Eagles Give Jalen Hurts $255-Million Extension
NFL Offseason - The Eagles have locked in the quarterback position, handing Jalen Hurts a five-year, $255-million extension which includes $179.3 million guaranteed. Hurts is now the highest-paid player in NFL history, at least temporarily. Remember: get your quarterback on the big second contract before another team has to get its quarterback on a big second contract, because whoever goes last pays the most. Joe Burrow, white courtesy phone.
Hurts is now No. 1 all-time in average annual value. He is second in total cash behind Patrick Mahomes' 10-year, $450-million extension from 2020, and he is second in guaranteed money behind the Deshaun Watson deal.
Hurts has improved as a passer pretty much every year he's been in organized football, including going from -17.6% pass DVOA in 2020 to -0.3% in 2021 and then 10.6% in 2022. Of course, he also brings a ton of rushing value, finishing first in rushing DYAR among quarterbacks in 2021 and fifth in 2022.
Comments
88 comments, Last at 07 May 2023, 2:12pm
#1 by theslothook // Apr 17, 2023 - 11:45am
Let me start by saying I'm happy he got paid and his journey definitely had that scrappy had to prove himself to be given a chance angle to it.
However, I am one of those people who has a hard time feeling good paying a guy for one really good season. I have been consistent on this view going back to the time of Josh Allen's contract.
Revisiting Tanier's math, Hurts is still a bit of an unknown and thus we enter the world of probabilities. The thing is, with a contract like this, Hurts is being paid like a Tier 1 or Tier 2 player, but if he doesn't stay at that level, he will be viewed as a financial neckweight a la Kirk Cousins or in the more calamitous scenario, Russell Wilson.
Maybe delaying would have turned the Hurts situation into a version of the Lamar Jackson situation; so it's all moot but I would have preferred to wait a year and have more evidence to confirm what Hurts is.
Other fun angles. Will this contract be outdone by Burrow and Herbert? Does this do anything to change Lamar's mind(I doubt it)?
#7 by serutan // Apr 17, 2023 - 1:47pm
I agree there is a risk, but at least Hurts has shown consistent improvement, so instead of going sucks, sucks, good-to-great (definitely risky), he went sucks, replacement, good (IMO much less risky).
Also, with a QB you have to balance "pay him now" vs. "pay him later". "Later" runs the risk of being much more expensive if he has a really good season next year. "Now" also has the benefit of keeping acrimony out of the equation at least for a while.
#8 by theslothook // Apr 17, 2023 - 1:50pm
Ya I agree, his growth has been linear. But that was also true about Goff too.
As to your second point, it definitely makes me curious how much extra money it would cost if he had a great year vs the contract he just got. Also, if he has just an ok year, do the Eagles still have to overpay or does he now come as a discount? I guess an agent would need to answer this question. But yes, the acrimony is a real risk in these equations; kind of why I said it might be moot.
#13 by theslothook // Apr 17, 2023 - 2:52pm
Jared Goff finished 4th in DVOA on a substantially worse team while Jalen hurts finished 10th in DVOA on a substantially better team. Yes, I know this omits all of the rushing value Jalen hurts brings, but for the moment let's just consider the facts I laid out above.
If the headline of this article read that the Lions had handed this contract to Jared Goff, absolutely everybody would be losing their minds.
My point is less about these two particular players and more about the price tag given what we know and don't know about the player involved.
#15 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 17, 2023 - 3:24pm
Jared Goff finished 4th in DVOA on a substantially worse team while Jalen hurts finished 10th in DVOA on a substantially better team. Yes, I know this omits all of the rushing value Jalen hurts brings, but for the moment let's just consider the facts I laid out above.
The Lions, as a team, were a mediocre whole formed from a great offense and a terrible defense.
The Eagles, as a whole, were a great whole formed from a great offense and a great defense.
Goff is a barometer for the surrounding offense. He executes good systems really well. He executes poor systems really poorly. He does not appear to stir the drink in the way Hurts does.
I like Goff. I think he's fine. I would attach the postage myself if given the opportunity to send him in and get Hurts in return.
#17 by theslothook // Apr 17, 2023 - 3:47pm
I like Goff. I think he's fine. I would attach the postage myself if given the opportunity to send him in and get Hurts in return.I like Goff. I think he's fine. I would attach the postage myself if given the opportunity to send him in and get Hurts in return.
Here's my problem. Would you do it for Russell Wilson? Would you do it for Deshawn Watson? Would you do it for Kyler Murray pre-acl tear? I bet a year ago the answer was a resounding yes to all three. Also a year ago, Geno Smith was a less than an afterthought. And look no further than Baker Mayfield and how his reputation has changed one year later. And I have maintained, Lamar the MVP gets the fully guaranteed contract; albeit grudgingly. Successive seasons have suggested that that level of play is probably not to be expected. Things change quite rapidly in the NFL and what you think you know can turn out to be completely different.
This is my basic point with Hurts. Tanier's math still holds. I am not predicting he will be bad anymore than I am predicting he will be a Hall of famer. His future is still murky, only now he's being paid like an inner sanctum QB.
#18 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 17, 2023 - 5:41pm
Would you do it for Russell Wilson? Would you do it for Deshawn Watson? Would you do it for Kyler Murray pre-acl tear?
For Goff?
Not Wilson or Watson. (I've long been critical of Wilson) Certainly not at Watson's contract.
Maybe Kyler, but Kyler had a shaky rep coming into this past season.
Goff is a fine QB for a rebuilding team that wants to know what it has as much as its trying to win. Goff tells you that just fine, and he's not too expensive. The Lions are fine with a low-maintenance, middle-class QB. They need a reliable daily driver, not a low-riding hot rod that's a garage queen.
#43 by TecmoBoso // Apr 18, 2023 - 2:06pm
I don't think the Eagles saved themselves all that much if Hurts is a top 5 QB again -- they're paying him to be a top 5 QB with this deal. There's much more downside risk than upside here -- though you have to wonder the Eagles wanted the contract certainty considering their cap situation, thus doing this now rather than waiting a year.
I also wonder if he runs less now, and if so, how much does that impact his value.
#11 by Oncorhynchus // Apr 17, 2023 - 2:34pm
Yeah, that's Dak Prescott logic right there. All you do is wind up paying more with less flexibility and in the end you really don't reduce your uncertainty that much. By extending him now, the Eagles can bring some of the cost forward a year (with a signing bonus) so the contract is cheaper on an annual basis. It's also cheaper overall because, he's only going be the highest paid player for a matter of months if not weeks.
The alternative is to let him play one more year at $4M. At which point he is a free agent. If he passes your test by having another stellar year, then he has absolutely all the leverage in negotiations at that point. You can franchise tag him, sure, but then what?
Life is filled with uncertainty. Sometime you just gotta take a chance.
#27 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 5:21am
The alternative is to let him play one more year at $4M. At which point he is a free agent. If he passes your test by having another stellar year, then he has absolutely all the leverage in negotiations at that point. You can franchise tag him, sure, but then what?
Pat says that teams don't overpay much above franchise tag value. So a team can go twice with the franchise tag. Only then does the player get leverage. L. Jackson is in this situation and doesn't have much leverage.
Note: i am not arguing one way or another here. I just point out that the same way of thinking should be applied to Hurts' and Jackson's contract.
#28 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 18, 2023 - 9:05am
Pat says that teams don't overpay much above franchise tag value. So a team can go twice with the franchise tag. Only then does the player get leverage.
Contract leverage. But an in-demand QB who is pissed off at the team who franchised them can crater a franchise for years, all by themselves.
#25 by The Powers That Be // Apr 17, 2023 - 9:49pm
"It's about data points. I would like to see multiple years of really good play to be more convinced about a player's true value before I pay the person."
Sure. And I'd like to have a pony. You don't have that option. Hurts is the guy you have, and his performance is the performance. You either take the risk of signing him now or you take the risk of losing him and getting back on the QB treadmill, or having to pay much more later. You want to have Mahomes, but that's not who the Eagles have.
#86 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 20, 2023 - 2:12pm
Such a weird thing to be against since, uh, the Eagles got out of the Wentz contract, pretty fine.
Meanwhile you wait and then your team starts to hate your QB (Dallas) when he does sign long term.
And of this with obvious others (plural!) about to be paid too. Eagles got out in front, rightfully.
#6 by LondonMonarch // Apr 17, 2023 - 1:39pm
Not really - isn't it just saying that (as in any job recruitment process) the prime person you would want to pay top dollar is someone who has a sustained period of strong performance, but also has the youth/enthusiasm to sustain or even improve that performance in future?
#29 by dryheat // Apr 18, 2023 - 9:06am
Well said. History is important, because it lets you know a prospective employee can do the job. However, as an employer, you don't want to pay him based on what he's done in the past, if you have reason to believe that's as productive if he/she will ever be, and not likely to get there again.
I suppose it's the HR version of being wary of buying high.
After a quick re-read, I want to emphasize that by buying high, I'm not talking about 4 AM QVC purchases.
#4 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 17, 2023 - 12:19pm
Without the 5th year option, the Hurts situation would have turned into a franchise tag situation next offseason. It doesn't look like Philly got much of a discount for jumping early, but it looks clear that the Bills and Chiefs have.
#5 by GwillyGecko // Apr 17, 2023 - 1:23pm
Indeed, the Bills and the Chiefs are making out very well with their QB contracts. Can't say I like the Hurts deal for the Eagles; like others have said I would have held off and waited until next year to resign Hurts.
#9 by mrh // Apr 17, 2023 - 1:52pm
I’m sure the Eagles would have liked to hold off too. But their options were:
now:
sign Hurts to this contract
let LAC or CIN go first and probably have to pay more
wait:
pay even more if Hurts has another good year, plus whatever the escalator is to keep up with the Burrow/Herbert contact(s)
pay less for a bad year but still have to account inflation in other contracts
I think the risk in paying now is worth the probably cheaper deal they got by going first. Not to mention avoiding any contract drama
#26 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 4:54am
Isn't there a risk that Hurts gets injured next year? He was injured this year, he runs a lot... he might get injured next year, miss a lot of games, have worse stats... his style is similar to Jackson. This is the reasoning why majority of commenters here think Jackson is too big of a risk.
Maybe Hurts settles around being a 5-10% DVOA player, maybe he makes another jump. Eagles are taking a risk and i understand why they do it.
#10 by carlosla // Apr 17, 2023 - 2:25pm
Easy to criticize whatever the latest QB contract is, when it is signed.
I’ll put my marker here on the table. This contract will look good 1 year from now.
Future media rights for the NFL continue to skyrocket. The cap will continue to rise pretty dramatically. Nothing is happening at the league level to make QB *less* important. You find yourself a very good young QB, and you sign that QB to what looks like a slightly-above market contract… you’ve done a great job.
And to all the clubs out there that complain in one way or another that you can only find a franchise QB at the top of the draft, say Hello to my little friend Jalen Hurts! 4th in QBR, 5th in ANY/A. Not shabby.
#20 by jackiel // Apr 17, 2023 - 5:59pm
I agree. No matter how you slice it, getting an MVP candidate for less guaranteed money than Kyler Murray is a win.
I think that it goes back to the stubbornness and political nature of NFL decision makers and coaches. Taking a guy at the top of the draft shows that you're committed to the QB position. It also buys the regime time since you're going to give a top draft pick time to prove whether or not he can play. Coaches presumably don't have to tweak their schemes as much since you're drafting a guy that high precisely because he has all of the tools. On the flip side, throughout his collegiate and NFL career, Hurts has only thrived in 1 scheme. So coaches have to adapt to his skill set. Not all of them can/want to.
#19 by jackiel // Apr 17, 2023 - 5:51pm
I don't understand why people treat Washington letting Cousins go as a mistake. Where exactly was Washington going with Cousins? Why would you want to pay him top 5 QB money when he's decidedly not that? Minnesota gave him a fully guaranteed contract because they thought that they were close to a SB and a solid QB was the missing piece. How has that worked out for them? They can't get rid of him even though they want to.
On the scale of Snyder-era mistakes, letting Cousins go doesn't even make the top 50% IMO.
#21 by theslothook // Apr 17, 2023 - 6:06pm
Because the Commanders have one playoff appearance since letting Kirk walk and they did that after finishing 7-9, including a win over a tanking Eagles team. In the process, 1 coach was fired after being summoned to the office at 5am. And now Ron Rivera is one non-winning season away from probably getting fired as well.
Meanwhile, you can laugh at the Vikings and Kirk cousins all you want, but they've made the playoffs twice and have gotten to the divisional round.
Also think about what kind of team the commanders have. They have talent on their defense and a really good receiver in Terry McClurin and yet none of it matters because their quarterbacks have been absolutely horrible.
#22 by jackiel // Apr 17, 2023 - 8:58pm
A few things. Much of that talent was acquired after Cousins left. Also, Washington was only in the predicament in the first place because the owner ordered the team to draft RG3 against the coaching staff's wishes. Similarly, the owner ordered the team to draft Haskins against the coaching staff's wishes, which wasn't good for progress on the QB front. The owner also likes to meddle in coaching decisions and has run off has some good ones (Schottenheimer, Shanahan, etc.) You are aware that a good chunk of the Shanahan-era Washington offensive staff are currently HCs in the NFL, right? Currently, the owner seems to be unable to hold Rivera - a coach who has not had a winning season that didn't involve Cam Newtown - accountable. He's allowed Rivera to keep on Scott Turner as OC 1-2 years after it was obvious that he's just not good at the job. I can go on and on...
#33 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 18, 2023 - 10:49am
I've always thought this was an interesting shift in mentality from NFL fans. Griffin himself said he wanted to play and had to be overruled by the Shanahans to sit earlier in the year. And he wasn't hurt playing in some stupid preseason game or meaningless week 17 tilt, it was the 4th Quarter of a home playoff game. We were like 2 years removed from Jay Cutler getting dragged over rocks for coming out of the NFC title game with a knee injury, on turf that is also pretty rough.
#35 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 18, 2023 - 11:36am
Shanahan had lied about the severity of RG3s injuries all through the season, and was criticized for it even at the time. (A trait consistent with much of his coaching tree)
https://slate.com/culture/2013/01/rg3-knee-injury-what-a-shock-the-redskins-let-their-star-quarterback-play-through-a-wounded-knee.html
But it was just RG3 playing hurt -- it was putting him out there on the gopher-holed mess Snyder called a field. The Bears play on crap, too, but they can at least blame the city of Chicago, who owns it. Snyder has no excuse.
#63 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 18, 2023 - 6:31pm
That's my point though. Lying about injuries and players gutting through it was previously the norm. Unless the guy had a severe head injury, it wasn't even frowned upon in most cases.
RG3 was the first time a superstar player had a non-head injury, told the coaches he was good to go, and got hurt in a meaningful situation and the fans got upset about it rather than considering it the cost of doing business. It was a huge change.
#34 by bravehoptoad // Apr 18, 2023 - 11:10am
And it's not a shabby bunch of mediocre HCs, either, that were all together in that Washington building. Mike Shanahan, Sean McVay, and Mike LaFleur have all gone deep into the playoffs in recent years, and Mike McDaniel actually made Miami relevant in his first year.
#40 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 12:59pm
Redskins DVOA with Cousins and Commanders without Cousins is very, very similar. In both cases it is usually in -1% to -10% range with low points in both cases below -26%. There is only one high point: in 2016 8% DVOA. In 2017 they were average again. In both cases they are mostly in 7-9 wins range.
This isn't much, playoff appearance or not. If Cousins and his contract is on the team now, some other player(s) isn't. There is no evidence that Cousins was such a big difference maker. Thus, i agree with jackiel on this.
This is actually a good case that points out people might be overvaluing QBs importance.
#42 by theslothook // Apr 18, 2023 - 1:29pm
Cousins had 3 full seasons as a starter in Washington. He was 7th, 3rd, and 16th in DVOA. He's been mostly the same in Minnesota, waffling between 5 and 16th in DVOA; basically the hallmark of a Tier 3 QB.
Since letting Kirk walk, Washington has finished, 28th, 29th, 32nd, 22nd, and 26th in Pass Offense. I am not going to do the math, but I suspect that is the worst result for any team in the league over the last 5 years.
I don't yet know where I fall on this spectrum. Kirk is overpaid and paying a QB like Kirk something like 30% of the salary cap probably traps a team in mediocrity unless they absolutely nail the draft. However; letting them walk can result in exactly what has happened with the Commanders so far. Basically dead on arrival every year.
#44 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 2:14pm
So, without Cousins they are worse at pass offense and better at other aspects. In the end their total DVOA is very similar. I checked just total team DVOA. Only this matters in my opinion.
Cousins is a solid QB and paid as such on per year basis (now). A few years ago he was overpaid. Now younger QBs are paid higher than him.
Cousins had McVay and Gruden with Redskins. Recently they have worse OCs. That may have contributed to bad pass offense. Notice that Cousins was 18th in DVOA without McVay and 5th and 6th with him on Redskins. (You have listed Cousins' DYAR)
#46 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 18, 2023 - 2:52pm
Washington had an opportunity to get Cousins for around $20M/yr -- about 2/3rds what he makes now. But they low-balled him, then pissed him off, then watched him leave.
It's hard to say whether or not he'd have been better off staying -- Washington is a mess. I doubt they win anything of note even with a much cheaper Cousins.
#49 by theslothook // Apr 18, 2023 - 3:14pm
Anything of notes seems to be limited to, won the super Bowl or appeared in the super Bowl maybe and that's it.
If that's the criteria, then there are only five or six quarterbacks worth paying.
I don't like that standard even if it's how the media prefers to cover it.
Let's revisit the Lions with Matthew Stafford, who probably experienced a mean result with one of these tier three quarterbacks. Meaning a number of playoff games but overall not much to show for it in biggest picture sense. Should the Lions have traded Stafford once it became clear what he was?
#56 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 18, 2023 - 4:43pm
Should the Lions have traded Stafford once it became clear what he was?
In order to accomplish what?
Stafford was good enough to win a Super Bowl. That's all you can ask. He wasn't the GM; he didn't assembly the team around him. He was really good for a lot of years for a franchise that didn't deserve his loyalty. Unlike Barry and Megatron and Herman Moore, he got out in time.
#62 by Oncorhynchus // Apr 18, 2023 - 6:20pm
Here is a semi-random sample of QBs who were "good enough to win a Super Bowl."
- Matt Stafford
- Nick Foles
- The ghost of Peyton Manning
- A short dude on a rookie contract
- Joe Flacco
- Eli Manning
You won't believe the list of dudes who were "good enough to almost win a Super Bowl." My all time favorite final four: Blake Bortles, Nick Foles, Case Keenum, and, .... some other guy who I can't remember at the moment.
#82 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 20, 2023 - 11:30am
Stafford was brought in to be able to win games after the surrounding circumstances broke down. Which is what he did, when the Rams needed a TD-or-go-home drive late in the 4th quarter with one healthy eligible receiver.
I like Goff. I think he's a good QB. Goff doesn't convert that drive.
#84 by Oncorhynchus // Apr 20, 2023 - 11:49am
Yeah, I disagree. Ben Baldwin had a hilarious running thread last season comparing Goff and Stafford in terms of EPA vs pass block grade for the offensive line. https://twitter.com/benbbaldwin/status/1613188274687729664/photo/1
They're the same.
Circumstance broke down hard last year for the Rams. So did Matt Stafford.
Don't get me wrong, I like Matt Stafford too. But the difference between the two is not large, and it's probably more a matter of style than substance.
#87 by guest from Europe // Apr 22, 2023 - 1:39am
Some context should be added to that Baldwin's comparison. Goff had higher EPA in 2017 and 2018 with Gurley running and play-action passes. In 2020 Rams pass block grade is similar, but his EPA lower. Maybe because run game and play-action weren't that effective anymore.
Stafford has higher EPA on some bad Lions teams in 2019 and 2020. There was Golladay on those teams and some ??
Stafford might be aging now and his efficiency is going down.
#51 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 3:59pm
It appears you are letting your dislike for Snyder clouding your judgement. This is now around 0% DVOA team with bad pass offense (similar to Patriots).
If you put a cheap Cousins on them, they climb to the level of Patriots with rookie M. Jones and McDaniels if not higher. And that was a good team in 2021. 4th in the league by total DVOA.
#55 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 18, 2023 - 4:42pm
You are assuming the Redskins have the functional competence of the Patriots. Belichick is losing his fastball, but it's not like Gibbs is still running things, either. They would have squandered hypothetical Cousins in some manner, just like they squandered actual RG3 and actual Cousins. It just would have looked different.
#68 by guest from Europe // Apr 19, 2023 - 2:55am
My thought was that this Commanders team is in -2% to -10% DVOA range for the last 3 years. Their weakness is in the pass offense. They have 2 very good WRs. If you add on paper some above average QB, pass offense will improve, there will be more balance between offense and defense and more synergy and it "will be more than the sum of it parts". The same applies to a team like 2022 Jets.
Or teams like 2022 Giants and 2022 Lions. Good offense and bad defense. If they improve whatever weakness in defense is, those teams will be better.
Cousins doesn't miss games, isn't afraid to take hits, doesn't need a great o-line. With Diggs and Thielen he was good. Commanders have such WRs. If you put some cheap cousins (this was your hypothetical) on this team, maybe they are 2019 Vikings-level or something like that.
#23 by carlosla // Apr 17, 2023 - 9:21pm
I read the post you’re responding to differently. It’s not arguing that “letting Cousins go [was] a mistake.”
I think it’s arguing that you want to sign a promising young QB to a medium or long term deal, vs going the Franchise, Franchise, route.
You don’t have to think that Cousins qualified as a “promising young QB” for the argument to be valid.
I’d go even further. Your choice is either sign the promising young QB to a multi year deal or do the Cousins thing. The Cousins thing supposedly has lower downside, but I really don’t agree. The list of teams stuck paying for what turned out to be terrible QB contracts is astonishingly short. I’m sure you’ll think of one, but there always seem to be at least one willing trade partner that thinks they can make good on that mistake of a contract. Wentz. Foles. Goff. All those worked out fine for the team that signed the original contract that turned out to be a mistake.
Are there counter-examples?
#30 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 18, 2023 - 9:09am
I don't understand why people treat Washington letting Cousins go as a mistake.
Oh, that was just the cherry on top of the sundae.
They had two chances to lock him up long-term for much less than he got from Washington or that he's getting now. But Washington is a clown-show run by a sloppy grifter, so they screwed it up on both ends. After (openly!) betting against Cousins twice, and losing, they finally offered the long-term contract. At which point Cousins told them where they could stick it, and they've been desperately scrambling for a new Cousins since.
Mind you, DC drafted RG3 and Cousins in the same draft, and drove both guys out. That's breathtaking in its stupidity.
#48 by jackiel // Apr 18, 2023 - 3:07pm
That's my point. The only reason why RG3 and Cousins were on the same roster to begin with is because of an internal disagreement among the owner, the GM, and the coaching staff. That's the kind of mistake that Snyder has made time and time again throughout his reign.
I really don't think Washington was sad to let Cousins go (teams aren't above offering contracts to players that they know are likely to be declined for PR purposes) and, as others have stated, the team's performance hasn't suffered very much from his absence. The whole point of the franchise tag is that team doesn't get caught with a millstone on their books after the player is no longer wanted. There is value to extracting as much value as possible out of a player before you have to commit to him long term. I also think that things may have turned out differently for Washington if Smith hadn't suffered a catastrophic injury.
#58 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 18, 2023 - 4:49pm
Washington wasn't sad to see Cousins go, because they had been backdoor trying to get rid of him for five years.
In terms of millstone -- they basically hired Alex Smith for more than what they offered Cousins, only to watch their offense collapse into one of the worst in the league (where they now remain) -- basically entirely squandering the recovery of their defense, which was putrid during much of Cousins' run. (And that wasn't due to his contract; they were if anything worse when he was on his rookie deal)
#37 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 11:57am
I would like to say that everything theslothook is writing is consistently argued. It's better to have more years of data than less years. That is irrefutable. To get more data might cost teams more in future money or they might do what the Ravens are doing now.
#38 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 12:20pm
The downside to this contract is if Hurts becomes another Murray or Watson performance-wise. Then Eagles have paid for a career-year.
The upside is if he becomes next J. Allen and then he is a 19% more expensive J. Allen.
This is the current "QB market". The contracts will just grow.
#39 by theslothook // Apr 18, 2023 - 12:47pm
Credit Pat for mentioning this loudly, but QB contracts are outpacing the growth in salary cap. So by the math; projecting this out will eventually converge to QBs consuming 99.9% of the cap, with the rest being filled by minimum contracts. Obviously, even in the extreme case, that's not going to happen as I suspect the NFL and the NFLPA will introduce a max contract before that happens.
But even still; where is the tipping point and what is the number where it is truly better to ditch the QB and go for a mid salary vet instead? Hurts is making north of 50 million per. Even if the Eagles front load the contract, or in the case of Mahomes, backload it and then extend him to a more palatable figure; there is a number where paying the QB becomes prohibitively too expensive UNLESS he is Patrick Mahomes. We have yet to see what this current level of Hurts looks like on a bad team. I wonder what sacrifices a team will have to make when the QB starts consuming north of 35 percent of the cap.
#41 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 1:18pm
When i wrote that contracts for D. Jones and G. Smith are too expensive, there was a lot of "it's a good value" response. Rodgers might be worth such a contract, and no team but the Jets want him. This is something for you economists to discuss. The total cap will grow.
New contracts for Burrow and Herbert are coming soon.
I thought that the first $100M contracts (in 2011) for Brees and Rodgers were too high. Maybe someone can analyze how did such contracts work out for the teams in the last decade (Brees, E. Manning, Ryan, Newton, Rivers, Stafford, Flaccco and so on)
#50 by Oncorhynchus // Apr 18, 2023 - 3:59pm
So by the math; projecting this out will eventually converge to QBs consuming 99.9% of the cap, with the rest being filled by minimum contract.
See Kids, this is why you don't do statistics at home without the proper safety equipment. You can really hurt yourself or somebody you love.
Salary cap for the years 2014-2023: 133M, 143M, 155M, 167M, 177M, 188M, 198M, 182M (2021 COVID drop), 208M, 224M
QB franchise tag for those same years: 16.9M, 18.5M, 20M, 21.3M, 23.2M, 24.9M, 26.8M, 25.1M, 29.7M, 32.4M
QB franchise tag cap percent: 12.7%, 12.9% ,12.9%, 12.7%, 13.1%, 13.2%, 13.5%, 13.8%, 14.3%, 14.5%
So it increased by 2% percentage points over 10 years. Or maybe you'll argue that it's only really started to increase over, say, the last 5 years. So let's call it generously at roughly a third of a percent each year. "Projecting this out" means that we'll see QBs taking up 95% of the cap by 2264. We'll hit 35% by 2084. It's going to be real interesting to see how the Miami Dolphins afford any wide receivers when they're paying their QB 35% of the cap. Especially considering that by that point the Miami Dolphins will have to be actually god damn dolphins if they're still playing football in Miami.
But projecting this out is wrong for a variety of reasons. For one: it ignore the history of the league, such as the dominance of an old guard of QBs who have only lately left the scene. There's just weren't a lot of new QB contracts for a big chunk of time Tom Brady is also a huge outlier in the statistics because he averaged only around 10% of the cap. (Hot tip for GMs, look for a franchise QB who marries into money.)
It also ignores changing trends in the offense. Here's the cap percent hits for a RB franchise tag over same time frame: 7.1% 7.7%, 7.6%, 7.2%, 6.7%, 5.9%, 5.2%, 4.8%, 4.6%, 4.5%
When you look at the numbers this way, it sort of makes sense to pay your running QB 15% of the cap - because he's already took the running back's god damn money! (Except for Geno Smith who took a LB's money with famous results.)
But even still; where is the tipping point and what is the number where it is truly better to ditch the QB and go for a mid salary vet instead?
There is no such number. The right answer is to sign a young franchise QB to a long contract earlier rather than later and pro-rate, pro-rate, pro-rate!
Jalen Hurts cap hits in 2023-2026: 6.1M, 13.6M, 21.8M, 31.8M
Daniel Jones cap percent hits in 2023-2026: 21M, 45M, 39.5M, 56.5M
Geno Smiths cap hits in 2023-2025: 10M, 31.2M, 33.7M
Derek Carr cap hits in 2023-2026: 7.2M, 35.7M, 45.7M, 55.7M
Jimmy Garoppolo cap hits in 2023-2025: 23.8M, 24.25M, 24.25M
To make this work, for a while it will look like Hurts has some absurd cap hit of like 80M in 2027 and 2028. So we'll come back here in five years and Pat will be like "They just canna do it, Cap'n!" But then (assuming Hurts truly is the franchise QB they expect) Howie will convert that salary to a bonus, pro-rate to the moon and re-sign him to another contract using another negative-interest loan.
You can absolutely afford good players while paying a franchise QB like he's a franchise QB. The secret is that you have to commit and commit early and you have to learn to love pro-rated contracts. The fact that so many people on this forum and on Twitter can't grok that is the reason why Howie will continue to run circles around the rest of the league.
#52 by guest from Europe // Apr 18, 2023 - 4:13pm
I would like to know your opinion of Murray's, Watson's and Prescott's contract and why Jackson got no contract or what you think what kind of contract he should get.
I think those 3 are comparable by style of play to Hurts, Watson not so much, but he has similar size of contract.
#54 by Oncorhynchus // Apr 18, 2023 - 4:41pm
I don't think you can really evaluate a QB contract without context. The Eagles have philosophy for roster construction. Hurts contracts meshes well with that. But I'll try.
The Cowboys should have signed Dak a year earlier and for a year longer. His contract looks like a good value now only because other QBs signed after him. He's a good QB. But the rest of the Cowboy's roster is a mess. They've been good over the last few years because they've gotten really lucky in the draft (and the draft is 90% about luck and 10% skill for every team). But for the Cowboys the cap is real. They're one of the prime reason why the RB franchise tag is as high as it is. They lost a top-tier WR (Amari Cooper) because he was "too expensive" - this just before WR contracts exploded in value.
Deshaun Watson is serial sexual predator. He has no place in the league or in my thoughts. No further comment.
Kyler Murray's contract I can be down with. I think the Cardinals were better signing him than waiting. He's a good tier-2 QB at least. He's easily among the top-4 QBs in the NFC. The ACL tear is just one of those things. Again I don't think you can evaluate a QB contract in a vacuum and the roster is also kind of a mess. Honestly, if I were the Cardinals, right now this year knowing what we know, I'd see if there a was a way t restructure the contract to pay him more this year. He's on tap for 20% of the cap next year (but obviously that can be turned into bonuses). This is already a lost year, just admit it. Trade Hopkins and Baker. Cut or trade Hollywood Brown. Give Kyler another 30M this year to play Call of Duty and take the cap hit now. Trade back in the draft for future 1st's. Come back in 2024.
#61 by theslothook // Apr 18, 2023 - 5:18pm
He's a good tier-2 QB at least. He's easily among the top-4 QBs in the NFC
The latter statement is damning with faint praise. The former statement there is no evidence for. Be it DVOA or DYAR, Murray has been average or below average every season except one; where he was top 10 but not a top 5 QB. Even if Murray didn't tear his ACL, I think a lot of people would looking at that contract as having real buyer's remorse potential. Think maybe the Cardinals should have waited before handing him that contract; even if the ACL tear never happens?
A poster above mentioned that Hurts' career has progressed linearly, so at least there's some comfort projecting that forward. Well, Murray also showed a linear career trajectory prior to this year when he massively backslid. I am not going to claim I saw this coming; but it serves as a nice reminder that such possibilities exist and are not all that unusual.
Furthermore, for all the hate Cousins and Goff have been getting; by statistics their career track records are superior to Murray and yet everyone seems to think they are horrible overpays.
#64 by Oncorhynchus // Apr 18, 2023 - 6:40pm
Don't be too hard on the little guy. Two times a year he's had to face a fearsome man eater who recently ranked 1st (2022), 5th (2021) in DVOA. Now I may not know much, but I know that numbers in a spreadsheet don't lie. The Arizona Cardinals would be lucky to have a QB as good as Jimmy Garoppolo. Too bad he's taken.
Hold on, my grannie's calling...
"Wait, what? You say Jimmy G was available to any takers. Not once, but twice? Granny, that can't be. DVOA is the god's honest truth. They'd be crazy to let him go."
"Wait, what? Case Keenum was once #1 by DVOA you say? Huh..."
"Wait, what? Trevor Lawrence and Tua Tagovailoa once went from bottom 10 to top 10 in DVOA with a coaching change?"
"Granny, did you take your medicine? You're talking crazy."
(I kind of agree on Goff though. I like him. Put him the top-4 NFC QBs: Hurts, Prescott, Goff, and Murray.)
#66 by Romodini // Apr 18, 2023 - 11:05pm
The Cowboys tried to extend Dak for one year longer, but he and his agent were simply unwilling.
The rest of the Cowboys' roster is a mess? Outside of the lack of a starting left guard (which will most likely be filled during the draft) and a question mark at kicker, the Cowboys have one of the best rosters in the league, top ten at least. I really can't imagine how you came to that conclusion.
#72 by Oncorhynchus // Apr 19, 2023 - 12:49pm
I guess I should be more clear. Their roster management is a bit of mess. I agree their roster has pretty good. But I'd argue that's because of exceptional luck in drafting more than it is because of actual good roster management. They've got a solid number of really good player on rookie contracts, including some that are more than just mere starters. Every first round pick since 2018 had turned into a legitimate starter. (The anti-wisdom of drafting LBs in the 1st notwithstanding.)
If you go to pro-football-reference and sort last years roster by approximate value the 19 best players on their roster last year had an AV of 5 or more. That's legit starter territory. Of them 14 were on a rookie contract. Micah Parsons, CeeDee Lamb, Tony Pollard, Tyler Biadasz, Trevon Diggs, Osa Odighizuwa, Tyler Smith, Conner McGovern, Terence Steele, Leighton Vander Esch, Dalton Schultz, Donovan Wilson. All of them were on rookie contracts. That is exceptional, exceptional luck. (And yes coaching and development, particularly with Dan Quinn running the defense).
Dak Prescott himself is an amazing example of just dumb luck. And yes, the draft is about luck, not skill. Jerry Jones isn't some magician. And yes, every team lives and dies on luck to a great extent. Every team loses good players to free agency.
But they have made some blunders in terms of maintaining a roster. They lost Byron Jones and Amari Cooper in part because they chose to prioritize Ezekiel Elliott and DeMarcus Lawrence. I can see an argument for Lawrence over Jones, sure. (But a lot of that is a hindsight argument.) But they would've been so much better off with Cooper than Elliott. Are they going to be able to keep Parsons, Lamb and Diggs?
As for why Dak and his agent were able to holdfast to a 4-year contract - Dak had all the leverage at that point. That was one part of the cost of franchise tagging him.
But sure, the contract looks good now.
#75 by Romodini // Apr 19, 2023 - 3:47pm
I agree the Cowboys have management problems. They should have extended Dak earlier, and caving to Zeke was a mistake. Amari Cooper disappearing half the games and making 20mil a year would still have been better than Zeke making his boatload of cash and not creating anything outside of what the linemen gave him.
They've extended players too early as well -- Jaylon Smith and Lael Collins both regressed rapidly after being paid.
I don't think the Byron Jones decision has to be a hindsight argument. He never got interceptions, yet wanted to get paid like he was a top ballhawking CB. He wasn't worth the contract even before he signed with the Dolphins.
The Cowboys have had their fair share of dumb luck in the draft --drafting Dak, having Ceedee Lamb fall to them (although you could argue it was "bad luck" they didn't take Justin Jefferson instead), and being able to trade back for Parsons. But claiming that it's all luck is going too far. Jerry's no magician, but ever since Will McClay became assistant director of player personnel in 2013 (he's currently Vice President), the Cowboys' drafting has improved immensely, and that takes a certain amount of knowledge and skill.
#74 by Oncorhynchus // Apr 19, 2023 - 3:08pm
Oh, yeah, I guess I saw the "these are 3 closest to Hurts" in your question and blanked on you also asking about Jackson.
Lamar Jackson is worth whatever Hurts got, and now, simply by precedent, a little more. But it takes two to tango. And if your tango teacher is your mom rather than a professional tango instructor, well it's gonna look a wee bit clumsy ain't it?
#53 by theslothook // Apr 18, 2023 - 4:22pm
See Kids, this is why you don't do statistics at home without the proper safety equipment. You can really hurt yourself or somebody you love.
You know, I acknowledged right from the start that the mathematical convergence scenario was not going to happen right? Also, since we're playing fun and games; technically that statement isn't about statistics, it's plain math.
#69 by guest from Europe // Apr 19, 2023 - 3:44am
Here are some QB contracts:
Player A 5 years $255-270M, $179M guaranteed, no-trade clause, maybe there is an out after 2 years $126M
Player B 5 years $230M, all guaranteed
Player C 4 years $160M, $126M guaranteed, no-trade clause
Player D 5 years $230M, $160M guaranteed, maybe there is an out after 2 years $103M
Player E wants a 5 years $231-235M guaranteed contract, doesn't get it, it's too big of a risk
Player C has the best stats, player E the best highlights, highest peak, player A the most complete team around him. C, E and A have injury concerns at the time of signing, B has legal problems. C is surgically repaired and out for a year at the time of negotiations.
If i understand correctly, only theslothook and GwillyGecko say no to all of these contracts. For the rest of the commenters A and D contracts are good, C is ok, but it would be better for 5 years, it costs more cap%, B and E are bad contracts and you say no to those.
I have to say i don't see a big difference between A and B. Probably A is for $50M less of sure future money than B, but is a risk to pay $25M more future money. Or simplified: A is an optional 5th year for $75M and B is a guaranteed 5th year for $50M. And you prefer A to B?
(C is Prescott and D is K. Murray)
Here is an overivew analysis of these contracts by an expert:
https://overthecap.com/jalen-hurts-signs-record-setting-nfl-contract
#71 by theslothook // Apr 19, 2023 - 10:15am
If i understand correctly, only theslothook and GwillyGecko say no to all of these contracts.
To be clear, I am leery of handing out giant contracts based on one year of sterling play.
At the time the Broncos gave Wilson his extension, I was fine with it. If Burrow signs an extension that's the same or a bit more than the Hurts extension, I'll be fine with that too.
If Mahomes wants everything including a 5 percent ownership stake in the team, I'm there as well.
#76 by KnotMe // Apr 19, 2023 - 6:00pm
I agree on being leery of giving out giant contracts based on one good year.. (Lamar made the mistake of having his one good year to early).
I think this is a case were the Eagles didn't have a choice and just took the best option.
The funny part is....I don't think next year actually tells you that much contract wise unless he is so bad you don't want to resign him. (and it would be weird to give up on guy after one bad year especially after a really good year....which one is real?). So basically, it's almost 100% you want to resign him.
When you sign a new guy, you have to beat the previous largest number for player/agent/ego reasons. So...
Even if he has a bad year, you probably won't get a discount unless it's really bad(see the first part), mostly, it seems you have to beat the outstanding current number by less in that case and his agent will just point to this year.
You add in the fact that he improved every year and won't be that old when it ends. (and other problem with waiting a year is the extensions always seem to be 5 years so...)
So, I think the eagles just took the best of some bad options at this point. They could let him play out his contract and tag him twice but most players would be fed up with that and just refuse to sign unless you came in super high. (And giving him 5 years 3 years from now....not so good).
#78 by theslothook // Apr 19, 2023 - 7:55pm
Well this is where we get into a very interesting conversation. If the Cardinals don't extend Kyler Murray a year ago and he doesn't tear his ACL but effectively has the same year he had in 11 games, could they talk him into a discounted contract? Something like what Daniel Jones got? I agree that short of that player being absolutely abominable, you will resign them anyways.
I will admit this is mostly a theoretical question because delaying contract extensions causes animosity between the quarterback and the team that can irrevocably damage relationships
#79 by guest from Europe // Apr 20, 2023 - 3:48am
Cardinals exercised Murray's 5th year of rookie contract in April 2022. In July 2022 they gave this huge contract extension. They could have had him in 2022 and 2023 on rookie contract. The same was with Goff and Wentz. The same extension might be happening now for Herbert. Rams and Eagles didn't want their QB when they were finishing their 5th year! Eagles were lucky to find a trade partner. Rams kind of gave too many picks (overpaid in draft picks) in order to dump Goff in the trade for Stafford. Stafford wasn't as valued as R. Wilson at that time.
In your scenario where Cardinals don't give this extension, Murray is still on rookie contract. He has this 2022 he had. He stays at this level or worse in 2023. New GM "goes in another direction". Cardinals have a new GM now... he might try to trade Murray one of these years. Or Murray might become MVP like Division was writing. Or something in between.
I agree that short of that player being absolutely abominable, you will resign them anyways.
Ravens say no now? They have Sashi Brown. They might be trying to "beat the QB market". Otherwise they are "cousinsing themselves".
(These are future bets. I am not arguing one bet or another is good or bad. This is for you economists to discuss. Jackiel usually writes good arguments. You might want to discuss this with her/him. Pat is not here at the moment.) Also, why is contract B unreasonably structured or contract A reasonably (see my comment above)? Contract B is risking additional $50M to maybe "save $25M in future". Contract A will or won't pay that additional unguaranteed $75M-$90M.
#80 by guest from Europe // Apr 20, 2023 - 4:33am
Your interpretation of negotiations is very reasonable.
So, I think the eagles just took the best of some bad options at this point. They could let him play out his contract and tag him twice but most players would be fed up with that and just refuse to sign unless you came in super high. (And giving him 5 years 3 years from now....not so good).
Apparently the franchise tag number is so low now, that it can be done 3 times for 3 years. Jackiel explained this in the Jackson-contract discussion. That would be 1 more year of current rookie contract+3 franchise tags and no new contract after that. The QB is probably aggravated and leaves. Or he stays like Prescott did.
#83 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 20, 2023 - 11:37am
Alternatively, your disgruntled star QB purposefully messes with his signing date in order to screw your roster and salary construction up and tanks a season or two for the franchise, setting you up for a decade of recovery.
Contracts aren't a one-way street.