Lamar Jackson wants guarantees that exceed Watson contract

[BillsFanSD]

2 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

The collusion theory put forth by some has to do with owners collectively behind the scenes agreeing not to pull what the Browns did with Watson and strengthen that precedent. It has little to do with Jackson specifically, but the focus is on him because he’s the 1st “high end” QB comparable to Watson to come up for his extension since Watson’s deal. 

But why is it collusion?  Everybody seems to agree that what the Browns did was stupid.  If we all agree that the Browns are stupid, why are we surprised that NFL GMs apparently agree too?

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

But why is it collusion?  Everybody seems to agree that what the Browns did was stupid.  If we all agree that the Browns are stupid, why are we surprised that NFL GMs apparently agree too?

 

Because they have league/ownership rules, a collective bargaining agreement, and a labor union to deal with. It's not surprising that theyd want to (and I agree with them), but it is against the established rules to do so.

[JoPoy88]

12 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

But why is it collusion?  Everybody seems to agree that what the Browns did was stupid.  If we all agree that the Browns are stupid, why are we surprised that NFL GMs apparently agree too?

Because their bylaws and their agreements with the players union say so. 

[BillsShredder83]

19 hours ago, chongli said:

 

 

 not that the owners are above collusion, but theyre too greedy to all lock him out. some team would cross the boycott line and offer him a deal for less than what he was offered last season. win the bid, great for the team (factoring in the pics). If you lose, oh well, not your problem

[BillsShredder83]

19 hours ago, Doc said:

Again, he's demanding a $50M/year fully guaranteed contract, it will take 2-1st rounders to get him and he hasn't finished the last 2 seasons.  It doesn't take collusion for teams to be scared off by all that.

maybe he shouldnt have f**** his team and teammates and played in the game that everyone knows he couldve played in.

dude lost $$ not signing prev offer. then, all he had to do was not quit on his team and likely wouldve got the same offer.

 

now the balls in their court, he looks like a me first quitter, and when you offer him another contract, it has to be lower (at the least aint going up, no way).

dummy is going to be stuck playing on franchise tag, orrrrrrrr hold out, and amplify his stupid mistakes (what i think he does).

 

boy that market next year, after not playing and getting another year older, should really pump his market (/s)

 

its leveon bell x2, all over again

[CNYfan]

Who is TuAnon?

[BillsFanSD]

2 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

Because their bylaws and their agreements with the players union say so. 

 

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Because they have league/ownership rules, a collective bargaining agreement, and a labor union to deal with. It's not surprising that theyd want to (and I agree with them), but it is against the established rules to do so.

I don't understand either of these responses.  What I'm asking is, if we can see that Watson's contract was stupid, then surely any random GM can see that too.  So if we wouldn't want to hand Jackson a guaranteed contract, why are we surprised that GMs feel differently?  

 

GMs don't "collude" against 200 lb DTs or 5.6/40 WRs.  They select against them because they're all doing the same math.  Why isn't this just the same thing?

[Doc]

1 hour ago, BillsShredder83 said:

maybe he shouldnt have f**** his team and teammates and played in the game that everyone knows he couldve played in.

dude lost $$ not signing prev offer. then, all he had to do was not quit on his team and likely wouldve got the same offer.

 

now the balls in their court, he looks like a me first quitter, and when you offer him another contract, it has to be lower (at the least aint going up, no way).

dummy is going to be stuck playing on franchise tag, orrrrrrrr hold out, and amplify his stupid mistakes (what i think he does).

 

boy that market next year, after not playing and getting another year older, should really pump his market (/s)

 

its leveon bell x2, all over again

 

Again I have no idea if he could have played (effectively) in that playoff game.  If he couldn't, that's not good since it's the 2nd season in a row he's missed that last 1/3 or so of the season and the playoffs.  If he did sit out (and teams would know it), I can understand it since he didn't have a contract after the season, but that was of his own doing.  I'm just glad it's not the Bills.

 

 

[Augie]

21 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

 

I don't understand either of these responses.  What I'm asking is, if we can see that Watson's contract was stupid, then surely any random GM can see that too.  So if we wouldn't want to hand Jackson a guaranteed contract, why are we surprised that GMs feel differently?  

 

GMs don't "collude" against 200 lb DTs or 5.6/40 WRs.  They select against them because they're all doing the same math.  Why isn't this just the same thing?

 

Because one idiot owner in Cleveland did something stupid doesn’t mean everybody else has to follow. 

 

I think the biggest problem here is an NFL QB who has his mommy as his agent. You pay a real and qualified agent to avoid this type of idiocy.  It’s not personal, and you can’t be delusional. The guy has missed 15 games over the last couple of seasons (about half), some when questioned about exactly how injured he was. He’s one of the LAST people I’d give a guaranteed contract to. 

[Scott7975]

On 3/7/2023 at 6:28 PM, TheFunPolice said:

If Lamar sits out the entire year would he become a free agent?

 

Technically what's stopping the USFL or XFL from offering him $10 million dollars to play this spring to help tide him over this season while generating huge PR for their league?

 

I just want to see Lamar stick it to the Ravens and the league at this point. This is straight up BS. 

 

Whats BS?  What did the Ravens do?  Lamar is not worth that contract.  They offered him a pretty fair deal.  If he had an agent that could talk some sense into him he would have probably a slightly better deal than they offered and he would be set for life.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Scott7975

[mikemac2001]

1 hour ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Whats BS?  What did the Ravens do?  Lamar is not worth that contract.  They offered him a pretty fair deal.  If he had an agent that could talk some sense into him he would have probably a slightly better deal than they offered and he would be set for life.

Ya Lamar needs to fire his agent his deal is going down hill with the injuries and not finishing the last 2 seasons on top of his playoff performances 

[JoPoy88]

2 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

 

I don't understand either of these responses.  What I'm asking is, if we can see that Watson's contract was stupid, then surely any random GM can see that too.  So if we wouldn't want to hand Jackson a guaranteed contract, why are we surprised that GMs feel differently?  

 

GMs don't "collude" against 200 lb DTs or 5.6/40 WRs.  They select against them because they're all doing the same math.  Why isn't this just the same thing?

Look if you can’t understand it at this point go read a book. Better yet, go read the NFL bylaws. And I don’t care if x number of fans or x number of NFL GMs recognize the Watson contract as folly. Of course it was. It doesn’t change the fact that it exists and can be (and will be) used as precedent in negotiations between QBs, their agents, and teams going forward.
 

I am not saying teams/owners are actually colluding to keep Jackson’s contract/guaranteed money down. I have no idea. You asked “how is that collusion?” If teams, be their owners, GMs, or both, are speaking to each other and agreeing to not offer Jackson a certain amount of money or guaranteed money, or both, then that’s collusion. It hasn’t been proven. It’s been suggested. That’s how it could be collusion and thus a problem for the league.
 

please learn how to read something without injecting your preconceived notions into everything. 

2 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Because one idiot owner in Cleveland did something stupid doesn’t mean everybody else has to follow. 

 

I think the biggest problem here is an NFL QB who has his mommy as his agent. You pay a real and qualified agent to avoid this type of idiocy.  It’s not personal, and you can’t be delusional. The guy has missed 15 games over the last couple of seasons (about half), some when questioned about exactly how injured he was. He’s one of the LAST people I’d give a guaranteed contract to. 

he asked how it could be collusion though. It’s not proven, for sure. But given what’s happened to jackson it certainly could be true. I have no opinion either way because how could I?
 

Personally I don’t think the guy you’re responding to knows the definition of the word.

[The Red King]

By extension, if a team was stupid enough to give a QB 99% of its cap space, and had to fill the remaining roster with rookie salaries and vet minimums, would other teams then be required to do so because a precedent had been set?  Of course not.

 

The Watson deal is unique, and as such cannot constitute a pattern to collude against.

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, The Red King said:

By extension, if a team was stupid enough to give a QB 99% of its cap space, and had to fill the remaining roster with rookie salaries and vet minimums, would other teams then be required to do so because a precedent had been set?  Of course not.

 

The Watson deal is unique, and as such cannot constitute a pattern to collude against.

that’s not how it works and your ridiculous example doesn’t help your non-argument. 
 

I love how so many of you straight up nobodies are carrying water for these billionaire owners and trying to memory hole the Watson contract. Sorry but it happened. And Lamar Jackson, Joe Burrow et al. also know it happened and will continue to negotiate based off it. People far smarter than us are and will be fighting this out going forward because of the Watson deal and y’all taking the side of the other “aggrieved” billionaires because one of their own was stupid, filppant and, dare I say, ballsy enough to break their unspoken precedent. A precedent which has already been broken in the other big 3 professional US sports. Christ. I’d call you bootlickers, but that’d be too kind.

[Man with No Name]

42 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

that’s not how it works and your ridiculous example doesn’t help your non-argument. 
 

I love how so many of you straight up nobodies are carrying water for these billionaire owners and trying to memory hole the Watson contract. Sorry but it happened. And Lamar Jackson, Joe Burrow et al. also know it happened and will continue to negotiate based off it. People far smarter than us are and will be fighting this out going forward because of the Watson deal and y’all taking the side of the other “aggrieved” billionaires because one of their own was stupid, filppant and, dare I say, ballsy enough to break their unspoken precedent. A precedent which has already been broken in the other big 3 professional US sports. Christ. I’d call you bootlickers, but that’d be too kind.

Well, Lamar has already been told no and the Bengals are cash poor, so likely not happening for Burrow either. Market getting set back to normal. It happens all the time. A-Rod signed for 250 million in 2000. It wasn't until 2019 that A-Rod was topped!

[SinceThe70s]

1 hour ago, JoPoy88 said:

that’s not how it works and your ridiculous example doesn’t help your non-argument. 
 

I love how so many of you straight up nobodies are carrying water for these billionaire owners and trying to memory hole the Watson contract. Sorry but it happened. And Lamar Jackson, Joe Burrow et al. also know it happened and will continue to negotiate based off it. People far smarter than us are and will be fighting this out going forward because of the Watson deal and y’all taking the side of the other “aggrieved” billionaires because one of their own was stupid, filppant and, dare I say, ballsy enough to break their unspoken precedent. A precedent which has already been broken in the other big 3 professional US sports. Christ. I’d call you bootlickers, but that’d be too kind.

 

I'm curious - did your take come from a straight up nobody as well? Just trying to understand how/if the bolded bolsters your point of view or has any relevance to the topic being discussed. 

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

I'm curious - did your take come from a straight up nobody as well? Just trying to understand how/if the bolded bolsters your point of view or has any relevance to the topic being discussed. 

not at all buddy I’m just a nobody that does his research and knows what he’s talking about. U got anything to add of substance? 
 

 

didn’t think so.

[SinceThe70s]

2 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

not at all buddy I’m just a nobody that does his research and knows what he’s talking about. U got anything to add of substance? 
 

 

didn’t think so.

 

Answering your own question. Sweet. 

 

I've been following the conversation and am interested in both sides of the argument. Just trying to understand why you interjected what looked like a supercilious comment. Thanks for confirming.

[The Red King]

1 hour ago, JoPoy88 said:

that’s not how it works and your ridiculous example doesn’t help your non-argument. 

 

Then how does it work?  I mean, I can say "Your nonsense argument isn't how it works" and instantly invalidate your arguments just as much as you did mine.  Sorry, rebuffing a point requires an actual counter-argument, not a simple "Nu-uh!"

 

I'm not defending the owners.  I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the argument that since a single owner did something stupid, a precedent is somehow now set and owners are required to follow suit or it's "collusion".  If 3-4 QBs got similar contracts, then yeah.  That is an established pattern.  This is not.

 

So again, I challenge you to actually argue against my example instead of trying to handwave it away.  I predict you won't, and try to cover your inability to do so with hostile and condecending language.

 

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

[DrDawkinstein]

4 hours ago, BillsFanSD said:

 

I don't understand either of these responses.  What I'm asking is, if we can see that Watson's contract was stupid, then surely any random GM can see that too.  So if we wouldn't want to hand Jackson a guaranteed contract, why are we surprised that GMs feel differently?  

 

GMs don't "collude" against 200 lb DTs or 5.6/40 WRs.  They select against them because they're all doing the same math.  Why isn't this just the same thing?

 

Yeah, I get you. JoPoy and I were probably just getting too technical/literal with that part.

 

Although, there is a difference between athletic standards and compensation. The reason the collusion talk comes up at all here is because this is exactly where they try to protect against it the most. Being too small or too slow to make the team is directly performance based. It's measurable and objective, and defendable. Contracts arent cut and dry and totally based on performance, they're subjective, and based on what is negotiated.

 

Anyways - I agree in general that there doesnt have to be a grand conspiracy behind no one wanting to offer him $270M fully guaranteed. It's just a bad idea. But we'll see. He can start getting offers next Wednesday (and I believe every team that said they werent in on Jackson ARE in fact in on Jackson).