Should Daniel Jones Sacrifice Money In The Name Of Lamar Jackson?

Videos by OutKick

Should Daniel Jones have sacrificed his salary in the name of Lamar Jackson?

The media seems to think so.

Their situations are not comparable.

Jackson turned down an offer from the Ravens for $133 million guaranteed over three years, according to himself. Jones signed a contract with the Giants for $82 million guaranteed over the first two years of the deal.

Yet the media has set out on a quest to use their current deals to prove Daniel Jones is privileged and Lamar Jackson is a victim.

A podcast host called Ashley Nicole Moss went viral for the following tweet:

Moss doesn’t quite understand how contracts work. Plus, Moss’ numbers are not correct.

Again, Jones signed for $82 million. Not $104 million guaranteed. Jackson turned down a deal for $133 million guaranteed.

I know, facts are inconvenient. As is math.

But the lady’s tweet is no less dishonest than those sent by Ryan Clark and Robert Griffin III, an ESPN duo far from the most intelligent.

“We live in a world where Daniel Jones’ current salary is higher than Lamar Jackson’s,” tweeted cry-bully Ryan Clark.

Clark wants his followers to think the NFL is favoring Jones over Jackson. He suggests Jones received a higher offer.

Then came former backup QB, RGIII, with a tweet besmirching Jones’ career in an attempt to assist Jackson in his negotiations.

Similar tweets continue to trend.

The process is quite simple. It’s hardly novel:

The media compares an average white athlete to an above-average black athlete, eliminates context, and asks consumers to pretend white privilege is at play.

Comparisons of Jones and Jackson are the definition of a race-bait.

Daniel Jones’ deal has nothing to do with Lamar Jackson’s negotiations. They are different players. The only similarity is their respective teams offered them fair-values deals for their skills.

Jones accepted his. Jackson rejected his.

That is not on Daniel Jones.

Thereby belittling Jones in comparison to Jackson is quite unnecessary. It’s a baseless comparison between two unrelated individuals to make the latter look better.

Shall we randomly compare RGIII and Clark’s broadcasting skills to Colin Cowherd’s to help in Cowherd’s next negotiations?

The market never argued Jones is more valuable than Jackson. There has never been a debate between the two.

As NFL insider Ian Rapoport explains:

“[The Ravens] are trying. … believe me, if Lamar Jackson would take the deal the Ravens have offered, he would make far more than $40 million [per year Jones makes].”

Translation: Lamar Jackson, not the league, is why Daniel Jones currently makes more than he does.

By the way, Jones also makes more than Joe Burrow and Justin Herbert. Kyler Murray makes more than Josh Allen.


Timing dictates terms.

Jackson wants a fully guaranteed contract despite missing 35 percent of games the past two seasons and regressing to the second least accurate passer in the league.

The Ravens say they’ll promise him that but for only three years. He wants longer.

That’s not proof of racism, as former players claim. That’s business. And slandering Daniel Jones’ name won’t force teams to compromise.

Daniel Jones is not privileged. He signed a deal that his skill set and durability warranted.

Lamar Jackson is not a victim. He rejected a deal that his skillset and injury history warranted.

Was Daniel Jones supposed to wait and sign his deal after Lamar Jackson? Because the media is crucifying him for not.

Written by Bobby Burack

Bobby Burack is a writer for OutKick where he reports and analyzes the latest topics in media, culture, sports, and politics..

Burack has become a prominent voice in media and has been featured on several shows across OutKick and industry related podcasts and radio stations.

Leave a Reply