We are posted as the #2 likely suspect for Lamar?

[Ross12]

Mac + #14 for LJ and a per year cap charge of $30m AAV w/ and out after 3 years and incentives contract based on wins, awards, stats and % snaps = YES

Mac + #14 for LJ for a per year cap charge of $45m AAV/$200m guaranteed = Absolutely not.

Yeah, I don't think a fully guaranteed deal is going to happen for him no matter where he goes. But I think he could get a pretty sizable signing bonus. A deal that "looks like" 5 years/$200M but is really something like a $50M signing bonus, minimal salary that's guaranteed (around $5M) year 1, 2nd year guaranteed around $25M salary, 3rd year partially guaranteed around $20M with around $30M total salary if he is rostered by X day in the league year, and then years 4 and 5 having no guarantees.

That would allow Lamar to say he got "$100M in total guarantees". First year would be around a $15M cap hit, second year would be around $35M, third year around $40M. If you wanted to go another direction after 3 years then you could move on with $20M of dead money on the fourth year due to signing bonus acceleration, which wouldn't be too wild by the year 2026. If things REALLY did not work out, you could theoretically back out after the second year, but you'd have $30M in signing bonus acceleration - you'd also need to move him before his partially guaranteed salary vests. If he stays for years 4 and 5 then it's just a matter of paying higher salaries ($40M in 2026 and $50M in 2027). I can imagine Lamar being open to a deal he could call "5 years $200M with $100M in guarantees and an AAV of $40M."

Obviously this is a lot of money, but Mac is going to cost just as much or more in 2 years. It's basically just biting that bullet a little early for a guy you think might be better in this hypothetical but it also costs you a high pick.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Alright, I feel like if there's one person that could give it to me straight, it's you: how could we onboard Lamar, with what he is hunting for, and still put together the personnel to run an offense suited to his strengths?

He would be better than Mac, even in our current offense. However, I am under the belief that you'd still need to retool the offense to his strengths (you want the max out the value you get out of him). Am I incorrect?

The dark side wants you to believe that my friend!!! Come join the lord of light!!!

"Āeksios Ōño, aōhos ōñoso ilōn jehikās! Āeksios Ōño, ilōn misās! Kesrio syt bantis zābrie issa se ossȳngnoti lēdys!"

I could be wrong - and that'd do a lot to help me understand why we keep getting mentioned as suitors.

Jackson came from a EP variation at Louisville

 

[Bourne Again Christian]

The dark side wants you to believe that my friend!!! Come join the lord of light!!!

"Āeksios Ōño, aōhos ōñoso ilōn jehikās! Āeksios Ōño, ilōn misās! Kesrio syt bantis zābrie issa se ossȳngnoti lēdys!"

Jackson came from a EP variationat Louisville

Trade for the beast.

 

[Ross12]

Pats have a great center, elite RG and first round LG who should improve year 2, and two tackles who could probably protect fine against DEs who are playing more contain than true rush. And they have two really solid receiving TEs and will probably draft another. Parker's also a good jump-ball target, Thornton has speed, Juju gets open. Plus Marcus Jones factoring into some packages... Not a bad offense at all if Lamar is the QB.

 

[PlainOldEd]

 

[Bourne Again Christian]

View attachment 50641

Are you Macs Uncle?

 

[sportnik]

Mac Jones & #14 for Lamar. Who says no?

Instantly gives Kraft & BB a chance at redemption.

 

[PlainOldEd]

Are you Macs Uncle?

Nope. Just don't like LJ. Over rated often injured glorified RB. Why give up your young QB who did look good before he got effed by his situation and draft capital and guaranteed money for someone who isn't that good?

 

[PlainOldEd]

Is there an old "sign Russell Wilson" thread out there somewhere? I bet the LJ people were all over that move too...

 

[Jangles]

A mobile quarterback who gets worse the more he has to throw. The exact opposite of what we once had

No thanks

 

[farn]

Is there an old "sign Russell Wilson" thread out there somewhere? I bet the LJ people were all over that move too...

There was a time, as Brady aged, that I thought Wilson would be the absolute best successor. Very very wrong.

Not an LJ fan. While he’d surely make the season - and this board - much more exciting, I’d want NE to work towards winning another championship. I do not see LJ and the ressources / money it’ll take to get him leading to anything of substance.

 

[Kasmir]

There's absolutely 10000% ZERO data to support the claim that "running QB's" or "QB's who run" get hurt easier, more often or at a higher rate than "pocket QB's."

That's not my opinion or a opinion. It's a fact.

Honestly unless you have any new info there's nothing I haven't seen, read at least twice on the subject. And with respect I'm just not concerned with most posters opinions on the subject. The bias is incredible and most of that crew isn't exactly the most insightful.

I'd love to hear some hard data if you have any but again there's nothing to support that claim.

I have seen no such studies one way or the other, but the burden is on you to support that claim. Conventional wisdom is that running is more dangerous than passing, not because of injury frequency but because of the greater impact of any injuries on the ability to run at an elite level. You aren't seriously disputing that RB's have short careers vs QB's? Why do you think that is? So what makes you think running QB's can have longevity running significantly better than RB's? And what's an example of a running QB excelling for the long term in the NFL?

Here's a link to NFL longevity by position.

 

[Kdo5]

We should have drafted Lamar when we had the chance and now we should trade for Lamar while we have a chance.

 

[They_Hate_We]

There's absolutely 10000% ZERO data to support the claim that "running QB's" or "QB's who run" get hurt easier, more often or at a higher rate than "pocket QB's."

That's not my opinion or a opinion. It's a fact.

Honestly unless you have any new info there's nothing I haven't seen, read at least twice on the subject. And with respect I'm just not concerned with most posters opinions on the subject. The bias is incredible and most of that crew isn't exactly the most insightful.

I'd love to hear some hard data if you have any but again there's nothing to support that claim.

Well, here's one study that actually backs your point @BaconGrundleCandy

New Study: Quarterbacks That Run Most Are Not Injured Most | FilmstudyBaltimore

seemed kinda timely for this thread

 

[hornetfb85]

nm

 

[Uptown]

 

[Uptown]

 

[crawhammer]

Mac + #14 for LJ and a per year cap charge of $30m AAV w/ and out after 3 years and incentives contract based on wins, awards, stats and % snaps = YES

Mac + #14 for LJ for a per year cap charge of $45m AAV/$200m guaranteed = Absolutely not.

You're almost there. Your preference smartly is for Lamar. I'm convinced the Patriots aren't winning with Mac, and could with Lamar, so it's worth the risk on the commitment because if you don't switch it up you're not getting there anyway. May as well go for broke. I'm ok with high risk high reward (although I don't consider the risk to be as high as some... his injuries really have not been severe). Lamar will have a better supporting cast and overall team here and I like his chances with BOB.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I have seen no such studies one way or the other, but the burden is on you to support that claim. Conventional wisdom is that running is more dangerous than passing, not because of injury frequency but because of the greater impact of any injuries on the ability to run at an elite level. You aren't seriously disputing that RB's have short careers vs QB's? Why do you think that is? So what makes you think running QB's can have longevity running significantly better than RB's? And what's an example of a running QB excelling for the long term in the NFL?

Here's a link to NFL longevity by position.

With respect it's more than clear you don't know what you're talking about but say the burden is on me lol ???

This is common knowledge my friend and I'm not being sarcastic or mean. This is something that's obviously a hot topic and been looked upon over and over recently.

You guys are stubborn and dont want to learn or join the year 2023 lol.

Who's to say which hits are worse? Blindside you can't see coming in the pocket or when you're heads on a swivel? Look numbers have been showing for a while there's no difference.

Sorry but you're so wrong it's not funny. And again this is old news. It's almost like you just started watching football and I'm not being mean. You ever hear of Michael Vick? Steve Young? Fran? Cam? Cunningham? All those players played over 10 years.

Mobile Quarterbacks and Injury Rates | Fantasy Points

Is the increased likelihood of injury to mobile QBs just as much of a myth as injury-prone? Dr. Edwin Porras examines.

www.fantasypoints.com

"Injury Proneness of Running QBs is Overstated
October 17, 2019, 12:49 pm ET
24
Good research in this Yahoo! piece from our buddies at Sports Info Solutions finds that the risk of getting injured on a designed quarterback run is remote. Quarterbacks are much more likely to be injured on a scramble or a sack -- and particularly, on a quarterback knockdown after a pass is thrown."

The Myth That Mobile Quarterbacks Are More Injury-Prone Than Pocket Passers

This year’s Super Bowl matchup shows you don’t need a particular type of quarterback to win in the NFL. The Ravens’ Joe Flacco has 38 rushing yards...

slate.com

"As you’ll see in the chart below, regardless of how we sliced the data, there was no statistically significant difference in injury rates between mobile and conventional quarterbacks. Quarterbacks of both types tend to lose 11 to 14 percent of their starts to injury. Even without counting the thus-far injury-free Kaepernick, three of the four tests produced a lower injury rate for mobile quarterbacks. The gap, though, is small enough that a statistician would call it zero."


@They_Hate_We also posted a link.

 

[Uptown]