Lamar Jackson Requests Trade

[JustInFudge]

29 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

I know you love the guy, but teams win, not QBs.  This isn't tennis.  When you look at the QBs who got the big contracts the past two years - Watson, Wilson, Murray, Rodgers - why would any other NFL teams follow suit?  Those contracts are horrible.  

Agreed, teams win but we hold QB's to a different standard, not my preference to judge QB's as I think it's stupid but it's fact.  The difference here for me is, there is no player in the NFL that has a bigger impact on his team, so that's how it's relevant.  Since drafting Lamar Jackson, the Ravens are 45-16 when he plays, 6-11 when he doesnt.  So sure teams win, but apparently not the Ravens w/out Lamar.  The other factor is the points per game, top 5 w/ Lamar, worst in the NFL w/out.  So again, in general, I agree.  Team sport, team wins...but in this situation, the Ravens are the Lamar show and I'd like that on my favorite team, it has nothing to do w/ Lamar Jackson and my feelings about him as a person or player. 

I'm the guy who started a thread 2 years ago about "if you build it, they will come" pleading for JD to build a team that would eventually attract Aaron Rodgers because at that time, I never thought a 26 year old Superstar Qb would actually become available. 

 

[Bobby816]

Not sure if people have mentioned it in other Lamar talks… but Keyshawn brought up a great point this morning.

 

JD came from BAL under Newsome and worked with DeCosta. He knows what BAL is doing with Lamar. And likely is just letting them do their thing. This seems to be what every team is doing. BAL has a respected FO. No one wants to upset them. Especially JD who learned from them.

[jetblue95]

44 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

You have no basis to say this, just as I have no basis in my statements. What we provide here are opinions. None of us actually has a direct phone line with each NFL owner which provides input to their thoughts and dealings in inner circles.

But for me, where there is smoke, there is usually fire. And it is not the first time in this sport, and certainly sport in general.

Don't be so quick to just shoot down an opinion because it does not jive with yours.

 

what kind of actual smoke is there?

there is only a subset of the league that is looking for a QB.  some are in rebuild and will look to the draft.  some have cap constraints and don't want to pay a QB upwards of $50 mil.  

so then we are left with a handful of teams that theoretically could be in the market for a veteran QB like lamar.  within this subset of teams, it is quite possible that they independently decided that it wasn't worth the effort to deal with lamar (sans an agent), offer him a contract they believe the ravens wouldn't match (ravens reportedly offered last year something likes 6-year, $250 million, $133MM fully guaranteed, $175MM guaranteed for injury, and ability to get up to $200MM guaranteed), and give up two 1st rounders for him, all for a player who while still dynamic, has seen his productivity decline from his MVP season back in 2019 and who has missed 10 regular season games (and a playoff game) over the last 2 years due to injury.

to me, it's a smart business decision and it's easy to see why multiple teams have no interest in pursuing him.

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, AFJF said:

But Lamar said the Ravens offered him a fully guaranteed deal.

I mean a Watson-sized guaranteed deal.

[nycdan]

54 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

You have no basis to say this, just as I have no basis in my statements. What we provide here are opinions. None of us actually has a direct phone line with each NFL owner which provides input to their thoughts and dealings in inner circles.

But for me, where there is smoke, there is usually fire. And it is not the first time in this sport, and certainly sport in general.

Don't be so quick to just shoot down an opinion because it does not jive with yours.

Not trying to be snarky here so please don't take it that way...

The bolded statement has become completely untrue since the rise of Twitter.  It's almost all smoke, and any fire there is completely obscured by the smoke.  

[AFJF]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

I mean a Watson-sized guaranteed deal.

Probably would've had that if not for missing 11 of his last 25 games.  Now he'd have to settle for $44 mil per.  Probably a very difficult reality for him, but I know I was 100% in favor of going after Lamar.  That was when I knew he'd missed action this season.  When I was reminded he also missed a big chunk last season, I said "no effing way".  That kind of cash on a dude who has taken 1,000 hits and is starting to miss time?  Can't see how anyone would call that collusion, but to each his own.

[Matt39]

7 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I mean a Watson-sized guaranteed deal.

Which everyone agreed was a terrible deal and Haslam is a fool. 

[Bruce Harper]

12 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

It depends, did they do it in concert, or of their own volition? Unanimously. 

I don't know, but seems suspicious. Maybe not.

But sports have been guilt of it many times.

It just seems so obvious to me that you can't pay a guy with that injury history that kind of guaranteed money.  Anyone who is in management (and not just a fan)  would reach that same conclusion.  Nobody colluded.  They just aren't idiots.

[nycdan]

Caption this.

[Flea Flicking Frank]

2 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Which everyone agreed was a terrible deal and Haslam is a fool. 

And, while Watson runs, he is a far better passing QB than Jackson has shown to be. Watson uses his legs, Jackson relies on his legs, enormous difference when talking about huge long term guaranteed deals.

[dbatesman]

1 minute ago, Matt39 said:

Which everyone agreed was a terrible deal and Haslam is a fool. 

Sure, but the toothpaste is out of the tube. Two years from now Burrow’s going to open negotiations at $300 million fully guaranteed.

[jetblue95]

12 minutes ago, JiF said:

Agreed, teams win but we hold QB's to a different standard, not my preference to judge QB's as I think it's stupid but it's fact.  The difference here for me is, there is no player in the NFL that has a bigger impact on his team, so that's how it's relevant.  Since drafting Lamar Jackson, the Ravens are 45-16 when he plays, 6-11 when he doesnt.  So sure teams win, but apparently not the Ravens w/out Lamar.  The other factor is the points per game, top 5 w/ Lamar, worst in the NFL w/out.  So again, in general, I agree.  Team sport, team wins...but in this situation, the Ravens are the Lamar show and I'd like that on my favorite team, it has nothing to do w/ Lamar Jackson and my feelings about him as a person or player. 

I'm the guy who started a thread 2 years ago about "if you build it, they will come" pleading for JD to build a team that would eventually attract Aaron Rodgers because at that time, I never thought a 26 year old Superstar Qb would actually become available. 

 

 

of course, part of the reason for the disparity in record from when lamar plays and when he doesn't is that (i) they need to craft a specific offense around his unique skill set, and (ii) they don't have a suitable replacement to run said offense when he misses games with injuries, something that has happened with increasing frequency the last 2 years.

so the question is - do you want to commit such a large, guaranteed contract (and give up two 1st rounders) for a player who needs a specific offense crafted around him, largely to take advantage of his mobility, while also factoring in that he has ended on the injured reserve for each of the last two seasons.  furthermore, his production has declined somewhat dramatically from his MVP level in 2019, and given his value is greatly enhanced by his mobility, will he continue to decline as wear and tear and injuries continue to take their toll?

[Matt39]

3 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Sure, but the toothpaste is out of the tube. Two years from now Burrow’s going to open negotiations at $300 million fully guaranteed.

I don’t see it unless the cap drastically increases. But Burrow is also a better player. The Bengals literally can’t afford to put 300 mill  for one player in escrow either.

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, Bruce Harper said:

It just seems so obvious to me that you can't pay a guy with that injury history that kind of guaranteed money.  Anyone who is in management (and not just a fan)  would reach that same conclusion.  Nobody colluded.  They just aren't idiots.

If a team wanted to, they could take out an insurance policy on a contract (extra cash, sure). That would not negate the cap hit if things go south, but we all know that there are ways around that.

What is fishy to me (and again, opinion) is that no one has talked with the guy. Bring him in, find out what he really wants, let him know your philosophy on such things (contract structures) and see if there is middle ground. Maybe he really likes you.

What does it hurt? And you get some goodwill from the players association and agents alike (not a bad thing). But, when you totally freeze somewhat out, it feels like solidarity. 

Just opinion. Why some here think that is so outrageous is amusing. At least to me. 

Good dog. Sit.

[nycdan]

2 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

If a team wanted to, they could take out an insurance policy on a contract (extra cash, sure). That would not negate the cap hit if things go south, but we all know that there are ways around that.

What is fishy to me (and again, opinion) is that no one has talked with the guy. Bring him in, find out what he really wants, let him know your philosophy on such things (contract structures) and see if there is middle ground. Maybe he really likes you.

What does it hurt? And you get some goodwill from the players association and agents alike (not a bad thing). But, when you totally freeze somewhat out, it feels like solidarity. 

Just opinion. Why some here think that is so outrageous is amusing. At least to me. 

Good dog. Sit.

Minor point, but I think this is 100% the opposite.  Agents are probably not going to be fans of teams giving Lamar a big deal.  It threatens their entire business model.

 

[Beerfish]

Aside for the guaranteed money the biggest conundrum for a guy like Lamar is this:

He has gotten hurt the last few years and the playing the way that makes him dynamic puts him at risk.

If he runs much less and a team starts trying to protect him he is not mvp lamar and is not worth the mvp contract.

He has had exactly one great year and even that 36 td year he threw for like 3100 yards.

Without his running to back teams off and set up the pass he is a medium level QB.

MVP Lamar was 4 years ago.

[Flea Flicking Frank]

6 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

If a team wanted to, they could take out an insurance policy on a contract (extra cash, sure). That would not negate the cap hit if things go south, but we all know that there are ways around that.

What is fishy to me (and again, opinion) is that no one has talked with the guy. Bring him in, find out what he really wants, let him know your philosophy on such things (contract structures) and see if there is middle ground. Maybe he really likes you.

What does it hurt? And you get some goodwill from the players association and agents alike (not a bad thing). But, when you totally freeze somewhat out, it feels like solidarity. 

Just opinion. Why some here think that is so outrageous is amusing. At least to me. 

Good dog. Sit.

Jackson is a unique player, many teams may have no interest in him for various reasons. First and foremost, you need an OC who can create an offense for him, how many teams want to do that? Historically most OC's try to fit players to the offense, and not the other way around. 2nd, his contract demands are pretty well known, and Baltimore for better or worse has had a front row seat to the Jackson show since day 1, and don't have to give up 2 first round picks to sign him, are not offering him what he wants. 

So, why talk to someone who you know the team who has him and he had an MVP season for, won't offer him enough to get the deal done, so you have to give up what they won't PLUS 2 first round picks?

His missing games the past two seasons is a concern like it or not, because of his style of play which is like half QB half RB. RB's fall apart, its pretty well known. 

I don't think its outrageous at all that teams are shying away from him.

[nycdan]

3 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Aside for the guaranteed money the biggest conundrum for a guy like Lamar is this:

He has gotten hurt the last few years and the playing the way that makes him dynamic puts him at risk.

If he runs much less and a team starts trying to protect him he is not mvp lamar and is not worth the mvp contract.

He has had exactly one great year and even that 36 td year he threw for like 3100 yards.

Without his running to back teams off and set up the pass he is a medium level QB.

MVP Lamar was 4 years ago.

You know how it is...

Lamar is an MVP QB.

Rodgers is past his prime.

[slats]

If I was an owner I wouldn’t need to talk to any other owners to come to the conclusion that Jackson is not worth two first rounders and $250M guaranteed, I doubt any of them needed much if any convincing of the same. 
 
Again, who should be bidding on him that isn’t right now? Not the Jets. It’s not 32 owners colluding, it’s the couple teams still with QB vacancies preferring other options, including waiting until after the draft to approach him. 

[Tranquilo]

1 minute ago, nycdan said:

You know how it is...

Lamar is an MVP QB.

Rodgers is past his prime.

People are really overlooking or ignoring on purpose, the type of supporting cast Lamar had this past year. Kenyan Drake was basically his RB1 and Demarcus Robinson was his WR1. There was even a game Mark Andrews didn't play that they still won.

[jetblue95]

15 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

If a team wanted to, they could take out an insurance policy on a contract (extra cash, sure). That would not negate the cap hit if things go south, but we all know that there are ways around that.

What is fishy to me (and again, opinion) is that no one has talked with the guy. Bring him in, find out what he really wants, let him know your philosophy on such things (contract structures) and see if there is middle ground. Maybe he really likes you.

What does it hurt? And you get some goodwill from the players association and agents alike (not a bad thing). But, when you totally freeze somewhat out, it feels like solidarity. 

Just opinion. Why some here think that is so outrageous is amusing. At least to me. 

Good dog. Sit.

 

if only players in sports could have a representative who would be able to speak to other teams about things like contract structure...

[Larz]

The owners are sending a message that forget Watsons contract, we ain’t doing that 

[batman10023]

2 hours ago, The Crusher said:

That’s really what they are colluding  about. Don’t  think it’s a Lamar thing as much as Watson thing. Cleveland set a poor precedent with Watson’s contracts and rest of the owners simply aren’t going to do that. Lamar needs to hire an agent today and step away from it, him representing himself isn’t helping. 

is anyone from the union allowed to contact teams on his behalf?

[batman10023]

2 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

It is exactly this. There have been a small number of sizable "guaranteed" contracts. But the recklessness of the Browns with Watson sends shivers through the old boy network. Nothing frightens them more than someone stepping out of line. 

are the browns going to be spending more per year now that they gave out this massive guaranteed contract?

[slimjasi]

1 hour ago, JiF said:

Honestly, if I'm Lamar.  I sit out until Burrow and Hurts get new deals, who wait for it...wait for it...both have missed games, have a bad injury history and are super risky due to their "style of play", especially Burrow who lives for getting hit and has things like this to say:

 

"It's hard to say," Burrow said when asked what it felt like. "You start to ring a little bit. I've never had any lasting effects from a concussion. I've been hit and forgot the rest of the game before. That has happened a couple of times."

Honestly? The last thing Lamar should be doing is sitting out. He needs to get back on the field ASAP and remind people how good he is. 

I think what you are missing in a lot of your pro-Lamar rants is that Lamar isn't trending in the right direction. Burrow and Hurts are. It's all about "what have you done for me lately "- I know you know this. You bring up Burrow's injury history, but the fact is, after a brutal season ending injury in his rookie year, he hasn't missed a game since and has led his team to back to back AFC title games and a SB. He's trending up. Hurts has missed 4 games in the past two years, but also just had an MVP caliber season and led his team to the SB. He's trending up. Meanwhile, Lamar has failed to finish the last two seasons with his team in a playoff race (in 2021, his team was the #1 seed in the AFC when he got hurt and in 2022 they were in position to win the AFC North when he got hurt) and his numbers have steadily declined since his MVP year. He's trending down. 

If Lamar was the MVP this past season, I think he'd have a deal right now. 

[Dunnie]

50 minutes ago, JiF said:

Agreed, teams win but we hold QB's to a different standard, not my preference to judge QB's as I think it's stupid but it's fact.  The difference here for me is, there is no player in the NFL that has a bigger impact on his team, so that's how it's relevant.  Since drafting Lamar Jackson, the Ravens are 45-16 when he plays, 6-11 when he doesnt.  So sure teams win, but apparently not the Ravens w/out Lamar.  The other factor is the points per game, top 5 w/ Lamar, worst in the NFL w/out.  So again, in general, I agree.  Team sport, team wins...but in this situation, the Ravens are the Lamar show and I'd like that on my favorite team, it has nothing to do w/ Lamar Jackson and my feelings about him as a person or player. 

I'm the guy who started a thread 2 years ago about "if you build it, they will come" pleading for JD to build a team that would eventually attract Aaron Rodgers because at that time, I never thought a 26 year old Superstar Qb would actually become available. 

 

I agree ... FOR THE RAVENS ... they are the only team that it makes sense to offer a contract. Why ? Because they have already customized their entire approach to football around the Lamar Jackson Experience. All of the other teams in the NFL have not.

[The Crusher]

7 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

is anyone from the union allowed to contact teams on his behalf?

Great question. Not sure. 

[Warfish]

26 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

It depends, did they do it in concert, or of their own volition? Unanimously. 

I don't know, but seems suspicious. Maybe not.

Well, lets engage in some critical thinking, shall we?

1. Teams/Owners who already have Franchise QB's under contract.  These teams/GM's/Owners would have zero use, and zero to gain, "colluding" in re: Lamar Jackson.  They already have QB's they love who win and produce.  Jackson is not the best QB in the NFL.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they don't need?

2. Teams/Owners who are cash strapped/in salary cap hell.  These teams/GM's/Owners cannot afford Lamar Jackson.  For whatever reason, they're already either cash strapped (like the Commanders soon to be outbound Owner) or more likely, are simply salary cap strapped and unable to work the cap enough to afford a top-end cost like Jackson.  They may like him, but they simply cannot afford him.    So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they can't afford?

3. Teams/Owners who are risk averse.  These teams/GM's/owners are on the more risk-averse side of the league, call the conservative (with a little "c').  They do not take big risks, they prefer more stable, safe investments.  This includes both players and systems.   They see Jackson as risky due to his play style and his recent injury history.  They also see themselves having to change alot on their team, including possibly coaches and offensive coordinators, to make Jackson work for them.  They may not have the best QB, but they find the risk of Jackson too high.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they think is too risky?

4. Teams/Owners who are cheap.  Different than #2 above, some NFL Owners are simply cheap.  They don't tend to spend to the full cap, they don't tend to give out huge contracts to Free Agents, they certainly aren't giving out huge long-term guaranteed contracts.  They are either milking their team for profit, or are simply (again) conservative as business owners.  They're not interested in Lamar because thats not the kind of move they make, they'd rather draft a cheap guy.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they think is too expensive?

5. Teams/Owners who prefer to build through the Draft.  These teams/owners don't chance high-end Free Agents most years, they believe in building through the NFL Draft, finding and developing their own talent, not looking for the savior or quick fix via free agency.  Patriots, Steelers are two examples, generally/historically.  These teams might like Lamar, or want him out of their division, but they're not going to give up two #1 picks (like gold to these teams) and a huge deal for a quick fix, especially a risky quick fix like Jackson.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone that doesn't align with their team building philosophy?

6. Teams/Owners who adamantly do not believe in giving Guaranteed contracts.  Self-explanatory, these teams/GM's hate the Cleveland deal given to Watson, think it's bad for the league (esp. looking ta baseball and the NBA) and simply won't be interested on that aspect alone.  Irsay's quote pretty well exemplifies this view, which I believe is pretty commonly held around the league, without need for collusion.  It's pretty obvious from an Ownership perspective why.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a type of contract they oppose existing or growing in common use?

7. Teams/Owners who think the Ravens will simply match any reasonable deal they might offer.  Despite what fans think, not everything can be solved by contract poison pills.  Some teams have outright said they're not going to do the Ravens work for them, given the Ravens have the right to match any deal.  Anything reasonable they offer could be matched by the Ravens, so why waste time when the offseason is busy and short and there is a lot of other players to pursue and a draft to prepare for?  With only so many front office staff available, and time an issue, they may simply not want to waste their time, i.e. opportunity cost, pursuing Jackson.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a player they feel confident the Ravens want to keep and will match, possibly costing them shots at other players they want to sign?

8. Teams/Owners who don't like/want Run-first QB's.  As much as we might want to think every NFL team is on the cutting edge of offensive systems, they're not, there are several out there who still don't believe in the concept of the "running QB" as the route to success.  These teams prefer more traditional pocket-passer type QB's who produce passing yards, not rushing yards.  They believe RB's can provide running production at a much reduced cost (and risk!) and plan and manage a far more traditional type of offense.  They're not interested in changing system, designing rosters around a single player like a running QB, or risking it all falling apart if that QB gets hurt.  Far easier to find a thrower they believe in.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a type of player game-play style they don't believe in?

9. Teams/Owners who don't want to negotiate with Jackson without an Agent Representing him.  Self-explanatory, Jackson is not an agent and doesn't have one, which is a big part of his problems in some of our views.  Teams may be averse to trying to negotiate directly with a player, given how contentious that could be, and how sensitive Jackson clearly is about his health, his worth, his value, etc.  Having agents takes that issue out of play, but it's very in-play with Jackson.  Some teams may simply want to avoid that, especially if they already have any of the 8 reasons above limiting their interest.

There is more, but you get the point I'm sure.  If you eliminate any team with any of these possible reasons, how many teams are left to "collude" exactly?

You would have to believe that no one in the NFL could independently reach any of these conclusions/viewpoints on their own to believe the league, as a collective whole, must be colluding to keep Jackson unsigned.  You'd have to reject every one of these very reasonable possible reasons for teams to not chase Jackson, in order to believe only collusion (or racism, as certain others have suggested) is the likely cause for the lack of interest other than the Ravens themselves.

Personally, I find that idea laughable.  There are many reasons a team would avoid Jackson that do not require any conversations or collusion to reach.  Hell, many of us fans reached those same conclusions without having to "collude" with other fans, lol.  

Fans who only see collusion here are simply ignoring a huge amount of reasons why Jackson isn't as great or as easy or as sure-thing as they think he is.  Those fans decision to ignore reality doesn't make collusion likely.

[Matt39]

23 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

are the browns going to be spending more per year now that they gave out this massive guaranteed contract?

I don’t think this sends the shivers everyone thinks it does. The massive  coaching deals yes because there’s no coaching salary cap, but with a player salary cap you still have a set confined  number you have to work with. Some teams (like the Bengals) do not have an owner who has 300 liquid anyways. Perhaps the small market teams are nervous, but there’s always been a collective agreement amongst owners that competitive balance is important. 

[batman10023]

1 hour ago, nycdan said:

I like how you compare only offering $140M over 3 years or so guaranteed to 'getting them in line'.  

it's not about the salary.  It's about the salary cap and that makes ALL the difference.

As long as there is a cap, teams have to consider the impact of a player on guaranteed salary getting injured and blowing up the team for several years as a result.  Lamar whining about his insufficient offer doesn't draw a line to collusion.  If he hadn't gotten a serious offer from the Ravens, then maybe there would be something there but I think that ship has long since sailed.  If QBs didn't count against the cap, he would probably have gotten what he wanted in a heartbeat.

He just wants what he wants and without even having the benefit of professional representation, he's set a hard course for himself.  When most of the recent QB contracts already look like crap from the moment they were signed,  let alone a year later, teams have solid, factual reasons to be hesitant. 

He'll get lots of support from the butter-churners of the media looking to play the race card, but beyond that, I'm not seeing it.

never understood the race angle.  isn't watson the same race?  

[Scott Dierking]

4 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Well, lets engage in some critical thinking, shall we?

1. Teams/Owners who already have Franchise QB's under contract.  These teams/GM's/Owners would have zero use, and zero to gain, "colluding" in re: Lamar Jackson.  They already have QB's they love who win and produce.  Jackson is not the best QB in the NFL.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they don't need?

2. Teams/Owners who are cash strapped/in salary cap hell.  These teams/GM's/Owners cannot afford Lamar Jackson.  For whatever reason, they're already either cash strapped (like the Commanders soon to be outbound Owner) or more likely, are simply salary cap strapped and unable to work the cap enough to afford a top-end cost like Jackson.  They may like him, but they simply cannot afford him.    So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they can't afford?

3. Teams/Owners who are risk averse.  These teams/GM's/owners are on the more risk-averse side of the league, call the conservative (with a little "c').  They do not take big risks, they prefer more stable, safe investments.  This includes both players and systems.   They see Jackson as risky due to his play style and his recent injury history.  They also see themselves having to change alot on their team, including possibly coaches and offensive coordinators, to make Jackson work for them.  They may not have the best QB, but they find the risk of Jackson too high.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they think is too risky?

4. Teams/Owners who are cheap.  Different than #2 above, some NFL Owners are simply cheap.  They don't tend to spend to the full cap, they don't tend to give out huge contracts to Free Agents, they certainly aren't giving out huge long-term guaranteed contracts.  They are either milking their team for profit, or are simply (again) conservative as business owners.  They're not interested in Lamar because thats not the kind of move they make, they'd rather draft a cheap guy.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they think is too expensive?

5. Teams/Owners who prefer to build through the Draft.  These teams/owners don't chance high-end Free Agents most years, they believe in building through the NFL Draft, finding and developing their own talent, not looking for the savior or quick fix via free agency.  Patriots, Steelers are two examples, generally/historically.  These teams might like Lamar, or want him out of their division, but they're not going to give up two #1 picks (like gold to these teams) and a huge deal for a quick fix, especially a risky quick fix like Jackson.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone that doesn't align with their team building philosophy?

6. Teams/Owners who adamantly do not believe in giving Guaranteed contracts.  Self-explanatory, these teams/GM's hate the Cleveland deal given to Watson, think it's bad for the league (esp. looking ta baseball and the NBA) and simply won't be interested on that aspect alone.  Irsay's quote pretty well exemplifies this view, which I believe is pretty commonly held around the league, without need for collusion.  It's pretty obvious from an Ownership perspective why.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a type of contract they oppose existing or growing in common use?

7. Teams/Owners who think the Ravens will simply match any reasonable deal they might offer.  Despite what fans think, not everything can be solved by contract poison pills.  Some teams have outright said they're not going to do the Ravens work for them, given the Ravens have the right to match any deal.  Anything reasonable they offer could be matched by the Ravens, so why waste time when the offseason is busy and short and there is a lot of other players to pursue and a draft to prepare for?  With only so many front office staff available, and time an issue, they may simply not want to waste their time, i.e. opportunity cost, pursuing Jackson.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a player they feel confident the Ravens want to keep and will match, possibly costing them shots at other players they want to sign?

8. Teams/Owners who don't like/want Run-first QB's.  As much as we might want to think every NFL team is on the cutting edge of offensive systems, they're not, there are several out there who still don't believe in the concept of the "running QB" as the route to success.  These teams prefer more traditional pocket-passer type QB's who produce passing yards, not rushing yards.  They believe RB's can provide running production at a much reduced cost (and risk!) and plan and manage a far more traditional type of offense.  They're not interested in changing system, designing rosters around a single player like a running QB, or risking it all falling apart if that QB gets hurt.  Far easier to find a thrower they believe in.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a type of player game-play style they don't believe in?

9. Teams/Owners who don't want to negotiate with Jackson without an Agent Representing him.  Self-explanatory, Jackson is not an agent and doesn't have one, which is a big part of his problems in some of our views.  Teams may be averse to trying to negotiate directly with a player, given how contentious that could be, and how sensitive Jackson clearly is about his health, his worth, his value, etc.  Having agents takes that issue out of play, but it's very in-play with Jackson.  Some teams may simply want to avoid that, especially if they already have any of the 8 reasons above limiting their interest.

There is more, but you get the point I'm sure.  If you eliminate any team with any of these possible reasons, how many teams are left to "collude" exactly?

You would have to believe that no one in the NFL could independently reach any of these conclusions/viewpoints on their own to believe the league, as a collective whole, must be colluding to keep Jackson unsigned.  You'd have to reject every one of these very reasonable possible reasons for teams to not chase Jackson, in order to believe only collusion (or racism, as certain others have suggested) is the likely cause for the lack of interest other than the Ravens themselves.

Personally, I find that idea laughable.  There are many reasons a team would avoid Jackson that do not require any conversations or collusion to reach.  Hell, many of us fans reached those same conclusions without having to "collude" with other fans, lol.  

Fans who only see collusion here are simply ignoring a huge amount of reasons why Jackson isn't as great or as easy or as sure-thing as they think he is.  Those fans decision to ignore reality doesn't make collusion likely.

I will give you a taste of your own medicine here:

"If you say so". 

[batman10023]

3 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

I don’t think this sends the shivers everyone thinks it does. The massive  coaching deals yes because there’s no coaching salary cap, but with a player salary cap you still have a set confided number you have to work with. Some teams (like the Bengals) do not have an owner who has 300 liquid anyways. Perhaps the small market teams are nervous, but there’s always been a collective agreement amongst owners that competitive balance is important. 

most people taking Lamar's side don't understand the salary cap implications of a massive QB guarantee.   Or they just care about the 1% of players and not the other 99% who get screwed by this type of deal.

 

[Matt39]

1 minute ago, batman10023 said:

most people taking Lamar's side don't understand the salary cap implications of a massive QB guarantee.   Or they just care about the 1% of players and not the other 99% who get screwed by this type of deal.

 

Maybe it’s just the nature of the world now that the “poor owners” have to go. The Mara’s had to bring in the Tisch’s. I guess we will see.

[Dunnie]

16 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Well, lets engage in some critical thinking, shall we?

1. Teams/Owners who already have Franchise QB's under contract.  These teams/GM's/Owners would have zero use, and zero to gain, "colluding" in re: Lamar Jackson.  They already have QB's they love who win and produce.  Jackson is not the best QB in the NFL.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they don't need?

2. Teams/Owners who are cash strapped/in salary cap hell.  These teams/GM's/Owners cannot afford Lamar Jackson.  For whatever reason, they're already either cash strapped (like the Commanders soon to be outbound Owner) or more likely, are simply salary cap strapped and unable to work the cap enough to afford a top-end cost like Jackson.  They may like him, but they simply cannot afford him.    So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they can't afford?

3. Teams/Owners who are risk averse.  These teams/GM's/owners are on the more risk-averse side of the league, call the conservative (with a little "c').  They do not take big risks, they prefer more stable, safe investments.  This includes both players and systems.   They see Jackson as risky due to his play style and his recent injury history.  They also see themselves having to change alot on their team, including possibly coaches and offensive coordinators, to make Jackson work for them.  They may not have the best QB, but they find the risk of Jackson too high.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they think is too risky?

4. Teams/Owners who are cheap.  Different than #2 above, some NFL Owners are simply cheap.  They don't tend to spend to the full cap, they don't tend to give out huge contracts to Free Agents, they certainly aren't giving out huge long-term guaranteed contracts.  They are either milking their team for profit, or are simply (again) conservative as business owners.  They're not interested in Lamar because thats not the kind of move they make, they'd rather draft a cheap guy.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone they think is too expensive?

5. Teams/Owners who prefer to build through the Draft.  These teams/owners don't chance high-end Free Agents most years, they believe in building through the NFL Draft, finding and developing their own talent, not looking for the savior or quick fix via free agency.  Patriots, Steelers are two examples, generally/historically.  These teams might like Lamar, or want him out of their division, but they're not going to give up two #1 picks (like gold to these teams) and a huge deal for a quick fix, especially a risky quick fix like Jackson.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for someone that doesn't align with their team building philosophy?

6. Teams/Owners who adamantly do not believe in giving Guaranteed contracts.  Self-explanatory, these teams/GM's hate the Cleveland deal given to Watson, think it's bad for the league (esp. looking ta baseball and the NBA) and simply won't be interested on that aspect alone.  Irsay's quote pretty well exemplifies this view, which I believe is pretty commonly held around the league, without need for collusion.  It's pretty obvious from an Ownership perspective why.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a type of contract they oppose existing or growing in common use?

7. Teams/Owners who think the Ravens will simply match any reasonable deal they might offer.  Despite what fans think, not everything can be solved by contract poison pills.  Some teams have outright said they're not going to do the Ravens work for them, given the Ravens have the right to match any deal.  Anything reasonable they offer could be matched by the Ravens, so why waste time when the offseason is busy and short and there is a lot of other players to pursue and a draft to prepare for?  With only so many front office staff available, and time an issue, they may simply not want to waste their time, i.e. opportunity cost, pursuing Jackson.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a player they feel confident the Ravens want to keep and will match, possibly costing them shots at other players they want to sign?

8. Teams/Owners who don't like/want Run-first QB's.  As much as we might want to think every NFL team is on the cutting edge of offensive systems, they're not, there are several out there who still don't believe in the concept of the "running QB" as the route to success.  These teams prefer more traditional pocket-passer type QB's who produce passing yards, not rushing yards.  They believe RB's can provide running production at a much reduced cost (and risk!) and plan and manage a far more traditional type of offense.  They're not interested in changing system, designing rosters around a single player like a running QB, or risking it all falling apart if that QB gets hurt.  Far easier to find a thrower they believe in.  So why would these teams and owners collude, knowing the legal risks, for a type of player game-play style they don't believe in?

9. Teams/Owners who don't want to negotiate with Jackson without an Agent Representing him.  Self-explanatory, Jackson is not an agent and doesn't have one, which is a big part of his problems in some of our views.  Teams may be averse to trying to negotiate directly with a player, given how contentious that could be, and how sensitive Jackson clearly is about his health, his worth, his value, etc.  Having agents takes that issue out of play, but it's very in-play with Jackson.  Some teams may simply want to avoid that, especially if they already have any of the 8 reasons above limiting their interest.

There is more, but you get the point I'm sure.  If you eliminate any team with any of these possible reasons, how many teams are left to "collude" exactly?

You would have to believe that no one in the NFL could independently reach any of these conclusions/viewpoints on their own to believe the league, as a collective whole, must be colluding to keep Jackson unsigned.  You'd have to reject every one of these very reasonable possible reasons for teams to not chase Jackson, in order to believe only collusion (or racism, as certain others have suggested) is the likely cause for the lack of interest other than the Ravens themselves.

Personally, I find that idea laughable.  There are many reasons a team would avoid Jackson that do not require any conversations or collusion to reach.  Hell, many of us fans reached those same conclusions without having to "collude" with other fans, lol.  

Fans who only see collusion here are simply ignoring a huge amount of reasons why Jackson isn't as great or as easy or as sure-thing as they think he is.  Those fans decision to ignore reality doesn't make collusion likely.

Thank you for taking the time to write this !

[jetblue95]

21 minutes ago, batman10023 said:

is anyone from the union allowed to contact teams on his behalf?

 

the league recently sent a memo stating that either the player himself, or a NFLPA certified agent, may negotiate a contract.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-memo-warns-teams-they-are-prohibited-from-negotiating-with-non-nflpa-certifi

not sure how a union rep would be classified, but my guess is the union would tell him to get an NFLPA certified agent if he wanted the assistance of a 3rd party.