Ravens have had the fifth best defense in the NFL the past five years. That has been a great benefit to Lamar.
I would like to think Cousins would have had as much success had he played for them!
For the cost of obtaining Jackson, there will be little chance the Vikings can acquire or develop a top five defense.
The potential for another blunder akin to the Hershel Walker trade is possible with a guaranteed long term contract and no out for an injury.
The Ravens don't want to take that risk either, but I think they will have to.
The Ravens are always competitive but they aren't stacking Lombardi's in their trophy case.
Fun to fantasize Lamar on the Vikings, but it could cripple your team for a long time if it didn't work out.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
I would not be opposed to this.
If you take a QB in the 1st round, you have a 17% chance of hitting (think Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, Jackson, Lawrence). You have a 52% chance of drafting a flat out bust (think Haskins, Rosen, Trubisky, Wentz, Mariota). The remainder of them (31%) are either too young (Fields, Lance), or they’re QBs who do enough good things to stop you from replacing them, but they have fundamental problems that keep them out of that first group (think Tannehill, Murray, Tua, the Joneses).
You want a chair at that craps table? No thanks. I think any time if you have a chance to get a proven veteran, go get him, no matter the cost. Just like it was smart to bring in Favre, Manning, Brady, Cousins, Stafford, Wilson, etc. it would be smart to bring in Jackson.
Your formula doesn't consider the cap constraints. Those with Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, Hurts... have a much more competitive team.
Paying someone like Jackson such a large portion of your cap makes the rest of the team worse. And I agree with PF's comment above, Jackson isn't Hurts. Hurts can beat you throwing the ball as well as with his feet. Jackson is more Vick than Mahomes IMO.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ dadevike said:
It will cost 2 first round picks;
Plus $45-$50M per year fully guaranteed for multiple years;
And the Vikings have a lot of dead cap coming when Cousins leaves;
And JJ and Darrisaw still need to be extended at huge numbers;
And Cousins has a no-trade clause and can kill this deal unilaterally; so ...
This pipe dream is not going to happen.
I wouldn't worry about the cap or JJ's contract or Darrisaw's. Even if we extend JJ this offseason, his cap acceleration is at least two years away. And Darrisaw's is probably 3 or 4 years away.
Yes, Jackson is unlikely, but I like the thinking (if'n that's indeed what they're thinking. It's probably just internet bullshit). The bigger question for me is probably this: Is Jackson THAT much of an upgrade over Cousins to spend the draft capital to get him?
The 2 first round picks do not really bother me. That's a fair price. The contract itself does not bother me, at least not enough to stop me from signing Lamar.
But the cap does matter because it limits the ability to build a team around Lamar. If it didn't matter, if it was just about spending the Wilfs' money, I would be fine with it. I don't have a problem spending other people's money or giving players guaranteed contracts. But the total cost of signing a player like Lamar includes those things that you otherwise would have done but that you now cannot do . . . because of the cap.
Anyway, there is simply no indication that the Vikings are in on Lamar. But in this lull period, it is fun to think about.
Regardless of what you think of Lamar and how he compares to
Cousins, I just can’t think of a single plausible way to make this work in a
way that’s beneficial to us. If you get
Lamar to lower his asking price to a reasonable level, the Ravens get to keep
him. Cousins contract is already huge
and would have $38M+ dead cap hit if we trade him. Cousins has a no-trade you’d need to
negotiate with him, and he’d need to find a home he wanted to go to. If it all falls through, now your QB is
pissed off. His $50M/5 year fully
guaranteed contract desires doesn’t match his body’s ability to stay healthy, especially
with his playing style. I know the cap
is malleable, but how do you deal with Cousins dead cap, Jacksons salary demands,
losing some draft picks, and build a team that’s SB competitive around Jackson within
a year or two? It seems that the same
problems we currently have with not being able to put a team around him would
still be there but worse. Is Jackson better
enough to overcome the additional burden?
Quote: @medaille said:
Regardless of what you think of Lamar and how he compares to
Cousins, I just can’t think of a single plausible way to make this work in a
way that’s beneficial to us. If you get
Lamar to lower his asking price to a reasonable level, the Ravens get to keep
him. Cousins contract is already huge
and would have $38M+ dead cap hit if we trade him. Cousins has a no-trade you’d need to
negotiate with him, and he’d need to find a home he wanted to go to. If it all falls through, now your QB is
pissed off. His $50M/5 year fully
guaranteed contract desires doesn’t match his body’s ability to stay healthy, especially
with his playing style. I know the cap
is malleable, but how do you deal with Cousins dead cap, Jacksons salary demands,
losing some draft picks, and build a team that’s SB competitive around Jackson within
a year or two? It seems that the same
problems we currently have with not being able to put a team around him would
still be there but worse. Is Jackson better
enough to overcome the additional burden?
No. You are better off with cousins who is a much better passer, less likely to be injured and cheaper.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
I would not be opposed to this.
If you take a QB in the 1st round, you have a 17% chance of hitting (think Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, Jackson, Lawrence). You have a 52% chance of drafting a flat out bust (think Haskins, Rosen, Trubisky, Wentz, Mariota). The remainder of them (31%) are either too young (Fields, Lance), or they’re QBs who do enough good things to stop you from replacing them, but they have fundamental problems that keep them out of that first group (think Tannehill, Murray, Tua, the Joneses).
You want a chair at that craps table? No thanks. I think any time if you have a chance to get a proven veteran, go get him, no matter the cost. Just like it was smart to bring in Favre, Manning, Brady, Cousins, Stafford, Wilson, etc. it would be smart to bring in Jackson.
Your formula doesn't consider the cap constraints. Those with Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, Hurts... have a much more competitive team.
Paying someone like Jackson such a large portion of your cap makes the rest of the team worse. And I agree with PF's comment above, Jackson isn't Hurts. Hurts can beat you throwing the ball as well as with his feet. Jackson is more Vick than Mahomes IMO.
The Chiefs have 50% of their cap going to five players. Rams were similar the year before.
It's a long, complex discussion about a thing that will never happen.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
I would not be opposed to this.
If you take a QB in the 1st round, you have a 17% chance of hitting (think Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, Jackson, Lawrence). You have a 52% chance of drafting a flat out bust (think Haskins, Rosen, Trubisky, Wentz, Mariota). The remainder of them (31%) are either too young (Fields, Lance), or they’re QBs who do enough good things to stop you from replacing them, but they have fundamental problems that keep them out of that first group (think Tannehill, Murray, Tua, the Joneses).
You want a chair at that craps table? No thanks. I think any time if you have a chance to get a proven veteran, go get him, no matter the cost. Just like it was smart to bring in Favre, Manning, Brady, Cousins, Stafford, Wilson, etc. it would be smart to bring in Jackson.
Your formula doesn't consider the cap constraints. Those with Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, Hurts... have a much more competitive team.
Paying someone like Jackson such a large portion of your cap makes the rest of the team worse. And I agree with PF's comment above, Jackson isn't Hurts. Hurts can beat you throwing the ball as well as with his feet. Jackson is more Vick than Mahomes IMO.
The Chiefs have 50% of their cap going to five players. Rams were similar the year before.
Yes, Mahomes is now on a new deal. But they built their team and went to 2 superbowls while he was on his rookie contract.
And I didn't include the rams because they followed the buy a superbowl and then suck route.
well you can wish in one hand… B)
Quote: @medaille said:
Regardless of what you think of Lamar and how he compares to
Cousins, I just can’t think of a single plausible way to make this work in a
way that’s beneficial to us. If you get
Lamar to lower his asking price to a reasonable level, the Ravens get to keep
him. Cousins contract is already huge
and would have $38M+ dead cap hit if we trade him. Cousins has a no-trade you’d need to
negotiate with him, and he’d need to find a home he wanted to go to. If it all falls through, now your QB is
pissed off. His $50M/5 year fully
guaranteed contract desires doesn’t match his body’s ability to stay healthy, especially
with his playing style. I know the cap
is malleable, but how do you deal with Cousins dead cap, Jacksons salary demands,
losing some draft picks, and build a team that’s SB competitive around Jackson within
a year or two? It seems that the same
problems we currently have with not being able to put a team around him would
still be there but worse. Is Jackson better
enough to overcome the additional burden?
Very good points and a valid question at the end.
Sorry to use a lame analagoy but I tend to think about ELITE quarterbacks a lot like Heisenberg meth. Walt's meth might've been only a few percentage points more pure than Gail or whoever else's, but that extra bit of difference equates to a LOT in practice. It's impossible to quantify but the list recent Super Bowl winning QBs doesn't lie. It's riddled with Hall of Famers with only a few exceptions. In fact, how many HOF-bound QBs in the NFL in the past 15 years HAVEN'T won a Super Bowl? Maybe Rivers? I'm probably blanking on a couple but not many come to mind.
And yes I would consider Lamar elite. Sounds like many here would disagree and that's okay.
Also, to @greediron's point... if the Vikings won a Super Bowl and sucked for 5 years afterwards hey, sign me up! Some would probably disagree with that too. Beauty of a forum.
|
