What's your opinion of the Steven Jackson situation?

[PossumBoy9]

Darnit Jackson come to camp and show em what you got! Rack up a rushing title and they will eat out of your hands!!!

You serious?

For all Jackson knows, he'll just get franchise tagged if he wins the rushing title.

That and Zygmunt's reputation as a franchise tag abuser made a holdout at this point a given.

[moloch41]

Im thinking there was a clause in the contract that required him to play a certain amount of snaps in order to get the money..

Good, many of these contracts should be incentive laden.

[moloch41]

The only part of the Rams' offer we know about is the total value and you said he should accept it based on that, so what else could you have been referring to?

The point is we don't know what else the contract offer said. There could be many reasons why a contract that puts him in the top five for running backs wouldn't be good to accept.

To say he should accept it simply because of where it puts him among other runners ignores all of those potential factors.

Actually according to this- it's in the top 4.

Multiple sources told the Post-Dispatch that the Rams have offered Jackson a contract that would place him among the top four running backs in the NFL — a figure that would top $7 million a year.

Jackson, entering the fourth year of his original five-year contract, is scheduled to make $1.71 million this year. In terms of the overall value of his contract, which averages $1.5 million a year, Jackson is barely in the top 50 at his position. He was 45th among veteran players, according to NFLPA figures, but that didn't take into account this year's running back draft class, which includes first-rounders Darren McFadden and Jonathan Stewart.

The Rams appear to have made a good-faith effort to rectify that, with an offer believed to be topped only by Clinton Portis, Larry Johnson and LaDainian Tomlinson.

In that sense, the offer exceeds Jackson's production thus far in his NFL career. Jackson has topped 1,000 yards rushing in each of his past three seasons. Over that span, he ranks sixth in rushing yards (3,576) in the league. Among the top 25 rushing leaders from 2005 to 2007, Jackson is tied for seventh in touchdowns (26) and tied for 12th in yards per carry (4.3).

STLtoday - What does he want?


Like I said earlier- this guy wants to get paid like the top running back in the league, but he hasn't done enough to deserve a contract like that.

[Nick]

Actually according to this- it's in the top 4.

That's great. Still doesn't address the point I made in that response.

[moloch41]

That's great. Still doesn't address the point I made in that response.

What point? You don't know anything more about the contract situation than I do. I'm inclined to believe that the Rams made a serious offer to someone they believe is important to their franchise, but they're looking for some ridiculous signing money and you seem to believe that Jackson and his agent wouldn't be holding out without good reason. They're both opinions and we're both entitled to them. I also think that if there really was an unfair offer made, Jackson's agent would be on ESPN complaining about it, but if it's for some outlandish signing bonus that would piss fans off, he would probably keep quiet about it.

[Nick]

What point? You don't know anything more about the contract situation than I do.

You're right.

The difference, though, is that you are suggesting he should accept the offer, even though you have minimal knowledge about what the offer actually is.

I haven't said he should accept it, nor have I said he was right in rejecting it. I'm simply recognizing that there are numerous other factors that make up a contract and make a contract acceptable than its total value and how that value compares to the league's other top runners.

My point - simply knowing that the contract puts him value-wise in the top four running backs in the league is not enough to conclude whether or not it's a fair deal.

[moloch41]

You're right.

The difference, though, is that you are suggesting he should accept the offer, even though you have minimal knowledge about what the offer actually is.

I haven't said he should accept it, nor have I said he was right in rejecting it. I'm simply recognizing that there are numerous other factors that make up a contract and make a contract acceptable than its total value and how that value compares to the league's other top runners.

My point - simply knowing that the contract puts him value-wise in the top four running backs in the league is not enough to conclude whether or not it's a fair deal.

Yes, but I said I was inclined to believe that the Rams did make him a fair all around offer- so wouldn't that also make me inclined to believe that he should accept it?

[rammiser]

You're right.

The difference, though, is that you are suggesting he should accept the offer, even though you have minimal knowledge about what the offer actually is.

I haven't said he should accept it, nor have I said he was right in rejecting it. I'm simply recognizing that there are numerous other factors that make up a contract and make a contract acceptable than its total value and how that value compares to the league's other top runners.

My point - simply knowing that the contract puts him value-wise in the top four running backs in the league is not enough to conclude whether or not it's a fair deal.

I agree with Nick here. The FO could say it's in the top 5 money. The real factor is guaranteed money. Let me give you some numbers just for arguement sake. Lets say LT got 25 million guaranteed on 50 million dollar contract. Lets say Larry Johnson got 22 million guaranteed on a 50 million dollar contract. Say Peterson got 26 million guaranteed on a 50 million daollar contract. Say Portis got 21 millions guaranteed on a 50 million dollar contract. Then say they offer jackson a 50 million dollar contract but only gave him 15 million guaranteed. Is that fair? Even though the total dollar amount is top five maybe the guaranteed money is between 10-15 in the list of running backs. So with what little we all know about the contract is there really a side to take?

[moloch41]

I agree with Nick here. The FO could say it's in the top 5 money. The real factor is guaranteed money. Let me give you some numbers just for arguement sake. Lets say LT got 25 million guaranteed on 50 million dollar contract. Lets say Larry Johnson got 22 million guaranteed on a 50 million dollar contract. Say Peterson got 26 million guaranteed on a 50 million daollar contract. Say Portis got 21 millions guaranteed on a 50 million dollar contract. Then say they offer jackson a 50 million dollar contract but only gave him 15 million guaranteed. Is that fair? Even though the total dollar amount is top five maybe the guaranteed money is between 10-15 in the list of running backs. So with what little we all know about the contract is there really a side to take?

I understand the concept of guaranteed money, but my god- if he doesn't perform or gets hurt- is he going to give that money back? You can't strap the salary cap with that much money going to one player. That's why I think teams need to move onto more incentive-laden contracts. And honestly- with the economy the way it is and with people struggling to pay bills and fill up their gas tanks- do you really think they want to hear someone crying about how he's only getting paid 15 mil? This could backfire on him with the fans if he's not careful and comes in late and doesn't perform.

[rammiser]

I understand the concept of guaranteed money, but my god- if he doesn't perform or gets hurt- is he going to give that money back? You can't strap the salary cap with that much money going to one player. That's why I think teams need to move onto more incentive-laden contracts. And honestly- with the economy the way it is and with people struggling to pay bills and fill up their gas tanks- do you really think they want to hear someone crying about how he's only getting paid 15 mil? This could backfire on him with the fans if he's not careful and comes in late and doesn't perform.

I understand what your saying but you took the FO side and Jackson really may not have been offered top 5 money. Athletes do deserve what they are paid. They are what less than 1% of the people who play college sports go on to be professional athletes. The owners are making fat cash off of all of us and so is the NFL. So you just cant blame the athletes in these situations. He is either our franchise guy or he isnt. Does Jackson make this team better? YES, I know some of you think not but Jackson's team mates seem to think so. It could backfire on him if he wants to be the highest paid rb but didnt Mcfadden who hasnt played 1 down in the NFL just get a rediculous contract? The agents are to blame too, the more they get out of the teams the better their cut. Does Jackson deserve less than Mcfadden??? The agnet sees all of this and gets in Jackson ear about how much the rookies getting and how he should get more than that blah blah blah. It's not all on Jackson.

[Nick]

Yes, but I said I was inclined to believe that the Rams did make him a fair all around offer- so wouldn't that also make me inclined to believe that he should accept it?

I guess I simply find it strange to criticize Jackson for not accepting an offer you know next to nothing about but are simply assuming to be fair. But if that's what you are inclined to think, more power to you I guess.

I do find it interesting though that the Rams' offer, according to the article, is less than what Portis and Tomlinson were given four years ago.

[moloch41]

I understand what your saying but you took the FO side and Jackson really may not have been offered top 5 money. Athletes do deserve what they are paid. They are what less than 1% of the people who play college sports go on to be professional athletes. The owners are making fat cash off of all of us and so is the NFL. So you just cant blame the athletes in these situations. He is either our franchise guy or he isnt. Does Jackson make this team better? YES, I know some of you think not but Jackson's team mates seem to think so. It could backfire on him if he wants to be the highest paid rb but didnt Mcfadden who hasnt played 1 down in the NFL just get a rediculous contract? The agents are to blame too, the more they get out of the teams the better their cut. Does Jackson deserve less than Mcfadden??? The agnet sees all of this and gets in Jackson ear about how much the rookies getting and how he should get more than that blah blah blah. It's not all on Jackson.

Seriously, if Jackson had reported to camp and then negotiations failed and he walked out, I would have more empathy for him. As for McFadden- just because Al Davis is an idiot- doesn't mean every other NFL team should suffer for it. .As for the agent, yeah, they're snakes, but Jackson is a grown man. Hines Ward had this tool as an agent and told him to get it done and he did.

[r8rh8rmike]

As for McFadden- just because Al Davis is an idiot- doesn't mean every other NFL team should suffer for it.

Maybe they shouldn't, but they will. Unfortunately, that's the reality.

[theodus69]

Well than I find it strange for anyone with a contract to holdout . If the contract was legit and the money and other things offered were fair, This dude can kiss it and move on. I can go on about performance of the line and whatnot , but certain players have the simpathy of most on here , when the same situ happened to others but they were in the wrong. these boneheads make alot of money and we sit here and debate this crap. Have a love for the game and shut up and play!!!!!!!!!!!! If Jackson were gone tomorrow the guy from Rutgers would do just fine!!!

[HUbison]

I'd be annoyed at Jackson if he made a habit of this kind of thing. But as long as I've been a Ram fan, it's been my experience that the front office has been the bad guys in these situations.

Message to that front office:

The way I see it is, if he deserves the money then give it to him. And stop it with the SLAVE-owner mentality.

If he doesn't, put him on the trading block and see if you can make this one work like the Dickerson one didn't. Either way it's time to move forward.

Nor am I a fan of the front office. They seem to have made their share of bonehead moves. But in this case, I think we need to define, or at least quantify, "deserve".

How much does he "deserve"? Isn't that where this whole situation breaks down? The FO (let's assume in good faith) believes SJ deserves "X" dollars. But SJ/Parker (same assumption) believes SJ deserves "X+2" dollars. Now, we're in a situation where both sides honestly are willing to accept the deserved amount; but both sides also believe the other party is being unreasonable.

How do you rectify? Negotiations, of course. Maybe SJ takes "less than" what he deserves and signs for X+1. Maybe the FO is willing to offer "more than" what SJ deserves and signs for X+1.

But until SJ shows up to work (aka: terminates his voluntary breach of contract status), we may never know what both sides believe he "deserves".