*[EDIT]* Multiple reports Browns actively shopping Mayfield pg. 29/30 - Ravens / Browns in QB contract pickle

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The problem with this approach is that the NFL is not much fun when you don't have a Quarterback. If every time you get a guy who is top 10 but not top 3 or 4 you throw your toys out of the pram and "start over" there is no guarantee you land on a guy as good as Lamar again. It is the same argument we had when there were people legitimately arguing that the Cowboys should let Dak walk cos you could get "similar play out of Andy Dalton at a third of the price." Then Dak got injured and we saw what was always true. Similarly without Jackson down the stretch the Ravens went from #1 seed to an 0-4 finish and missed the playoffs. And Tyler Huntley isn't terrible. It is just that the type of play you get out of a Lamar or a Dak is not easily replaced. 

 

I get it, more often than not when the lights shine brightest in the playoffs those teams with good not great Quarterbacks get shown up. But the Ravens are proof that you can find lightening in a bottle, they did it with Flacco who was in that same good not great category. I also get it that it sucks when you have one of those top 10 guys and the market forces you to pay them very similar money to the top 4 or 5 guys. That sucks. But the answer of "stop the world I want to get off" takes you to one place and one place only - the bottom of the NFL. If you don't have a Quarterback, you lose. 

 

There are not enough Josh Allens and Patrick Mahomes for everyone to have one. When you have a Dak Prescott or a Lamar Jackson if you decide not to overpay them because you want to spin the wheel and hope you land a guy that good you are playing roulette with your franchise. And while the sport is ultimately about winning Superbowls, winning a lot of regular season games is still a whole lot better than losing a lot of regular season games. We are fans. For these guys it is their job, their life. Every Monday morning after a defeat they have to go into work and live that. They can't escape with other things and it drags people down. Trading a guy who avoids that because he might want $3 or $4m more a year than he is really worth? Yea, I will never buy that as a good strategy.

 

 I get your point that when you don't have a QB, especially in today's NFL, that it's not much fun. All Bills fans know that from the 2 decades after Kelly until we drafted Allen. But just because you trade Lamar doesn't neccesarily mean you don't have a QB.

 

 I would propose you trade Lamar to a QB needy team, then use some of the haul you get from the trade to trade for let's say Aaron Rodgers. Then you could draft a QB and let him sit for a few years and learn while Aaron plays out the rest of his career.

 

 I think with their roster and their coach, Baltimore would be one of the favorites for Aaron to land if they traded Lamar away.

 

 Again if he was coming off his 2nd year I wouldn't have a problem paying Lamar top 3 money, but his numbers have gone down significantly over the last 2 years pretty much across the board. TD passes have gone down by 10 each of the last 2 years, INTs have gone up each of the last years(More than doubled from 2019 to 2021 on less attempts) QB Rating has gone down about 22% over the last 2 years and his QBR has dropped about 40% over the last 2 years. His QBR for this year was 50.8, in this model 50.0 indicates the average QB play in the NFL, so top 2-3 money in the league for average QB play? All that and we haven’t even discussed the his rushing numbers which have dropped off as well(And his career carries are piling up). 

 

Like I said before if you're paying him that kind of money, you're paying that much for his 2nd year performance only, not the last 2. Yet he's shown nothing over the last 2 years suggesting he can produce like that again. If I'm the Ravens I was fine while Lamar was on his rookie contract, but I do not like the position I'm in now. Lamar's cap hit for this year was 3 million, in 2022 his 5th year option will cost 23 million and 2023 his cap hit will be around 40-43 million. That's about a 40 million increase in just 2 years. Alot of pieces that will be gone to pay Lamar his salary and my fear would be he doesn't have the QB play to close the talent gap that's about to occur on his team. Just my take on this. 🤷‍♂️

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by LOVEMESOMEBILLS

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, JayBaller10 said:

As to the first in bold, how do you figure when there are contracts right now that exceed 20%?! QB contracts are getting richer, when Joe Burrow and Justin Herbert’s time comes, they’re going to argue for more than what Mahomes got. Why? Part of the reason will be because the cap is higher. Putting the arbitrary 20% number once again at the forefront, their contracts could surpass the percentage.
If QBs are worthy of being paid the max percentage, then pay them, there’s only a handful of those guys in the league anyway. “Every” contract wont be pushed to the max, that’s just silly. For those that are, teams can be assured the bloating contracts can never occupy more than “20%” of the cap.

Since you’re struggling to understand the concept, I’ll compare it this way… the NBA has a salary cap along with max value contracts and rules within those contracts. See here. MLB has no salary caps and player contracts in that league continue to balloon. Like the NBA, the NFL has a salary cap. You seem reluctant to compare the trajectory of contracts to earlier times, but the argument I was making is that QB contracts are consuming more of the salary cap year by year, percentage wise. That’s fact. Setting percentage limits would not only help ensure the contracts remain reasonable, but would also assuage current renegotiating arguments when players see there are others making more than them.

If you knew anything about the NBA, you would know that paying "above average" players their max contacts and capping out decent teams happens virtually every year.

 

This doesn't help.

26 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

The inefficiency in recognizing tiers is part of the problem, yes. The other is that a higher salary cap means players are naturally going to get paid more. We already have a league that utilizes max player contracts, so it’d be easy to look over there and see if the fears are justified. Is it working? Are there players lesser than Lebron making just as much as him on max value deals? I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but would be shocked to learn that’s the case.

YES.

 

Russell Westbrook and John Wall have larger cap hits than Lebron. Argument over.

Edited February 6, 2022 by FireChans

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

 

 I get your point that when you don't have a QB, especially in today's NFL, that it's not much fun. All Bills fans know that from the 2 decades after Kelly until we drafted Allen. But just because you trade Lamar doesn't neccesarily mean you don't have a QB.

 

 I would propose you trade Lamar to a QB needy team, then use some of the haul you get from the trade to trade for let's say Aaron Rodgers. Then you could draft a QB and let him sit for a few years and learn while Aaron plays out the rest of his career.

 

 I think with their roster and their coach, Baltimore would be one of the favorites for Aaron to land if they traded Lamar away.

 

 Again if he was coming off his 2nd year I wouldn't have a problem paying Lamar top 3 money, but his numbers have gone down significantly over the last 2 years pretty much across the board. TD passes have gone down by 10 each of the last 2 years, INTs have gone up each of the last years(More than doubled from 2019 to 2021 on less attempts) QB Rating has gone down about 22% over the last 2 years and his QBR has dropped about 40% over the last 2 years. His QBR for this year was 50.8, in this model 50.0 indicates the average QB play in the NFL, so top 2-3 money in the league for average QB play? All that and we haven’t even discussed the his rushing numbers which have dropped off as well(And his career carries are piling up). 

 

Like I said before if you're paying him that kind of money, you're paying that much for his 2nd year performance only, not the last 2. Yet he's shown nothing over the last 2 years suggesting he can produce like that again. If I'm the Ravens I was fine while Lamar was on his rookie contract, but I do not like the position I'm in now. Lamar's cap hit for this year was 3 million, in 2022 his 5th year option will cost 23 million and 2023 his cap hit will be around 40-43 million. That's about a 40 million increase in just 2 years. Alot of pieces that will be gone to pay Lamar his salary and my fear would be he doesn't have the QB play to close the talent gap that's about to occur on his team. Just my take on this. 🤷‍♂️

 

Ha. Well if you are going to guarantee me Aaron Rodgers of course I'd trade Lamar. But you don't trade Lamar first and hope you get Aaron Rodgers after. If you decide Aaron Rodgers might be an option for you then you ring the Pack and offer them Lamar and a first round pick, plus some other picks over the next couple of drafts. 

 

As for his numbers declining, yea this year he clearly wasn't as good and was playing hurt and missed time and it was a bit of a messy season. But while I doubt he will ever repeat his MVP season his 2020 season where he still put up over 3700 yards and 33 touchdowns.... would be enough for me to pay him because the alternative is to be in the basement. Unless you can pull off a trade for someone like a Rodgers or whoever. 

 

And as the Eagles showed with Wentz and the Rams showed with Goff, even if you do sign him to that deal you really are not locked in that long anymore. The Rams were still able to swing a trade for an upgrade two years later (and Goff was a piece of that trade) and the Eagles got to the point where the guy was so bad and so toxic that they traded him without an obvious replacement and still got a 1st round pick back (and Lamar would have to get a lot worse to be 2020 Carson Wentz level bad). To me Jackson is better than both of them. 

 

It's simple to me. You sign him, you overpay him, you know you are doing that but it doesn't mean you suddenly have locked yourselves in forever. The Ravens are a well run organisation, they know how to handle business. It is a much more comfortable place to look for an upgrade when you have a guy than when you don't. Indeed that was what they did when bringing in Lamar while they still had an established, though declining starter. Just tossing him away and then hoping the compensation you get back lands something better. You keep him and if you are not convinced still you just keep looking in the background. 

[Gugny]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Ha. Well if you are going to guarantee me Aaron Rodgers of course I'd trade Lamar. But you don't trade Lamar first and hope you get Aaron Rodgers after. If you decide Aaron Rodgers might be an option for you then you ring the Pack and offer them Lamar and a first round pick, plus some other picks over the next couple of drafts. 

 

As for his numbers declining, yea this year he clearly wasn't as good and was playing hurt and missed time and it was a bit of a messy season. But while I doubt he will ever repeat his MVP season his 2020 season where he still put up over 3700 yards and 33 touchdowns.... would be enough for me to pay him because the alternative is to be in the basement. Unless you can pull off a trade for someone like a Rodgers or whoever. 

 

And as the Eagles showed with Wentz and the Rams showed with Goff, even if you do sign him to that deal you really are not locked in that long anymore. The Rams were still able to swing a trade for an upgrade two years later (and Goff was a piece of that trade) and the Eagles got to the point where the guy was so bad and so toxic that they traded him without an obvious replacement and still got a 1st round pick back (and Lamar would have to get a lot worse to be 2020 Carson Wentz level bad). To me Jackson is better than both of them. 

 

It's simple to me. You sign him, you overpay him, you know you are doing that but it doesn't mean you suddenly have locked yourselves in forever. The Ravens are a well run organisation, they know how to handle business. It is a much more comfortable place to look for an upgrade when you have a guy than when you don't. Indeed that was what they did when bringing in Lamar while they still had an established, though declining starter. Just tossing him away and then hoping the compensation you get back lands something better. You keep him and if you are not convinced still you just keep looking in the background. 

 

To me, the most important question the Ravens need to ask themselves is, "can we get to the Super Bowl with Lamar Jackson?"  I think that answer is a hard "no," so even though he may be better than many available QBs, what are they really accomplishing by overpaying him?

[Brand J]

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

lol none of this is my data.  Tell that to spotrac.  They feel they can and I provided the link.  They are pretty good at this...so I have no reason to doubt their numbers.  The cap tends to rise 5-6% per year (pandemic year excepted).  It's not hard to project for the next 2 years.  And the current player contracts are known for the next 2 years.  So it's really not hard to see what future years will be like. 

 

Also, new broadcast rights will blow it up the cap even further.

 

If you disagree with all of their data and projections...well, I guess you are free to.  But doing so isn't really an argument for your position.  When the owners all suddenly agree to change how they pay their best QBs, you'll let us know.

Again, my argument is based on the PAST and the trajectory of QB salaries, whereas yours is projective. I’m going to make it plain as day seeing as how you’re still struggling.
I’ll compare 2022 to 2015 using the same criteria. The average cap hits of the top 5 QBs in 2022 are $43,865,331 with a salary cap of $208,200,000. This represents 21% of the cap. The average cap hits of the top 5 QBs in 2015 were $20,087,583 with a salary cap of $143,280,00. This represented 14% of the cap.

Sure, this data could be an anomaly, maybe I just lucked into picking the year with the highest variance, but I’m pretty sure if I were to go year by year my argument would still hold weight - QB salaries are climbing and consuming more and more of the salary cap. Those are the hard numbers for you from then and now.

[Nextmanup]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

To me, the most important question the Ravens need to ask themselves is, "can we get to the Super Bowl with Lamar Jackson?"  I think that answer is a hard "no," so even though he may be better than many available QBs, what are they really accomplishing by overpaying him?

I think a lot of people would agree with you, but even more would strongly disagree with you, and I'm one of them.

Yes, Lamar is easily enough of a talent to win a SB.  I don't know how you argue for or against this...it's just a matter of opinion, but you'll know how Baltimore feels about it when they keep him around and pay him forever, which they will.

 

 

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, Nextmanup said:

I think a lot of people would agree with you, but even more would strongly disagree with you, and I'm one of them.

Yes, Lamar is easily enough of a talent to win a SB.  I don't know how you argue for or against this...it's just a matter of opinion, but you'll know how Baltimore feels about it when they keep him around and pay him forever, which they will.

 

 

 

His playoff stats are abysmal.  It's a trend.  He's exciting and somewhat effective in the regular season, but when he faces playoff defenses, he's terrible.

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackLa00.htm#all_passing

 

 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

To me, the most important question the Ravens need to ask themselves is, "can we get to the Super Bowl with Lamar Jackson?"  I think that answer is a hard "no," so even though he may be better than many available QBs, what are they really accomplishing by overpaying him?

 

They are accomplishing not being terrible. Which is where you are in the NFL if you don't have a guy. They are accomplishing not being 0-4 down the stretch, not being whatever it was Dallas finished last year without Dak. I also don't think it is a hard no. I think it is a narrower path. I doubt they could do it multiple times, but could they find a year where things fall right for them? Yes, in my mind they could. 

 

But I just don't accept the premise that you either think "our guy is definitely a Superbowl winning level QB" or you move on. Because there are just not enough of those guys to make it worth the risk of being the Bills for 20 years spinning their wheels below .500. You keep Lamar, you accept you are overpaying him, you remain a competitive team, and you also never stop looking for that chance to upgrade. I don't accept you are either a potential Superbowl winner or you need to rebuild and if the NFL did become that it would have a serious product problem. 

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They are accomplishing not being terrible. Which is where you are in the NFL if you don't have a guy. They are accomplishing not being 0-4 down the stretch, not being whatever it was Dallas finished last year without Dak. I also don't think it is a hard no. I think it is a narrower path. I doubt they could do it multiple times, but could they find a year where things fall right for them? Yes, in my mind they could. 

 

But I just don't accept the premise that you either think "our guy is definitely a Superbowl winning level QB" or you move on. Because there are just not enough of those guys to make it worth the risk of being the Bills for 20 years spinning their wheels below .500. You keep Lamar, you accept you are overpaying him, you remain a competitive team, and you also never stop looking for that chance to upgrade. I don't accept you are either a potential Superbowl winner or you need to rebuild and if the NFL did become that it would have a serious product problem. 

 

I don't think there was much of a drop-off  at all between Huntley and Jackson.  I totally get what you're saying,  but if I'm calling it like I see it, I let some other schmuck GM overpay Lamar Jackson and roll with Huntley, saving money to build around him.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I don't think there was much of a drop-off  at all between Huntley and Jackson.  I totally get what you're saying,  but if I'm calling it like I see it, I let some other schmuck GM overpay Lamar Jackson and roll with Huntley, saving money to build around him.

 

I just think that is plain wrong. And I am a Huntley guy. Have been since I saw him play the Shrine game. I actually called him as the perfect backup to Lamar even then. 

[FireChans]

9 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I don't think there was much of a drop-off  at all between Huntley and Jackson.  I totally get what you're saying,  but if I'm calling it like I see it, I let some other schmuck GM overpay Lamar Jackson and roll with Huntley, saving money to build around him.

What is the point of that? If they can’t win a Super Bowl with Lamar, why save money to build around a lesser version? 

[Gugny]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I just think that is plain wrong. And I am a Huntley guy. Have been since I saw him play the Shrine game. I actually called him as the perfect backup to Lamar even then. 

 

To be clear, I do not think Lamar Jackson stinks or is a bad QB.

 

Maybe I'm just scarred for life from some of the long-term contracts the Bills have given QBs over the years just so they could "not be terrible."

 

If a team has a QB who needs everything to fall into place and have the stars align in order to even have a chance at going to a Super Bowl, then I think the team would be smart to move on from said QB, rather than pay him big bucks.

 

 

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

To be clear, I do not think Lamar Jackson stinks or is a bad QB.

 

Maybe I'm just scarred for life from some of the long-term contracts the Bills have given QBs over the years just so they could "not be terrible."

 

If a team has a QB who needs everything to fall into place and have the stars align in order to even have a chance at going to a Super Bowl, then I think the team would be smart to move on from said QB, rather than pay him big bucks.

 

 

I think I can name like 2. Over 20 years. 
 

People don’t realize the Bills were missing the playoffs every single year not because they tried to overpay Ryan Fitzpatrick, but because they were trotting out BUMS like EJ, Thad Lewis, Trent Edwards, Jeff Tuel, JP Losman and etc etc. Those guys didn’t hurt the team because of their cap hit, they hurt the team because they were GARBAGE.

[Brand J]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I have no idea about the NBA I wouldn't watch it if they were playing in my back yard so I have no idea if it is working. Where I disagree is that the problem of QB contract inflation is distinct from the tier inefficiency. I don't believe it is. I think the latter drives the former. Like I say I don't have a solution, but I am not persuaded your proposed solution is the answer.

Yeah, I’m just looking for a fix for what I perceive as a growing issue. Literally. But as I said in my earlier posts, it’s not a problem until it becomes one. If owners are content to hand out bloated contracts to that position specifically, that’s their prerogative, it’s their money. Naturally as QBs make more, other positions receive less. I don’t know the RB numbers versus now and the past, but I can bet they’re not making nearly what they used to, relative to the cap. But again, if everyone’s cool with it, players included, then it’s not a problem.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, JayBaller10 said:

Again, my argument is based on the PAST and the trajectory of QB salaries, whereas yours is projective. I’m going to make it plain as day seeing as how you’re still struggling.
I’ll compare 2022 to 2015 using the same criteria. The average cap hits of the top 5 QBs in 2022 are $43,865,331 with a salary cap of $208,200,000. This represents 21% of the cap. The average cap hits of the top 5 QBs in 2015 were $20,087,583 with a salary cap of $143,280,00. This represented 14% of the cap.

Sure, this data could be an anomaly, maybe I just lucked into picking the year with the highest variance, but I’m pretty sure if I were to go year by year my argument would still hold weight - QB salaries are climbing and consuming more and more of the salary cap. Those are the hard numbers for you from then and now.

Average annual salary isn’t that particular years cap hit.  It’s the value of the contract divided by the years of its length.  
 

The average salary of those top  particular contracts will be the same in 3 years yet thecep money will grow significantly in that time frame.  We don’t need Nostradamus to project that the cap % of those contracts therefore, has to go down…

[Norcalbillsfan]

Jackson is a tough one. He and the ravens got royaly screwed on injuries this year. Jackson is dangerous when the ravens run game is dangerous. Run, run, play action to Andrew's across the middle, rinse repeat. But the ravens run game was desolated by injuries and you saw what happened to Jackson's game.

Jackson will never win a championship with his arm alone like josh showed he could do in the playoffs. But if the ravens got back to a superior defense and superior run game and let Jackson burn defenses with his legs then the ravens are easily a playoff team.

I think the ravens believe if they surround Jackson and let him make special plays with his legs they could win a super bowl, therefore I think they give him a contract just under Allen.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

To be clear, I do not think Lamar Jackson stinks or is a bad QB.

 

Maybe I'm just scarred for life from some of the long-term contracts the Bills have given QBs over the years just so they could "not be terrible."

 

If a team has a QB who needs everything to fall into place and have the stars align in order to even have a chance at going to a Super Bowl, then I think the team would be smart to move on from said QB, rather than pay him big bucks.

 

Like who? I don't think we did that once with anyone who was good enough to give them even a slim shot. Maybe Fitz? Possibly. We gave Tyrod essentially two one year deals. Now I'd have moved off Tyrod a year sooner, but regardless Tyrod was not close to Lamar as  player. 

 

But your final para is where we really disagree. Because when I think about the teams I wouldn't put in that category it is:

 

Kansas City Chiefs, Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals, Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, Green Bay Packers, Seattle Seahawks (because they have guys I am confident only need a half decent team around them to have a chance). 

 

Chicago Bears, New York Jets, Jacksonville Jaguars, San Francisco 49ers (because we don't really know what they have yet). 

 

That is 11 teams. If we followed your philosophy that would mean 21 teams spinning their wheels at the same time. That would make the league brutal viewing. Because the reason Lamar and Kyler Murray and Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr and Dak Prescott are worth paying is the alternative is way worse. We saw that with the Ravens down the stretch and we saw it last year with the Cowboys. You pay your guy and you try and upgrade when you have a guy in place. Like the Rams did. Like the Chiefs did. They went from competitive teams to championship teams and neither had to tank to do it. They tried to win with their guys and paid them. But they still looked for opportunities to upgrade. 

 

[Brand J]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Average annual salary isn’t that particular years cap hit.  It’s the value of the contract divided by the years of its length.  
 

The average salary of those top  particular contracts will be the same in 3 years yet thecep money will grow significantly in that time frame.  We don’t need Nostradamus to project that the cap % of those contracts therefore, has to go down…

Sigh. The measurement to which I got the numbers is consistent in both cases - it doesn’t discriminate to where the QB is in that contract and points to the fact their deals are larger now than they were then, comparatively. You can ignore the data all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact. You can also assume contracts will be the same 3 years from now, but that’s an argument based on assumption, that’s all it is. And that’s all you’ve been doing. I gave you concrete numbers to show the increase, you’ve given nothing, no stats or otherwise that speaks to the contrary. 
As My Cousin Vinny so eloquently put it, “I’m done with this guy.”

[SoTier]

9 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The problem with this approach is that the NFL is not much fun when you don't have a Quarterback. If every time you get a guy who is top 10 but not top 3 or 4 you throw your toys out of the pram and "start over" there is no guarantee you land on a guy as good as Lamar again. It is the same argument we had when there were people legitimately arguing that the Cowboys should let Dak walk cos you could get "similar play out of Andy Dalton at a third of the price." Then Dak got injured and we saw what was always true. Similarly without Jackson down the stretch the Ravens went from #1 seed to an 0-4 finish and missed the playoffs. And Tyler Huntley isn't terrible. It is just that the type of play you get out of a Lamar or a Dak is not easily replaced. 

 

I get it, more often than not when the lights shine brightest in the playoffs those teams with good not great Quarterbacks get shown up. But the Ravens are proof that you can find lightening in a bottle, they did it with Flacco who was in that same good not great category. I also get it that it sucks when you have one of those top 10 guys and the market forces you to pay them very similar money to the top 4 or 5 guys. That sucks. But the answer of "stop the world I want to get off" takes you to one place and one place only - the bottom of the NFL. If you don't have a Quarterback, you lose. 

 

There are not enough Josh Allens and Patrick Mahomes for everyone to have one. When you have a Dak Prescott or a Lamar Jackson if you decide not to overpay them because you want to spin the wheel and hope you land a guy that good you are playing roulette with your franchise. And while the sport is ultimately about winning Superbowls, winning a lot of regular season games is still a whole lot better than losing a lot of regular season games. We are fans. For these guys it is their job, their life. Every Monday morning after a defeat they have to go into work and live that. They can't escape with other things and it drags people down. Trading a guy who avoids that because he might want $3 or $4m more a year than he is really worth? Yea, I will never buy that as a good strategy.

 

POINT.  SET.   MATCH.

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

41 minutes ago, Norcalbillsfan said:

Jackson is a tough one. He and the ravens got royaly screwed on injuries this year. Jackson is dangerous when the ravens run game is dangerous. Run, run, play action to Andrew's across the middle, rinse repeat. But the ravens run game was desolated by injuries and you saw what happened to Jackson's game.

Jackson will never win a championship with his arm alone like josh showed he could do in the playoffs. But if the ravens got back to a superior defense and superior run game and let Jackson burn defenses with his legs then the ravens are easily a playoff team.

I think the ravens believe if they surround Jackson and let him make special plays with his legs they could win a super bowl, therefore I think they give him a contract just under Allen.

 

 The bolded part of your comment is going to become much tougher to do starting next year and even that much harder come 2023. I usually don't buy into "the window" to winning a Super Bowl is closing idea, unless there's an aging star QB, but if they couldn't surround him with enough talent when his cap hit was 3 million(This year) they're going to have a hard time doing it paying him as a top 3 player. 

 

 His pay goes up 20 million this year and depending on the specifics of his new deal, about an additional 20 million will be added in 2023. The level of play from his surrounding cast is going to suffer greatly from his new deal and I don't see that his talent is anywhere good enough to overcome that.