NFL next- The Superb Owl you hate

[dbunting]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Imo Lamar has become an avatar. People see what they want in him. If you always believed in his upside then some of the issues don't deter you and if you always had doubts you've got evidence you can point to. Frankly I've seen enough to invest in him for the next few years because like I've said before, he's never had a supporting cast and I think if you give him one you're so much more likely to get '19 Lamar than the '21 version. And even if he's never that good again the '20 version is enough to win a title on a good team. 

Again, different points of view. I don't see his 2020 season as exceptional. 3762 yards of total offense and 33 total tds.  I see that season as very good as I have said more than once, but exceptional, not IMO. 

I fully believe you can win a SB with him in the right situation. I just don't know what that situation is or what it looks like. Baltimore had been known for years as a well run team and they haven't figured out the right people to place around him to make it work.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

Baltimore had been known for years as a well run team and they haven't figured out the right people to place around him to make it work.  

They've been living off reputation for a while now. From the Owl win till Lamar became the starter they were very middle of the road (and not any fun to watch). 

[Kalbear]

As to what Baltimore is thinking - assuming they're rational, which isn't a safe assumption - I think they're assuming that Jackson isn't the answer, he won't give them a winning season, and they are now in the hunt for the next QB that might be able to do that. Probably via drafting. The best situation for them is if someone takes them up on that 2 1sts and takes Jackson off their hands, but if not they'll use cap on keeping other good players and try getting another good QB in the draft while paying Jackson minimally (at least by comparison). 

One of the worst things you could possibly do in this league is invest massive money in something that won't get you where you want to go, and spending upwards of $40m a year on a player you don't believe is worth it is a good way to lose your job and your career. Spending $33m this year (and only this year) hedges a lot of bets that way.

For Jackson I think he should try and negotiate a trade/release if possible. He likely won't play this season at all and will get used and abused if he does. Better to find someone who is willing to give him the chance to prove himself. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

The best situation for them is if someone takes them up on that 2 1sts and takes Jackson off their hands

Not really because that would be a very poor return and teams with high picks this year can wait until after the draft with the assumption that if signing Lamar works the '24 and '25 picks will be late ones. That's partly why I'm being hard on the Ravens. It doesn't seem like they ever really thought this out or if they did they were incredibly indecisive. After his third year they should have immediately extended him for five years if they were sold. The guaranteed money demand likely wouldn't have been an issue and they could have signed him for well below what he expects now. And if they weren't sold they could have likely traded him for more than what Seattle or the Texans got for Wilson or Watson. Regardless of how you view Lamar, the Ravens fucked this up and considering their recent fuck ups that preceded this, I think it's safe to say their reputation deserves another blow. 

[Kalbear]

Its a great return, because their alternative is getting nothing at all.

[dbunting]

11 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Its a great return, because their alternative is getting nothing at all.

Or signing someone you worked with for his entire career, that you may not believe is the answer to a massive long term contract.

I think they sign him in the end, just not to the reported asking price from Jackson.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Its a great return, because their alternative is getting nothing at all.

I guess something is better than nothing, but this feels like the Ravens are the kid in the story about trading a dollar for two quarters then two quarters for three dimes, etc. and comes home with five pennies thinking he accomplished something.

[DMC]

It's not going to happen, but anyone thinking the Niners should go after Lamar Jackson has a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Niners continue to be one of the best teams of the league.  As well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how to manage the salary cap.  Based on his demands IRT guaranteed money, I wouldn't pay Jackson even if it didn't cost at least the equivalent of two first round draft picks.  And neither, clearly, would most of the league.  That's what the Ravens are betting on, and thus far they appear to be right. 

Just because most of the league thinks Watson's contract was absurdly stupid and are unwilling to extend that precedent to Jackson doesn't really make it "collusion."  It's just called making rational decisions. 

And BTW, I really don't get the shit Shanahan and Lynch are getting here.  95% of teams in the NFL would KILL to have one or both running their coaching and/or personnel.  Of course, Paraag Marathe is their secret weapon, but the former two have already proved their worth.

[briantw]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's not going to happen, but anyone thinking the Niners should go after Lamar Jackson has a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Niners continue to be one of the best teams of the league.  As well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how to manage the salary cap.  Based on his demands IRT guaranteed money, I wouldn't pay Jackson even if it didn't cost at least the equivalent of two first round draft picks.  And neither, clearly, would most of the league.  That's what the Ravens are betting on, and thus far they appear to be right. 

Just because most of the league thinks Watson's contract was absurdly stupid and are unwilling to extend that precedent to Jackson doesn't really make it "collusion."  It's just called making rational decisions. 

And BTW, I really don't get the shit Shanahan and Lynch are getting here.  95% of teams in the NFL would KILL to have one or both running their coaching and/or personnel.  Of course, Paraag Marathe is their secret weapon, but the former two have already proved their worth.

I mean, if you’re going to light a couple of draft picks on fire, I’d rather walk out of it with Lamar Jackson than Trey Lance.  And I’m by no means his biggest fan. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, briantw said:

I mean, if you’re going to light a couple of draft picks on fire, I’d rather walk out of it with Lamar Jackson than Trey Lance.  And I’m by no means his biggest fan. 

Not when you have to pay Bosa, Williams, Deebo, Kittle, Warner, CMC, etc.  In other words, not when it prevents you from sustaining one of the best rosters in the NFL.  Lance and Purdy don't prevent that, at least for the time being.  So, glad you're not the Niners GM.

[DMC]

Seriously, it's the definition of insanity to go after Jackson for the Niners (which is not to say it's necessarily a bad idea for other teams in different situations).  They couldn't get passed the NFC championship game because they literally ran out of healthy quarterbacks.  So your solution to that is to...hugely invest in guaranteed money to a guy that hasn't been able to stay healthy at the end of the last two seasons?  GTFO.

[briantw]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not when you have to pay Bosa, Williams, Deebo, Kittle, Warner, CMC, etc.  In other words, not when it prevents you from sustaining one of the best rosters in the NFL.  Lance and Purdy don't prevent that, at least for the time being.  So, glad you're not the Niners GM.

I’m not saying they could do it given their cap situation.  I don’t know enough about their books to know that. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

So your solution to that is to...hugely invest in guaranteed money to a guy that hasn't been able to stay healthy at the end of the last two seasons?  GTFO.

Oh come on now, the Niners love to invest in injury prone players. 

[briantw]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh come on now, the Niners love to invest in injury prone players. 

Usually they become injury prone after they’re there, right?  Not sure what they put in the water out there.  Lead, maybe?

[DMC]

As an empiricist, I thought the NFLPA putting out the survey below was quite informative:

The players, clearly, don't have much of a problem with the training staff.  I'd think they're the best authority on such things.  The training ROOM, apparently, should be improved.  But blaming ShanaLynch or the training staff or anything else on losing both Purdy AND Johnson in the NFC championship game is manifestly stupid.  Bad luck is a thing.  Just saw it yesterday with the Yankees pitchers.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, briantw said:

Usually they become injury prone after they’re there, right?  Not sure what they put in the water out there.  Lead, maybe?

CMC was a gimp before he got there, but yeah, they have a weird amount of injuries like the Chargers and Ravens.

Anyways, I don't get the argument of not wanting to pay a QB because you'll lose talent elsewhere when the entire point of trading three first round picks for Lance was with the understanding you'd hope he'd become good enough to justify one of these huge deals later. You can't always plan on winning with a QB on a rookie contract and the Niners have a win now roster that will probably need to be broken up anyways in a year or two. If you trade for and sign Lamar, just backload the money to maximize the next two years and go from there.

[briantw]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

As an empiricist, I thought the NFLPA putting out the survey below was quite informative:

The players, clearly, don't have much of a problem with the training staff.  I'd think they're the best authority on such things.  The training ROOM, apparently, should be improved.  But blaming ShanaLynch or the training staff or anything else on losing both Purdy AND Johnson in the NFC championship game is manifestly stupid.  Bad luck is a thing.  Just saw it yesterday with the Yankees pitchers.

It’s worth noting that only two or three teams gave their team’s staff a bad grade.  The Ravens were obviously one. Don’t remember the others. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You can't always plan on winning with a QB on a rookie contract and the Niners have a win now roster that will probably need to be broken up anyways in a year or two. If you trade for and sign Lamar, just backload the money to maximize the next two years and go from there.

Nope.  The Niners can sustain this roster for quite a while if they don't have to pay a QB.  Whether the players they're playing remain elite over the years is an open question, of course, but they can keep it together.  Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Niners' cap situation and how the people in control of it are managing it in order to remain competitive.

3 minutes ago, briantw said:

It’s worth noting that only two or three teams gave their team’s staff a bad grade.  The Ravens were obviously one. Don’t remember the others. 

Aye, that's true.  But you'd think if the Niners' staff was as bad as many - particularly many Niners fan themselves - claim they are, they wouldn't get an A- grade by the players themselves.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

Nope.  The Niners can sustain this roster for quite a while if they don't have to pay a QB.  Whether the players they're playing remain elite over the years is an open question, of course, but they can keep it together.  Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Niners' cap situation and how the people in control of it are managing it in order to remain competitive.

It’s not that I don’t understand it, I just don’t agree with it. Any of the players you listed are worth sacrificing if it means bringing in a top 10 QB in his prime. Prioritizing keeping a top LB over that isn’t wise. You don’t need a top 5 QB to with the Super Bowl, but you do need a top 10-12 guy or a young player projected to be that. The few outliers over the last 25 years each had all time defenses and while the Niners defense is very good, it’s not that. Right now your team’s ceiling is your QB play. The last few seasons should have made that evident.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Any of the players you listed are worth sacrificing if it means bringing in a top 10 QB in his prime.

Not for what Jackson is demanding in terms of guarantees.  That's another thing I think you fundamentally misunderstand for why the Ravens decided to give him the non-exclusive tag.  Jackson is MAYBE a top QB right now.  But whether he can sustain that? 

Contracts are agreed upon based on future expected performance, not necessarily what players have done in the past.  And the market, thus far, has determined Lamar Jackson is not worth as much as he thinks he is in future performance.  Maybe they're wrong!  Certainly wouldn't be the first time.  But, I agree with the market.

Regardless of all that, the point with the Niners if they have very limited cap space.  I know there's a general consensus nowadays that the NFL salary cap doesn't really exist, and teams can get around that.  And large part that's true!  But it's not for the Niners -- unless they sacrifice the way the essential way in which they've built a sustainable elite roster. 

Lamar Jackson isn't worth that.  You can laugh at the Lance trade all you want, but it didn't risk that.  Frankly it didn't risk much because ShanaLynch's value is in finding really cheap contributors on Days 2 and 3 in the draft.  Signing Jackson would be an affront to that philosophy which has been demonstrably -- and exceedingly -- succesful.