Interesting twist regarding Lamar Jackson...

[NanuqoftheNorth]

Just now, bythenbrs said:

I like your thinking but there is a 50/50 probability that it resets the market lower, as more teams tap out on the mega bucks for possibly damaged goods.  My SWAG is that there is a large and growing contingent of GM’s looking at the Watson deal, 2022 results and are horrified.

”There but for the grace of God go I.”

Look no further than Green Bay, Denver or Cleveland to realize overinflated egos can handcuff a team financially and drive away essential supporting talent.  

[raleigh-panther]

We don’t know, and probably will never know, the full story with any of these former and current players 

I feel the Panthers are better to draft the QB they want.

 If it takes 3 firsts, it takes 3 firsts for someone who could lead this team for years and provide stability at  the position 

Given the number of ‘teachers’ on the coaching staff, all indications are drafting a QB

they also need a backup, 17 game season demands it   they have Eason and Corral. Eason has a history with Reich 

 

[top dawg]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

There are legitimate concerns with Lamar Jackson, but I don't see you accepting any of them.

There are legitimate mitigating factors with Derek Carr, but again you don't acknowledge them.

There are pros and cons to both of them, but until you actually acknowledge that fact it's kind of pointless debating with you.

Jackson's biggest concern is injury, point blank and simple. And, yes, I have mentioned that in relation to his contractual expectations (if not in this thread, then the other one). 

Carr is Carr. He's had good coaches (or at least ones that know QBs in particular), and he's had weapons, especially this past season. He's 32 years old and seems to have a limited ceiling. I believe his ceiling is good, but not great. I don't believe that he can put a team on his shoulders and will them to victory like a true franchise QB can. If he could do it, he'd have probably done it already, especially this past year when he had the best receiver in the game, a top three TE, a top RB, and others. His career passer rating is 91.8. No one is going to mistake Carr for being on Lamar Jackson's level (no one serioa anyway). 

The Ravens would sign Lamar Jackson in a heartbeat if they could get to the right number (provided that Jackson still wants to be there). The Raiders dumped Carr like yesterday's leftovers. It's not that hard to figure out why someone would be excited about Jackson and not so excited about Carr. If your goal is "maybe getting into the playoffs," then Carr is your man. If your goal is to try and actually compete for Super Bowls, then Jackson is your guy hands down.

Edited February 17, 2023 by top dawg

[SOJA]

1 hour ago, Proudiddy said:

I haven't read it or seen it anywhere else across the numerous threads, but was listening to ESPN radio while taking the kids to school, and they shared that Peter King said the Ravens are very likely to use the non-exclusive franchise tag on Lamar, meaning it would only require the contract plus 2 first-round picks. That's also very different than the "windfall of picks" stuff we heard about previously.

It seems a more realistic possibility than the "windfall" talk.  Still, giving up the picks plus the mega contract is scary for a team trying to build out its roster, but does that change how you feel about the possibility of Jackson?

If you're telling me I get Lamar Jackson for two first round picks (regardless of the size of the contract) I'm sprinting to that deal. It makes so much sense for us. 

[LinvilleGorge]

This is basically Baltimore signaling that they think two 1sts is the absolute ceiling for what they could get for Lamar in a trade offer.

[thefuzz]

33 minutes ago, top dawg said:

See that's your problem? You're the one trying to assign fault. 

The Ravens haven't been the best team, and mostly any NFL type will tell you that. Blame it on Jackson all you like, but if you do you're simply being disingenuous.

Over the last 20 years, the Ravens clock in at 5th in number of wins since 2000.

Meaning, that is a VERY well run team who didn't get lucky like the Packers, Pats, Steelers, or Colts during that time and have a 15 year all time great starter.

During that time, the Ravens have started the likes of Elvis Grbac, Kyle Boller, Joe Flacco, and Lamar Jackson...with some others sprinkled in.

Long story short, this team thinks that it can compete with a lower tier QB than most, and pay them as such....and they've proven it.

Like I've been saying, the Ravens value Lamar a lot less than he does....and that should make other teams very nervous.

[top dawg]

6 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Look no further than Green Bay, Denver or Cleveland to realize overinflated egos can handcuff a team financially and drive away essential supporting talent.  

Drive away talent? Who was driven away? A-Rod is known for being an A-hole. He makes it about him with his little off-season games of stringing the Packers along. The Packers gave Adams essentially the same type of contract financially. If A-Rod  hadn't been A-Rod, the Packers would've been a legit contender had Adams stayed.

Lamar Jackson is not an asshole by all reports. He just wants to be paid what he feels he is worth. 

Cleveland didn't lose anyone irreplaceable because they signed Watson. A a matter of fact, it's still way to early to even be alluding to any type of failure at this point. The jury is still out.

Denver has talent. Who did they lose? And the fact is that Wilson's contract ain't even in the class of Watson's or whatever people think that Jackson may get. Wilson's contract surely didn't stop another talented a-hole with a huge ego in Sean Payton. I think we're all going to find out what a difference time actually makes in the form of better coaching and chemistry.

[Varking]

I’d rather just trade up and get CJ Stroud on a rookie contract vs doling out hundreds of millions of dollars and losing the picks too. 

[top dawg]

2 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Over the last 20 years, the Ravens clock in at 5th in number of wins since 2000.

Meaning, that is a VERY well run team who didn't get lucky like the Packers, Pats, Steelers, or Colts during that time and have a 15 year all time great starter.

During that time, the Ravens have started the likes of Elvis Grbac, Kyle Boller, Joe Flacco, and Lamar Jackson...with some others sprinkled in.

Long story short, this team thinks that it can compete with a lower tier QB than most, and pay them as such....and they've proven it.

Like I've been saying, the Ravens value Lamar a lot less than he does....and that should make other teams very nervous.

And yet, they have only one championship.

They have their way of doing things that works for them. It just doesn't work for me as a fan as I look at today's NFL.

[top dawg]

4 minutes ago, Varking said:

I’d rather just trade up and get CJ Stroud on a rookie contract vs doling out hundreds of millions of dollars and losing the picks too. 

ONLY if you think that he is a legit franchise QB. If we trade all that and he flops, the QB teeadwill will continue and we won't have the draft capital to do anything for two to three years. He (or Young) would just have to be the guy, especially with what will likely be a superior '24 class.

[Jackie Lee]

15 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This is basically Baltimore signaling that they think two 1sts is the absolute ceiling for what they could get for Lamar in a trade offer.

I just don't see it. If Baltimore isn't willing to guarantee him $200M+ with no draft pics involved, why would another team trade away 2 1st round picks to pay him that much? Maybe before the Watson and Wilson deals, those are looking like a couple of horrible decisions. Is his mom still technically his agent?

[thefuzz]

1 minute ago, top dawg said:

And yet, they have only one championship.

They have their way of doing things that works for them. It just doesn't work for me as a fan as I look at today's NFL.

They have 2.  Tied with the Steelers, KC, and Giants for 2nd place behind the Patriots during that time.

Yea, "in todays NFL" if you want more than that over a 23 year period, you need an unremarkable white pocket passer and to call New England home.

[JawnyBlaze]

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

ONLY if you think that he is a legit franchise QB. If we trade all that and he flops, the QB teeadwill will continue and we won't have the draft capital to do anything for two to three years. He (or Young) would just have to be the guy, especially with what will likely be a superior '24 class.

I’d say Stroud has less chance of flopping than Jackson does of missing significant time with injuries. 

[joemac]

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

If you get a star franchise QB, at some point you're going to have to pay that star franchise QB. I don't care if you draft him or you acquire him in free agency. If you do draft him, you're lucky, but the clock starts ticking just as soon as there is a realization that he is one. At some point, he's going to want the top money of the day. The smart franchises just know how to manipulate that cap reality and their personnel better than others.

If I was a team who was lucky enough to draft a star rookie, and have success with him for 4 or 5 years, I would almost be tempted to trade them for a windfall of picks and then draft another highly touted rookie on a rookie deal.  The cost of these good QBs these days is getting insane, and its only getting worse.  Having to pay 1 player 25-30% of you entire cap is not a good way to build a good, well rounded team.  I think starting over with one of the top guys every 5 years or so isn't too crazy of an idea.