2023 QB Carousel

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I mean, I spent a season saying that he doesn't have great athleticism or a plus arm... and neither did Rosen. Darnold also had neutral to poor athleticism but a good, not elite arm.

I honestly don't even get this argument track you're on... Mac Jones has had a mediocre NFL career so far, he's still not terrible, he's just not a difference maker.
Plenty of teams will play non-difference makers this year at QB, and a lot of them will be paying more for them than Mac Jones. It's why absent a top QB falling into their lap the Patriots will start Mac and it's the right call.
If you can reasonably get Lamar Jackson (a difference maker) you do, then you trade Jones, and history has show worse QBs than Mac Jones return solid draft compensation.... including Sam Darnold. Because.... if you're a different team that can't get a difference maker at QB, but doesn't want to tear it down the second best way to contend is to get the best, cheapest non-difference maker you can and build an elite team around them (see Jimmy G in SF, Goff in LA, etc.)

If people want to argue that Sam Darnold was seen as a guy with elite athletic/arm traits 3 years into his career, they can, but that doesn't match the pre-draft and post-draft writings of the time, you can look it up they're all still on the internet. Expecting Mac Jones to return at minimum what Darnold did is more than reasonable, if anything expecting less assumes a wild change in the evaluation of QBs in the last 2 years... and there isn't the evidence for it.


DUmp him... no. But I think we've seen enough of Bill the GM to know that if he can massively upgrade his talent he's not letting past draft picks, or anything else stand in his way. He hired BOB because he needed an OC, and he didn't have one. If he could reasonably add an elite QB he'd move on from Mac in an instant. The question came out of.... if BIll wanted to do it, and Kraft opened the pocketbook for Lamar. what do you do with Mac.
The arugment is pretty simple. Mac Jones's current value is very very low because he played like shit and lacks tools--he has exactly the flaws you consistently pointed out over the season and I think they'd be lucky to get even the Rosen return for him at this point.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,398
umm... they don't? I mean in the situation mooted... you think that if the Patriots see Mac as being worth a 1st, they wouldn't trade him and a 1st for a league MVP caliber QB? I really don't buy that. You trade a pair of 1sts for a top QB any day of the week (assuming you can pay his contract), the going rate for a player like Lamar should be 3-4 1sts floor. His contract demands are unique and limiting his market (especially with the archaic escrow rule), but I don't think anyone in the league sees the difference between him and Mac Jones as only a 1st. Hell I'm not sure Mac Jones' mother thinks her son is only a 1st less valuable than Lamar. In the situation laid out (in a position to sign Lamar and interested) the Patriots would trade Mac Jones unless they thought he was a borderline All-Pro player starting almost right away.

Edit- of course none of it matters because no way Bill and Kraft pay the contract Lamar wants
You’re certainly not the only person who thinks Jackson is elite, but that’s hardly undisputed. Most conventional and advanced statistics suggest that Jackson had a pantheon-level 2019 season but has been average-ish since.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,239
Missoula, MT
The arugment is pretty simple. Mac Jones's current value is very very low because he played like shit and lacks tools--he has exactly the flaws you consistently pointed out over the season and I think they'd be lucky to get even the Rosen return for him at this point.
I can only reconcile this statement as ignoring what he did do as a rookie with an actual OC and a far better O-line. My hunch is GMs recognize the limitations he did have this year while also recognizing what he accomplished as a rookie. I disagree his value is very, very low.

He has 2 years left on his rookie deal and was one quarter of football away from making the playoffs both years. This has a ton of value.

His record as a starter and his ability to make adjustments is also pretty good. This has value. (I recognize how simplified that is)

I'm guessing in 2023 he is better than he was as a rookie given the the changes to the offensive staff and the upcoming changes via FA and draft. This also has value. I doubt NE moves on from Jones given these reasons and the value he holds.

Since we are just guessing, I'd say in any trade NE would get a mid to late round 1st and a 4th/5th next year based on that value.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,986
His record as a starter, which is average, seems silly; he’s been the starting QB on a team with a good defense, he’s shown no ability to win a game with his arm, yet. It’s worth sticking him with another year because the Pats don’t have any better options, but most of the guys who were as bad or worse than him last year lost their jobs.

I doubt he returns a mid first plus…he was a mid first when he was drafted and I don’t think his value has gone up after two years. Alas, we will prob never know.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,880
FTR -- I could see a team trading for Mac simply because he has both 2023 and 2024 on his contract -- and as @Deathofthebambino and @Dogman points out, he's a cheap risk for a team convinced they can optimize/fix/whatevs him. The Sam Darnold saga to me is a lesson in the arrogance of "scouting reports" and coaching staffs compared to actually playing NFL games and observing the past performance; teams will pick up Sam Darnold due to cherry-picking and blindness reminiscent of old-school MLB GMs. I don't see why Mac wouldn't get a 1st round and a 4th rounder from the right team.

Personally, I think he's mediocre at best relative and won't amount to much more than "average" for the modern NFL -- I don't care about his physical aspects, they seem fine, but his greatest asset on paper (mental acuity, preparedness, fast decision making, good leadership) seems his biggest weakness on field which is a huge red flag for me; but he's cheap and I'm not sure the alternative is better.

That being said, I wouldn't go for Lamar Jackson the same reason I wouldn't resign Mac to an extension. Jackson simply isn't a good enough QB to merit the salary he would get on the free agent market. There's no reason to limit roster construction elsewhere for an average-ish QB that's started to have leg injuries in the last two years. With Mac its a lot easier to restock at core positions that are, frankly, in more dire shape like the offensive line. The only QB worth shelling for is a top flight-QB -- and for obvious reasons -- such QBs are not found in free agency typically, at least not without red flags (e.g. JG's injury history).


I think we stick with Mac because there isn't really a good alternative -- apart from getting lucky with Mac showing development or hitting on another QB in the draft. Even if BB drafts a QB this year, I doubt its to see whether the QB competes in 2023; it would be an eye towards getting said QB ready for 2025 -- possibly with a lower cost extension due to lack of pedigree or having not played the QB in question.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 22, 2008
36,398
Since we are just guessing, I'd say in any trade NE would get a mid to late round 1st and a 4th/5th next year based on that value.
Only guessing here too, but this sounds right to me. But I don’t think there’s a top-half team who would want Mac, so I think the package would likely be built around a 2nd rounder, with more value on the back end to make the package comparable in value. Which would look a lot like what the Jets got for Darnold.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,164
I think you would be lucky to get a second out of Mac. 2023's probally going to be Mac's last year as a starter unless he makes a leap.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,055
I think you would be lucky to get a second out of Mac. 2023's probally going to be Mac's last year as a starter unless he makes a leap.
A second would make sense, but I am pretty down on Mac and nevertheless I'd need to squint to see more than 18 QBs I'd take over him. There's a lot of crap out there.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,188
0-3 to 4-3
Lamar being his own agent is a massively overlooked part of this whole mess. Imagine you’re the GM of the Falcons, or Panthers or whoever. You’ve heard the rumors of what he’s seeking - are you really excited about engaging with him directly on negotiations? To think otherwise is to discount all of the beneficial work that agents and the teams of people behind them do on behalf of their clients. I can understand not having an agent coming out of college. There’s a rookie pay scale and you more or less get slotted. But beyond that not have an agency represent you seems like a tremendous disadvantage and I have to think the negatives far outweigh any positives on that.

If Lamar had an agent I think he’s have resigned with Baltimore already. And even if not I think more teams would be interested in him today than there seems to be. If I were a GM I would not be excited about working out a $200m guaranteed contract with him and his mom and then giving up two 1sts for the pleasure.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
Lamar being his own agent is a massively overlooked part of this whole mess. Imagine you’re the GM of the Falcons, or Panthers or whoever. You’ve heard the rumors of what he’s seeking - are you really excited about engaging with him directly on negotiations? To think otherwise is to discount all of the beneficial work that agents and the teams of people behind them do on behalf of their clients. I can understand not having an agent coming out of college. There’s a rookie pay scale and you more or less get slotted. But beyond that not have an agency represent you seems like a tremendous disadvantage and I have to think the negatives far outweigh any positives on that.

If Lamar had an agent I think he’s have resigned with Baltimore already. And even if not I think more teams would be interested in him today than there seems to be. If I were a GM I would not be excited about working out a $200m guaranteed contract with him and his mom and then giving up two 1sts for the pleasure.
I don't think he'd have re-signed if he had an agent, BAL I do wonder if they would have exclusive tagged him.
Really an agent wouldn't have much incentive to re-sign in BAL, for all the disadvantages of not having an agent, Lamar is right that he should chase every penny of guarantee he can. If he had an agent they might help get interest from other teams, help him out in strategy and media play though. They also could be the shield if he doesn't get an offer sheet he likes and chooses to run this all the way to week 10 (what he should do if a big fully guaranteed deal doesn't show up, let people see how bad BAL is without you, let some young QBs stumble, let some vets get hurt, then if you have to play between 1 and 7 games to end the season and hit the market again.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,788
Arkansas
Jackson seems like a guy that couild be out of the NFL in 4 years reminds me of tebow with more speed but i wouild not want him past 31
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,919
Washington, DC
Lamar being his own agent is a massively overlooked part of this whole mess. Imagine you’re the GM of the Falcons, or Panthers or whoever. You’ve heard the rumors of what he’s seeking - are you really excited about engaging with him directly on negotiations? To think otherwise is to discount all of the beneficial work that agents and the teams of people behind them do on behalf of their clients. I can understand not having an agent coming out of college. There’s a rookie pay scale and you more or less get slotted. But beyond that not have an agency represent you seems like a tremendous disadvantage and I have to think the negatives far outweigh any positives on that.

If Lamar had an agent I think he’s have resigned with Baltimore already. And even if not I think more teams would be interested in him today than there seems to be. If I were a GM I would not be excited about working out a $200m guaranteed contract with him and his mom and then giving up two 1sts for the pleasure.
The other way I feel Lamar not having an agent has hurt him earnings-wise is he seems light in commercial endorsements, even at his post-MVP peak. (Looking it up, this isn’t that original a thought, Florio reported recently that Lamar had a shoe deal fall through due to a lack of agent)
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
13,018
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Lamar not having an agent hurt him most by allowing the Ravens to completely control the narrative of these negotiations and paint him as the unreasonable party through the press.
 

boca

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
553
Jackson seems like a guy that couild be out of the NFL in 4 years reminds me of tebow with more speed but i wouild not want him past 31
Well this is certainly a take.

Tebow? Really?
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
6,629
CT
If Lamar had an agent I think he’s have resigned with Baltimore already. And even if not I think more teams would be interested in him today than there seems to be. If I were a GM I would not be excited about working out a $200m guaranteed contract with him and his mom and then giving up two 1sts for the pleasure.
I think an agent working on Lamar’s behalf probably would have told him by now that a fully guaranteed deal like Watson’s isn’t going to happen because they’ve talked to a bunch of other GMs and agents and that’s the climate.

Lamar has every right to try and get every dollar he can. I think the non exclusive tag by the Ravens was actually really smart. They’re going to let him see what else is out there, and he’s probably going to be disappointed when no one is giving him what he’s been asking Baltimore for.

Also, his best fit is probably with Baltimore. The Jets make sense, but they look to be going all in on Rodgers. The Colts might make sense, but they can also get a QB in the draft by surrendering the same draft capital, but save probably 150 million over the same 5 years.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,986
Rodgers was pretty bad last year, and is 39. Then again, he was the MVP the two years prior. So hard to figure out, he certainly didn’t seem all that into it or motivated last year. High risk high reward for whomever gets him, I think. Favre 2.0 perhaps.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
13,018
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
Looks likely to happen. It’s one part terrifying, but also there’s a pretty good chance Rodgers in the NY market just ends a total trainwreck:
View: https://twitter.com/diannaespn/status/1633808745737203712?s=42&t=-Ai-mpXJJ05V-SE-SPRBGA


Should be exciting either way.
The only way the NY market destroys Rodgers is if he's awful, which there's a very slim chance he'll be. If he's merely good or even okay, there'll be very little issues, the Jets have basically no history of great QB play and have sucked for 15 years, if he's good enough to QB them to a 7th seed, no one will complain. I feel like the whole "NY media" stuff is very much Yankees (and to a lesser extent Giants) focused, that other franchises just don't have the same kind of expectations.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,739
The only way the NY market destroys Rodgers is if he's awful, which there's a very slim chance he'll be. If he's merely good or even okay, there'll be very little issues, the Jets have basically no history of great QB play and have sucked for 15 years, if he's good enough to QB them to a 7th seed, no one will complain. I feel like the whole "NY media" stuff is very much Yankees (and to a lesser extent Giants) focused, that other franchises just don't have the same kind of expectations.
If he’s meh and goes full Kyrie and is extremely petulant, it won’t go well. But I think there is a decent chance of a year 1 honeymoon period so I don’t expect anything major. There are a lot of good pieces on this offense so if Rodgers is fully bought in, they could be quite good. In any event, it’ll be fun to watch.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,298
Rodgers was pretty bad last year, and is 39. Then again, he was the MVP the two years prior. So hard to figure out, he certainly didn’t seem all that into it or motivated last year. High risk high reward for whomever gets him, I think. Favre 2.0 perhaps.
You'd have to think Rodgers has at least one more pretty terrific year left in him. Even at last year's production, he's way better than what the Jets threw out there.

2022 Rodgers: 350-542 (64.6%), 3,695 yds, 6.8 y/a, 26 td, 12 int, 91.1 rating
2022 Jets: 357-627 (56.9%), 4,040 yds, 6.4 y/a, 15 td, 14 int, 75.0 rating

If either the Jets or the Patriots had 2022 Aaron Rodgers, they're probably pretty easily making the playoffs.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,497
I wonder what the Jets will need to give up. Doesn't seem like anyone else has talked to Rodgers so interest might not be as high as some originally thought.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
13,018
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I wonder what the Jets will need to give up. Doesn't seem like anyone else has talked to Rodgers so interest might not be as high as some originally thought.
I think the Packers are desperate to move on and entrench Love as the starter as soon as possible and won't haggle much over compensation.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,025
Rodgers was pretty bad last year, and is 39. Then again, he was the MVP the two years prior. So hard to figure out, he certainly didn’t seem all that into it or motivated last year. High risk high reward for whomever gets him, I think. Favre 2.0 perhaps.
IIRC, Favre was a physical trainwreck by the time he got to NYJ and while AR is on the old side he's generally been healthy so I wouldn't expect another Favre-like shitshow. I wouldn't expect a Superbowl either, but the Jets have some high-ceiling young skill position players so it's actually a decent place for him to land. The top receivers when Favre went to the Jets were Cotchery and Laverneus Coles. Coles was well past his prime at 31 and Cotchery was a good complimentary guy but only ever topped 1000 yards once in his career. Garret Wilson has potential top-10 WR upside in my book.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,578
Newton
I wonder what the Jets will need to give up. Doesn't seem like anyone else has talked to Rodgers so interest might not be as high as some originally thought.
Putting aside the massive salary cap number w Rodgers, I’m generally surprised that more teams don’t go all in on guys like him and Brady when they become available. No you won’t be building around them for the future. But it’s the most important position in the game by some distance, and we are talking about MVPs and Hall of Famers. I get that most teams “have a plan.“ But most teams actually kind of suck and are in rebuilding purgatory.

The Jets are 100% the kind of team that should be pushing all their chips into the center of the table to make this happen. But especially after watching what happened with Brady in Tampa Bay the first year, where a team with a lot of pieces but no QB when 5-11 and 7-9 the two seasons prior went on to win the SB, why aren’t more teams (or any teams honestly) throwing caution to the wind to get these all time great players who will only play for a couple of years anyway?

I get that the culture in the NFL is stupid and conservative. But is it really that stupidly conservative?
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
13,018
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
IIRC, Favre was a physical trainwreck by the time he got to NYJ and while AR is on the old side he's generally been healthy so I wouldn't expect another Favre-like shitshow. I wouldn't expect a Superbowl either, but the Jets have some high-ceiling young skill position players so it's actually a decent place for him to land. The top receivers when Favre went to the Jets were Cotchery and Laverneus Coles. Coles was well past his prime at 31 and Cotchery was a good complimentary guy but only ever topped 1000 yards once in his career. Garret Wilson has potential top-10 WR upside in my book.
Favre was actually playing really well for the Jets in 2008, they were 8-3 and had just defeated unbeaten Tennessee when he tore a tendon in his biceps and then was awful to finish the season. He became a physical wreck in that final stretch, but for 11 weeks he played great ball.
 

Green (Tongued) Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2016
1,013
Hanover, PA
Favre was actually playing really well for the Jets in 2008, they were 8-3 and had just defeated unbeaten Tennessee when he tore a tendon in his biceps and then was awful to finish the season. He became a physical wreck in that final stretch, but for 11 weeks he played great ball.
Also, he followed that season up with an MVP-caliber (Just as good as Manning and Brees statistically) season in 2009 in Minnesota where they went 12-4 and lost in overtime in the NFC title game. Although he did not play great that game, the Vikings nearly doubled the Saints in total yards but had 5 TO's.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,497
Putting aside the massive salary cap number w Rodgers, I’m generally surprised that more teams don’t go all in on guys like him and Brady when they become available. No you won’t be building around them for the future. But it’s the most important position in the game by some distance, and we are talking about MVPs and Hall of Famers. I get that most teams “have a plan.“ But most teams actually kind of suck and are in rebuilding purgatory.

The Jets are 100% the kind of team that should be pushing all their chips into the center of the table to make this happen. But especially after watching what happened with Brady in Tampa Bay the first year, where a team with a lot of pieces but no QB when 5-11 and 7-9 the two seasons prior went on to win the SB, why aren’t more teams (or any teams honestly) throwing caution to the wind to get these all time great players who will only play for a couple of years anyway?

I get that the culture in the NFL is stupid and conservative. But is it really that stupidly conservative?
Yeah, I'm surprised we haven't heard of any other team reaching out to Rodgers. Obviously need to be a certain fit but there's a few teams out there that could seemingly use him.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,025
Favre was actually playing really well for the Jets in 2008, they were 8-3 and had just defeated unbeaten Tennessee when he tore a tendon in his biceps and then was awful to finish the season. He became a physical wreck in that final stretch, but for 11 weeks he played great ball.
Great ball might be a bit of a stretch. 45% of his games through the Tenn game he didn't even top 200 yards.

62046
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Yeah, I'm surprised we haven't heard of any other team reaching out to Rodgers. Obviously need to be a certain fit but there's a few teams out there that could seemingly use him.
There's a pretty big risk from both a PR and a term morale standpoint if you announce you're going after a particular QB and failign to get them particularly if (unlike the Jets) you have somebody decent in house I think teams would try their best to keep their interest as quiet as possible until they're actually likely to get the target.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,986
I think the obvious challenge is that you need to have a decent enough team but not a great QB, and have the cap room to fit in the star, the chips to trade, and the willingness to be terrible for a few years if it doesn’t work out.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,578
Newton
I think the obvious challenge is that you need to have a decent enough team but not a great QB, and have the cap room to fit in the star, the chips to trade, and the willingness to be terrible for a few years if it doesn’t work out.
Is it really that challenging tho? Could the Raiders not, for instance, figure out a way to get Rodgers, reunite him with his binkie Adams, and figure the rest of it out? Could Lynch and the Niners not figure out a way to make it work?

I get that that would require some cap gymnastics. But there seem to be a bunch of teams that have "done everything right" but can't get over the top.

Combined with the Jackson thing (which is different bc he wants a long contract with guaranteed money and it's not certain he'll be worth it), it just seems like we have a lot of teams saying, "Nah, we're good." And it's pretty clear they aren't.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
11,209
49ers have no draft capital after the Lance and CMC trades. Las Vegas does but they are more than a QB away and Rodgers may have let GB know he won't go there just to play out the string. NYJ have always made the most sense if he wasn't going back to GB.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,025
His completion percentage during that stretch would have topped the league, his TD% would have been second and his passer rating would have ranked sixth. He was pretty good for the 2008 passing environment, just on a run heavy team.
Yeah, not too shabby for a 39 yo. The dude had lots and lots of miles on his tread by then was my main point, and having his season submarined by a bad injury fits the bill. Health-wise today's Aaron Rodgers is a safer bet.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
I would guess some teams quietly asked his agent "yeah would he move here and commit to 2 years minimum?" and the answer was no.

Rodgers is a declining asset on the field, he makes a ton of money, and he's incredibly flaky, you can't count on 1 season nevermind 2. On top of that he has been dangling retirement which means you have to be on his list, which I'd guess a bunch of these teams aren't.

Rodgers should have a smaller market than Lamar. For all the concerns about Lamar's health long term (valid), he's a much better bet to get you 2-3 SB contending years than Rodgers, and if you're lucky maybe you get 5.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
13,018
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I would guess some teams quietly asked his agent "yeah would he move here and commit to 2 years minimum?" and the answer was no.

Rodgers is a declining asset on the field, he makes a ton of money, and he's incredibly flaky, you can't count on 1 season nevermind 2. On top of that he has been dangling retirement which means you have to be on his list, which I'd guess a bunch of these teams aren't.

Rodgers should have a smaller market than Lamar. For all the concerns about Lamar's health long term (valid), he's a much better bet to get you 2-3 SB contending years than Rodgers, and if you're lucky maybe you get 5.
Wholeheartedly agree. Especially if you're the Jets and not only have a young roster, but also are in a division whose best team will likely have an elite QB for another decade. They have some talent, but not to the level where I think the current version of Rodgers will put them over the top. Lamar would make way more sense for them.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,466
Rodgers should have a smaller market than Lamar. For all the concerns about Lamar's health long term (valid), he's a much better bet to get you 2-3 SB contending years than Rodgers, and if you're lucky maybe you get 5.
The problem with Lamar is that if you sign him to a deal, you're opting out of the first five days of free agency and you still may not even get him if Baltimore chooses to match. It's the same problem with being a restricted free agent in the NBA - you're not really testing "the market" because so few teams are willing to take that kind of risk. There is no flexibility for a plan B if Baltimore ends up matching.

For all the collusion talk, this seems like a rational thing for teams to not want to deal with. And from Baltimore's perspective, you ultimately want to keep Lamar, not trade him, so if more teams bow out of the race because they think you're going to match, that's great for you because depresses his price even more.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Is it really that challenging tho? Could the Raiders not, for instance, figure out a way to get Rodgers, reunite him with his binkie Adams, and figure the rest of it out? Could Lynch and the Niners not figure out a way to make it work?

I get that that would require some cap gymnastics. But there seem to be a bunch of teams that have "done everything right" but can't get over the top.

Combined with the Jackson thing (which is different bc he wants a long contract with guaranteed money and it's not certain he'll be worth it), it just seems like we have a lot of teams saying, "Nah, we're good." And it's pretty clear they aren't.
Rodgers contract looks like a nightmare--he's owed 58 million cash this year and a lot in 2024--so if you're not sure he's staying more than a year or if he doesn't restructure you'll have major cap problems when he leaves.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
The problem with Lamar is that if you sign him to a deal, you're opting out of the first five days of free agency and you still may not even get him if Baltimore chooses to match. It's the same problem with being a restricted free agent in the NBA - you're not really testing "the market" because so few teams are willing to take that kind of risk. There is no flexibility for a plan B if Baltimore ends up matching.

For all the collusion talk, this seems like a rational thing for teams to not want to deal with. And from Baltimore's perspective, you ultimately want to keep Lamar, not trade him, so if more teams bow out of the race because they think you're going to match, that's great for you because depresses his price even more.
Maybe... my guess is you just tell BAL what you're willing to pay him and work out a trade (that's what usually happens, I think only 1 player ever actually got a sheet, the rest were all trades), because BAL has risk there too... if they don't want to match, they just lost the first 5 days of FA. Also, it avoids Lamar just not signing the sheet and holding your season hostage for up to 10 weeks of the season.

Overall though it was less about Lamar than to say, that's why not many teams are in on Rodgers, he's a less attractive prospect for on and off field reasons.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
12,986
Rodgers contract looks like a nightmare--he's owed 58 million cash this year and a lot in 2024--so if you're not sure he's staying more than a year or if he doesn't restructure you'll have major cap problems when he leaves.
And is he even much of an upgrade over Carr, who they already had and were pretty mediocre with? Of course he could be, but he’s old. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
33,392
Rodgers contract looks like a nightmare--he's owed 58 million cash this year and a lot in 2024--so if you're not sure he's staying more than a year or if he doesn't restructure you'll have major cap problems when he leaves.
He has already said in interviews that he would restructure his deal. I’m not celebrating anything yet. This is right around the time we find out the dream was just a fantasy.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,466
Maybe... my guess is you just tell BAL what you're willing to pay him and work out a trade (that's what usually happens, I think only 1 player ever actually got a sheet, the rest were all trades), because BAL has risk there too... if they don't want to match, they just lost the first 5 days of FA. Also, it avoids Lamar just not signing the sheet and holding your season hostage for up to 10 weeks of the season.

Overall though it was less about Lamar than to say, that's why not many teams are in on Rodgers, he's a less attractive prospect for on and off field reasons.
The difference is that Green Bay is motivated to trade Rodgers because of his contract and Jordan Love's contract while Baltimore is unmotivated to trade Lamar. What's their incentive? They want to keep him, they just don't want to pay him $250 mill guaranteed, and they have all the leverage in their favor to not pay him that contract. All Lamar has is the prospect of sitting out, which would be really expensive and likely not worth it for him.

Rodgers may be less attractive, but he's easier to obtain from GB and would likely cost less from an asset standpoint.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
He has already said in interviews that he would restructure his deal. I’m not celebrating anything yet. This is right around the time we find out the dream was just a fantasy.
His contract means that any team trading for him basically needs him to restructure, which means that he essentially can veto any trade, so that reduces the market for him. I think the Jets are a fit for him at this point in his career so we'll just have to wait and see.
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,817
He has already said in interviews that he would restructure his deal. I’m not celebrating anything yet. This is right around the time we find out the dream was just a fantasy.
Rodgers sucking while simultaneously destroying the Jets cap (even if he restructures there will be a big impact) and destabilizing the young Jets core will be its own kind of reward.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
The difference is that Green Bay is motivated to trade Rodgers because of his contract and Jordan Love's contract while Baltimore is unmotivated to trade Lamar. What's their incentive? They want to keep him, they just don't want to pay him $250 mill guaranteed, and they have all the leverage in their favor to not pay him that contract. All Lamar has is the prospect of sitting out, which would be really expensive and likely not worth it for him.

Rodgers may be less attractive, but he's easier to obtain from GB and would likely cost less from an asset standpoint.
Sure. Though you have to re-structre Rodgers, which makes it his decision where he wants to go, and he's more of an on-going problem than Lamar, since every year will be a "i might retire" saga for attention.
As to BAL... sure, but if you tell them you will table $250M guaranteed, that puts pressure on them.
As to Lamar... he's a QB, he has 9-10 years of playing prime left barring a major injury, given the beating he's taken the last 2 years in a bad offense, taking a few months off and then showing up Week 10 to collect $15M instead of showing up for Camp and getting $32M might not be a bad thing. How bad of a year is BAL willing to have? How secure are DaCosta and Harbaugh's jobs? You already have current and former players calling you out (about both their offensive coach last 2 years, and the Lamar deal).... it could get very ugly.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,466
Sure. Though you have to re-structre Rodgers, which makes it his decision where he wants to go, and he's more of an on-going problem than Lamar.
As to BAL... sure, but if you tell them you will table $250M guaranteed, that puts pressure on them.
As to Lamar... he's a QB, he has 9-10 years of playing prime left barring a major injury, given the beating he's taken the last 2 years in a bad offense, taking a few months off and then showing up Week 10 to collect $15M instead of showing up for Camp and getting $32M might not be a bad thing.
Why is he more of an ongoing problem than Lamar? Lamar was getting called out by his teammates for not playing last year. He's possibly going to sit out this season. For all of Rodgers' shit, he shows up and plays, which is what teams care about (whether we as fans like. it or not).

As to Lamar, he hasn't made a ton of money in his career. He could forego that 17 million and then tear his achilles when he returns, or look like shit after not playing or practicing for 10+ weeks. There's downside risk to sitting out, short and long term.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,518
Why is he more of an ongoing problem than Lamar? Lamar was getting called out by his teammates for not playing last year. He's possibly going to sit out this season. For all of Rodgers' shit, he shows up and plays, which is what teams care about (whether we as fans like. it or not).

As to Lamar, he hasn't made a ton of money in his career. He could forego that 17 million and then tear his achilles when he returns, or look like shit after not playing or practicing for 10+ weeks. There's downside risk to sitting out, short and long term.
Lamar wants a contract, that has been his only issue off-field. Rodgers has held his team hostage 2-3 offseasons in a row, and is doing it again this year.... and he'll do it again next year.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,298
I think the obvious challenge is that you need to have a decent enough team but not a great QB, and have the cap room to fit in the star, the chips to trade, and the willingness to be terrible for a few years if it doesn’t work out.
I mean......New England would actually be a pretty awesome spot for Rodgers, based on the criteria above (maybe minus the "willingness to be terrible if it doesn't work out).

They have a very good defense, and some exciting skill players, but had woefully inadequate QB play. If they got Rodgers and shored up the OL, there's no doubt in my mind that they could be an 11-win team and a legit AFC threat next year.