BearsFansOnline.com

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:09 am**

I follow Kip's logic here...

The Ravens are 45-16 when Lamar Jackson plays and they are 8-13 when he doesn't. They have chosen to spend on defense because Jackson can carry that offense with little help. But that formula doesn't work without him, they are a bad team without Lamar and just can't score points. So he has a ton of leverage over them, they'd have to reconstruct their entire roster if he leaves. Makes sense to me. He's not going anywhere IMO.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:26 am**

dplank wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:09 am I follow Kip's logic here...

The Ravens are 45-16 when Lamar Jackson plays and they are 8-13 when he doesn't. They have chosen to spend on defense because Jackson can carry that offense with little help. But that formula doesn't work without him, they are a bad team without Lamar and just can't score points. So he has a ton of leverage over them, they'd have to reconstruct their entire roster if he leaves. Makes sense to me. He's not going anywhere IMO.

To play Devils advocate...it could be that they don't want to invest in building an offense around Jackson because he's not going to use the weapons the way a traditional QB would.

I think they are making a mistake, but I get the vibe that they would like to flip him for a truckload of picks and build a more traditional QB-driven offense.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:33 am**

wab wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:26 am
dplank wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:09 am I follow Kip's logic here...

The Ravens are 45-16 when Lamar Jackson plays and they are 8-13 when he doesn't. They have chosen to spend on defense because Jackson can carry that offense with little help. But that formula doesn't work without him, they are a bad team without Lamar and just can't score points. So he has a ton of leverage over them, they'd have to reconstruct their entire roster if he leaves. Makes sense to me. He's not going anywhere IMO.
To play Devils advocate...it could be that they don't want to invest in building an offense around Jackson because he's not going to use the weapons the way a traditional QB would.

I think they are making a mistake, but I get the vibe that they would like to flip him for a truckload of picks and build a more traditional QB-driven offense.

Yeah that’s how I see it, 2024 draft has some talented QBs, I think Ravens will tag and trade.
Don’t know which team is willing to give up the house for Lamar though. They’d need to scheme around his particular talents.

So Ravens to tag, tank and trade.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:40 am**

wab wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:26 am
dplank wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:09 am I follow Kip's logic here...

The Ravens are 45-16 when Lamar Jackson plays and they are 8-13 when he doesn't. They have chosen to spend on defense because Jackson can carry that offense with little help. But that formula doesn't work without him, they are a bad team without Lamar and just can't score points. So he has a ton of leverage over them, they'd have to reconstruct their entire roster if he leaves. Makes sense to me. He's not going anywhere IMO.
To play Devils advocate...it could be that they don't want to invest in building an offense around Jackson because he's not going to use the weapons the way a traditional QB would.

I think they are making a mistake, but I get the vibe that they would like to flip him for a truckload of picks and build a more traditional QB-driven offense.

Agree completely about their thinking (except maybe the mistake part)

I've said this same sort of thing in reference to Fields.
It doesn't make sense to spend Big Resource on Weapons that your QB won't utilize half as much as other teams would
AND
Weapons don't want to come to a QB/System/Offense where their numbers, reputation, and future payouts are going to tank.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:58 am**

Moriarty wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:40 am
wab wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:26 am

To play Devils advocate...it could be that they don't want to invest in building an offense around Jackson because he's not going to use the weapons the way a traditional QB would.

I think they are making a mistake, but I get the vibe that they would like to flip him for a truckload of picks and build a more traditional QB-driven offense.
Agree completely about their thinking (except maybe the mistake part)

I've said this same sort of thing in reference to Fields.
It doesn't make sense to spend Big Resource on Weapons that your QB won't utilize half as much as other teams would
AND
Weapons don't want to come to a QB/System/Offense where their numbers, reputation, and future payouts are going to tank.

i think though, to be fair Jalen Hurts and the Eagles showed us the opposite side of this. Greg Roman was never a very forward thinking OC, and the Ravens never really brought in a true #1 for this offense, so who's to say if Lamar wouldn't utilize the weapons properly if he had them. Bringing in a guy like Hollywood Brown, who's ceiling is a solid #2, telling him he can be a #1 WR and then watching his ego crater everything never really seemed fair to Lamar.

Posted: **Mon Feb 27, 2023 11:12 am**

I'm not so sure the Ravens are trying to flip Lamar. He's an icon there, it would be a franchise shaking move that would bring a LOT of criticism.

But they have historically valued a strong run game and very strong defense - heck they won super bowls with Trent Dilfer and Joe Flacco. They tend to invest in OL and defense as a whole, so it would not be out of character for them to move Lamar if they felt they couldn't team build how they are comfortable because of his cost. And winning cures all ills.

The Ravens don't tank, that's not something I've seen them do before. Harbaugh isn't wired that way and neither is Bisciotti. So any thought of that isn't realistic IMO.

Totally agree with Rusty's point re: Hurts. Even moreso when applied to Fields, who looks like a much better natural passer than Lamar.

Posted: **Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:32 pm**

I don't know why we are apologizing for Lamar as well

It's almost like he struggles at certain aspects of the game. Mostly passing.

He's still a weapon - but like a guy can struggle at passing because of himself - That's like an allowable thing

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 9:49 am**

At least 5 teams have said they'll have no talks with Jackson: Vegas, Carolina, Commandos, Miami, and Falcons. Various reasons have been given - don't want to give up the draft capital being the main one. The unspoken issue that many think is the #1 reason is Jackson's supposed insistence on a fully guaranteed contract bigger than DeShaun Watson's. Just going to get uglier and uglier.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:32 am**

I've been pretty lockstep on this issue with Florio (as annoying as he can be at times) that A., everyone instantly coming out and simultaneously saying "NOT INTERESTED" is some dang collusion (because the owners do not want guaranteed contracts to get any stronger a foothold), and B., Lamar gotta hire himself a god damn agent.

People can and are saying absolutely anything they want about his situation and he's got no system in place for dealing with disinformation. I get thinking that you can handle this yourself, these are confident dudes, but when they want to, the NFL can and will fuck you with extreme prejudice. *cough*kaepernick*cough*

Lamar needs a machine fighting for him.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:42 am**

It shouldn't be just owners who don't want guaranteed contracts to get any stronger a foothold - it should be everyone except the players. It's absolutely horrible for the game. It's a disaster in other sports.

The kind of collusion that was happening 40 years ago in sports (owners artificially keeping salaries much lower than what affordability dictated) was bad.
The kind of collusion that blackballed Kaep (sociopolitical, spilling into economic reasons) was bad (unless you trust NFL ownership to be a reliable moral compass).

But this, I'm all for.
It needs to be explicitly a part of the CBA that contract guarantees have both flat dollar and percentage based limitations.

Players deserve some guarantees, based on need to uproot themselves and their families and injuries. But 250M guaranteed, even if you suck and are a huge disappointment? Fuck no.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 2:36 pm**

Players deserve whatever they can negotiate. If owners don't want to meet salary demands, don't sign a guy.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:47 pm**

Moriarty wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:42 am It shouldn't be just owners who don't want guaranteed contracts to get any stronger a foothold - it should be everyone except the players. It's absolutely horrible for the game. It's a disaster in other sports.

The kind of collusion that was happening 40 years ago in sports (owners artificially keeping salaries much lower than what affordability dictated) was bad.
The kind of collusion that blackballed Kaep (sociopolitical, spilling into economic reasons) was bad (unless you trust NFL ownership to be a reliable moral compass).

But this, I'm all for.
It needs to be explicitly a part of the CBA that contract guarantees have both flat dollar and percentage based limitations.

Players deserve some guarantees, based on need to uproot themselves and their families and injuries. But 250M guaranteed, even if you suck and are a huge disappointment? Fuck no.

Well the other half of it is abolishing the salary cap.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:53 pm**

Yea we don’t want MLB. The NFL has the best system in place of all sports for competitive balance. It’s a big part of the success of the league.

For our British comrades - how do you feel about the EPL setup? Seems from a distance as if there’s only a handful of teams that can actually win it, which sucks unless your a Chelsea or one of the Manchester clubs

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:30 pm**

dplank wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:53 pm Yea we don’t want MLB. The NFL has the best system in place of all sports for competitive balance. It’s a big part of the success of the league.

For our British comrades - how do you feel about the EPL setup? Seems from a distance as if there’s only a handful of teams that can actually win it, which sucks unless your a Chelsea or one of the Manchester clubs

Maybe not Chelsea

The Premier league is financially one of the most successful setups in the world of sport.
However, there is a lack of healthy competition - 5 or 6 teams can win something, the others can’t compete.
The salaries of players is outrageous and egregious given the current financial climate.
Global football needs a salary cap in my opinion.
Clubs are now subject to financial fair play where spending is linked to income.
To circumvent these rules clubs have multi-billionaire owners whose companies pay hundred of millions of pounds to sponsor their training facility and all sorts of nonsense like that.

I’m getting tired of it if I’m honest and if clubs continue to be bought by Saudi Arabia or Qatar then it all seems a bit pointless.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 9:06 pm**

dplank wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:53 pm For our British comrades - how do you feel about the EPL setup? Seems from a distance as if there’s only a handful of teams that can actually win it, which sucks unless your a Chelsea or one of the Manchester clubs

I barely follow football (soccer) now. I finally gave up on it a few years back for exactly the reason you mention - the same few teams competing and the others just making up the numbers. Other leagues are even worse. In Scotland either Celtic or Rangers win virtually every competition annually. In Spain it's largely a toss up between Barcelona or Real Madrid.

Ironically the year I stopped following the EPL unheralded Leicester City somehow won the league!

In addition to what Ditka’s dictaphone said, the financial landscape is further skewed by European competitions, particularly the so-called 'Champions League'. It used to be that only the winners of each of the top divisions in Europe qualified for the next year's competition and it was a knock out format. Lose a two-legged home and away tie and you were out. Now the top 4 clubs in leagues like the EPL qualify and play a minimum of 6 games so they rake in the cash. Even if they get knocked out they then join the 'second tier' Europa League for clubs who finished 5th in their league or won a domestic cup competition.

It's all designed to make it all but impossible for the wealthiest clubs to lose their elite status. The only way a club can get into that group is if a super rich owner buys it, which is what happened with Chelsea and Manchester City in recent years. It takes all the fun out of it. Those clubs simply buy all the best players and all the best players want to play for them because of the astronomical salaries and the chance to play in the Champions League. As soon as a smaller club finds or develops a quality player the big boys come calling, making it impossible to build a team that can compete with them.

I much prefer the NFL's draft and salary cap system. The concept of 'parity' is why so many NFL games go down to the wire. It makes for exciting sport.

I do wish the salary cap system was a lot simpler though. Why can't it just be more a case of having $Xm dollars per year to divide between your players instead of all this manipulation?

I also believe that salaries for the season should be guaranteed for every player on a multi-year deal on the first day of the league year and for the rest when they make a team's Week 1 roster. Maybe that combined with a tapering system would address the balance between players getting a fair guarantee and owners not having to guarantee huge contracts up-front to players who might then not perform.

For example, something along the lines of a 4-year contract where Y1 is full guaranteed, Y2 75% guaranteed, Y3 50% guaranteed and Y4 25% guaranteed. So an $80m deal would guarantee $20m in Y1, $15m in Y2, $10m in Y3 and $5m in Y4 so a minimum of $50m (62.5%) overall but the club can cut bait in Y3 at a cost of $15m over two years or Y4 at a cost of $5m. The player gets the additional security of knowing that he'll get each year fully guaranteed if the club don't cut him before day one of the league year and it would force clubs to make decisions early to give the player maximum opportunity to strike a deal with a new team if they do decide to release him.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:25 pm**

The problem with pointing to the MLB and saying the salary cap doesnt work is that a bunch of teams only pretend to be poor, while still raking in TV money up the wazoo, and fans allow this to happen.

If I had to listen to some billionaire owner tell me that he'd love for my beloved team to be competitive but they just cant afford it, being a "small market team", yes, I'd move on to something more productive. But it doesnt have to be that way!

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:06 am**

The OTHER other side of this guaranteed contract issue is reading about Calvin Ridley this morning:
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts ... le-jaguars

It started with my body breaking down. Hardly anybody knows this, but I played most of the 2020 season with a broken foot. Remember that 1,300-yard season? Nine touchdowns? I was killing it on one foot, for real. Actually, I had played through bone spurs my first two years. Just gritted through it with painkillers. But then, my third year, the wheels came off. Week 8, we were playing Carolina and I remember looking at Julio and I just knew. I said, “Nah, bro, this is different. My shit broke.”

When I got the MRI, though, the trainer told me it was just a bone bruise. So I kept it pushing. I took Toradol shots every Sunday, and I finished the season. Listen, I know the deal. I’m a football player. It was my decision. I know what we get paid for, you feel me? If it’s really just a bruise, I’m gonna be out there.

We finished 4–12, and then the whole staff got fired. Coach, GM, head trainer, everybody. When the new trainer finally came in, he sent me to a specialist in Green Bay. Within the first hour, the doctor said, “Your foot is definitely broken.”

I was devastated. It was only two months before the start of the season, and now you’re telling me it’s broken? You gotta remember — I was the No. 1 guy now with Julio gone. I was under so much pressure to be out there. I got the surgery and rushed back, but I showed up to camp just mentally drained. I still couldn’t plant without painkillers. So you get trapped in this cycle where it’s like, “If you take this pill, you can run.”

After practice, once that painkiller wears off, you still have to come home and be a husband and a father. My daughter don’t care. She’s two years old, and she’s running straight up to me, “Dadddyyyyyy!!!” She’s wanting to bake some cookies in the Fisher-Price oven, you know? But I’m coming home broken. I can’t even do anything but lie around in a dark room.

That’s when the anxiety really started. I knew something was off, but I didn’t want to let anybody down. My plan was to get through another season with pills and shots. Do my job. Grit it out. I suited up Week 1 a shell of myself, but I played.

-------------------------

Every time a player writes about his playing career it's full of them destroying their minds and bodies so we have something to distract us on Sunday afternoons. "Fully guaranteed contracts are bad for the game!" That's exactly what some shithead billionaires want you to think.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:44 am**

The NFL is amazingly competitive. Each year, there are new teams which have risen from the depths to make the playoffs. Going back 15 years, Super Bowl winners include:
Pats - 3
Giants - 2
Chiefs - 2
Single time winners include the Steelers, Pack, Saints, Seahawks, Broncos, Eagles, Bucs, Rams, and Ravens.

Losing SB teams include:
Pats - 3
49ers - 2
Single game losers include: Colts, Steelers, Cardinals, Broncos, Seahawks, Falcons, Eagles, Panthers, Rams, Chiefs, and the Bengals

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:26 am**

RustinFields wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:06 am The OTHER other side of this guaranteed contract issue is reading about Calvin Ridley this morning:
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts ... le-jaguars

It started with my body breaking down. Hardly anybody knows this, but I played most of the 2020 season with a broken foot. Remember that 1,300-yard season? Nine touchdowns? I was killing it on one foot, for real. Actually, I had played through bone spurs my first two years. Just gritted through it with painkillers. But then, my third year, the wheels came off. Week 8, we were playing Carolina and I remember looking at Julio and I just knew. I said, “Nah, bro, this is different. My shit broke.”

When I got the MRI, though, the trainer told me it was just a bone bruise. So I kept it pushing. I took Toradol shots every Sunday, and I finished the season. Listen, I know the deal. I’m a football player. It was my decision. I know what we get paid for, you feel me? If it’s really just a bruise, I’m gonna be out there.

We finished 4–12, and then the whole staff got fired. Coach, GM, head trainer, everybody. When the new trainer finally came in, he sent me to a specialist in Green Bay. Within the first hour, the doctor said, “Your foot is definitely broken.”

I was devastated. It was only two months before the start of the season, and now you’re telling me it’s broken? You gotta remember — I was the No. 1 guy now with Julio gone. I was under so much pressure to be out there. I got the surgery and rushed back, but I showed up to camp just mentally drained. I still couldn’t plant without painkillers. So you get trapped in this cycle where it’s like, “If you take this pill, you can run.”

After practice, once that painkiller wears off, you still have to come home and be a husband and a father. My daughter don’t care. She’s two years old, and she’s running straight up to me, “Dadddyyyyyy!!!” She’s wanting to bake some cookies in the Fisher-Price oven, you know? But I’m coming home broken. I can’t even do anything but lie around in a dark room.

That’s when the anxiety really started. I knew something was off, but I didn’t want to let anybody down. My plan was to get through another season with pills and shots. Do my job. Grit it out. I suited up Week 1 a shell of myself, but I played.

-------------------------

Every time a player writes about his playing career it's full of them destroying their minds and bodies so we have something to distract us on Sunday afternoons. "Fully guaranteed contracts are bad for the game!" That's exactly what some shithead billionaires want you to think.

Just like broken clocks, even shithead billionaires are right once in a while.

Sure, what happened to Ridley is awful. But "he needed a fully guaranteed contract!" certainly isn't what pops into my mind when I read that.
What I see is a guy who got incompetent medical care at best, and an outright, deliberate, recklessly fraudulent diagnosis, more likely.
The solutions to his problems are: Players ought to be able to and should record conversations with medical personnel. They should be given formal papers with diagnosis, treatments, potential outcomes. They should have the option to and regularly seek independent opinions (covered by the team and/or their standard insurance).
If those things had happened, he wouldn't have been in that situation. He would have been on IR, collecting his full pay, which is protected against injury.

And, even with the unfortunate way things played out for him - he still never lost a single dollar of contracted pay, except for the gambling suspension. He's grossed over 20M at this point and has no excuse not to be extravagantly set for life.

---------

Now flip the script and look at Russell Wilson.

He signed for 240M with 160M (2/3) of it fully guaranteed.

Then he came in with a primma donna attitude, sucked, and looked very much like a fraud who was the beneficiary of the people around him. Denver would probably be very happy to dispose of him in the offseason. But that's literally impossible, as the dead cap hit would be half their entire salary cap.

Why does he deserve 160M of his contract, no matter how he behaves or performs?
How is that necessary?
If he was limited to, let's say 80M in guaranteed money, how dare we expect him to take care of his family on a measly 80M if something were to go wrong?
Why would anyone ever make the sacrifice of becoming a football player with such meager returns?

Not buying it.

----------------

The typical defense is "well, don't sign bad contracts, then." Which is all great in theory.
But there's 32 teams and not 32 credible NFL QBs.
And fans want a team that's competitive all the time and get upset when it's been 15-20 yrs since their last championship.
You can't never take risks and meet demands.
And - shockingly - getting lifetime wealth up front often causes players to stop caring and performing (still looking at you, Eddie Goldman). How do you prevent that? A: you can't.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:38 pm**

If you want to say guaranteed contracts have ruined other sports, that's your prerogative. I disagree. I'm not likely to ever side with shithead billionaires over labor.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:20 pm**

It's a weird, extremely American attitude to want to shield the rich from the consequences of their actions. "Why should this poor billionaire have to pay out the contract that he wrote the player?"

Because actions have consequences?

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:22 pm**

thunderspirit wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:38 pm If you want to say guaranteed contracts have ruined other sports, that's your prerogative. I disagree. I'm not likely to ever side with shithead billionaires over labor.

And this is fair - and certainly certain orgs (Chargers, Cardinals) are worse than others

But Football - I think the Cap works pretty darn well - and fairly too (for the most part)

They made some smart tweaks like the Vet Min. Benefit etc

But I mean as long as players are getting 50% - from a labor perspective - should I care that Player X only got 50% of his massive deal - and when he got cut that 50% saved - essentially just went to a different player instead?

I too am normally on the players side - fully guaranteed deals isn't a hill I want to die on though

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:24 pm**

RustinFields wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:20 pm It's a weird, extremely American attitude to want to shield the rich from the consequences of their actions. "Why should this poor billionaire have to pay out the contract that he wrote the player?"

Because actions have consequences?

Don't they though? The owners (possible Dan Snyder exception) pay out exactly as to the contracts and according to a governing CBA. Dully negotiated by the players representatives and approved by a majority of the players themselves

Is signing a CBA perhaps an action with a consequence?

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:33 pm**

RichH55 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:24 pm
RustinFields wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:20 pm It's a weird, extremely American attitude to want to shield the rich from the consequences of their actions. "Why should this poor billionaire have to pay out the contract that he wrote the player?"

Because actions have consequences?

Don't they though? The owners (possible Dan Snyder exception) pay out exactly as to the contracts and according to a governing CBA. Dully negotiated by the players representatives and approved by a majority of the players themselves

Is signing a CBA perhaps an action with a consequence?

Hey, I didnt say the answer was easy, the NFLPA being the worst union in pro sports doesnt help.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:52 pm**

RustinFields wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:33 pm
RichH55 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 1:24 pm

Don't they though? The owners (possible Dan Snyder exception) pay out exactly as to the contracts and according to a governing CBA. Dully negotiated by the players representatives and approved by a majority of the players themselves

Is signing a CBA perhaps an action with a consequence?
Hey, I didnt say the answer was easy, the NFLPA being the worst union in pro sports doesnt help.

I'm not sure I agree on that anymore - or if they are still the worst they cut the gap by alot (Baseball used to be the best no question)

From a players point of view - NBA probably has the best union now? But they are so good that's its detrimental to the league for its fans

But not fully guaranteed contracts? I can't say that is the end of the world

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:20 pm**

I found this article very interesting. They interviewed three agents and they went over how an Agent would've benefitted Lamar, and how they would handle the situation going forward.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/lying-tamp ... 25777.html

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:30 pm**

Rakshir wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:20 pm I found this article very interesting. They interviewed three agents and they went over how an Agent would've benefitted Lamar, and how they would handle the situation going forward.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/lying-tamp ... 25777.html

Extremely funny to come right out and say this:

“You tamper,” one agent said. “You meet with as many teams as you can and you tamper like a motherf***er. The teams that need a quarterback and are interested will be like, ‘OK, what do we have to do? I’m all ears. Yes, we want him. Now what do we have to do?’ Really, that’s the key [with Jackson’s non-exclusive tag]. That’s where the problem is created with not having an agent. All this stuff is back-channel deals getting done by people who know how to do it.

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:20 pm**

Ravens QB Lamar Jackson tweets he turned down three-year, $133M fully guaranteed contract

Lamar Jackson has broken the silence regarding his contract negotiations with the Baltimore Ravens.

The former MVP quarterback responded Tuesday on Twitter to a report regarding one of the contract offers:

133/3years fully guaranteed but I need a agent?

— Lamar Jackson (@Lj_era8) March 14, 2023
Jackson added: "People throw (poop emoji) at the wall and hope it stick."

What is unclear from Jackson's tweet is the actual parameters of the three-year, $133 million fully guaranteed offer. Was it part of a larger deal? A short-term solution from the Ravens?

NFL Network Insider Mike Garafolo reported on Free Agency Frenzy that, based on his understanding, at one point the $133 million fully guaranteed was part of a more extensive offer of five year as part of an extension, meaning there were other non-guaranteed years on top.
...

Full article: https://www.nfl.com/news/ravens-qb-lama ... aranteed-c

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:34 pm**

Fully guaranteed 133 million with the ability to get a third massive contract in 3 years…. And he turned. it. down.

Posted: **Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:55 pm**

Thought I read it also included another $45M if he got hurt and couldn't play.

BearsFansOnline.com

Update: Ravens & Lamar Jackson finalize 5yr extension

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks

Re: Ravens and Lamar Jackson Contract Talks