Lamar Jackson may have this agent thing.
In arguably the most agent-like maneuver of Jackson’s stance on representing himself in negotiations with the Baltimore Ravens, the star NFL quarterback shared the details of a contract extension offer that on the face of it actually sounded better. In response to a report Tuesday that he turned down $200 million in guaranteed money, Jackson tweeted:
“133/3 years fully guaranteed but do I need an agent?”
There was a lot to unpack in such a short tweet, starting with Jackson’s continued stance that he doesn’t need an agent to wrap up a contract negotiation that is currently no closer to being concluded. But in addition to representing himself in a high-stakes conversation about the sleazy story about Jackson, the jaw-dropping suggestion on Jackson’s part was that he be offered a three-year, fully-guaranteed deal for $133 million. The deal was offered. If true, this would be a contract that would arguably constitute a solid counterweight from the Ravens, given that its short-term nature would have made Jackson eligible for free agency again after the 2025 season, at which point he Will be 29 years old. Old. But as always, the devil is in the details, and according to a source familiar with the negotiations between Jackson and the Ravens, the quarterback only tweeted parts of that original offer.
“(The tweet) is correct, but it is only guaranteed for the first three years of a five-year deal,” the source said. “That’s the guaranteed part. But that part about the first three years is accurate.
Which means that as Jackson (the agent) tweeted about Jackson (the player), he made the Ravens’ offer better than it actually was. Because in the god of NFL contracts, a three-year straight-shot deal with full guarantees is far better than a five-year deal with only three years of guarantees.
,FREE BRACKET COMPETITIONS FOR BOTH TOURNAMENTS , printable woman , for men,
All of this is relevant now as Jackson’s franchise-tagged window for talks with other NFL teams finally opens at 4 p.m. ET on Wednesday. First, because it shows the absurdity that this whole situation is currently stuck with the Ravens, Jackson is tit-for-tat on Twitter, with reports about the details of a contract negotiation that neither he nor Nor has Baltimore disclosed its full and precise context. Second, because it all underscores the reality that this is going to be a long, long stretch. Possibly till July 17, which is the deadline for franchise-tagged players to sign long-term contracts.
what do jackson and rodgers have in common
While there are aspects of this soap opera we’ve never seen (like the quarterback representing himself in a potentially record-setting deal), there’s a palpable vibe of discontent that’s starting to reflect Aaron Rodgers’ impasse with Green Bay. Used to be. Packers in 2018. Given all the drama that’s happened over the past five years, few people are going to remember that conversation. It featured an overriding aspect that has lingered between Rodgers and the Packers for years: the subplot of an underlying respect issue between the front office and franchise quarterback that never quite resolved itself and led to what we’re seeing now. The groundwork has been laid – what was essentially a painful slow trade of Rodgers to the New York Jets that rooted in years of issues that never subsided between the MVP quarterback and management.
We covered that mess extensively. The record-setting money eventually solved the problem (albeit for a short time), making Rodgers the highest paid player in NFL history. Now the messy soup of issues between Jackson and the Ravens’ front office looks like it’s starting to follow a similar path. Both intersections were mired in some sort of issue of how a quarterback was valued by his team. For Rodgers, it was whether or not the general manager or other decision makers were willing to listen to his ideas at the time of roster construction. For Jackson, it appears to be an intersection of how the front office stakes its value versus how Jackson believes he stacks up against other quarterback deals. They are not necessarily the same, but the underlying theme in both is whether a player appreciates his franchise. Rodgers is to be commended when it comes to his input, while Jackson is to be commended where it concerns his paycheck.
The key between the two is not what they want. The key is what they understand. And that shared perception is one of a lack of respect. We can debate whether or not the player’s vantage point is correct, but that is irrelevant. What applies in this situation are the players’ feelings and their ability to act on those feelings by refusing to contract.
There’s Merit on Both Sides of the Jackson Debate
With Jackson in the wake of all this, the two sides are digging in their trenches. In one, you have a camp that says Jackson may not get his ideal long-term deal because NFL franchise owners are pushing back against Black quarterbacks who refuse to abide by the status quo in contract negotiations and who refuse. Want to change the system to give players fully guaranteed deals. In the second ditch, you have a camp that points to Jackson’s injury history, lack of leverage and playing style as the overriding reasons why he doesn’t seem to have a bevy of suitors offering guaranteed contracts.
If we are to accept reality, both sides are likely to be correct on some – but not all – points. Do NFL club owners want guaranteed quarterback deals to be a major part of the landscape? no way. If anything, the braintrust of teams is seeing the recent spate of long-term quarterback deals and a logjam of regret (see: Russell Wilson, Deshaun Watson, Kyler Murray, Aaron Rodgers, Matthew Stafford, etc.) . They want fully guaranteed quarterback deals as much as they want holes in their heads. In contrast, Jackson is finding himself pressed against the Watson deal and wondering: If a player with a recent and significant history of off-field issues, a barely .500 record as a starter and zero MVP seasons is at most one-sided. worth the contract. In NFL history, why don’t I deserve this?
If we’re being honest, we can see the “why” behind both vantage points. No one is 100% wrong or 100% right in this matter. Nor is there a template to work from when it comes to working out their differences without an agent acting as a conduit. The simple fact that there are several constraints thrown into this scenario is what makes it problematic – whether it’s Watson’s contract or Jackson’s lack of an agent; Or the simple fact that every single landscape-changing deal in the history of the league has been fraught with pitfalls.
If we step back, this is a conversation that was designed to have problems. Especially when it enters the realm of how a team values unusual quarterback talent versus how the overall market values the same commodity. Jackson believes he is worth the contract the Ravens have been reluctant to offer. The rest of the market begins to weigh in starting on Wednesday, and every indication is that Jackson is going to face the same reticence he’s experienced inside the walls of the Ravens’ facility.
We can all debate why that is. And we will all be right on some level. But the only thing that matters is whether Jackson is deemed worthy of a contract offer that Baltimore has extended up to this point. If no other NFL team moves on, it’s a sign that this play is about to go on longer than it was a few months ago. A familiar awkward dance that begins with the Ravens in 2023 and ends with some other team in some other year, with nothing but blame and accusations in between. If you have any doubts about that, just look at what’s happening with Aaron Rodgers and the Packers right now.
The two conditions are more closely related than you might imagine. But the destination and divorce – the possibility of which grows with each passing moment.
