Like most of you, I’ve long been sick of the daily Lamar Jackson melodrama.
And like most of you, I’m also lying to myself because I consume Lamar Jackson news more frequently than Cousin Greg kisses ass.
Well, that’s not fair because I really AM sick of it, I just do it anyway. It’s sorta like my relationship with professional wrestling. I stopped enjoying it a very long time ago. Now I’m just totally obsessed with it. It’s awful. It’s terrible. And I watched both nights of WrestleMania. It’s complicated.
I’ve been a bit of a connoisseur of Jackson news (perhaps you’ve heard). And as such a self-appointed expert, I have to admit that the last particular tidbit we got was rather fascinating. It came from former Browns GM and longtime media personality Michael Lombardi, now with VSIN. He dropped this nugget about the Ravens’ acquisition of Odell Beckham Jr.
“I was told reliably by somebody who is involved that Lamar told them in a conversation, ‘Get Hopkins and get Beckham and then we can talk.’ And the club went back to them and said, ‘Look, we can’t get Hopkins and Beckham. We just can’t get both. We can’t afford both. But we’ll get one of them.’ And they got Beckham.”
Wow! So much there! I have so many follow up questions (and attempts at answers.)
Why did they pick Beckham over DeAndre Hopkins?
(Probably because Hopkins would have cost draft capital as well and overpaying Beckham was the tax they were willing to pay in order to avoid giving up any more picks but also perhaps because Hopkins wants yet another contract they don’t want to give out?)
Would they have signed Beckham if Jackson hadn’t campaigned for him?
(I honestly wonder. As so many have pointed out, it was a very un-Ravens-like move.)
When Jackson says “then we can talk,” does he mean “about playing under the franchise tag this season” or “about going back to work on a long-term contract?”
(This is most fascinating of all! I’m inclined to assume it’s the former. This is probably how he offers a willingness to be bought in without a long-term contract and show up before the regular season begins. The long-term contract hangups have always seemed to specifically be about money. It’s hard to fathom that suddenly changes based on the presence of a 30-year-old wide receiver … or two. But if this is what he cares about, this could be very encouraging for the Ravens? Let’s come back to that.)
Why are they allowing a player, particularly one who isn’t even under contract, to play general manager? I would argue that overpaying an extraordinary player is a far more logical thought process than giving that player the power to make personnel decisions.
(Of course, it’s not unreasonable to think a high-level quarterback should at least have some sort of thought process when it comes to the players around them. Famously, Joe Flacco was once asked his opinion about wide receivers in the 2011 draft and he signed off on the Ravens’ eventual fourth-round selection Tandon Doss. And we all saw how that worked out. They won a Super Bowl together! But yeah, he wasn’t great. Let me get out of these parentheses though so I can move on with the point.)
I think these last two issues are by far the most fascinating when it comes to Lombardi’s revelation. I have no quarrel if this is Jackson finally choosing to publicly voice his frustration about his offensive surroundings. If he believes that part of the reason the Ravens are reluctant to give him the contract he wants is production-related, he’s right to point out that they haven’t exactly done a ton to help him. Spare me the “they used two first-round picks on wide receivers” retort. One was fine but also decidedly worse than a number of receivers selected after him and then traded away and replaced by … no one.
While Joe Burrow has become America’s Quarterbacking Sweetheart thanks to having three truly special receivers to throw to, the Ravens have continued to shop at the fourth- or fifth-hand store. Jackson has every right to voice his frustration. I don’t know that Beckham will prove to be the answer, but I do know that he deserves better. There’s nothing wrong with saying that out loud. Perhaps he should have done that significantly before now.
But what if “then we’ll talk” really is about getting back to the table for a long-term contract extension? What if, while their monetary dispute has been the most central issue in negotiations (or the lack thereof), the dreadful track record at receiver has been just as important? How much more agreeable would we be if Jackson’s point wasn’t singularly about money but also, “Hey, I’d also kinda like it if we actually valued this really important position on the field and tried to have some good players there for a change?”
To be clear, we have no idea how “money” and “wide receiver problems” actually measure against each other when it comes to the pie chart that would be Jackson’s decision making. But if the “receivers stink” slice was anywhere between 10 percent and 99 percent of the problem, would we blame him? I would suggest the smaller the number, the less understandable it would be!
And while I don’t think Jackson should be the individual decision-maker, the idea that this could end with both a happy and committed quarterback AND a drastically improved commitment to receiver sounds like a really pleasant potential outcome.
I’m not holding my breath.
Photo Credit: Kenya Allen/PressBox