top dawg

Honestly, he can probably command much more than that in guarantees, assuming it was a five-year deal.

I seriously doubt he gets any more than 50 mil per (maybe a little more, but nowhere near 60), & perhaps it will be less. Jackson's gonna have to come to grips with reality. The market will speak, but I don't think he'll like what it says if it's too over the top.

He'd be a problem for sure, but Atlanta hasn't been making the smartest of moves in my opinion. They're team just isn't as good as ours. If we had a QB, I think it would be fairly obvious.

I think we'll be alright either way. Acquiring Jackson would just be the express route. Like I said, the cap increases every year. We have D.J. for at least another 3 years. Chuba and TMJ for at least a couple. We can also be smart with draft and free agent acquisition. For the record, I'd be surprised if we go the FA route, much less get the top dawg . I do realize that the devil is all in the details however. Whatever our staff decides...

Everyone does. He specifically does adhere to the in-on-every-deal philosophy as well (and rightfully so in my book). So...we'll see what happens.

We have smart guys on the staff. I'll trust their judgment (for now).

Either you want a franchise QB or you don't. If you get one, the day of reckoning will come at some point.

You can't poor-mouth your way to a championship. With the ever-increasing cap, you pay today so you can play tomorrow. KC wasn't and isn't crying because they had to pay Mahomes. And somehow they signed some weapons. Burrow will get paid. Herbert will get paid. The devil is always in the details. Jackson will get paid; how much he gets paid is anyone's guess right now.

Hell, that's quite a bit.

The Browns have not even seen their QB for a half season of football. If they get the same results next season, then they may regret it. Until then, hold your horses before making that statement. I can't really see a valid comparison between Wilson and Jackson either. One hasn't even hit his prime, while one appears past it. For all the talk you do of the Ravens being a smart franchise, If they were so smart, they'd have given Lamar some legitimate weapons on offense while he was still on his rookie contract. They haven't won a chip in a while, and they aren't the only "smart" team in the NFL. We seem to have some smart guys now, and I'll bet on their judgment until they start effing it up (which I'm trusting that they won't do).

Lamar and Aaron Rodgers will end up as the hottest QBs on the market; Derek and Jimmy ain't even in the conversation. The only teams that will even consider them are the desperate ones that can't do any better.

Ha ha! OK, then que será, será

There are arguments that go both ways. Let's not forget that. Baltimore has really done a piss-poor job of surrounding Jackson with weapons, and all the poor-mouthing by Panthers fans won't help us win a chip. The salary cap increases every year.

Sure, then we'll actually see what they actually accomplish.

Carr? The "hottest veteran QB on the market?" Don't confuse the first with "the hottest." The only negative---which is significant I admit---that Jimmy G has in comparison to Carr is injury. He's the superior player in every other way, and their careers bare that out.

My problem with this is that there's really no context, it's just numbers and assumptions, the biggest assumption being that Jackson is a "running quarterback" by nature. Like I said in another post somewhere: when your best skill position player is Mark Andrews, and you haven't really had any other WR or RB of note (& post-prime or washed up guys don't count), you're probably going to do too much. I also am amused that you've concluded that a 25 year old Jackson effectively has the same longevity as 32 year old Carr (notwithstanding playing style). There's a lot of crystal-balling---yes, a verb---going on here.

If we pay Carr on a long term deal, that's a huge red flag for me on different levels.

A number of analysts disagree with you. We'll see how it all turns out.

I'm not enamored with Carr, and I'm not convinced that he'd provide us the best value for our money. Sure, he may be better than what we've had in awhile, but he's not exactly lighting the world on fire, especially in the win-loss column. He had weapons, but still just couldn't get it done this past season. That's a red flag.

Barkley was good, but he didn't carry the team by himself. Jones was really the cog that made the Giants go. The Giants will sacrifice Barkley in a New York minute if it comes down to between Jones and Barkley.

That's hard to say because of Fields' slide, but when the process began (and probably into February, if not March, not to mention their entire collegiate careers), I believe that Fields absolutely was thought of higher than Stroud has ever been thought of.

If your guy flops, then you're likely going to be screwed for a couple of years because you won't have enough draft capital to get it done. You might have a backup or another option in FA if you have your team together elsewhere, but a lot has to be falling into place for you to stay a legit postseason contender.

I wouldn't do it, but if you're going to do it, you better be correct about the guy.

Yep! If they want to take a shot in the draft or free agency, I'm good with it. If they dont, I'm good with that as well. I do know that it's not smart to try and force anything, and I don't believe that our current staff will allow it.

That's kind of hard to say when the best skill position player at any time during your career has been the TE. Really, Andrews has been the only player of note (except for maybe a receiver or two way past their prime).