• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

Lamar Jackson

Simba said:
It's not a good look but it works. Look at all of the other guys around the league that have done it and come out on top. He's applying pressure in the modern way.
Click to expand...
"modern way"? lol Thinking the guys that normally transact above 7 figures consider it as such.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
But I guess I'm asking... why does anything have to give? When the salary cap is $250M, you'll routinely see $60M a year contracts for QBs most likely. I'm not even sure the argument can't be made that 25% of the cap for the QB position is too much. You can certainly be competitive with it at the very least.

With WR contracts, you've already seen how some teams react. Why did the Chiefs trade Hill? Why did the Texans trade Hopkins? Why did the Packers trade Adams?
Somebody will pay these guys, but it doesn't mean it's going to be the team that has the super high-priced QB. The Dolphins don't. The Cardinals didn't (and still don't really). The Raiders didn't either (and still don't really). By the time Carr and Murray are very expensive, Adams and Hopkins likely won't be on the team anymore.

All just depends on roster construction. Maybe some teams won't spend much on defense and constantly churn over younger players on rookie contracts. Not a terrible idea if they're producing. But teams with rookie QB contracts will likely continue to spend large money elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Well, by something has to give, I mean that other positions where you have top 10 talents are going to get dealt, not re-signed, or not signed in FA when you have a need when you have a QB making 20-30% of the total payroll. You make my point by saying teams are choosing not to pay Hill, etc. They are choosing to have Mahomes and spend money differently - other than one another high cost player - and, rather, spread that Hill savings on the rest of the team. The question is, do they lose their potency as an offense without Hill? Remains to be seen and it certainly could be that they are still nearly as good and they have managed to save. That's my only point and we seem to agree in large part. You might be able to manage a couple top tier guys on a team, but with the way guarantees are going, it's a spreading virus and teams are going to have to rely more heavily on drafting successfully and keeping marginal players signed for longer as their first contracts start to near expiration. In fact, I think that is the next level of mastery: identifying the bit players who aren't going to set the world on fire but are key anchors to a system and signing them to reasonable deals before they sniff FA.
 
drjohnnyfever said:
Well, by something has to give, I mean that other positions where you have top 10 talents are going to get dealt, not re-signed, or not signed in FA when you have a need when you have a QB making 20-30% of the total payroll. You make my point by saying teams are choosing not to pay Hill, etc. They are choosing to have Mahomes and spend money differently - other than one another high cost player - and, rather, spread that Hill savings on the rest of the team. The question is, do they lose their potency as an offense without Hill? Remains to be seen and it certainly could be that they are still nearly as good and they have managed to save. That's my only point and we seem to agree in large part. You might be able to manage a couple top tier guys on a team, but with the way guarantees are going, it's a spreading virus and teams are going to have to rely more heavily on drafting successfully and keeping marginal players signed for longer as their first contracts start to near expiration. In fact, I think that is the next level of mastery: identifying the bit players who aren't going to set the world on fire but are key anchors to a system and signing them to reasonable deals before they sniff FA.
Click to expand...
OK, but you didn't know all of this like 2, 3, 4, years ago? Nothing's different. It's not like you thought Lamar was only going to sign for like $25-30M a year on a dramatically rising salary cap. Quite frankly, you could argue they're already on the low end, considering Covid compressed the cap a bit for a few years. Otherwise, it'd already be higher than it is.
The only difference is guaranteed money vs non. Guaranteed money doesn't really change how you build your roster... it just changes whether you have the ability to move off a player who's not getting it done quicker. In the case of Lamar, if we're in year 7-8 and we see that he just doesn't seem to be able to win playoff games, I'd like to think the FO would have a conversation about whether we should continue to pay him $50M a year to not do so. When the contract isn't fully guaranteed, you can have that discussion. When it is, you can't.

Everybody knows that once Lamar gets to about year 2 or 3 of any extension, the pipe dream of paying a #1 WR $25M or having two stud Tackles at $20M each is gone. It'll be mostly draft picks and key investments in other areas from there on out.
 
gtalk12 said:
That's alot for someone who does not want to stay.

Was that really him with the tat?
Click to expand...
It was lol

maxresdefault.jpg
 
My chest tattoo was the worst pain I've ever felt. Ain't no way homeboy not a Raven for life after he got that
 
JAAM said:
My chest tattoo was the worst pain I've ever felt. Ain't no way homeboy not a Raven for life after he got that
Click to expand...
That sternum is an absolute bitch to get tatted, feels like it’s rattling your heart.

Ribs though… boi. That sternum hurts, it’s intense, but getting your ribs tatted for 2 4 hour sessions is next level
 
JoeyFlex5 said:
That sternum is an absolute bitch to get tatted, feels like it’s rattling your heart
Click to expand...
I went over the nipple on my chest/sleeve piece . I about blacked out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top