do these teams have any better plan? (I think Rodgers would make Steelers or Seahawks or Commanders or Lions real contenders. Rodgers' cap number can be lowered.) Other teams have expensive QB contracts they can't get out of.
#161 by Pat // Mar 31, 2023 - 9:40am
What are Packers, Bears, Vikings, Seahawks, Giants, Commanders, Lions, Patriots, Steelers, Saints, Falcons thinking that they don't want any of these 2 QBs?
I still think quarterbacks who are difficult to negotiate with just aren't worth as much. Don't really understand why this is that surprising - teams want to have QBs for a decade. They don't want to repeat difficult situations multiple times.
#167 by guest from Europe // Mar 31, 2023 - 4:16pm
Seahawks, Saints and Commanders signed QBs this month for 1-3 years. You really think they chose wisely and will have them for a decade? If you say, those will be bridge-type players to future, then so would Rodgers for 2 years.
#177 by Pat // Apr 03, 2023 - 12:27pm
You really think they chose wisely and will have them for a decade?
I think they structured their contracts so that they could keep them cheaply as long as they're still performing, yes. It's not the same for Rodgers.
#180 by guest from Europe // Apr 03, 2023 - 1:44pm
Carr has 3 years $100M guaranteed. 1 more year $50M team-option.
Rodgers has 2 years $108M guaranteed. 2 more years $36M team-option.
Brissett 1 year, non-starter money.
D. Jones' contract we have discussed. 2 years $82M guaranteed. If he plays well it's $50M/year.
Only G. Smith's is structured with many options and incentives.
You would prefer all of them to Rodgers because they are cheaper? Any other reason?
I would prefer Rodgers for any of those teams because of his quality.
#90 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 29, 2023 - 11:22am
I don't understand why people treat the non-exclusive franchise tag as collusive.
Because the plays say the owners are colluding and the owners have said the owners are colluding and their behavior says the owners are colluding?
#94 by Pat // Mar 29, 2023 - 12:06pm
Collusion's a weird word because by dictionary definition it means there has to be cooperation, but tacit collusion doesn't actually require active cooperation (so... it literally shouldn't use the word 'collusion', which is why it's sometimes called 'parallelism').
Auctions are a good example. If you're a group of resellers at an auction, you're all similar size and know roughly what profit margins the others are working at and what you're working at, the auction is going to end up just being a game rather than finding the optimum price - because everyone knows going over the target price cuts into your own profit margins as well.
I don't actually think owners avoiding Lamar Jackson is explicit collusion. It's just tacit - they all use the base franchise tag as a cap on QB salaries, so no one's going to go over it. That doesn't actually require coordination between the owners, it just requires acknowledging the basic economics of the situation.
#95 by theslothook // Mar 29, 2023 - 12:16pm
I think the salient question is, if Lamar was equal to Mahomes and for whatever reason in that scenario the Ravens refused to meet his asking price and non exclusive FTed him, Would he still be twisting in the wind?
To me, if you really believe in the collusion theory to that degree(because there's collusion in the NFL), then the answer is yes. But I highly doubt it would happen if he was Mahomes
#102 by Pat // Mar 29, 2023 - 2:01pm
I don't believe those two statements are independent. I don't think you can be a player like Mahomes and end up in the situation Lamar Jackson's in. I believe a good part of the reason why Mahomes is so valuable is that he works extremely well with the coaching staff and left the contract negotiation stuff up to a separate person.
#106 by theslothook // Mar 29, 2023 - 3:05pm
That's undoubtedly true, but that's why this is purely a thought experiment. If Mahomes, for whatever reason, decided he wanted essentially a 5 year, 300 million dollar contract and all of it fully guaranteed; I don't know if all 32 teams would be happy to pay that, but I suspect at least one of them would.
#143 by Pat // Mar 30, 2023 - 11:17am
Yeah, but, it's a nonsense thought experiment to me. It's like saying "what if gravity just stopped?" Well, I mean, it can't, so...
There are people who look at thought experiments like that and think they're interesting (xkcd, for instance, has an entire book based on it). To me... they're not all that interesting because none of these variables are separable.
If Mahomes just, I dunno, had a brain injury and said "yup, this is what you're paying me or I won't play" - sure, some team out there would sign him to it, because many of these teams are run by people who treat them as toys. And then he'd go to that team, flop massively (because if his mindset is like that, he wouldn't be as successful) and then teams would never do it again. It's exactly the same as what happened with Mike Ditka and Ricky Williams. Trading an entire draft for a player doesn't intrinsically sound crazy, but the problem is that if you have so much confidence that a player's going to be great... you're likely to be wrong, because it means you don't actually know anything about football.
But we're not going to get a situation like that because you won't get a player like Mahomes who doesn't realize you need to work with the team in order to actually have any success, and your value is directly tied to team success. It's like saying "yeah, but what if two plus two was actually five?"
#145 by theslothook // Mar 30, 2023 - 12:09pm
We have reached another topic where we must agree to disagree.
The point of thought experiments is to isolate factors. It helps come up with a cogent theory about cause and effect - one that you can later take to data to see if it holds up.
At first blush, I didn't really understand what was so confusing about my question. Presumably, its not all that farfetched to imagine a prodigious QB deciding he wants to be paid a maximum fully guaranteed contract. I think, for instance, Mahomes should do that. But if I am reading your view correctly, you seem to be making the claim that the reason Mahomes is perennial mvp favorite is in part because he's I guess an agreeable guy and willing to play ball with contracts? As opposed to Lamar whos steadfast stubbornness affects his play on the field?
#147 by Pat // Mar 30, 2023 - 12:56pm
you seem to be making the claim that the reason Mahomes is perennial mvp favorite is in part because he's I guess an agreeable guy and willing to play ball with contracts?
No, I'm making the claim that the reason Mahomes is a perennial MVP favorite is that he has a fantastic relationship with the coaching staff and front office and understands the game itself (which includes the business aspect) which necessarily means that he will be willing to play ball with contracts.
Which makes this the point that we disagree on:
Presumably, its not all that farfetched to imagine a prodigious QB deciding he wants to be paid a maximum fully guaranteed contract.
I think it's very farfetched. The main reason we have one is that Lamar Jackson's an extreme outlier. Not having an agent as a top-end QB is extremely weird. It's just massively against his financial interests (not just for the NFL contract - he also has virtually no endorsement deals) and he seems to be sticking to it as a point of pride or something.
To be honest, the fact that he's sticking to it so much makes me question as to whether or not Jackson actually will continue to be a prodigious QB. Just the fact that he thinks he can hop teams freely and continue to be as productive as he is is just... really questionable.
#148 by theslothook // Mar 30, 2023 - 1:30pm
I have always regarded Terrell Owens as a good example of an athlete who can simultaneously be a super hall of fame level player on the field and also be a complete malcontent off the field and in the locker room, clashing with every Qb and every head coach he ever brushed up against; including two all time head coaches. Furthermore, TO cared not just about maximizing the size of his wallet(televised driveway situps and all), but also winning on his terms meaning he was the primary focus of the offense and not some tight end named Witten.
Maybe Antonio Brown is another example; though I think there are more sinister aspects to his behavior.
#150 by Eddo // Mar 30, 2023 - 2:33pm
I mean, it's not really that farfetched - isn't that why Aaron Rodgers is owed so much by the Packers? The same Aaron Rodgers who longed for more offensive weapons also strove to be the top paid QB in the league.
Mahomes and Brady were savvy enough to value their teams' roster flexibility more than the marginal value of a few million dollars each year, but most start athletes aren't cut from that cloth.
#176 by Pat // Apr 03, 2023 - 10:34am
I mean, it's not really that farfetched - isn't that why Aaron Rodgers is owed so much by the Packers? The same Aaron Rodgers who longed for more offensive weapons also strove to be the top paid QB in the league.
Except I don't actually believe Rodgers is the same kind of elite QB anymore. The reason why the Packers had to pay him that much is because he wasn't sure he was interested in playing football anymore, and, well, the old Parcells quote - if you're thinking about retiring, you're retired.
I don't think you can split off the motivation from the talent. The motivation is the talent.
#109 by guest from Europe // Mar 29, 2023 - 4:07pm
they all use the base franchise tag as a cap on QB salaries, so no one's going to go over it. That doesn't actually require coordination between the owners, it just requires acknowledging the basic economics of the situation.
I don't understand what this financially means. Probably there are other people, too. I would kindly ask you to write in plain terms what should the contract be for such a QB? For Burrow, Herbert, Hurts. They will soon get a new contract. Let's leave Jackson out of it for a moment. Let's imagine Hurts plays out his 4th year. What contract will he then get in March 2024? Or Burrow? The Bengals want to give him a new contract next year, what should that contract be so that all sides are happy?
Perhaps that will give us some clarity what is the problem here? Is it the money?
#142 by Pat // Mar 30, 2023 - 11:12am
Financially it means that QB contracts are basically all the same. If you're above some threshold, you get the equivalent of an NBA max contract. If you're below it, you get less. But that threshold is much lower than you might think it is.
Because this kind of behavior doesn't explicitly appear in the CBA, it kindof looks like collusion. But it's really just the financial effect of having a "cap" on contracts from the franchise tag. No one's going to sign a player for massively more than the franchise tag unless things are totally weird. Partly because it hurts themselves because it also makes the franchise tag itself jump up.
Let's imagine Hurts plays out his 4th year. What contract will he then get in March 2024?
It's the same situation that Prescott was in. Just take that contract and run it forward at about 6% growth/yr. You'll be within like, 5-10% of the contract. It'll be short (4 yrs probably) because the team will want to basically treat it as an evaluation and reset it with two years remaining if things work out. Exactly like the Cowboys are doing right now.
If Hurts signs an extension this year it'll likely be closer to a standard QB contract - but this is Philly we're talking about, so it's a lot more difficult to project. They're more than aware that the best option for the team is a long contract like Mahomes's, so they just need to convince Hurts. Given their track record they're likely to get it.
The Bengals want to give him a new contract next year, what should that contract be so that all sides are happy?
The Bengals want to give him a new contract this year, not next year. He's in his 4th year already with the 5th picked up. If the Bengals go with a "standard" contract it'll probably be 5 years, 250M, 170M guaranteed, plus or minus about 5M or so.
Most QB contracts are boilerplate boring. Which is exactly why Lamar's saying he doesn't need an agent (like, almost literally, he's come out and basically said this) - but the problem is that he wants a non-boring contract, which makes it difficult to negotiate with him, which means his value goes down.
#157 by guest from Europe // Mar 31, 2023 - 3:51am
The Bengals want to give him a new contract this year, not next year. He's in his 4th year already with the 5th picked up. If the Bengals go with a "standard" contract it'll probably be 5 years, 250M, 170M guaranteed, plus or minus about 5M or so.
Ravens are offering such contract, per Schefter video.
So, we can guess that total money, 5 years, $250M, is not the problem. If Burrow and others will get such $250M money. We can guess it is the guarantees.
Why don't the Ravens offer shorter contract: 3years $150M guaranteed? Cousins-type.
You don't like such contracts, but where are Ravens getting a starting QB? Without Jackson, Ravens' offense is bad. I have watched them. Pretend that you are Ravens' GM and find a solution.
To me it looks that Jackson has tweeted goodbye to them. Either some other team signs him, or he will do what L. Bell did, or what Watson did in 2021 or something.
#185 by jackiel // Apr 03, 2023 - 4:30pm
I don't know why people keep treating the Watson situation as equivalent. Watson had about 5 years left on his Houston deal and had a no trade clause. He was also perceived to have less wear and tear. I don't believe that he was dead set on getting a new contract in order to approve a trade. He was a healthy scratch in 2021 and plausibly could've been a healthy scratch in 2022 as well if his legal situation wasn't resolved in time. Pretty sure that the Houston owner didn't have any appetite to pay him to sit on the bench for parts of 2022 after paying him to sit on the bench in 2021. Therefore, the leverage sat with the player. Potential suitors had to convince Watson to join them.
Lamar's situation is totally different. He's under team control for up to another 3 years (Baltimore has the ability to tag him 3 times) and Baltimore wants to keep him. He also has financial demands that the vast majority of NFL teams refuse to match. Time is also not on his side. If Herbert, Burrow, and Hurts sign extensions that are "standard" contracts before Lamar, then his negotiating position is weakened further. IMO Lamar's trade demand is a tacit admission that he is having trouble running this process and that he hasn't done a lot of due diligence about where he could find the kind of money he's looking for. It's now become a 3 party negotiation among Baltimore, Lamar, and potential suitors. He has to create the market himself. The fact that he went public with his trade demand indicates that it isn't going well. He wants Baltimore to do the legwork for him and they have no incentive to do that. (Has any self-represented NFL player negotiated this kind of transaction before?) Therefore, the leverage sits with Baltimore. He's not playing anywhere else in 2023 unless Baltimore lets him do so.
#186 by guest from Europe // Apr 03, 2023 - 5:03pm
These are all very good practical points!
Jackson was offered the standard contract: 5 years, 3 years guaranteed + 4th in case of injury.
This situation was in Cousins-Redskins negotiations. Eventually the team lost all leverage and the player left after 2 franchise tags.
#187 by jackiel // Apr 03, 2023 - 7:59pm
Here's the problem for Lamar. His 2023 tag is about $33M (tag rules here). A 20% bump in 2024 would be $40M. A 44% bump in 2025 would be about $57M. That's about $130M over 3 years and those are all digestible numbers for a top QB. So if Lamar is dead set on hitting free agency, Baltimore would be more than happy to pay him $40-45M per year (or Daniel Jones money) over 3 years on the tag with no long-term commitment if things end up going south. In addition, unlike Watson, who was viewed as an ascending player after 2020, it seems that Lamar may be viewed as a descending player. Since he's now a show me story, sitting out and/or being a pain to deal with won't have the desired effect if he wants to have any chance of ultimately hitting his financial goals. Seriously, Baltimore has a ton of leverage here.
The Cousins situation is somewhat equivalent I guess. However, it must be noted that Washington offered him a big deal after the 2nd tag but he refused it and Washington decided against a 3rd tag (link). But again, it's important to note that it was Washington that decided against a 3rd tag, primarily because they didn't think that he was an exceptional player. Nothing about the Ravens' behavior suggests that they don't think highly of Lamar and Lamar seems to like playing there.
Also it's important to note that the offer that Lamar turned down effectively guaranteed him $200M if he made it through year 3 (link).
#188 by guest from Europe // Apr 04, 2023 - 4:23am
Thanks for this information.
This is from that SI article in the last link:
While it’s not on the table right now, last year the Ravens made a multiyear offer that had $133 million fully guaranteed at signing, a $175 million injury guarantee that would vest as a full guarantee early in the deal and another $25 million due in the fourth year that would become fully guaranteed in the third year. They’ve also been open to a shorter-term fully guaranteed deal, à la Kirk Cousins’s first Vikings deal (obviously, with bigger numbers). I also think, contrary to popular belief, Jackson has been open to different ideas.
This from nbcsports article:
However, it’s not as simple as dollar signs. The team holds the upper hand from a power perspective, ultimately dictating where they land within the league. This can occasionally lead to resentment and poor performance on the field, an issue common in the era of player empowerment.
So Ravens don't have all the power. This looks like a lose-lose situation to me.
Nothing about the Ravens' behavior suggests that they don't think highly of Lamar and Lamar seems to like playing there.
It appears to me that Jackson doesn't want to play for Ravens anymore. And Ravens are leaking now the details of the contract offer in order to say "it's not our fault". Speculation: he ends up somewhere else on a smaller contract or does a 2021 watson and will be later out of the league, L. Bell-style. I hope i am wrong.
#20 by BigRichie // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:07pm
Lamar 'knows' he's the best player in the NFL, and so it's only fair he be paid such. In fact, owes it to all the other players in the NFL to see to it that he's paid such. And so sets a new standard of pay that will so greatly benefit all.
The high and broad costs of self-delusion.
#26 by Pat // Mar 27, 2023 - 4:55pm
The funny thing is that there's kindof unspoken rules (well, actually it's spoken pretty often) in the NFL that active players don't talk about contract stuff with other players - the "everyone's gotta do what they feel they need to do for their family" bit.
But... quarterbacks going after guaranteed contracts are like, the wrong guys to be going after them. Their contracts are mostly guaranteed already! If you go to, say, OTC and look at most QB contracts, the vast majority of them have either paid out 100% or been extended. That's part of the reason why Derek Carr's release was such a big deal. I mean... Carson Wentz earned nearly 83% of his contract extension!
The players who really would value guaranteed contracts becoming the norm aren't quarterbacks.
#28 by LondonMonarch // Mar 27, 2023 - 5:28pm
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the NFLPA obsessing about the likes of Lamar getting full guarantees. That isn't helping most players - indeed rather the reverse because it means huge amounts are committed to current stars, and will be paid to them in future years even if they aren't playing or aren't playing well. In a league with a salary cap, that is hurting players lower down the scale because there is less to go round.
If the NFLPA wants guarantees for security and fairness, they should be starting bottom-up not top-down. The guys who would really benefit would be the likes of Broncos LS Jacob Bobenmoyer, who has just signed a 3yr/3.1m deal.
#29 by theslothook // Mar 27, 2023 - 5:36pm
There is no way the NFLPA will make headway with guaranteed contracts through long snappers and fringe special teamers.
If Lamar gets it; then now you have two data points and I do believe it starts to become the norm for all star qbs coming up on their first big extensions.
#32 by guest from Europe // Mar 27, 2023 - 6:42pm
Maybe not for special teamers. Why not for starters and make shorter contracts, 2-3 years? That way there would be more free agents every year. Teams don't want that, of course.
I don't understand why any player accepts unguaranteed years at the end of the contract. Why not sign a short contract if that is only what teams offer? They have to bet on their ability. Unguaranteed years can be cut anyways.
#33 by theslothook // Mar 27, 2023 - 6:52pm
I don't understand why any player accepts unguaranteed years at the end of the contract. Why not sign a short contract if that is only what teams offer? They have to bet on their ability. Unguaranteed years can be cut anyways.
This is actually a pretty complicated question. Usually, when you ask why prices are the way they are; you use the tools of economics. And economics USUALLY defers to the basic story of supply and demand. However, the NFL is not a textbook free market or anything close to it.
Its not even a pure monopoly either as some would claim; because there's a cartel that's loosely colluding but not completely as has been shown with Jimmy Haslem and all of the tampering that goes on. This is also on top of the fact that its not a free labor market either - its unionized though a weak union with a ton of artificial and anticompetitive rules layered onto the labor market. It would frankly take an ace labor economist to sort through all of the equilibrium parts to make any semblance of a model work.
But in my opinion, at its simplest; owners have the majority of the power and the union is too weak. NFL careers are way too short for a lockout to really work and there are way too many competing interests for the union bark to be much of a bite.
I personally think its in the unions best interest to limit rookie wage scale to two years with a third year option than it is to allow what has happened. That change basically forever screwed the running back.
#40 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 3:02am
But in my opinion, at its simplest; owners have the majority of the power and the union is too weak. NFL careers are way too short for a lockout to really work and there are way too many competing interests for the union bark to be much of a bite.
I personally think its in the unions best interest to limit rookie wage scale to two years with a third year option than it is to allow what has happened. That change basically forever screwed the running back.
Well, the players' union has to do something. Strike in every offseason? Strike in every season for 2-3 weeks in October or November?
Maybe the XFL will work out and there will be a competition between the leagues.
#58 by Pat // Mar 28, 2023 - 1:41pm
I don't understand why you think things are so bad for NFL players as a whole that they would want to strike. The players that are most hurt by the current system are the ones who aren't in the players union long enough to control it.
The many-year veterans make freaking bank with the current system.
#59 by theslothook // Mar 28, 2023 - 1:46pm
He wants contracts fully guaranteed, just like the nba. It's a worthy goal, but like you said, those guarantees only affect a tiny minority when you look at things from a wide view. The majority need to maximize dollars today and most are out of the league within 2-3 years.
Interestingly, the NBA doesn't dissolve into this same majority vs minority the way the NFL does because of the max salary. That artificially depresses the market value for top talent, leaving lots of money for the nbas middle and lower class. Essentially, a nice greased morsel in the form of a subsidy. I have mixed feelings about this myself, but one must not deny the benefit.
#60 by Pat // Mar 28, 2023 - 1:55pm
He wants contracts fully guaranteed, just like the nba.
I hate it when people compare sports like this. You can't compare the NBA to the NFL. Just look at the roster sizes: the NBA has 450 players, the NFL has 1696.
To properly compare them in terms of talent distribution, you'd have to compare the NFL to the NBA plus the G league plus one or two other random minor leagues that I don't even know who.
Same deal with baseball. The "low end" players in the NFL are minor league players in MLB, and oh my god their working conditions are terrible in comparison. That's why I don't really buy the "things are better in other leagues." Yeah, no. If I take, say, the top 150 players in the NFL, they're doing freaking well.
#133 by Aaron Brooks G… // Mar 30, 2023 - 8:47am
It would be really interesting for one of the players associations in one of the leagues to get the players to sign contracts such that they all end at the same year.
They wouldn't even have to strike. They could just hold out and/or form their own league.
#39 by Pat // Mar 28, 2023 - 12:18am
There's actually no such thing as a fully unguaranteed year. Teams can't cut an injured player, but they *can* just let the player's contract expire.
Having extra years on the books does offer some injury guarantee to the player. For instance, Philly signed Derek Barnett to a 2 year contract, and he tore his ACL in year 1. Even if they wanted to, they could not cut him until he fully comes back from injury (and that's *not* just when the team doctors say so) without an injury settlement, and the injury settlement would be based on his salary.
In contrast, of course, we have OBJ, who signed a 1 year contract and made zero dollars last year.
#42 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 3:09am
OK, there can be an extra unguaranteed year in case of an injury. Players should ask for something like 2 years guaranteed + a 3rd year for injury. It seems to me that for most of average starters contracts are 1 year guaranteed, 2nd maybe partially guaranteed and then 2 or 3 team option years added.
#45 by Pat // Mar 28, 2023 - 7:58am
Yeah. Which... is a compromise between the two. Teams have more leverage than players. They start out with exclusive rights (draft) and can retain those rights (franchise tag), or acquire exclusive rights via a trade. The players who actually hit free agency are by and large replaceable.
But multiple years offer injury protection, too. It's a violent game. There's a discussion on injury settlements in Bleacher Report here. For more serious injuries, the team almost always wants to put the player on IR and see if they'll be useful the next year. Which actually ends up meaning that multiple years could end up being "guaranteed" depending on the recovery timeline.
#53 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 12:57pm
If i understand it correctly, any team can use only 2 franchise tags on various players per year. If it is so, than it can't be used on average starters such as linemen, linebackers and they form a majority of rosters and players' union.
They aren't that replaceable. If they took a year shorter contracts to get back to free agency, they would also gain more leverage in negotiations every year. Many teams have O-line problems. There is not enough of them league-wide.
#55 by Pat // Mar 28, 2023 - 1:11pm
If i understand it correctly, any team can use only 2 franchise tags on various players per year.
One, not two. But it doesn't matter - you negotiate contract extensions well ahead of time, so you don't need to actually use the tag. It's just the threat of the tag. Once you have a player under contract, as the team, you have an advantage straight up until the player hits free agency and you've declined to use the tag.
That's a long time. For first-round rookies, that's two full years you can dangle team-friendly contracts with money in front of them. For [edit: lesser players] you have your own kind of "franchise tag" for them - the exclusive-rights free agent tender - and you get that for every [edit: player with 2 or less qualifying seasons] on the team.
Many teams have O-line problems. There is not enough of them league-wide.
I don't agree. The offensive line problem on most teams is likely coaching and injuries, rather than players. Philly consistently has a top offensive line and their players shuffle off to other teams constantly, with varying levels of success (and never, mind you, the other way - Philly hasn't actually signed an outside lineman in years).
But this is a separate point. The draft, restricted free agency (RFAs and ERFAs), plus franchise tags and the overall risk of the game is plenty to tilt the playing field in favor of the team. Well, plus the fact that no one wants to up and move every single year.
(edited to clarify the ERFA limitations. Was trying to stress that the "very low end" of the NFL is very restricted. I also didn't even mention waivers, which is another way that teams as a whole have advantages over players)
#62 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 2:01pm
Yes, low end players are very restricted. They have to fight. I was writing about starters who aren't changed every year. The Eagles have lost many starters this year even though the team has the leverage. They couldn't keep everyone. It would be like that. That was like a "true" free agency. If the third of the starters are free agents or on in- a- year- expiring contracts, they can't be all pushed down.
Careers are short. Rookie contracts until age 26. Then they have 2-4 years to negotiate one or two free agent contracts. That's it for most of the starters.
I mean, NBA players are no financial wizards and they are getting such player-friendly contracts and are overpaid in free agency. Not stars, the 5th best player on an NBA team.
#67 by Pat // Mar 28, 2023 - 2:41pm
The Eagles have lost many starters this year even though the team has the leverage. They couldn't keep everyone. It would be like that. That was like a "true" free agency.
Philly's lost starters were all at low-value positions the team considers replaceable. Note that I'm not saying all teams consider those positions that low-value and replaceable, but the Eagles do.
Not stars, the 5th best player on an NBA team.
The 5th best player on NFL teams are getting top-end pay at their positions and have virtually guaranteed contracts anyway. Again: Carson Wentz had to suck massively to get cut, and he still ended up making 85%+ of that extension.
The players that are hurt by non-guaranteed contracts are players who are the equivalent of NBA G-league or MLB minor league players. Practice squad players in the NFL are paid nearly five times what G-league players are paid, and they're much, much farther out on the talent distribution.
Bobby Wagner just resigned for what, 1 year, $7M? A player equally as valuable in basketball wouldn't be in the NBA.
#70 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 3:15pm
Philly's lost starters were all at low-value positions the team considers replaceable. Note that I'm not saying all teams consider those positions that low-value and replaceable, but the Eagles do.
Yes, they kept some starters which they preferred. Some starters, who are no stars, are at low-value positions, got a better contract in free agency. A perfect example! Financially very good for those players that left.
The 5th best player on NFL teams are getting top-end pay at their positions and have virtually guaranteed contracts anyway.
I used 5th best in NBA because they only have 5 starters. The equivalent would be 20th-22nd starter on a team in NFL.
One Darius Slay could have been hurt by his contract. The team could have released him. You wanted that. Where would he get another such contract that he was on, but it was totally unguaranteed? He would have gotten less money because teams threat players over 30 years old as garbage.
I am not writing about QBs, HOFers, star players, nor practice squad guys.
Bobby Wagner just resigned for what, 1 year, $7M? A player equally as valuable in basketball wouldn't be in the NBA.
I don't understand what you mean here. That Wagner is not good anymore to play and got signed based on his name? Or that a basketball player of his "financial value" would be paid 1/5 of that salary, 1.5M and thus not in NBA? Or that he is 16th best player on a team and NBA team doesn't have 16 players?
#72 by Pat // Mar 28, 2023 - 4:15pm
I used 5th best in NBA because they only have 5 starters. The equivalent would be 20th-22nd starter on a team in NFL.
I don't agree. I think the equivalent in the NFL is closer to the 5th best starter. The NFL just carries more backups on the team directly because the injury rates are higher.
It's easier to compare to baseball, because the NBA's minor league system is weird. NFL teams are like what you would get if you pretended that MLB rosters consist of both the active MLB players and the minor league players at the same time. And if you look at the pay distribution that way, low-end NFL players get paid waaay better than low-end baseball players.
Or that he is 16th best player on a team and NBA team doesn't have 16 players?
Closer to this. A player who contributes what Wagner does to the win potential of the team wouldn't be kept on the roster. They'd be brought in as callups or on a 10-day contract. This might seem insulting to Wagner, but it's not crazy - instead of thinking of an NBA game as one game, scale it to the same number. So like, lump 5 NBA games together: you might have a callup player contribute in one of those games, and their overall contribution to the season would be similar to Wagner.
#75 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 6:38pm
Well, we completely dissagree on everything in this section.
I would just like to point out that the 5th guy on NBA team is the weakest link, that is usually not a big + player. He has some special role and is paid 15-17M . 8th or 9th best on NBA team barely plays in the playoffs, but is paid 10-12 million.
The 5th best starter on NFL team is usually the best or 2nd best in his unit, defense or offense, and important for team success and paid 13-14M. 8th or 9th best on NFL team plays very well almost all snaps at a non glamour position and are paid around 8-10 million.
NFL teams have a lot of backups that other sport teams don't have. They rarely play, but have to brutally practice during the week, suffer the same injuries as starters, last 3 years and are paid around 1 million/year.
#77 by theslothook // Mar 28, 2023 - 7:36pm
I think theres a very simple explanation.
The nba salary cap currently sits at $134 million. That's likely a conservative figure considering its a soft cap and teams can exceed it. The NFL's salary cap is $182.5 million dollars.
An NBA roster is 15 people. The NFL roster is 53. By simple division, you can see what the per head $ is. The NBA is about 9 mil per person. The NFL's is 3.5 mil per person.
I realize this ignores distribution of talent but at some point, you can't escape the basic math here. There simply is less money to go around when fielding an NFL team than there is in the NBA
#110 by guest from Europe // Mar 29, 2023 - 4:19pm
Yes, this is the base of the explanation. If we leave out the bench players (and their minimum salaries) who don't play much (in NBA 9th-15th, in NFL 34th-53rd) that leaves about $15M/player in NBA to $6M/player in NFL. Very important is that top NBA players take only roughly 3x that average and top NFL QBs 8-9x that. That leaves less money for other starters.
I don't think it should be that way, because no positions in NFL are as important as few supreme players of NBA. In short, good job by NBA union, bad job by NFL players' union.
#129 by guest from Europe // Mar 30, 2023 - 4:37am
2006 Nowitzki and some players beat the Spurs and reach the finals. 2007 james and much worse players reach the Finals. These were no 1 game flukes. All happened over multiple series. I am sure theslothook can give you more examples.
Does this happen in the NFL? Brady in 2019 on a lesser roster wasn't impressive. He was 17th by DVOA. He needed a better roster, like in 2020 and 2021. The best i can think of is Manning in 2010.
#139 by guest from Europe // Mar 30, 2023 - 9:51am
That Pistons was a team in a real sense. 5 very good players. In NBA terms, that was an anomaly.
Here we are discussing teams with 1 superstar and average players around him. 1 guy covers for others' weaknesses. Harden and others on Rockets, James and others on first Cavs, Nowitzki, Antetokoumpo 3-4 years ago, Shaq in 90s... they can get quite good that way.
Was there such a successfull NFL team? Pat claims yes, there are such NFL players.
2010 and 2012 Manning. Maybe Luck the first 2 years?
#141 by Pat // Mar 30, 2023 - 10:56am
Does this happen in the NFL? Brady in 2019 on a lesser roster wasn't impressive.
Brady in 2019 was on a 12-4 team that won their division! Then he left, won the Super Bowl with a new team, and his former team won more than 40% fewer games.
Saying "Brady needed a better roster" completely misses the point. Yes, of course he needed a different roster in order to have the same effect on the game. That doesn't mean he needed a more expensive roster. The Patriots were totally successful in 2019, and in 2020, they weren't. In my opinion, Belichick knew they weren't going to be a dominant team in '20 and purposefully just ate cap space so they could be players in free agency in '21. (And then botched it, but that's a separate point.)
Player performance in the NFL just isn't separable the way you want it to be. That 2019 New England offense? Third fewest turnovers per drive on offense. No, they weren't racking up points or yards. They didn't need to.
#158 by guest from Europe // Mar 31, 2023 - 4:13am
The strength of 2019 Patriots was the defense. Schatz wrote many articles that they were on a historic level, comparable to 2002 Bucs and 1985-1986 Bears. (DVOA was overrating that Patriots defense because of bad opponents, rookie QBs... that is another discussion)
In 2019 Brady was throwing to Edelman a lot. There was no more Gronkowski. In 2020 and later it was easier for Brady to throw to Evans and Godwin and Gronkowski (all better pass catchers than 2019 Patriots pass catchers) and Brady's DVOA stats grew. in 2019 16th ordinal ranking, to 2020 4th, 2021 2nd. 2019 2% DVOA to 2020-2021 was 25% DVOA.
Brady was the same player in 2019 and 2020. The offense roster around him was better and that's why it was a better performance.
I think it is clear from this that i don't think individual player's stats or performance can be dissentangled from team's performance.
I don't think any player is that good that can lift other average NFL players. That is exactly my point. That is done in NBA on regular basis and i named many examples.
That doesn't mean he needed a more expensive roster.
I didn't write or mean this.
#163 by Pat // Mar 31, 2023 - 9:46am
I don't think any player is that good that can lift other average NFL players. That is exactly my point. That is done in NBA on regular basis and i named many examples.
Yes, and then you listed the one player who resulting in around a 50-60% shift in win totals for teams when moving and dismissed him.
I have no idea why you don't think there are equivalent elite players in the NFL. When Manning got injured the Colts dropped 80% off their win total from the previous year, and when he joined the Broncos they jumped 60%.
#166 by guest from Europe // Mar 31, 2023 - 4:01pm
Well, check my comment #139. I named Manning there.
Ok, Brady for the Bucs. Anyone else? (2016 Patriots were fine when Brady was suspended, but nevermind.)
Shouldn't Rodgers now be such a player? Is it T. Hill for Dolphins last year? Is it Garoppolo for 49ers in 2019 and 2021 compared to 2018 and 2020 without him? Is it L. Jackson? I don't think they are. Which player do you put on Texans and they become a very good team and reach AFC CG or at least divisional? Please name 10 such players . I have only got Manning, Brady, Luck. Maybe Mahomes. (It would have to be Mahomes without Reid and Kelce. There is no such evidence.) Such a player should cover for bad defense. Keep in mind Brees couldn't do that. He could pull good offense with Payton playcalling and very bad defense to 7-9 records. Megatron wasn't that, Moss wasn't, A. Peterson wasn't, J. J. Watt almost, but not, Donald isn't. Revis not. Favre almost, Warner not...Maybe younger Rodgers was. Marino? Such a player must function with any playcaller. To be sure, he should call his own plays. That's what NBA stars did. Isolation basketball. (Shaq, Jordan, Olajuwon...)
On the other hand, this is quite regular in the NBA. This was the way good teams were built before current NBA super-teams: 1 star, 1 more good player and surrounding guys (like Mozgov, Ostertag, Dampier, Longley, just large bodies). Now Durant joins Curry with Thompson and they toy around with records.
#175 by Pat // Apr 03, 2023 - 10:29am
Ok, Brady for the Bucs. Anyone else? (2016 Patriots were fine when Brady was suspended, but nevermind.)
I disagree with your assertion regarding the '16 Patriots.
I disagree with almost all of your examples. Every quarterback you listed is one. Virtually all high-level QBs relative to their backups at that position have that insane value. Teams drop something like 40% of their win probability on average due to a quarterback being injured if memory serves. You see it less with quarterbacks who shift because teams, in general, don't let quarterbacks leave if they don't have a replacement plan.
Again, I wish that old article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette was online, but sadly, it isn't.
Your (internal) counter is "there is no such evidence," but that doesn't work. The reason there isn't evidence is because players do not have the mobility they have in the NBA, because it's a less risky game and so they're less tempted to give up control. NBA contracts are not 4, 5, 7, 10 years. They're one year, or two years.
You see the elite players dominate in the NBA because they can move. Elite players in the NFL cannot move barring extreme circumstances, because they cede control of their careers to teams due to both the injury risk and the time value of money.
#179 by guest from Europe // Apr 03, 2023 - 1:16pm
I disagree with your assertion regarding the '16 Patriots.
In 4 games Brady was suspended they were 3-1 with 2 different QBs. They used 3rd-string rookie Brissett. They beat a very good Cardinals team on the road in Garoppolo's first game. They would probably have a similar record with Garoppolo to what they were in 2008 with Cassell. To me that is fine. Not the best in the league as with Brady, but good enough.
Virtually all high-level QBs relative to their backups at that position have that insane value. Teams drop something like 40% of their win probability on average due to a quarterback being injured if memory serves.
That is their value to backups. Is it maybe so because backups are not good enough? You could claim that Josh Johnson value was enormous because his backup on 49ers was ? and they couldn't do anything with that backup versus Eagles and looked worse than any team. Another example was a few years ago Ravens' CBs got injured. They had to play some deep backups, practice squad or something and they were destroyed. So Ravens' starting CBs value was also high relative to such backups.
NBA superstars have great value compared to everybody, not relative to backups. Don't you remember Iverson? That 76ers team was Iverson and some defensive players. He would play 1-on-5 offense and it worked when he was at his peak. The offensive scheme was "Iverson-offense", the play called in the huddle was "give me the ball, stand in the corner and watch, i will drive with the ball and score, if they triple-team defense against me, you will be wide open, i will pass you and you shoot." Antetokoumpo does this, Westbook did, McGrady did, Wade did etc. They do this against everyone, not backups. They do it a lot in the playoffs. NFL equivalent would be a player playing 1-on-11 offense regularly. Maybe Barry Sanders was like that.
This is regular in NBA, i don't even mention that last level of NBA players who were unstoppable (those were rare outliers, 50 ppg for a season etc.) NFL player plays just his position, just one-way, a QB just offense. A QB without any pass catchers is not much. A QB sitting and watching his defense play is even less.
You see the elite players dominate in the NBA because they can move.
Nowitzki, Antetokoumpo, Iverson, Olajuwon, Wade ... didn't move while they were dominant, played this superstar way and were very valuable compared to everyone, not to backups. Other starters would move, stars would stay with one team like Robinson, Duncan, Ewing, Nowitzki, Iverson... (their last years before retirement when they are old don't matter). Shaq moved.
Moving happens nowadays with James and Durant to form super teams. That started in 2010.
I disagree with almost all of your examples. Every quarterback you listed is one.
I listed Garoppolo, Jackson and Rodgers among current players. Weren't you writing in comments above that "they are not that valuable beacuse of their demands", "their value goes down", "you wouldn't sign them because they are pain in the ass"? If they are so valuable, why wouldn't teams give them some extra money? I listed many teams who don't have such QBs!
#146 by theslothook // Mar 30, 2023 - 12:12pm
Very important is that top NBA players take only roughly 3x that average and top NFL QBs 8-9x that.
But that's because of the CBA instituting a max salary that effectively caps how much a top NBA star can make. That was a very deliberate decision that was made to benefit the NBA middle class.
I personally dislike that decision and believe its the biggest reason why there are Superteams and why nba stars flock to glamour markets in a way that does not happen in the NFL.
Zach Lowe said it best, "An underplayed subplot of this summer is that five superstars relocated to New York and Los Angeles. You can gloss over it by pointing out that the Nets and Clippers were never free-agent destinations and that the Knicks whiffed again. Fair.
But the photo negative almost never happens. Multiple top-10 players do not conspire to get to Indiana, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Portland, Detroit, Minnesota."
If the NFL instituted such a policy; absolutely no star free agents would choose to go to Cleveland, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, or half the league's markets. They would all situate in LA and New York.
#159 by guest from Europe // Mar 31, 2023 - 4:33am
Well, it is very good for the majority of no-name NBA players. Start can't get more money. More money is left for average players. This is good for NBA union. Your points about NBA star free agents and cities all stand.
NFL has no such policy, so star QBs take more money and less is left for others in NFL union.
There are not that many star NFL free agents in any particular year. This year free agency: star QB is available (Jackson), many others QBs signed elsewhere. MVP-level Rodgers available. Star-CB Ramsey traded for nothing. Star-WR Hopkins available... demand was for linemen and linebackers (Edmunds etc.)
There are 4 teams in LA and NY. There are more stars at most positions than 4. And all the players would now not be afraid of injury risk and would play out their contracts and wait for free agency? No extensions with teams that drafted them would be signed? Franchise tags wouldn't be applied?
#97 by Pat // Mar 29, 2023 - 12:27pm
8th or 9th best on NFL team plays very well almost all snaps at a non glamour position
You're conflating the rules of the game with the effect on the game. An NBA player on the court is automatically vitally important. He's involved constantly in the game, and cannot be ignored or hidden. If a team could get 5 superstar players rather than 1 "ultra-super star" plus 4 average guys, they would. The 5th best player on an NBA team is bad because the talent distribution is steep.
An NFL player on the field for a snap is not automatically important. It's like a baseball outfielder. Just because they're on the field doesn't mean they're actively contributing to the game. You could have some amazing super-awesome outfielder who never commits an error in baseball. No one would care if he can't hit. It just doesn't matter.
The 5th best starter on NFL team is usually the best or 2nd best in his unit
Best or 2nd best in his unit does not mean important to winning. It just doesn't. The only individual positions you can't neutralize with game planning are QB and edge rusher. The best CB in the game just doesn't do anything overall if they just throw the other direction.
They rarely play, but have to brutally practice during the week, suffer the same injuries as starters, last 3 years and are paid around 1 million/year.
They don't last 3 years because they wear out like tires. They last 3 years because the league realizes they're not going to develop.
But I don't see the difference between this and minor league baseball, for instance. They have to practice and play just as much, and MLB pitching is just as brutal to the human body, and they're paid far less with worse accommodations and benefits.
I don't even see the difference between this and the minor league/international/etc. NBA, but the pay falloff is much steeper so it's harder to compare.
#48 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 28, 2023 - 10:07am
I don't understand why any player accepts unguaranteed years at the end of the contract. Why not sign a short contract if that is only what teams offer? They have to bet on their ability. Unguaranteed years can be cut anyways.
Once a player becomes a "vested veteran," that year's salary becomes guaranteed if they are on the opening day roster, so it's not a total wash. And non-guaranteed years are ripe for restructures.
#119 by IlluminatusUIUC // Mar 29, 2023 - 6:47pm
first, there aren't that many vets actually cut in-season anyway,
This is a chicken or the egg question though. I suspect few vested vets are cut in-season because it offers no salary cap relief. In fact, the opposite, because now you have to pay a guy to take the roster spot. The only guys getting cut in that fashion are guys who have antagonized their way out of town.
#140 by Pat // Mar 30, 2023 - 10:36am
Yeah, although the counter is that if you're a vet who's likely to be cut midseason, you're also not going to be on the opening roster - they'll cut you before and pick you up immediately after to avoid the guarantee. Obviously that allows some other team to claim you in the meantime, but that risk isn't that large.
#68 by LondonMonarch // Mar 28, 2023 - 2:54pm
But what benefit is that to the large majority of members of the NFLPA?
Indeed isn't it really to their detriment, because the more guaranteed money locked up on a few superstars, the less there is to go round for everyone else?
#44 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 3:53am
I have a question for all commenters:
The free agency period has come and gone. Many lesser players have been signed. There is not much cap space left now. And 3 of the best players, really top 3 guys are available in trades and only the Jets want 1 of those? Isn't something really weird?
(Those 3 are Hopkins, Rodgers, Jackson. Capable of All Pro play at in-demand positions, unlike other free agents)
#46 by theslothook // Mar 28, 2023 - 9:58am
I would be surprised at this point if Hopkins is an all pro. Be it through injuries or age, but his best days seem squarely in the rear view.
Rodgers and Lamar have different kinds of issues, though ultimately coming from the contract they have or want to have.
#57 by guest from Europe // Mar 28, 2023 - 1:39pm
Were there any better WRs in free agency period than Hopkins? I can't think of one. His salary to a new team would be 19 million and 15 million unguaranteed. He has played 9 games on a disfunctional team. Who knows what is his true level now.
There are teams such as Bears, Jets, Falcons, Colts, Commanders, Texans... They all need a better QB and have draft picks. And no team except for Jets wants these QBs, they really prefer to sign Minshew or Heinicke? Let's say that Texans and Colts prefer to draft and wait for 4 years. They don't want to compete at the moment. All the others, where will they find a QB with MVP-level capabilities? In the draft they can find someone like Mayfield or Fields.
As far as Jackson's contract, they could offer a Cousins-type contract: 3 years guaranteed. It is more than a franchise tag and Jackson doesn't want to play for Ravens. He feels insulted. He would take some other offer.