Breaking: Lamar Jackson is available as Raven's have placed the non-exclusive franchise tag on him.

[frankw]

1 hour ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Can we ban CamWhoaaCam?

Because of his position on Lamar? I'm not in favor of trying to acquire him either but this is an overreaction man. Besides there have been worse and more insufferable positions taken by posters here like those who dickride Darnold or wanted us to break the bank for Carr.

[Krovvy]

A lot of poo stirring going down on Twitter right now.

[SZ James (banned)]

blatant collusion lmao

[NanuqoftheNorth]

9 minutes ago, Krovvy said:

A lot of poo stirring going down on Twitter right now.

I wouldn't expect anything less considering it's the offseason, Lamar is high profile and thousands of twitter accounts are trolling for traffic.  Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to generate more clicks.

[Basbear]

 

[Basbear]

8 minutes ago, SZ James (banned) said:

blatant confusion lmao

fify

[The Lobo]

9 minutes ago, SZ James (banned) said:

blatant collusion lmao

Bingo 

[Brooklyn 3.0]

21 minutes ago, frankw said:

Because of his position on Lamar? I'm not in favor of trying to acquire him either but this is an overreaction man. Besides there have been worse and more insufferable positions taken by posters here like those who dickride Darnold or wanted us to break the bank for Carr.

I was just messing around. He is rather annoying though.

[Basbear]

Just now, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I was just messing around. He is rather annoying though.

here i thought you were getting soft, i was about to send help.....

you are the bully, annoying is NOTHING TO YOU!!

 

[Cary Kollins]

21 minutes ago, SZ James (banned) said:

blatant collusion lmao

Probably. If Lamar is really going after a fully guaranteed contract like the Browns gave Watson, I imagine the owners are attempting to make clear that Watson is an outlier and not the precedent. 
 

That said, if Lamar didn’t have the injury history he has, teams would say f it and sign him in a heartbeat….but the ravens wouldn’t have even let him go in that hypothetical.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Cary Kollins

[Mr. Scot]

35 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I mean even if he chooses not to sit he will make 30 plus million to play QB and if he gets banged up at all he won’t play through it just like last year. Having your star QB/locker room leader pissed at your franchise is bad business….

Paying a guy who isn't providing any benefit to you isn't exactly good business either.

if Jackson chose to simply sit out, it's highly unlikely that the team would be okay with simply paying him to stay home. They'd seek to get that salary back, and in all likelihood they'd win.

And I know a couple of people have suggested he could go the "ouch my finger" route, but again he'd likely face a legal challenge, one he'd have a good chance of losing. Especially so given that Jackson has already been accused of sitting out a game he could have played, which likely means any contract that he signs is going to have provisions covering that sort of thing.

And throwing in what I probably should have mentioned previously, one of the other big differences (and arguably one of the most important) between Watson's situation and Jackson's is that Watson was getting paid. He'd already made significant money to begin with, but the Texans allowed him to continue being paid in part because of his legal situation complicating trade talks. Were it not for that, his situation might not have dragged down as long as it did.

With Jackson, if he refuses to sign his franchise tender, he doesn't get paid.

If he signs but doesn't play, he doesn't get paid.

If he claims to have an injury but can't back it up medically, he likely doesn't get paid there either.

And again, all of this is considering that he hasn't already made big money like Watson had when he held out. Plus, as mentioned, he'd be missing out on his prime years. And who's to say there's still a market for him a couple years down the road?

Bottom Line: All indications are that One way or the other, the Ravens are likely to win this particular battle of wills.

Frankly, I'd say we win too...specifically by not being involved.

[Mr. Scot]

15 minutes ago, The Lobo said:

Bingo 

But can you prove it?

Therein lies the issue...

[SmokinwithWilly]

7 minutes ago, Cary Kollins said:

Probably. If Lamar is really going after a fully guaranteed contract like the Browns gave Watson, I imagine the owners are attempting to make clear that Watson is an outlier and not the precedent. 
 

That said, if Lamar didn’t have the injury history he has, teams would say f it and sign him in a heartbeat….but the ravens wouldn’t have even let him go in that hypothetical.

But according to SAS and the Lamar camp, he never asked for fully guaranteed. Can't have it both ways. 

[Mr. Scot]

And hey, here's one...