It’s unclear if the Ravens and quarterback Lamar Jackson would have gotten a negotiated contract if Brown hadn’t given the quarterback Deshaun Watson A fully guaranteed five-year deal valued at $230 million. It’s fairly obvious that Watson’s contract played a huge role in preventing the Ravens and Jackson from getting something done.
It is generally believed that Jackson wanted a fully guaranteed contract, primarily since Watson got it. It’s not an unreasonable position for Jackson to take. He was named the best player in the league. Watson did not. Jackson was a typical Ravens off the field. Watson, to put it mildly, did not. If Watson is worth five years on a full warranty, then Jackson is worth it, too.
On the contrary, it is not unreasonable for crows to refuse to do so. Subsequent decades (such as Keeler Murray And the Russell Wilson deals) indicate that Watson’s contract was an aberration. In fact, the planets lined up perfectly for Watson. Despite problems outside the field, it has: (i) forced trade from Houston; (2) He manages to get four teams to the table in an effort to get his services; (3) Brown was eliminated from consideration after they burned the bridge Baker Mayfield; and (4) saw a desperate concession for Browns that Watson made an offer he could not refuse, in the form of a wholly guaranteed deal.
Unless he jogs to be traded after the 2023 season, Jackson won’t be able to create the same kind of impulse for his services. Even if he did, one of the teams chasing him must have been desperate enough to offer the kind of contract that would lead to ridicule and resentment from the rest of the league.
And if the Ravens decide to implement the franchise for 2023 and 2024, Jackson will still be three years away Kirk CousinsUnrestricted free agency modeled. Due to his playing style, Jackson may not be the same player after three more years of regularly running the ball and taking hits.
This is another reason why Jackson needs an agent to explain the situation to him. Who would have told him why the Watson deal was such an elusive goal, absent first and foremost from wanting to turn down a game for the Ravens. Who would advise him regarding risks and rewards, costs and benefits, and the pros and cons of taking, or not taking, the best offer the crows put on the table.
Then there is the possibility that Jackson was and still is quietly receiving from the NFL Players Association. Federation President JC Tretter wrote an article After the agreement Watson urged agents to pay for fully secured contracts. What if the NFLPA, in whatever advice it gave Jackson, was trying to advance this agenda rather than consider Jackson’s actual best interests?
Since Jackson didn’t say much to anyone about the process, it’s fair to wonder where and who he got his advice from. If someone advises him to stick to a fully guaranteed contract without explaining that he might have been better off getting as much guarantees as possible and maximizing his compensation compared to Murray and Wilson’s contracts, that would help explain why that was rejected. Accept Baltimore’s final offer – if they are willing to surpass Murray and Wilson’s numbers.
No one knows what the crows have given. But these are the crows, and not one of the different, dysfunctional teams that always find a way to screw things up. Given the deals they’ve struck in recent years with major players, it’s fair to assume that the Ravens put together a package that, while not entirely foolproof, has become a solid alternative to $124 million over the next three yearson an annual basis of $23 million in 2022, approximately $46 million under the franchise franchise in 2023, and then $55.2 million in 2024.
Unless Jackson planned to play in power, such as claiming the trade after the 2022 season, the choice came down to Door #1 ($124 million over three years) or Door #2 (Baltimore’s best bid, as part of a deal that wasn’t entirely guaranteed). . He chose section 1. He has every right to do so. I hope he does so with a full understanding and appreciation of the ramifications of passing Section 2. Saying, “It was not fully secured” is not a good reason to do so.