What's a fair deal for Steven Jackson?

I have been crunching a lot of numbers trying to figure out what a fair deal for Steven Jackson would amount to. One thing I understand for sure is that it takes a long time to figure out a fair deal.

Jackson no doubt wants to be paid at least in line with his NFL running back peers.
Some of the big RB contracts of recent years:

LaDainian Tomlinson (2004): 8 years, $60 million. He'll be 33 when it runs out.
Larry Johnson (2007): 6 years, $45 million. Also 33 at end of contract.
Reggie Bush (2006): 6 years, $62 million. Rookie contract.
Adrian Peterson (2007): 6 years, $40.5 million. Rookie contract.
Darren McFadden (2008): 6 years, $60 million. Rookie contract.
Shaun Alexander (2006): 8 years, $62 million. Contract would have gone on until he was 37, but he was cut.

Let's mention here that Jackson has been a terrific bargain so far in NFL terms. The contract he's not honoring right now was for $7 million -total- over 5 years. I read that this weekend and thought it was a misprint. You mean it wasn't, like, $27 million? The Rams have gotten excellent productivity out of their investment in Jackson so far.

Now, you or I or Jay Zygmunt could offer Jackson $8 million a year, call him one of the NFL's highest-paid RBs, and leave it at that. That wouldn't be completely honest, though, because the salary cap has gone up a lot since LT got his megadeal. So let's real quickly pro-rate those peer contracts:

Tomlinson: $87M for 8 ($11M a year)
Johnson: $48M for 6 ($8M)
Bush: $71M for 6 ($12M)
Peterson: $43M for 6 ($7M)
McFadden: $60M for 6 ($10M)
Alexander: $71M for 8 ($9M)

For argument's sake, I'm throwing out the rookie contracts at this point, while taking care not to blame Jackson for asking why he shouldn't get paid more than Reggie Bush. The veterans are more valid comparisons.

Let's see where they all stood statistically prior to signing their current contracts, compared to where Jackson is now (numbers approximate):

Jackson 2006-8: 43 games, 3576 yards, 4.27 a carry, 26 TDs rushing, 837 carries
171 rec, 1397 yards, 8.2 a catch, 6 TDs receiving + 1 passing TD

LT 2001-2003: 48 games, 4564 yards, 4.46 a carry, 37 TDs rushing, 1020 carries
238 rec, 1581 yards, 6.64 a catch, 5 TDs receiving + 1 passing TD

LJ 2005-2006: 32 games, 3539 yards, 4.83 a carry, 37 TDs rushing, 752 carries
74 rec, 753 yards, 10.2 a catch, 3 TDs receiving

SA 2003-2005: 48 games, 5011 yards, 4.78 a carry, 57 TDs rushing, 1050 carries
80 rec, 545 yards, 6.8 a catch, 7 TDs receiving

Except in the very glaring deficit in TDs, Jackson compares well to all three of these superstar RBs. I have him at 4.93 yards a touch. LT's at 4.88. Johnson's at 5.2, Alexander 4.9.

There are some things to note. Johnson in two years was pretty equal to what Jackson's done the last three. Alexander had FIVE excellent seasons prior to his megadeal, with no missed games. Tomlinson signed his deal very early in his career; he's been ringing up numbers like this, or, as in 2006, outrageously better, for seven years.

But it's also worth noting that except for 2006, Jackson's never really been the centerpiece of his offense the way the other three have. And in 2006, he had one of the best combined-yardage seasons in NFL history. He's hardly ever been the focus of a run-oriented offense in his career, especially near the goal line, where you could argue Tomlinson, Alexander and Johnson were their team's only scoring weapons.

If you're Steven Jackson, you're going to say you're at least as good as LaDainian Tomlinson, and that's how you should be paid. I'd say that's wrong. LaDainian's more durable, faster, a better runner, a better receiver, a better scorer. He's a more proven commodity. He's an automatic Pro Bowler. Jackson hasn't been.

I feel Jackson compares very well to Alexander and Johnson, though. He's a more versatile receiver, has produced as well even though he hasn't gotten to play in a run-oriented offense as much, and isn't basically his team's only scoring weapon.

I'd actually call $9 million a fair deal for Jackson on an annual basis, though his relative youth merits more, and I'd be willing to pay a little more a year now to get a shorter contract. I wouldn't doubt that Jackson would be after as much as eight years; that's what Tomlinson and Alexander got. Jackson is 25 now; such a contract would run out when he's 33, same deal Tomlinson and Johnson got. Of course, we saw what happened to Johnson and Alexander right after they got their big contracts, and Jackson's already shown durability issues in his career so far. An eight-year offer to Jackson would be a crazy one, even in the beyond-the-looking-glass world of sports, though 8 years for $70-75 mil would probably qualify as a coup for the Rams.

7 years, $65-66 million sounds like solid middle ground, and I'm considering that the fair offer when determining who the "bad guy" is in the Jackson negotiations. The Rams don't "have" to pay that. They can always franchise Jackson for about $7 mil and draft a rookie. Right now, that's sounding like the McFadden plan for the 2008 draft suggested, and Jackson's making that idea look good with his holdout.

There's no question that Jackson is the "bad guy" in negotiations right now because of that holdout, so I'd urge him once again to get his ass in camp.