Forum › The Longship › ESPN: Vikings in play for Lamar Jackson

ESPN: Vikings in play for Lamar Jackson

supafreak84
supafreak84
Joined Jan 2014
1,318 posts
Rep: 1,433
#1 · Mar 20, 9:41 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"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.

#22 · Mar 21, 10:10 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"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.

#23 · Mar 21, 11:12 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

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?

#24 · Mar 21, 11:15 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"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.

#25 · Mar 21, 11:58 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"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. 

#26 · Mar 21, 12:44 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

It's a long, complex discussion about a thing that will never happen. 

#27 · Mar 21, 2:03 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"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.

#28 · Mar 21, 2:08 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

well you can wish in one hand…  B) 

#29 · Mar 21, 2:27 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"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.

#30 · Mar 21, 2:29 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"pattersaur" said:
@"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.



Rodgers almost fits that.

And your list is pretty accurate

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/best-quarterbacks-nfl-history-without-super-bowl
They have Vick, Ryan and Cam on their list, but those aren't HOF players IMO.

#31 · Mar 21, 3:11 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
#32 · Mar 22, 8:09 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"MaroonBells" said: https://twitter.com/NFCNorthNewss/status/1638538801218764800?s=20

The Rodgers trade isn't "official" but could this Schefter quote not apply to GB also? That would suck beyond words ha.

#33 · Mar 22, 8:27 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"pattersaur" said:
@"MaroonBells" said: https://twitter.com/NFCNorthNewss/status/1638538801218764800?s=20

The Rodgers trade isn't "official" but could this Schefter quote not apply to GB also? That would suck beyond words ha.



Pretty sure the Packers are all in on Jordan Love. 

#34 · Mar 22, 9:22 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

#35 · Mar 22, 9:38 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

This is probably the Ravens trying to drum up an offer. They’re a perennial top 3 defense. They don’t need him as a QB nor his huge contract. They’d probably win more games with a top flight passer. He simply isn’t worth the contract he wants. It doesn’t help he’s missed  25% of the games the past two seasons. 

I consider Jackson the most overrated QB in the NFL. If they wanted Cousins they’d have to give me Jackson and a 1st rounder

#36 · Mar 22, 4:07 PM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
#37 · Mar 23, 9:20 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
#38 · Mar 27, 9:51 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
#39 · Mar 27, 9:56 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0
@"MaroonBells" said: https://twitter.com/NFCNorthNewss/status/1638538801218764800?s=20
I believe that's a parody/satire account. They basically just throw shit against the wall and see what sticks while also coming up with some really wild stuff.
#40 · Mar 27, 9:56 AM
DE
deleted_user
Joined Apr 2026
206,342 posts
Rep: 0

Baltimore Ravens star Lamar Jackson announced Monday he requested a trade from the team before free agency opened.

The Ravens placed the non-exclusive franchise tag on Jackson, which would guarantee him $32.4 million for the 2023 season if he signs the one-year tender. Another team would have to send two first-round picks to Baltimore to sign him to an offer sheet.
Head coach John Harbaugh said Monday he doesn't expect Baltimore's quarterback situation to change:
The revelation may not change the situation since Jackson made his request nearly a month ago. The Ravens' use of the non-exclusive franchise tag meant he was available and any team could've tried to acquire him.
But that he wanted to leave Baltimore certainly wasn't known publicly, and those around the league may not have been aware, either.
It's tough to recall an NFL saga like this in recent memory.
Teams typically bend over backward to retain franchise quarterbacks, especially one in the prime of their career. Instead, Jackson and the Ravens have been deadlocked for months over a long-term agreement.
The seeming lack of outside interest is also not what you'd expect for a player with his résumé. The market has been so lukewarm that some have wondered whether owners are colluding against the two-time Pro Bowler, who has sought a precedent-setting contract in terms of guaranteed money. Deshaun Watson's fully guaranteed five-year, $230 million deal with the Cleveland Browns remains an exception.
And all this is unfolding while Jackson operates without an agent. The tactic isn't uncommon in the NFL, but stars typically hire representation when they're negotiating agreements of this magnitude.
This provided another twist last week when the NFL issued a memo regarding Ken Francis, who isn't a certified agent but "may be contacting Clubs and attempting to persuade Club personnel to enter into negotiations with or concerning Lamar Jackson."
Jackson disputed the notion that Francis was negotiating on his behalf:
The Ravens don't seem like they have felt a desire to meet Jackson's contract demands, and other teams likely haven't aggressively pursued a trade based on the lack of rumors.
Jackson's public statement could apply enough pressure to expedite a resolution.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10070215-lamar-jackson-requests-trade-from-ravens-after-receiving-tag-amid-contract-rumors?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

#41 · Mar 27, 10:00 AM
Log in to reply.

Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)

Warn Poster

Suspend User (3 days)

The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.

Forum › The Longship › ESPN: Vikings in play for Lamar Jackson

Welcome to VikeFans!

Welcome back, Skol fans! This is our new home. Log in with your username or email and your existing password.


Be sure to check out the How To's and Questions forum for guides on getting around the new site, and use the Help Request forum if you run into anything that you need help with. Skol!