https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/03/07/browns-have-automatic-right-to-restructure-deshaun-watsons-contract/

This is very interesting, so the Browns have the right to restructure Watsons contract at any point. That's a big time * in that contract and other contracts that want to emulate it.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why doesn't he have an agent? This is the first time I've heard of this type of situation. Out of all the players out there, he is the one that needs it the most. Pretty dumb move on his part IMO.

I think some players just want to save the commission fee owed to agents (1 to 3%).

Its rare but not unheard of for players not to have agents. Richard Sherman, Bobby Wagner, Deandre Hopkins all don't use agents. I think he's the first high profile qb to do so. I agree with you though, given the uniqueness of the position and money at stake, he should be using an agent.

Vince Blake said:

---

I think some players just want to save the commission fee owed to agents (1 to 3%).

Its rare but not unheard of for players not to have agents. Richard Sherman, Bobby Wagner, Deandre Hopkins all don't use agents. I think he's the first high profile qb to do so. I agree with you though, given the uniqueness of the position and money at stake, he should be using an agent.

---

Not to mention, he doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed. Those NFL contracts can be pretty complicated, I wouldn't trust myself to be able to review them on my own without outside help.

Vince Blake said:

---

I think some players just want to save the commission fee owed to agents (1 to 3%).

Its rare but not unheard of for players not to have agents. Richard Sherman, Bobby Wagner, Deandre Hopkins all don't use agents. I think he's the first high profile qb to do so. I agree with you though, given the uniqueness of the position and money at stake, he should be using an agent.

---

I think it's the reason he's holding on to that idea of a fully guaranteed contract, I bet anything else is confusing as hell to go through

He is the Ravens offense
Harbaugjh is a special teams coach and their D coordinator that carried their franchise is in NY
I hope the let him go

Franchise deserves bad charma

IrishAg said:

---

Vince Blake said:

---

I think some players just want to save the commission fee owed to agents (1 to 3%).

Its rare but not unheard of for players not to have agents. Richard Sherman, Bobby Wagner, Deandre Hopkins all don't use agents. I think he's the first high profile qb to do so. I agree with you though, given the uniqueness of the position and money at stake, he should be using an agent.

---

I think it's the reason he's holding on to that idea of a fully guaranteed contract, I bet anything else is confusing as hell to go through

---

He's not completely alone in the process, even though he's without an agent. The NFLPA is advising him through this situation. I do think there's a chance he's a bit of a pawn in this whole thing. The NFLPA would love to get more fully guaranteed contracts out there, they don't want the Watson deal to be a one-off. The owners are on the other side of this, they've been mad at Haslam since he made that deal with Watson. I still think Jackson's market value is in the same neighborhood as Josh Allen, I don't think he has any business asking for more than that even if he is a former MVP. We don't know what figures he's asking for, if there was an agent involved they could at least float the figures being asked for and what's been offered as well.

Max Power said:

---

IrishAg said:

---

Vince Blake said:

---

I think some players just want to save the commission fee owed to agents (1 to 3%).

Its rare but not unheard of for players not to have agents. Richard Sherman, Bobby Wagner, Deandre Hopkins all don't use agents. I think he's the first high profile qb to do so. I agree with you though, given the uniqueness of the position and money at stake, he should be using an agent.

---

I think it's the reason he's holding on to that idea of a fully guaranteed contract, I bet anything else is confusing as hell to go through

---

He's not completely alone in the process, even though he's without an agent. The NFLPA is advising him through this situation. I do think there's a chance he's a bit of a pawn in this whole thing. The NFLPA would love to get more fully guaranteed contracts out there, they don't want the Watson deal to be a one-off. The owners are on the other side of this, they've been mad at Haslam since he made that deal with Watson. I still think Jackson's market value is in the same neighborhood as Josh Allen, I don't think he has any business asking for more than that even if he is a former MVP. We don't know what figures he's asking for, if there was an agent involved they could at least float the figures being asked for and what's been offered as well.

---

Agreed, I'm sure the NFLPA is using him to push fully guaranteed contracts.

Also, I'm really anxious to see what the actual market is for him. The media and former players are whipping up a frenzy about how the Ravens are being cheap and that they should pay him what he wants before another team snatches him up. While that might happen, I do wonder how this will play out if no one really attempts to get him. Will that reset the relationship with the Ravens? Are they too far gone at this point? In addition to everything else, Jackson representing himself has naturally made this negotiation much more personal than it should be, just because of the nature of negotiating by yourself. So, if he feels that the Ravens don't properly value him can he ever come back to the field 100% bought in?

The problem is that Jackson (and the NFLPA) want Watson's contract to be the new benchmark, while the other 31 owners think Bill Haslan is an idiot who got desperate and overpaid, at least in terms of guaranteed money.

The Browns have been, historically, not a well run team. If the NFL ran like the English Premier League, they would have been relegated years ago. So taking anything they do as setting the bar would be foolish.

Also, by point of comparison, the guaranteed money in Patrick Mahomes' contract (signed in 2020, IIRC. Maybe 2021) is 'only' a hair under $142 million. And he'd won a Super Bowl when he signed it, which Jackson has not. So something in that neighborhood might be a more reasonable number. Certainly not the "I want what DeShaun got and a bit more" in guaranteed money that Lamar seems to be asking.

Lamar apparently had one of his buddies contacting teams on his behalf. The NFL had to put out a memo warning teams not to negotiate with this guy since he's not a licensed agent.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/03/23/lamar-jackson-nfl-memo-non-certified-agent-contract-ravens-negotiations

multiple teams have said (off the record), "we're not going to make him an offer. All we would be doing is setting the market for Baltimore and perhaps upsetting our own locker room for no gain."

Now he asked for a trade since March 2nd

Lamar is like most professional athletes...he's looking for the sucker.

needs 1 of the 32 teams to think that he's still his 2019 self...and ignore the last 2 seasons.

he thinks he can find one

Unfortunately for him, the Browns already overpaid for DeShaun Watson.

Although I am a bit surprised Washington hasn't been heard from. Did somebody lock Dan Snyder in his private bathroom?

Smeghead4761 said:

---

Unfortunately for him, the Browns already overpaid for DeShaun Watson.

Although I am a bit surprised Washington hasn't been heard from. Did somebody lock Dan Snyder in his private bathroom?

---

I thought the same thing and Snyder, but maybe he's handcuffed with the forced sale of the team?

The owners are going to copy SF's blueprint. Surround your QB (on his rookie deal) with superior talent and prosper unless your last name is Burrow, Lawrence, Mahomes or Herbert. You can get three or four all pro types for the price of a QB

Why just now? Until just this year, this has been 100% the case for qbs not named Brady since manning and the broncos won it all

Txhuntr said:

---

Why just now? Until just this year, this has been 100% the case for qbs not named Brady since manning and the broncos won it all

---

The salaries for QB's were manageable back then. Now they murder your cap

Lot of smoke that Indy will end up with Lamar but not until after the draft.

If they do it before then they'd be giving up #4 and that would be dumb.

They can either A) take the best player available at #4 and have him then land Lamar after the draft or B) trade down and get picks that could offset the damage done by acquiring Lamar.

Right now I'm guessing that they're praying someone falls in love with Richardson and wants to move up to snag him.

If they play this right Indy could hit it big (besides having to give that big of contract to Lamar Jackson).

Lake08 said:

---

The owners are going to copy SF's blueprint. Surround your QB (on his rookie deal) with superior talent and prosper unless your last name is Burrow, Lawrence, Mahomes or Herbert. You can get three or four all pro types for the price of a QB

---

then why is Baltimore willing to pay Jackson north of $40 million a year?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Lake08 said:

---

The owners are going to copy SF's blueprint. Surround your QB (on his rookie deal) with superior talent and prosper unless your last name is Burrow, Lawrence, Mahomes or Herbert. You can get three or four all pro types for the price of a QB

---

then why is Baltimore willing to pay Jackson north of $40 million a year?

---

They are making a mistake.

Lake08 said:

---

The owners are going to copy SF's blueprint. Surround your QB (on his rookie deal) with superior talent and prosper unless your last name is Burrow, Lawrence, Mahomes or Herbert. You can get three or four all pro types for the price of a QB

---

Except for Mahomes, aren't all those guys on their rookie deals still? And of the QBs not named Mahomes, only Burrow has gotten his team to the Super Bowl.

And hasn't the Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay example shown that even if you have arguably the best QB in the league, it doesn't guarantee you'll win Super Bowls, or even get there, if the rest of the team isn't good enough?

MookieBlaylock said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Lake08 said:

---

The owners are going to copy SF's blueprint. Surround your QB (on his rookie deal) with superior talent and prosper unless your last name is Burrow, Lawrence, Mahomes or Herbert. You can get three or four all pro types for the price of a QB

---

then why is Baltimore willing to pay Jackson north of $40 million a year?

---

San Fran paid Jimmy G the most money for a QB at the time then traded 3 1s for a guy that is a complete bust and lucked into a competent 7th round QB that got broked

The 49ers aren't even following this plan

---

Yes they did. They wanted a QB on a rookie deal. They just selected the wrong one

Lake08 said:

---

MookieBlaylock said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Lake08 said:

---

The owners are going to copy SF's blueprint. Surround your QB (on his rookie deal) with superior talent and prosper unless your last name is Burrow, Lawrence, Mahomes or Herbert. You can get three or four all pro types for the price of a QB

---

then why is Baltimore willing to pay Jackson north of $40 million a year?

---

San Fran paid Jimmy G the most money for a QB at the time then traded 3 1s for a guy that is a complete bust and lucked into a competent 7th round QB that got broked

The 49ers aren't even following this plan

---

Yes they did. They wanted a QB on a rookie deal. They just selected the wrong one

---

Exactly, it's the plan for a team. Selecting a QB every 2 years no matter who is on your roster. Build them up and them play or trade them off. But most winning teams are using formula to invest heavily in QBs, OTs, and D-Line. Then move pieces around them from there with the money you have left over.

Listening to Move the Sticks podcast and they said GMs have told them that backup QBs are more important to invest in than a starting Guard these days.

So you are describing the Eagles plan not the 49ers

The 49ers did not trade up bc they wanted a cheap QB
They thought they had a franchise QB and are on pace for the whiffed biggest whiff I'm NFL history

MookieBlaylock said:

---

So you are describing the Eagles plan not the 49ers

The 49ers did not trade up bc they wanted a cheap QB
They thought they had a franchise QB and are on pace for the whiffed biggest whiff I'm NFL history

---

Just because they whiffed on Lance doesn't mean they're not on the same plan as the Eagles, the Chiefs, the Packers and I'm sure others if I did the research, they moved up because they valued the starting QB more than the picks used to trade up. But the money they saved by taking him and not having to invest in Jimmy G allowed them to go and add Hargreaves to one of the best D-lines that was already in place. And, by sticking to the plan they lucked out and got Purdy in round 7 which allowed them to make it to the NFC championship game.

The 49ers are a great example of why most teams are adopting this plan for the reason you pointed out. They whiffed hard on a top 10 pick for a QB, but they didn't tie themselves to that QB just because he was a top 10 pick. They still had Jimmy G, and then when Brock Purdy emerged they could afford to let Jimmy G go. And still have 2 options at QB with financial flexibility. But the fact they were idiots for taking Lance doesn't take away from the team building design that is becoming the path to winning.

The chiefs are on the discount QB plan?

Might wanna let Mahomes know he is leaving

MookieBlaylock said:

---

The chiefs are on the discount QB plan?

Might wanna let Mahomes know he is leaving

---

LOL, so you only look at the last few years when discussing teams? I guess you forgot that the Chiefs had an established starter in Alex Smith when they drafted Mahomes and that Mahomes rode the bench for most of his rookie year? And then the Chiefs dumped Alex Smith and his contract to Washington for Kendal Fuller and a 3rd round pick, allowing them to focus on building their o-line and defense while Mahomes was on his rookie contract.

You constantly get new QBs until you hit, and I don't know about you, but I would say that the Chiefs did OK with that Mahomes pick. I would also bet that the Chiefs in the next few years start picking QBs in lower rounds.

Alex Smith was on his 4th team and wasn't earning much

I am really struggling to see how you included the Packers in that group of teams. Drafting a first round QB and then signing your other QB to a 3 year $150m extension two years after drafting a first round QB is the exact opposite philosophy from what you're talking about.

I guess we're talking about 2 different things. My point after listening to most of the draft and NFL podcasts is that those 3 positions (QB, OT, and Dline) are the most valuable positions you build in the NFL. The point I've heard over and over is you don't rest just because you have a starter at those positions. If you have the opportunity (via trade or just your pick) to get someone you value at those positions you take it, irregardless of the current players already on the team. Then you have the highest value on your team, either with a new starter or the ability to trade those players for high value. Everyone here seems to be focused on the contracts after the fact, my point with Alex Smith is that either he was going to take you to a championship or you trade him off at a really good value, dumping him for picks and a player before you had to give him a bigger contract at the end of his 4 year 68 million contract (which was upper back then). After the trade Washington did a 4 years 94 million contract restructure that was money saved for the Chiefs.

Clearly most first round pick QBs are failures at least since 2000. The philosophy of keep drafting QBs until you get it right does seem to fit the Shanahan model. The 49ers strength is not their QB. It's defense and a solid surrounding cast in offense.

The Texans can draft whichever Qb is there at 2 they like the best but likely will keep trying over the next few drafts until they find a Mahomes. But the rest of the draft is about building a strong supporting cast. They've added RB and TE in free agency but they will add another of both in the draft.

SF drafted Mitchell in the late rounds despite having RB depth. That's why I thing Achane or Gibbs will be drafted. Another TE to backup Shultz is also likely.

Only a few weeks left before the draft.