Lamar Jackson wants guarantees that exceed Watson contract

[Doc]

Calling it collusion is hack journalism meant to create controversy.  No surprise it's from Florio and PFT.

[The Red King]

PSA for the day, yelling and insulting does not in any way make you right.  We're all being calm, while you're going on like you pounded a Red Bull after dumping ten Pixie Sticks in.  Try to keep it civil, please.

 

That aside, most, if not all of us think there is nothing wrong with Lamar chasing the $$$.  Given the Watson deal he's well within his right.

 

I think we're looking at it wrong.  There may well be collusion, but are they colluding against Jackson, or against contracts like Watson's?  In other words were it another QB looking for the same contract, would this still be playing out the same way?  I believe so.  If Jackson were asking for a normal, reasonable contract, would he still be looking for work?  Of course not.

 

The owners are colluding against contracts like Watson's, not against Lamar.

[dollars 2 donuts]

29 minutes ago, The Red King said:

PSA for the day, yelling and insulting does not in any way make you right.  We're all being calm, while you're going on like you pounded a Red Bull after dumping ten Pixie Sticks in.  Try to keep it civil, please.

 

That aside, most, if not all of us think there is nothing wrong with Lamar chasing the $$$.  Given the Watson deal he's well within his right.

 

I think we're looking at it wrong.  There may well be collusion, but are they colluding against Jackson, or against contracts like Watson's?  In other words were it another QB looking for the same contract, would this still be playing out the same way?  I believe so.  If Jackson were asking for a normal, reasonable contract, would he still be looking for work?  Of course not.

 

The owners are colluding against contracts like Watson's, not against Lamar.

 

 

Sober and well thought out, RK.

 

Now go **** yourself.

 

😂🤣

 

I'm just kidding, brother, you know that.

 

Seriously, I couldn't agree more. 

 

Man, am I one of the few people who really likes Jackson, both as a player and a person, and would be happy to see him get whatever he can get?

 

 

Edited March 9 by dollars 2 donuts

[BillsShredder83]

8 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

Other GMs, other teams should absolutely not follow suit. That doesn’t mean Jackson or advocates for Jackson or similarly situated QB’s shouldn’t go for their absolute max value, which, sorry to say it, the Watson deal influences. 
 

Again, I don’t care who LJ eventually signs with or for what $$$. I just take pause at broke jagoffs on a message board trying to drag this kid for being “greedy” and save billionaires some money. Y’all ain’t getting a cut of the savings and it doesn’t affect the Bills at all. 
 

the market dictates what it dicates - the watson deal is part of that. 
 

“but..but..but…Cleveland shouldn’t count because their owners…[insert reasons here].”

 

So what. Have you read what Dan Snyder has done? What Jerral Jones has been accused of? 
 

they’re all crooks. But let’s overlook this particular crookery, because I think this guy ain’t worth what he’s asking. 
 

Again, bootlickers. All of you.

I dont think most here care who's greedy in terms of compensation.  Theres 3 things going on here

1. Lamar not being able to carry a team while taking up as much cap space as qb's who are actually able to be a threat from the pocket

2. The guy is no good to a team if hes never healthy. Hes past that point of healing like kids do, this is going to get worse

3. The people who are hostile about calling him greedy are salty at the idea of him skipping playoffs games where 31 other qb's start those games.  Hell theres been several current and former players to point this out (not even counting boo-boo foot here)

 

If a pocket passer like Brees cant carry a team on his back with such a large salary cap %, theres next to 0% chance Lamar will.  If someone else signs him, its going to be an owner looking to sell tickets for a few years, not a perennial winning org

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

There's 4 - 1st round draft pick like guys in this draft.  The following teams need QBs (possibly)

 

Jets

Colts

Titans

Texans

Raiders

Commanders

Falcons

Bucs

Panthers

49ers

 

Colts, Texans, Panthers, Falcons all pick in the top 10 and expect to probably draft people.  They're all also in the position to kind of wait, since they have serious needs beyond QB in many cases.  

 

Raiders Jets 49ers are waiting and seeing on Rodgers if i had to guess.  

 

Bucs know they're likely going to be bad, so losing 1st round picks would be rough.  

 

Teams also don't want to trade for a player with a massive cap hit, right before free agency opens.  There's just no rush to do so.  I expect if he signs elsewhere it'll be after the draft, and my guess is Raiders or Commanders.  I also think the Ravens will match.  

[NeverOutNick]

Lamar is going to have suitors and they’ll be from owners/GMs who love taking chances and are not that far from being playoff teams.
 

Here’s my top 5 Lamar destinations if he doesn’t get matched offer by Ravens:

 

1. Raiders
2. Jets if they don’t get Rodgers 
3. Colts
4. SF
5. Atlanta (just don’t buy that they’re out)

 

SF would be amazing to watch with Lamar under center and all of their RAC weapons. Just wow instant Super Bowl favorite and they could probably work out a trade without doing the two 1st round picks. Something like Lance and a couple second rounders.

 

Raiders, colts, jets and falcons ownership have all proven to spend money wrecklessly so why not 

[Gregg]

Look is also available for a trade now.

 

Dov Kleiman on Twitter: "The #Rams would "Love to trade" QB Matthew Stafford, according to @mlombardiNFL on the @PatMcAfeeShow “Matthew Stafford is fully available.” https://t.co/7woH61xlx9" / Twitter

[Virgil]

4 minutes ago, Gregg said:

Look is also available for a trade now.

 

Dov Kleiman on Twitter: "The #Rams would "Love to trade" QB Matthew Stafford, according to @mlombardiNFL on the @PatMcAfeeShow “Matthew Stafford is fully available.” https://t.co/7woH61xlx9" / Twitter

 

Baker is a lot cheaper and seemed to do the job okay

Edited March 9 by Virgil

[dollars 2 donuts]

42 minutes ago, Gregg said:

Look is also available for a trade now.

 

Dov Kleiman on Twitter: "The #Rams would "Love to trade" QB Matthew Stafford, according to @mlombardiNFL on the @PatMcAfeeShow “Matthew Stafford is fully available.” https://t.co/7woH61xlx9" / Twitter

 

38 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

Baker is a lot cheaper and seemed to do the job okay

 

 

As I live and breath, guys, I knew this as many of you likely did, as well.

 

I just could not see Stafford back with the Rams even before he got injured, but the injury didn't help.

 

 

[ColoradoBills]

I for one would never "carry water" for NFL owners and GMs.

 

That being said this Lamar stuff has been going on for a long time, so any team that would have interest would already know

if they were interested in a $250M fully guaranteed contract.  Do fans actually believe that none of these GMs considered the

possibility of the Ravens tagging Lamar with a non-exclusive?

 

As soon as the tag went up the media is all over these guys asking, "Are you interested in Jackson for those numbers"?

They just answered as I would have.  No.

 

[Augie]

21 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

I for one would never "carry water" for NFL owners and GMs.

 

That being said this Lamar stuff has been going on for a long time, so any team that would have interest would already know

if they were interested in a $250M fully guaranteed contract.  Do fans actually believe that none of these GMs considered the

possibility of the Ravens tagging Lamar with a non-exclusive?

 

As soon as the tag went up the media is all over these guys asking, "Are you interested in Jackson for those numbers"?

They just answered as I would have.  No.

 

 

I don’t blame him for asking, and I don’t blame teams for saying “no thanks, that’s a bad deal for us”.  There doesn’t need to be collusion, just like we don’t all need to get together and collectively decide not to play in traffic. We can figure out independently that that would be a bad idea. Especially with his recent injury history and questions about his heart. 

 

I feel badly for Lamar on some level. I don’t think this would be happening if he had qualified representation. Mommy is doing him no favors, it seems. He was apparently offered a deal similar to what the other QB’s not named Watson got. That seems generous for a guy who has missed 15 games over the last couple seasons. He might be the LAST guy I’d give a fully guaranteed deal to. (Tua might be another.)

 

Oh, and to those people who say it just saves the billionaire owners money, that’s just not true. It’s just that the money is spent on a bunch of different guys, not just one guy. The money gets spent regardless. 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

 

 

 

As I live and breath, guys, I knew this as many of you likely did, as well.

 

I just could not see Stafford back with the Rams even before he got injured, but the injury didn't help.

 

 

 

Stafford has 130,000,000 guaranteed reasons to come back tho

 

It's a worse deal than paying Lamar $270M fully guaranteed imo because of how old and beat up Stafford was when they signed it. Lamar has been injured, but at least he should  have 5 more years playing ahead of him. Stafford barely had 5 months left.

 

 

Edited March 9 by DrDawkinstein

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t blame him for asking, and I don’t blame teams for saying “no thanks, that’s a bad deal for us”.  There doesn’t need to be collusion, just like we don’t all need to get together and collectively decide not to play in traffic. We can figure out independently that that would be a bad idea. Especially with his recent injury history and questions about his heart. 

 

I feel badly for Lamar on some level. I don’t think this would be happening if he had qualified representation. Mommy is doing him no favors, it seems. He was apparently offered a deal similar to what the other QB’s not named Watson got. That seems generous for a guy who has missed 15 games over the last couple seasons. He might be the LAST guy I’d give a fully guaranteed deal to. (Tua might be another.)

 

Oh, and to those people who say it just saves the billionaire owners money, that’s just not true. It’s just that the money is spent on a bunch of different guys, not just one guy. The money gets spent regardless. 

 

It's why during all this contract stuff I don't feel sorry for him.

 

I've said this already too many times, he could have signed a bigger contract than Josh right after Allen signed.

 

Allen has money in the world of finance working for him.  Lamar, not so much.

Allen has endorsements and will get a lot more.  Lamar, not near as many as an MVP should.

Allen can play football and not worry about money.  Lamar, well..............

Allen suffers a career ending injury, he's still set for life.  Lamar, not near as much as Josh.

 

I truly just don't get him.  He's not doing himself any favors AND the team that took a chance on him and set him up to succeed.

 

[cle23]

6 hours ago, The Red King said:

PSA for the day, yelling and insulting does not in any way make you right.  We're all being calm, while you're going on like you pounded a Red Bull after dumping ten Pixie Sticks in.  Try to keep it civil, please.

 

That aside, most, if not all of us think there is nothing wrong with Lamar chasing the $$$.  Given the Watson deal he's well within his right.

 

I think we're looking at it wrong.  There may well be collusion, but are they colluding against Jackson, or against contracts like Watson's?  In other words were it another QB looking for the same contract, would this still be playing out the same way?  I believe so.  If Jackson were asking for a normal, reasonable contract, would he still be looking for work?  Of course not.

 

The owners are colluding against contracts like Watson's, not against Lamar.

 

Just grouping up and agreeing not to have contracts like that are colluding all the same.  That's the point.  You can't have 32 owners get together to discuss contracts between 1 player and 1 team, no matter the players.

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Just grouping up and agreeing not to have contracts like that are colluding all the same.  That's the point.  You can't have 32 owners get together to discuss contracts between 1 player and 1 team, no matter the players.

 

And Im not sure it even needs to be all 32 teams. I think even 2 teams talking and agreeing on limits or structure would trigger some action by the NFLPA.

[TheFunPolice]

I'm rooting for Lamar and want him to get a bigger contract than Watson because IMO he deserves it. The way Lamar plays and the way teams use him in their offense it makes sense to want the guaranteed money. 

 

From the team side, you're probably paying it out anyway. 

 

Plus it's more interesting to me if he goes to another team. It's a story. Same with Rodgers. 

Edited March 9 by TheFunPolice

[ChrisWatson#21]

If guys like Watson, Jackson, Carr and Jones are going to be making THAT much money business must be good for the league.  Guess those gambling apps going mainstream were game-changers for the NFL. 

[sullim4]

This whole situation can be boiled down to the fact that he doesn't have an agent.

 

All of this was completely avoidable if he had someone competent representing him.  Lamar's mom is not that person.

[BarleyNY]

7 hours ago, The Red King said:

PSA for the day, yelling and insulting does not in any way make you right.  We're all being calm, while you're going on like you pounded a Red Bull after dumping ten Pixie Sticks in.  Try to keep it civil, please.

 

That aside, most, if not all of us think there is nothing wrong with Lamar chasing the $$$.  Given the Watson deal he's well within his right.

 

I think we're looking at it wrong.  There may well be collusion, but are they colluding against Jackson, or against contracts like Watson's?  In other words were it another QB looking for the same contract, would this still be playing out the same way?  I believe so.  If Jackson were asking for a normal, reasonable contract, would he still be looking for work?  Of course not.

 

The owners are colluding against contracts like Watson's, not against Lamar.

 

Definitely the owners sending a message regarding lengthy, fully guaranteed contracts for QBs. Seems as though they’re trying to keep those guarantees to 3 years.

 

That doesn’t necessarily mean there is any formal collusion though. Everyone knows that the vast majority of owners don’t want QBs to get that. It would bleed into other positions and eventually become part of negotiations - and it would be an obstacle to the less incredibly wealthy owners retaining top talent like franchise QBs. 

 

I am a little surprised that one of the wealthier owners isn’t going to use this opportunity to find their QB though.  

[Doc]

21 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Definitely the owners sending a message regarding lengthy, fully guaranteed contracts for QBs. Seems as though they’re trying to keep those guarantees to 3 years.

 

That doesn’t necessarily mean there is any formal collusion though. Everyone knows that the vast majority of owners don’t want QBs to get that. It would bleed into other positions and eventually become part of negotiations - and it would be an obstacle to the less incredibly wealthy owners retaining top talent like franchise QBs. 

 

I am a little surprised that one of the wealthier owners isn’t going to use this opportunity to find their QB though.  

If he hadn’t missed the end of the past 2 seasons it might be a different story.