Lamar Jackson is the best QB in the NFL & Fantasy

[bjd5211]

Well there have really only been 2 QBs ever with the talent and opportunity to run for 1,000 yards in multiple seasons, Vick and Lamar. Lamar just did it last year in his first full season as a starter, and Vick came close having 2 considering he had a 900 yard season in 2004. Then his off-field issues arose right after his 1,000 season and wiped out a lot of what would probably be his prime years.

[Cameron Giles]

Well there have really only been 2 QBs ever with the talent and opportunity to run for 1,000 yards in multiple seasons, Vick and Lamar. Lamar just did it last year in his first full season as a starter, and Vick came close having 2 considering he had a 900 yard season in 2004. Then his off-field issues arose right after his 1,000 season and wiped out a lot of what would probably be his prime years.

Cam? RG3?

It's really not a matter of whether they're capable of doing it, because we know they are. It's a matter of whether it's in the team's best interest. The more you leave the pocket, the higher chance of injury. At some point, they'll have to dial it back, especially if they pay him a ton of money in the next few years.

[Jigga94]

One comparison to consider could be the Vick QB1 season. What happened the following year? defences adjust or was it just an anomaly of a season?

I am honestly not sure and am not directly comparing Lamar to Vick I am just curious what everyone’s thoughts are. Lamar’s season was better, but were they comparable athletes? Passers?

Statistically, 2010 is Vick's best season:

3,018 passing yards
676 rushing yards
30 total touchdowns
6 interceptions

He was good in 2011, even threw for more passing yards, but also had more turnovers and saw significant TD regression in the run game.

Maybe Jackson will be a unicorn, but I can't find a long list of QBs who rushed for 1,000 yards in a season multiple times. It usually happens once, and that's it. Ultimately, teams know that these players are still QBs and they can't have them leaving the pocket so much. Otherwise, you get the wear/tear that comes with being a running back.

Lamar posted the 2nd ever season by a QB to rush for 1000 yards. Vicks 2006 was the other. The case for regression is definitely there. Just like when most people were calling for Mahomes to not throw for 50 TD again this year (his 50 TD 2018 was only the 3rd season by a QB ever). Just like any league MVP. It would be insane for him to even match last season in terms of rushing and overall efficiency.

[mild]

Thought I'd bring some good 2019 stats back to this thread. Some great stuff on Rotoworld today (love them or hate them, I think they do great things with stat models)

As a lot of people have been saying... regression very likely, but certainly not a death knell:

Lamar Jackson is one of the most likely quarterbacks to negatively regress in 2020. His passing touchdown percentage (9.0%) was the highest in the NFL, with the next closest quarterback at 7.7%. But Lamar is still in a good spot to be among the league leaders in passing touchdowns and passing touchdown percentage in 2020, although those numbers will likely be closer to 28 and 6.5%. The two reasons for relative optimism with Lamar as a passer are 1) he can make up for negative efficiency regression with more pass attempts, and 2) because 26 of his 36 passing touchdowns last year came inside the red zone, touchdowns that are more stable than the volatile long-distance scores. Overall, I’d set his over/under for passing touchdowns at 28.5 if I knew he was playing 16 games.

And another article on Hollywood Brown's chances of breaking out in a run first offense:
https://www.rotoworld.com/article/nfl-p ... rst-attack

The Lamar-centric stuff...

And yet, the passing game was also incredibly efficient, as Jackson found himself near the top of the leaderboard in most metrics through the air (per Pro Football Reference and Pro Football Focus):

TD rate: 9% (No. 1 among 32 QBs that started at least 8 games in 2019)
Completion rate: 66.1% (No. 9)
Interception rate: 1.5% (No. 10)
QB Rating: 113.3 (No. 3)
Yards per attempt: 7.8 (No. 12)
Adjusted yards per attempt: 8.92 (No. 4)
QB Rating on deep passes: 111.9 (No. 6)
QB Rating under pressure: 97.7 (No. 3)
QB Rating when kept clean: 118.5 (No. 4)
Are Jackson's passing stats fluctuated because of how much attention defenses are forced to pay to his rushing ability? Sure, but it's not like that massive problem is going away anytime soon. Defenses have had an entire offseason to watch film and try to figure out how to slow down this attack, but even a modest decline in efficiency across the board would still leave the Ravens as an extremely good offense.

Not bad for a Running Back.

[Valhalla]

...
Ultimately, teams know that these players are still QBs and they can't have them leaving the pocket so much. Otherwise, you get the wear/tear that comes with being a running back.

I generally agree with this, but, just for thought...what if the Ravens don't care about his longevity? With the HUGE advantage of rolling with a good QB on a rookie contract, what if they are just going to maximize what he can do on his rookie contract and take it from there? If he gets injured, well that's an excuse to move on to the next cheaper QB contract. Maybe? Effective QB play is sort of flooding in from college. It's not like 10 years ago when 1/3 of the league had miserable QB options. I could see them trying to maximize what they have with Jackson while he's cheap, because why NOT take that risk with the huge payoffs, when the injury won't leave them high and dry anyways like it would have in years past?

[jenkins.math]

...
Ultimately, teams know that these players are still QBs and they can't have them leaving the pocket so much. Otherwise, you get the wear/tear that comes with being a running back.

I generally agree with this, but, just for thought...what if the Ravens don't care about his longevity? With the HUGE advantage of rolling with a good QB on a rookie contract, what if they are just going to maximize what he can do on his rookie contract and take it from there? If he gets injured, well that's an excuse to move on to the next cheaper QB contract. Maybe? Effective QB play is sort of flooding in from college. It's not like 10 years ago when 1/3 of the league had miserable QB options. I could see them trying to maximize what they have with Jackson while he's cheap, because why NOT take that risk with the huge payoffs, when the injury won't leave them high and dry anyways like it would have in years past?

I think it would be very smart for them, or any team for that matter, to trade their rookie QB at the end of his contract for a boatload of assets and draft another young guy. The problem is I don't think any team has the stones to actually do it. I thought Dallas would actually be perfect to try that theory out with Dak. They could have traded Dak to a QB needy team, and drafted a new guy or roll with Dalton. If Dallas won't do it with their set up (Jerry being GM and owner so he can take whoever he wants and won't get fired plus a very good roster overall) then who will?

I have no idea how marketable Lamar is in Baltimore, but I would assume he is bringing in a ton of money for that franchise. If you're killing the proverbial cash cow, ownership will step in pretty darn quick to protect their valuable commodity.

[Tvols]

8th in the league in completion percentage
3rd in Passer Rating
1st in QBR

I'm sure a lot of QBs wish they were that bad of passers...

How many passes did he throw ? And what was his average distance of completion ? Didn’t cam once again start pretty hot only to fade away like the rest of the rb/qb. I. Just nit a long term believer you are , hope it last.

Well Lamar is certainly better at passing from the pocket than you are at writing a legible post at the very least.

wunder tooz muy surpryze somes doo nuut agree with youz, youz arse anz Mizzr Englizh teecher duz nuut knuw youz had to have anz degreaze to poost on a thuz bordz mi anpulugze guud syr letj my nuskhoolzed azz gooz byke intooz the woodz piile .

[bjd5211]

Much better.

[FantasyFreak]

...
Ultimately, teams know that these players are still QBs and they can't have them leaving the pocket so much. Otherwise, you get the wear/tear that comes with being a running back.

I generally agree with this, but, just for thought...what if the Ravens don't care about his longevity? With the HUGE advantage of rolling with a good QB on a rookie contract, what if they are just going to maximize what he can do on his rookie contract and take it from there? If he gets injured, well that's an excuse to move on to the next cheaper QB contract. Maybe? Effective QB play is sort of flooding in from college. It's not like 10 years ago when 1/3 of the league had miserable QB options. I could see them trying to maximize what they have with Jackson while he's cheap, because why NOT take that risk with the huge payoffs, when the injury won't leave them high and dry anyways like it would have in years past?

I think it would be very smart for them, or any team for that matter, to trade their rookie QB at the end of his contract for a boatload of assets and draft another young guy. The problem is I don't think any team has the stones to actually do it. I thought Dallas would actually be perfect to try that theory out with Dak. They could have traded Dak to a QB needy team, and drafted a new guy or roll with Dalton. If Dallas won't do it with their set up (Jerry being GM and owner so he can take whoever he wants and won't get fired plus a very good roster overall) then who will?

I have no idea how marketable Lamar is in Baltimore, but I would assume he is bringing in a ton of money for that franchise. If you're killing the proverbial cash cow, ownership will step in pretty darn quick to protect their valuable commodity.

There's a reason teams don't do this. It's because teams can go 20 years in QB purgatory before finding a suitable replacement. It's not going to happen, not because they don't "have the stones", but because it's not a good idea. Take a look at past draft to understand how difficult the QB posistion is to assess, even in the first round. Once you have a high quality QB, the last thing you should do is trade him away. It's easier to find depth and value at other positions than it is to find another franchise caliber QB.

[bjd5211]

Ya, there's no chance the Ravens or another team do it without having a no doubt replacement already in place. If you let Lamar or another good young QB walk and they go on to continue to be great elsewhere and whoever you replace him with tanks, then congratulations you just lost your job and are never getting another one to be in position to make that same decision ever again.

[bjd5211]

I have no idea how marketable Lamar is in Baltimore, but I would assume he is bringing in a ton of money for that franchise. If you're killing the proverbial cash cow, ownership will step in pretty darn quick to protect their valuable commodity.

I live in Maryland, I guarantee this would not go over well at all. Even nationally Lamar has become one of the most popular players in the league. For all the debates over his abilities as a passer or whether he's a guy to build a franchise around, there is no debate that he is one of the most entertaining players in the league to watch.

[jenkins.math]

I generally agree with this, but, just for thought...what if the Ravens don't care about his longevity? With the HUGE advantage of rolling with a good QB on a rookie contract, what if they are just going to maximize what he can do on his rookie contract and take it from there? If he gets injured, well that's an excuse to move on to the next cheaper QB contract. Maybe? Effective QB play is sort of flooding in from college. It's not like 10 years ago when 1/3 of the league had miserable QB options. I could see them trying to maximize what they have with Jackson while he's cheap, because why NOT take that risk with the huge payoffs, when the injury won't leave them high and dry anyways like it would have in years past?

I think it would be very smart for them, or any team for that matter, to trade their rookie QB at the end of his contract for a boatload of assets and draft another young guy. The problem is I don't think any team has the stones to actually do it. I thought Dallas would actually be perfect to try that theory out with Dak. They could have traded Dak to a QB needy team, and drafted a new guy or roll with Dalton. If Dallas won't do it with their set up (Jerry being GM and owner so he can take whoever he wants and won't get fired plus a very good roster overall) then who will?

I have no idea how marketable Lamar is in Baltimore, but I would assume he is bringing in a ton of money for that franchise. If you're killing the proverbial cash cow, ownership will step in pretty darn quick to protect their valuable commodity.

There's a reason teams don't do this. It's because teams can go 20 years in QB purgatory before finding a suitable replacement. It's not going to happen, not because they don't "have the stones", but because it's not a good idea. Take a look at past draft to understand how difficult the QB posistion is to assess, even in the first round. Once you have a high quality QB, the last thing you should do is trade him away. It's easier to find depth and value at other positions than it is to find another franchise caliber QB.

How do you know it's not a good idea when nobody has attempted it? The Oakland A's looked stupid using their advanced analytics to construct a roster and were initially laughed at. Now it's common place in MLB. Look at how the advanced analytics have changed the way teams view going for it on 4th down. The QB with the largest cap hit to win the Super Bowl during the cap era is Steve Young at 13.1%. Yet teams still re-sign their QBs to huge deals claiming they are contenders for years now. I don't know if it will work, but there is some merit to justify an attempt. Hell, the Pats won 11 games with Matt freakin Cassel.

Onto the second bolded point, I think the bulk of starters in the NFL are team/scheme dependent, with maybe only 1 or 2 guys that are truly franchise altering. Sure if you have 1 of those top guys, you pay him. But the rest? Matt Ryan, Stafford, Rivers, Tannehill, Goff, Wentz, Jimmy G, Dak, etc.... I think you could honestly play musical chairs with those guys and I don't think their team's record changes all that much. So why give the next man up the biggest contract when I can get similar play elsewhere for cheaper and round out my roster?

Team typically live in QB purgatory because their team is trash and the QB is set up to fail. The blame then falls on the QB so they just go draft the next one. The problem is they are looking for the one or 2 guys each decade that are special, when they can win with a solid starter and developing a great roster around him.

[FantasyFreak]

I think it would be very smart for them, or any team for that matter, to trade their rookie QB at the end of his contract for a boatload of assets and draft another young guy. The problem is I don't think any team has the stones to actually do it. I thought Dallas would actually be perfect to try that theory out with Dak. They could have traded Dak to a QB needy team, and drafted a new guy or roll with Dalton. If Dallas won't do it with their set up (Jerry being GM and owner so he can take whoever he wants and won't get fired plus a very good roster overall) then who will?

I have no idea how marketable Lamar is in Baltimore, but I would assume he is bringing in a ton of money for that franchise. If you're killing the proverbial cash cow, ownership will step in pretty darn quick to protect their valuable commodity.

There's a reason teams don't do this. It's because teams can go 20 years in QB purgatory before finding a suitable replacement. It's not going to happen, not because they don't "have the stones", but because it's not a good idea. Take a look at past draft to understand how difficult the QB posistion is to assess, even in the first round. Once you have a high quality QB, the last thing you should do is trade him away. It's easier to find depth and value at other positions than it is to find another franchise caliber QB.

How do you know it's not a good idea when nobody has attempted it? The Oakland A's looked stupid using their advanced analytics to construct a roster and were initially laughed at. Now it's common place in MLB. Look at how the advanced analytics have changed the way teams view going for it on 4th down. The QB with the largest cap hit to win the Super Bowl during the cap era is Steve Young at 13.1%. Yet teams still re-sign their QBs to huge deals claiming they are contenders for years now. I don't know if it will work, but there is some merit to justify an attempt. Hell, the Pats won 11 games with Matt freakin Cassel.

Onto the second bolded point, I think the bulk of starters in the NFL are team/scheme dependent, with maybe only 1 or 2 guys that are truly franchise altering. Sure if you have 1 of those top guys, you pay him. But the rest? Matt Ryan, Stafford, Rivers, Tannehill, Goff, Wentz, Jimmy G, Dak, etc.... I think you could honestly play musical chairs with those guys and I don't think their team's record changes all that much. So why give the next man up the biggest contract when I can get similar play elsewhere for cheaper and round out my roster?

Team typically live in QB purgatory because their team is trash and the QB is set up to fail. The blame then falls on the QB so they just go draft the next one. The problem is they are looking for the one or 2 guys each decade that are special, when they can win with a solid starter and developing a great roster around him.

Apples and Oranges IMO. Baseball and football are completely different sports. There is no position in baseball that compares to the QB position. Maybe you are some sort of savant with the idea (although I'm sure it's been bandied about before), but I don't think it's a good idea. In general, Matt Cassell doesn't happen, and even when it does, the likelihood of it repeating year over year is minimal. Rule changes have also changed the value of a QB to an even higher importance than in years past, so cap past cap percentages don't take into account a greater importance on the passing game and the new NFL.

[dynastyninja]

This is easy for me to say because my million dollar job isn't on the line, but if I were a GM and was able to field offers without it becoming public knowledge, I'd see what I can get for any QB outside of Mahomes and Rodgers (and some of the older guys like Brady and Brees who won't command much in the trade market).

I'd listen to offers for Lamar, simply because I believe he'd give a team a record-breaking haul. The return for him would be astronomical and then you sign Cam and see where that takes you.

[FantasyFreak]

This is easy for me to say because my million dollar job isn't on the line, but if I were a GM and was able to field offers without it becoming public knowledge, I'd see what I can get for any QB outside of Mahomes and Rodgers (and some of the older guys like Brady and Brees who won't command much in the trade market).

I'd listen to offers for Lamar, simply because I believe he'd give a team a record-breaking haul. The return for him would be astronomical and then you sign Cam and see where that takes you.

Replacing Lamar with Newton in a win window would get you fired and run out of town with pitchforks and torches, regardless if you got multiple firsts for Lamar. Lamar's talent and being on a rookie deal is the main reason they are a contender right now. You'd be paying Cam more than Lamar for a massive downgrade at the most important position. Literally everything the Ravens do on offense and their success is due to Lamar.