What's Lamar Jackson's trade value?

[Soko]

20 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

I for one would like to see Lamar in a Shanahan/Kubiak system, which is not really an octane passing offense. But also given how much Sean Payton loved Taysom Hill, that would be an interesting pairing as well.  

Shanahan would be pretty wild. 

Not even from a pure entertainment purpose, but from a “what would happen if…” scenario, I’d want to see Lamar go to Tennessee and run the ball with Henry. 

[jrry32]

12 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

First round picks? Didn't you trade them all away? 

Nope. Just this year's.

[ET80]

11 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

This is a bit of a reach. Wilson was entirely dependent on a strong ground game in order to unlock the thing he does well (deep passes), and mask the things he does poorly (intermediate, over the middle passes). Despite the "free Russ" chants from Seattle fans, it was obvious that Carroll had to invest considerable resources in RBs, run-blocking O-line, and good WRs for success. 

Lamar, by contract, is transformative insofar he generates a dominant ground game by his mere presence on the field, and can put up league-average passing stats with scrubs at WR. 

Ok, so this is ignoring that Baltimore used more resources (two 1st rd picks) on Marquis Brown and Rashod Bateman than what Seattle spent (a 2nd and 3rd) on DK Metcalf and Tyler Lockett. Baltimore continually brought in assets at WR and RB from 2019 to 2021 to bolster the offensive unit - so if they are “scrubs” than that’s on DeCosta.

In addition, Seattle spent less resources on their OL than Baltimore has at this point. Picks such as Ronnie Stanley and Tyler Linderbaum far exceed the picks used by Seattle on OL (German Ifiedi in 2016 is the only day 1 pick Seattle used during the Russ era, Duane Brown was brought in in 2017 for a 3rd round pick - but that’s about it on significant capital used by Seattle).

So really, the “considerable resources” is HEAVILY slanted towards Jackson (unless there is some draft pick or signing I’m not taking into consideration - which I don’t think is the case here). It’s not even comparable if you go year-by-year, Seattle used resources to bolster the defense (trading major assets for Jamal Adams, for example).

Feel free to disprove.

11 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

You are also discounting that Lamar could be considerable BETTER than he is in Baltimore, given that Harbaugh and the Ravens front office have never demonstrated much competence at all in offensive coaching and WR drafting and development. 

…and the Houston Texans HAVE demonstrated such competency? Really?

Consider where we’re talking about trading Jackson in this exchange - to HOUSTON. 
 

11 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

I'm not saying you should want Lamar in Houston, but I think he is considerably more appealing than Russ was last year. With Russ you hope he is able to maintain his skill, whereas Lamar has a lot of potential that could be unleashed by 1) good offensive coaching, and 2) better WR development. 

Which is why I’m arguing against Houston - these things are in short supply here. Things could change with a new regime, but I’d have to see that change before I’d entertain it. Even then, I’d risk that change on a rookie QB moreso than an established QB who is going to demand a meaty trade plus a huge contract - if for some reason the rookie fails, you can cut bait, maybe even get a mid-rounder out of it with some team who thinks they can turn it around (Josh Rosen was traded for a 2nd, Sam Darnold went for the same I think). So you can recoup some of your loss if the rookie QB doesn’t pan out.

If Lamar doesn’t pan out, you’re stuck with him for however long he signs, with no real opportunity to find a replacement with all of those premium picks you’ve lost in exchange. Trading him isn’t on the table because the cap hit would be astronomical. That’s highly risky given the current state of the team in question.

Now, if you have a team that IS a QB away (looking at either NY team, Detroit, New Orleans) such a drastic move makes a lot of sense - and in some cases, might be more aligned with what the Rams did, bring in a get QB to an already established vet team ready to win immediately.

That’s not Houston.

[ET80]

26 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Now, if you have a team that IS a QB away (looking at either NY team, Detroit, New Orleans) such a drastic move makes a lot of sense - and in some cases, might be more aligned with what the Rams did, bring in a get QB to an already established vet team ready to win immediately.

@AngusMcFife - expounding on this. If I’m Detroit, I am absolutely on the phone to make a deal for Jackson.

I’d offer both FRPs (right now slated to be 3rd overall and 13th overall) the 2nd rd pick earned in the TJ Hockensen trade with Minnesota, an FRP in 2024, a 3rd rd pick in 2024 and QB Jared Goff (roughly a $25mm cap hit for Baltimore - very low for a starting/bridge QB) for Lamar Jackson.

- If I’m Baltimore, I use the higher pick on someone like Jalen Carter (or collect more assets for someone looking to get CJ Stroud) and the mid round pick on a guy like Anthony Richardson, a guy with unlimited upside but needs a year to sit (which Goff can provide for a year). Goff isn’t going to carry a team to a SB, but he’s capable of running an offense within structure.

- If I’m Detroit, I have a two headed thunder/lightning combo with Jamaal Williams/D’Andre Swift, perhaps the best slot WR in football with Amon-Ra St. Brown, a multi level threat in Jameson Williams and a punishing OL anchored by perhaps the best LT in football in Penei Sewell - and this all comes with a hard nosed coach in Dave Campbell who will get his team eager to punch people in the face for Jackson. The Lions go from mid-major in the NFC to the prohibitive favorite next season with such a move, and Lamar becomes the biggest name in Detroit since Megatron.

There IS a secondary market available for Lamar Jackson, and the right team can really reap benefits - but that team has to have SOMETHING to get the most out of it.

[INbengalfan]

11 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

 

Lamar has clearly improved his throwing mechanics every offseason, is entering his prime years. 

 

Is he though?  If he were a drop back, pocket passer, I would agree.  But that isn't what he is.  His shelf life is going to be somewhat shorter due to his running style.  If he can become a drop back guy, then sure.  But he hasn't shown the long term consistency that he is. 

[AngusMcFife]

26 minutes ago, INbengalfan said:

Is he though?  If he were a drop back, pocket passer, I would agree.  But that isn't what he is.  His shelf life is going to be somewhat shorter due to his running style.  If he can become a drop back guy, then sure.  But he hasn't shown the long term consistency that he is. 

Randall Cunningham's best season was at age 35.

Michael Vick's best season was at age 30. 

I don't really get the argument that Lamar is going to flame out in his late 20s, when the only 2 QBs who he can be directly comparable to had their best seasons after 30. 

He hasn't really shown to be injury prone and doesn't take many big hits at all (especially compared to Josh Allen or Burrow), the idea that he will slow down doesn't really have any evidence behind it. He is a supremely gifted athlete, I think it's likely he'll age similarly to Adrian Peterson or Frank Gore, given he takes much less punishment than those guys. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

12 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

I'm not saying you should want Lamar in Houston, but I think he is considerably more appealing than Russ was last year. With Russ you hope he is able to maintain his skill, whereas Lamar has a lot of potential that could be unleashed by 1) good offensive coaching, and 2) better WR development. 

What potential is Lamar yet to unlock?! Is 2019 not the pinnacle of what Lamar could do as a player? What offensive coaching is missing that isn't utilizing Lamar's strengths?

[Malik]

If the Jets could clear cap space they should obviously throw their hat into the ring. They already have the young guys everywhere and are solid team with terrible QB play as is.

1 hour ago, INbengalfan said:

Is he though?  If he were a drop back, pocket passer, I would agree.  But that isn't what he is.  His shelf life is going to be somewhat shorter due to his running style.  If he can become a drop back guy, then sure.  But he hasn't shown the long term consistency that he is. 

Even if his shelf life is only like until 33 that's still 8 seasons. Philip Rivers was a prototypical drop back guy that played with Hall of Fame level receivers his whole career and the only thing he managed was 1 AFCCG appearance. 

[INbengalfan]

30 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said:

Randall Cunningham's best season was at age 35.

Michael Vick's best season was at age 30. 

I don't really get the argument that Lamar is going to flame out in his late 20s, when the only 2 QBs who he can be directly comparable to had their best seasons after 30. 

He hasn't really shown to be injury prone and doesn't take many big hits at all (especially compared to Josh Allen or Burrow), the idea that he will slow down doesn't really have any evidence behind it. He is a supremely gifted athlete, I think it's likely he'll age similarly to Adrian Peterson or Frank Gore, given he takes much less punishment than those guys. 

I never said he'd flame out. 

He does run quite a bit right?  And players who rely on that tend to have shorter shelf lives.  

Lamar is unique.  Maybe the most unique player we've ever seen.  But suggesting that Lamar will only keep getting better because Cunningham and Vick got better means nothing.  He's already better than both in many ways.  How about other QBs like RGIII?  Are we only going to cherry-pick the two best examples? 

Again, all I'm saying is that his prime window might not be as long as "traditional" Qbs is all.

[Mox]

I maintain that giving Lamar a huge contract will be a massive mistake for whoever does it after he (likely) gets tagged. The play won't justify the pay.

[AngusMcFife]

2 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

What potential is Lamar yet to unlock?! Is 2019 not the pinnacle of what Lamar could do as a player? What offensive coaching is missing that isn't utilizing Lamar's strengths?

Lamar is a way better thrower of the football now than he was in 2019. He just doesn't have a dominant offensive line, RBs, and WR corps, and DCs have figured out ways to counter Roman's scheme with Lamar. The easy throws that were available in 2019 just aren't there any more. 

If you put Lamar in a system with strong O-line play and good skill players run by a top offensive coach, he could easily win MVP again.

As of now he has a good offensive line when Stanley plays, injured RBs, and bad WRs (but a great TE), with an OC who I think is doing a pretty good job but is not a cutting edge offensive mind.  

[AngusMcFife]

3 hours ago, ET80 said:

Ok, so this is ignoring that Baltimore used more resources (two 1st rd picks) on Marquis Brown and Rashod Bateman than what Seattle spent (a 2nd and 3rd) on DK Metcalf and Tyler Lockett. Baltimore continually brought in assets at WR and RB from 2019 to 2021 to bolster the offensive unit - so if they are “scrubs” than that’s on DeCosta.

The Ravens indeed tried to bring in assets, but the players they brought in haven't been that good. Marquis Brown is okay and Bateman has been mostly injured, whereas Metcalf and Lockett are very good players who have been constant contributors. When evaluating Lamar vs. Russ, it is very clear that Russ had had superior WR play. 

Quote

In addition, Seattle spent less resources on their OL than Baltimore has at this point. Picks such as Ronnie Stanley and Tyler Linderbaum far exceed the picks used by Seattle on OL (German Ifiedi in 2016 is the only day 1 pick Seattle used during the Russ era, Duane Brown was brought in in 2017 for a 3rd round pick - but that’s about it on significant capital used by Seattle).

So really, the “considerable resources” is HEAVILY slanted towards Jackson (unless there is some draft pick or signing I’m not taking into consideration - which I don’t think is the case here). It’s not even comparable if you go year-by-year, Seattle used resources to bolster the defense (trading major assets for Jamal Adams, for example).

I'd note that Stanley was drafted in 2016, two years before Lamar, and Stanley was injured for most of 2020, all of 2021, and more than half of 2022. So while the Ravens did invest in Stanley, Lamar really hasn't benefitted from Stanley being on the field aside from 2019. 

Linderbaum was a nice investment, but they only got that pick because they traded away Marquis Brown. So a bit of a wash (even though I much prefer having Linderbaum) in terms of resource allocation.

The Ravens also traded away Orlando Brown Jr., which they invested in an edge defender (Oweh).

Quote

Which is why I’m arguing against Houston - these things are in short supply here. Things could change with a new regime, but I’d have to see that change before I’d entertain it. Even then, I’d risk that change on a rookie QB moreso than an established QB who is going to demand a meaty trade plus a huge contract - if for some reason the rookie fails, you can cut bait, maybe even get a mid-rounder out of it with some team who thinks they can turn it around (Josh Rosen was traded for a 2nd, Sam Darnold went for the same I think). So you can recoup some of your loss if the rookie QB doesn’t pan out.

If Lamar doesn’t pan out, you’re stuck with him for however long he signs, with no real opportunity to find a replacement with all of those premium picks you’ve lost in exchange. Trading him isn’t on the table because the cap hit would be astronomical. That’s highly risky given the current state of the team in question.

Now, if you have a team that IS a QB away (looking at either NY team, Detroit, New Orleans) such a drastic move makes a lot of sense - and in some cases, might be more aligned with what the Rams did, bring in a get QB to an already established vet team ready to win immediately.

That’s not Houston.

That's perfectly fair that Lamar is not a great fit for Houston. I just opposed the idea that Russ in any way was a cautionary tale.  

If the Texans bring in an offensive coach who thinks he has a great scheme for Lamar, maybe that'd be worth it. But I agree teams that would want Lamar would have more pieces in place already, rather than be in the middle of a rebuild like Houston. 

[AngusMcFife]

2 hours ago, INbengalfan said:

I never said he'd flame out. 

He does run quite a bit right?  And players who rely on that tend to have shorter shelf lives.  

Lamar is unique.  Maybe the most unique player we've ever seen.  But suggesting that Lamar will only keep getting better because Cunningham and Vick got better means nothing.  He's already better than both in many ways.  How about other QBs like RGIII?  Are we only going to cherry-pick the two best examples? 

Again, all I'm saying is that his prime window might not be as long as "traditional" Qbs is all.

RGIII only had one successful season, so I don't really think using him as a comp is warranted. 

Cam was more of a big bruising runner, so I think Vick and Cunningham are better comps. If Lamar gets a debilitating shoulder injury like Cam that would be a problem. But I see QBs like Josh Allen and Burrow take much worse shots than Lamar.  

Obviously I can't predict the future. But I think Lamar could easily win another MVP if the right offensive situation presents itself. How long his prime will last is up in the air, but I were another team I wouldn't have any concerns about the next 5 years or so. 

[Soko]

3 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

Randall Cunningham's best season was at age 35.

Michael Vick's best season was at age 30. 

I don't really get the argument that Lamar is going to flame out in his late 20s, when the only 2 QBs who he can be directly comparable to had their best seasons after 30. 

How Vick and Cunningham aged has virtually nothing to do with how Lamar is going to age. Having comparable play styles doesn’t matter with such a tiny sample size. Demarco Murray and AP had similar play styles.  Peyton Manning and Tom Brady had similar play styles. 

3 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

He hasn't really shown to be injury prone and doesn't take many big hits at all (especially compared to Josh Allen or Burrow), the idea that he will slow down doesn't really have any evidence behind it. He is a supremely gifted athlete, I think it's likely he'll age similarly to Adrian Peterson or Frank Gore, given he takes much less punishment than those guys. 

I agree that assuming he wears down is just that - an assumption. However, it’s not completely baseless. Naturally, getting hit more is generally going to lead to more wear. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a given, but it doesn’t help the odds.

Saying Lamar will age well until nearly 40 because two HOFish running backs did it while taking more hits is more of an outlandish fantasy than saying he’ll wear down. Russ took less hits than Peterson too, how’s he aging? So did Cam. So did Vick. So did McNabb. You could argue Lamar’s the best athlete amongst them, but when has athleticism ever been tied to longevity/durability? Three of the most iron man examples of QBing (Brady, Favre, Eli) were not special in terms of athleticism. 

[ET80]

1 hour ago, AngusMcFife said:

The Ravens indeed tried to bring in assets, but the players they brought in haven't been that good. Marquis Brown is okay and Bateman has been mostly injured, whereas Metcalf and Lockett are very good players who have been constant contributors. When evaluating Lamar vs. Russ, it is very clear that Russ had had superior WR play. 

You’re moving the goalposts - you didn’t say DEVELOP assets, you said BROUGHT IN considerable assets. Those are two different arguments.

I agree that Seattle has developed their WRs and Baltimore really hasn’t, but this isn’t the stance you started with. It’s not about what happens to the player(s) once they entered the the building, it’s about operating with a sense of constructing around the players - from THAT perspective, the Ravens did more than the Seahawks to give Jackson targets and protection. 

What you’re describing is player development - which is something the Ravens have been elite at for a few decades. If it’s falling off, that’s understandable, but it doesn’t change the intent; The intent was/is to protect and provide weapons for Jackson. That’s not the same intent Seattle’s FO goes with.

1 hour ago, AngusMcFife said:

I'd note that Stanley was drafted in 2016, two years before Lamar, and Stanley was injured for most of 2020, all of 2021, and more than half of 2022. So while the Ravens did invest in Stanley, Lamar really hasn't benefitted from Stanley being on the field aside from 2019. 

Linderbaum was a nice investment, but they only got that pick because they traded away Marquis Brown. So a bit of a wash (even though I much prefer having Linderbaum) in terms of resource allocation.

The Ravens also traded away Orlando Brown Jr., which they invested in an edge defender (Oweh).

This one is a bit more palatable, but it’s less about what the Ravens did and more about what Seattle WASN’T doing. Remember, one of the reasons Russ wanted out is because Seattle WASN’T drafting OL. They really left that cupboard bare in that respect, drafting Ifedi, Justin Britt and trading for a 34 y/o T coming off a torn quad isn’t really investing in the OL as you’re making it out to be.

1 hour ago, AngusMcFife said:

That's perfectly fair that Lamar is not a great fit for Houston. I just opposed the idea that Russ in any way was a cautionary tale.  

He’s a cautionary tale in the sense that it’s going to cost a lot in draft assets that could be used to bolster other units, will require a large contract with significant guaranteed money and has no clean exit plan if it falls apart. It’s a 10,000 foot view here, but it’s very applicable.

Sure, Russ is right now pretty bad and Jackson probably won’t be as bad - but Denver has a considerably better roster than Houston for both short and mid-term, so you’re realistically still ending up in the 3-6 win range with an albatross of a contract that’s immobile for the team. Much like the Russ trade, it’s hypothetically going to lead to a GM getting fired.