Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

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

thunderraiden

By thunderraiden,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Seltzer Veteran

Seltzer

Posted
Posted

My best analysis of this so far would be:

1) To the collusion point- I do think the overwhelming majority of owners do not want to see guaranteed contracts become the norm.  After the Watson deal, they want to put that genie back in the bottle.  I feel certain owners have made that abundantly clear behind the scenes.

2) It seems somewhat certain that Baltimore has privately informed teams that they are not going to lose Jackson (i.e. they will match anything reasonable).

3) Given the first two points above, what is in it for any team to become involved in negotiations with Jackson?  The Ravens are not going to let him go, any proposal by another team is mostly just a waste of time (i.e. the Panthers with Watson & Stafford), and it's only going to hurt the league negotiations with other QB's in the future if teams throw out big-money deals to Lamar.

A team could just say eff it and throw out a deal the Ravens won't match, but they will face the ire of all the other owners along with the very real concern about Jackson's injury history.

Add it all up, and this is where we are at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted (edited)

Conor Orr presents an interesting idea...

Orr's hypothesis is that the Ravens could have used discussion around the Combine to gauge how much of a market there really was for Jackson.

Peter King said he did the same thing and found there wasn't much, or...any.

If the Ravens got the same impression, it would have left them feeling confident that allowing Jackson to negotiate with other teams might educate him into having more... realistic expectations of his contract.

Hell of a theory, to be honest.

Edited by Mr. Scot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Lobo Grand Master

The Lobo

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Conor Orr presents an interesting idea...

Orr's hypothesis is that the Ravens could have used discussion around the Combine to gauge how much of a market there really was for Jackson.

Peter King said he did the same thing and found there wasn't much, or...any.

If the Ravens got the same impression, it would have left them feeling confident that allowing Jackson to negotiate with other teams might educate him into having more... realistic expectations of his contract.

Hell of a theory, to be honest.

I just don’t understand all the teams wanting DW4 and no one wants Lamar…

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokinwithWilly Grand Master

SmokinwithWilly

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Conor Orr presents an interesting idea...

Orr's hypothesis is that the Ravens could have used discussion around the Combine to gauge how much of a market there really was for Jackson.

Peter King said he did the same thing and found there wasn't much, or...any.

If the Ravens got the same impression, it would have left them feeling confident that allowing Jackson to negotiate with other teams might educate him into having more... realistic expectations of his contract.

Hell of a theory, to be honest.

It's pretty safe to say his mom doesn't have the connections to pick up the phone and talk to different people in the organizations to guage interest. Not hiring an agent is going to cost him far more than it saves him. 

  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Lobo said:

I just don’t understand all the teams wanting DW4 and no one wants Lamar…

Said elsewhere Watson's contract likely had an impact on Jackson's, maybe a big one.

It's highly possible that if the Watson contract hadn't happened yet, things might be different. But since it did, and it left a lot of people with bad feelings, here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Call Me James Veteran

Call Me James

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Who are some previous guys who had contract disputes that got tagged, and how did it turn out? I know there was a major one some years ago but I can't for the life of me remember who. I want to say a DE/DT/LB or a WR. I sort of recall the same guy got tagged years in a row??

Dak 

suggs

orlando pace

leveon bell off the top of my head.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Who are some previous guys who had contract disputes that got tagged, and how did it turn out? I know there was a major one some years ago but I can't for the life of me remember who. I want to say a DE/DT/LB or a WR. I sort of recall the same guy got tagged years in a row??

Might be thinking of Walter Jones (Seahawks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joemac Grand Master

joemac

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Seltzer said:

My best analysis of this so far would be:

1) To the collusion point- I do think the overwhelming majority of owners do not want to see guaranteed contracts become the norm.  After the Watson deal, they want to put that genie back in the bottle.  I feel certain owners have made that abundantly clear behind the scenes.

2) It seems somewhat certain that Baltimore has privately informed teams that they are not going to lose Jackson (i.e. they will match anything reasonable).

3) Given the first two points above, what is in it for any team to become involved in negotiations with Jackson?  The Ravens are not going to let him go, any proposal by another team is mostly just a waste of time (i.e. the Panthers with Watson & Stafford), and it's only going to hurt the league negotiations with other QB's in the future if teams throw out big-money deals to Lamar.

A team could just say eff it and throw out a deal the Ravens won't match, but they will face the ire of all the other owners along with the very real concern about Jackson's injury history.

Add it all up, and this is where we are at.

If point 2 were true, why even open him up to negotiations to begin with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Lobo Grand Master

The Lobo

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Said elsewhere Watson's contract likely had an impact on Jackson's, maybe a big one.

It's highly possible that if the Watson contract hadn't happened yet, things might be different. But since it did, and it left a lot of people with bad feelings, here we are.

Which is exactly why I think there’s collusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • tukafan21
      We joke about how the NFL has a script for the season. But maybe it's not a joke?

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • rayzor
      Our guys working their azz's off to be the winners they know they are!!

      By rayzor · Posted

      Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Rocky Davis
      NHL Draft 2025

      By Rocky Davis · Posted

      Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...