Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

10 Mar 2012

Mark Sanchez Gets Extension

Reported terms of Sanchez's contract at this point: five years, $58.25 million, $20.5 million in guarantees for 2012 and 2013.

I would have posted about this last night, but I wasn't sure if it was a hilarious dream or not. Either way, obviously, this is a silly deal for a player who has played like Sanchez has to this point in his career. Maybe he will break out in season four and make it look respectable -- he has taken baby steps forward each year -- but it's hard to reconcile that with the fact that he'll make more money than Aaron Rodgers will next year.

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 10 Mar 2012

72 comments, Last at 14 Mar 2012, 7:52pm by LionInAZ


by Anonymous2 (not verified) :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 9:45am

...and the rest of the AFC breathes a little easier this morning.

by ebongreen :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 9:50am


Just think how much money Matt Flynn is going to make with that as a comparison contract.

by Noah Arkadia :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 11:00am

I don't see how Flynn can claim to deserve more than Sanchez. He has done nothing yet. He will get paid, of course. But only as much as teams drive the bidding up, not as a function of what other QBs make.

We are number one. All others are number two, or lower.

by ebongreen :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 11:35am

Mark Sanchez' best game ever by QB rating: 127.3 vs. New England in the '10-'11 playoffs. For his three year career, the San-chize has about 400 DYAR. Total.

Matt Flynn's best game ever by QB rating: 124.8 vs. Detroit. DYAR 290.

Maybe both have done little, but Flynn's done his little total in one game, while MS has done little over 50+ games. I know who I'd pick as the better option with the higher ceiling. :-)

by tally :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:50pm

But Flynn got to put up those numbers playing with Green Bay's potent offensive weapons.

Sanchez had to overcome a Jets offense that had Mark Sanchez.

by justanothersteve :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 4:52pm

You'all are forgetting Flynn's first start. Against New England. In Foxboro. Where he had to overcome, among other things, a near TD kickoff return by a NE offensive lineman. And he still had a chance to win the game, except McCarthy didn't have enough confidence in Flynn's first start to allow him to call his own plays, so he had to wait for the plays from the sideline as precious seconds ticked off the clock. They had the ball on the NE 35, down 4 points, with two minutes to go. I don't know if they would have won. But I think they'd have had a better chance had McCarthy allowed Flynn to run the two-minute offense rather than being rushed at the end.

by smutsboy :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:29am

Sanchez has had plenty of weapons during his time.

Most years his OL is better than GB's, and prior to last year he had a good run game too. His WRs are nothing to sneeze at either.

Are they better than GB? No.

Is Sanchez on an island out there? Not by a long shot.

by Noah Arkadia :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:57am


We are number one. All others are number two, or lower.

by Noah Arkadia :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:56am

I think almost everyone here would agree with you and Flynn's agent, but I don't think that has any bearing at all in the negotiations. He's not seeking an extension, so the market will set the price.

We are number one. All others are number two, or lower.

by akn :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 9:53am

When is Rex's contract up? There's no way he lasts 5 more years with this guy.

by tuluse :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:54pm

He's no worse than the QBs the Bears had before Cutler. Lovie made it 4 years with them.

Edit: Actually he is probably worse than Orton 2008.

by akn :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 3:15pm

Lovie lasted that long because he got the Bears to the Super Bowl. And I agree, Sanchez is probably worse than Orton 2008.

But when the Jets miss the playoffs again this upcoming season, Ryan will likely get canned. Rex, repeat after me:

"Mark Sanchez is our quarterback."

by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 03/12/2012 - 10:57am

But Lovie wasn't throwing huge bucks around to re-sign them.

by bubqr :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 10:12am

Saints are facepalming and Flacco's agent has a huuuuuuge smile on his face. That's a contract rewarding the quaterback of a top 10 team, not rewarding a top 10 Quaterback, if it makes any sense.

by tuluse :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 1:38pm

I don't think he's being paid like a top 10 QB. 11.6 million per year is not very high for a QB. For instance, Ryan Fitzpatrick has a 59 million dollar 6 year deal.

by tally :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:55pm

$11.6M is top 10 QB money, and Sanchez is getting that $58M over five years, not six, and the total compensation is top 7 QB.

by tuluse :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 3:29pm

As I posted below, it's not top 10 QB money. The lowest salary in the top 10 as of 2009 was Stafford who made 12 million per year. I know at least Cutler has gotten a deal since then (30 million 2 year extension). If 2 other QBs have, and 2 more do this next year, Sanchez is getting top 15 money.

Quarterbacks make a lot of money.

by Shattenjager :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 4:57pm

For what it's worth (And I don't know how much it is, really. I have no idea about the reliability of the site or its methodology and I am not claiming it to be necessarily accurate.), Spotrac says that $11.65 million would rank 11th. Manning will assuredly surpass it in average salary, which would push it down to 12th, but that's where it will likely stand for the start of the season.

It's most fair, I think, to say that it's somewhere around the middle of the league for starting QBs.

by Jimmy :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 10:18am

A nice little financial apology to Sanchez who had two seasons of good pay left on his deal. None of which will help him lead the locker room if they end up cutting veteran defenders for cap purposes. It is absurd to pretend that this is a fair reward for excellent play.

by LionInAZ :: Wed, 03/14/2012 - 7:44pm

Apology for what? Even with Josh Freeman's lousy year in 2011, Sanchez still comes our with the worst metrics of any of the top three QBs drafted in 2009.

by Yaguar :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 10:56am

I believe that this is the one of the absolute worst moves by any team in my lifetime, including all of the Raiders' drafts and all of the Redskins' free agent signings.

At best - at best - Sanchez is maybe the 25th-best QB in the league.

by Noah Arkadia :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 10:58am

The only logical explanation is that they're reducing his cap number this year. If this is not the case, then it's perfectly absurd. The guy had two years left on his contract, extend him next year if he earns it.

*sigh* Sadly there is another logical explanation. Neither the coach nor the GM expect to outstay Sanchez and are going all in in a ploy to help Sanchez win the locker room.

We are number one. All others are number two, or lower.

by The Hypno-Toad :: Tue, 03/13/2012 - 12:41pm

Neither the coach nor the GM expect to outstay Sanchez and are going all in in a ploy to help Sanchez win the locker room.

I don't claim to understand the dynamics of NFL locker rooms, but if this deal actually was a more meaningful thing (rather than the accounting trick that later posters say it is) wouldn't this be pretty much exactly how to alienate the other guys? An underachieving "star" who is already perceived by the team as being coddled by the organization gets a big, shiny new deal in a time when cap space is hard to come by? I dunno, maybe it can be sold as, "Hey, guys, my agent and I restructured my deal to free up cap space so we can pick up a missing piece," or something.
But rewarding a player based on his performance thus far is unlikely to quite the grumbling from other Jets who feel like the organization is too soft with Sanchez.

by young curmudgeon :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 11:00am

Contract extension? I thought you meant HAIR extensions!

Would make more sense, actually.

by Raiderjoe :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 11:35am

young curmudgeon,

Wss thinking same thing. If Sanchez get hair extnesion and get chunkier would make good stunt double for Kwnny Powers character Eastboujd & Fown. Would be good for role too becuause playing behind d. Fergsuon and W. hunter has fiven Sanchez great pratcice with being beat up doing stunt work

by young curmudgeon :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 4:00pm

Raiderjoe, if you are agreeing with me, I must be right!

by LionInAZ :: Wed, 03/14/2012 - 7:52pm

Raiderjoe: Are you sure you weren't thinking of Ron Jeremy as the guy Sanchez could stunt double for?

by Rabbit :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 12:23pm


by Theo :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 12:35pm

I know the Jets are high on Sanchez. Not just high.

by Biebs :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 12:36pm

I actually don't think this is as illogical as people are making it out to be.

I keep hearing 2 numbers regarding Sanchez, $20.5M and $27.5M in guarantees. Does anyone know which it is? I'm curious how much it would actually cost to cut Sanchez in 2013 with the new contract, if it's $10M, I understand the move, if it's $14M, I'm less understanding

Keep in mind the following:

1. The Jets have little cap room this year

2. The Cap is expected to be greater in 2013, because of the TV deal

3. The Jets will have a lot more cap room next season (Scott and Pace will be cut, $16M saved, Eric Smith will save anouter $3M, etc.)

4. The Jets have no major FAs next season (Keller, Greene, Slauson, Moore)

5. On the (admittedly small) chance Sanchez does become a top 12 QB, the Jets have signed a pretty good deal for a top tier QB.


Is it perfect? no
Is it risky? Yes

However, there is a lot of logic behind it, to say it "makes no sense at all" is a bit silly.

But, the Jets are in a position where they are better off taking a $10M - $12M cap hit next season for Sanchez and signing an extra FA in 2012 due to extra cap money and fewer big $ obligations, vs. being hamstrung in 2012 and being able to cut Sanchez for $2.5M in 2013.

Just as most people said that the cap wasn't going to go up much in 2012, most are saying it will go up a lot in 2013.

With that in mind, it makes more sense to try and land a big FA this year, rather than next year.

I'm not totally justifying the deal, but I understand some of the logic behind it

by Exy (not verified) :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 12:53pm

After my initial shock and dismay (as a Jets fan!) yesterday when I heard it, but after thinking about it this was just about the same explanation I came up with. Plus, as much as I am biased in this opinion, I really do feel like he was hindered quite a bit by the system and coaching he received from Son of Marty. I still don't really like it, but it now feels more like a necessary evil than an act of pure stupid.

by rich31689 (not verified) :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 1:44pm

The new offensive philosophy will be run-heavy, right? How is that different than "ground-and-pound"? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious. I thought the Jets have always had a run-first offense with Sanchez?

by tuluse :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 1:57pm

There is a lot more to offense than the rate at which running plays are called.

by rich31689 (not verified) :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 11:35pm

Thank you. I'm just referring to what I'm hearing from the media, that the "new" offensive philosophy of the Jets is to rely more heavily on their running game, which is confusing, because I thought that's what they did all along.

by Jimmy :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:05pm

Jets fans seem to have really disliked Schottenheimer but I thought he did a good job of making things easier for Sanchez, using alignments to give him simple reads and generally running a decent offense with a quarterback best suited to be a backup. They shouldn't have been doing anything too crazy with their defense and special teams and they didn't. I don't see too many Niners fans complaining about conservative gameplanning this year.

by tuluse :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:48pm

If having a feel for play calling is a real thing, Schottenheimer is probably the worst in the business.

Also, the Jets threw on 3rd and short at lot. That alone given the makeup of their team should be grounds for firing.

by greybeard :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 9:06pm

You wouldn;t hear 49ers fan complain about conservative game planning for three reasons:
1) It simply is not true. Niners offense was only conservative in play calling in redzone. Outside redzone they were not. And overall neither their game planning nor their play calling was conservative.
2) After the singletary offense, any offense would look good and the opposite of conservative in comparison.
3) Niners offense was one of the most creative offenses wrt fearless play calling. When your left tackle and defensive end catch passes and you run end arounds regularly and fly sweeps on occasion, it does not look conservative.

by Jimmy :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 12:18pm

No it wasn't Singletary bad, nothing is. However whilst the Niners were certainly unconventional in their approach to the running game and with thier formations with regard to readiness to use unusual targets in the play action game it wasn't exactly agressive down the field stuff. Agressive down the field stuff would have been foolish with Smith at Qb and good specials and defense. There is nothing wrong with testing defenses to see how well the understand and react to unusual gap alignments (I would like to see more teams doing more of it, the NFL's obsession with the I-formation has been driving me mad for years). I would categorise the Niners offense as being very creative in the running game but quite conservative in the passing game.

by Karl Cuba :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 5:29pm

I do think that the playcalling became rather conservative when the niners had a lead in the second half. I know they won a lot of games but I can't have been the only person wishing they'd open things up a little when the defense stacked nine in the box and they carried on running straight at it.

by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 1:52pm

I don't think there is really any chance he ends up a top 12 QB. He has a great supporting cast and has been a near replacement level starter.

You put him on some horrible team the last three years and he is already a career backup who maybe gets another chance to start some day. Do you actually watch him play?

by tuluse :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 1:59pm

I think people are getting a little carried away by how large the numbers are. I think it's likely by the end of next year for this contract to be somewhere around the 18th most money for a QB. Just look at the top 10 QBs from 2009, http://footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2009/under-cap-top-ten-quarterbac...

This wouldn't be a top 10 deal 2 years ago, but it's supposed to be a top 12 deal now?

by Biebs :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:07pm

I even wrote that there's an "admittedly small" chance he becomes a top 12 QB. The bottom line is that the Jets were committed to paying him $17.5M to Sanchez the next two seasons, now they are committed to paying him $20.5M

The difference is that the Jets were up against the cap this season, and less so next season (Scott and Pace alone will drop $16M off cap). If the Jets decide Sanchez isn't the answer, they will cut him next season, and the hit, most likely, would take place between 2013 and 2014 when the new TV money comes into play and the there will be far more money to spend.

The Jets seem to think it's worthwhile to pay a $3M penaly over the course of the next 2 seasons, to free up a bunch of cap room now. And by doing so.

THey will have far more money to spend next year (and, of course in 2014) than they would have in 2012 witch Sanchez's old contract.

The logic behind the contract has little to do with what I think of Sanchez as a player, and everything to do with how the Jets are managing cap space. The fact that it is Mark Sanchez and not a lesser known player is what's turning this into a big deal.

by Jimmy :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:17pm

The problem isn't just because Sanchez is a high profile player, it is also the matter of it rarely being a good idea to carry out this kind of cap manouvre with a mediocre veteran (which is what Sanchez is at this point).

by Rabbit :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:20pm

Dead Money if Cut: $5mm
Cap Savings if Cut: $9.25mm
2012 cost: $12mm

3 years, 55.3 Pct, 55/51 TD/INT

I'm not one willing to project Flynn as high as others, but 1) I'd bet he comes cheaper 2) he couldn't be worse.

Jets should have cut Sanchez, not resigned him.

All before extension

by Biebs :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:40pm

Flynn wouldn't have been cheaper, when you consider the Jets would have had to pay $5M this year to Sanchez.

Furthermore, the Jets would still need to get a backup QB for Flynn, just like Sanchez since there's no guarantee Flynn would be any better.

Instead of paying Sanchez $17m in 2012/2013, they are paying him $20.5M in 2012/2013 (with some leaking into 2014, no doubt). If you think the Jets should have cut him, that's fine, there's no question Sanchez hasn't been good enough to get top money, but the reality is, the Jets weren't dumping him in 2012, so having more space in 2012 and still ample space in 2013 is a better situation than have little space in 2012 and ample space + $5M in 2013 + (New cap in 2014 - $5M in 2014).

But the idea they would have gotten Flynn on a better deal is ridiculous.

Again, this is about cap management, and the understanding that the Jets were keeping Sanchez in 2012. Despite what the team and spin may sbe, this is not really any sort of proof that the Jets love Sanchez for the long haul.

If anything, it's proof that the Jets were in a good negotiating situation, and were willing to sacrifice $3M (which is worth significantly less against the cap in 2014) to create a better cap situation in 2012 and a significant (but not overwhelming) difference in 2013/14

by Rabbit :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 3:32pm

Not sure where you got those numbers. Mehta reports that Sanchez' 2012 cost will be $11.25mm and that Jets salary cap site shows Sanchez would have cost $14.25mm w/o the extension. That's just $3mm in savings for 2012. That site also indicates the Jets would have saved $9mm in cap space by cutting him.

I don't agree that Flynn will cost more than $9mm/Y.

by Rabbit :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 3:43pm

Per PFT:

"The contract also could be called a glorified restructuring. Per a source with knowledge of the details, Sanchez’s $11.75 million base salary for 2012 has been converted to an $8 million signing bonus, a fully-guaranteed base salary of $3.25 million, and a $500,000 workout bonus.

The move creates $6.4 million in 2012 cap space."

I must not understand this cap stuff because I always thought bonus money is what is guaranteed, not base salary.

by tuluse :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 3:53pm

You can guarantee base salary if you want. You can guarantee any kind of payment if you write the contract in such a way.

by Rabbit :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 5:23pm

I have it now.

In this Sanchez case, the Jets converted his $11.75mm salary (guaranteed if they don't cut him) to an $3.25mm salary and $8.5mm bonus (signing and workout), that bonus being guaranteed regardless if he's cut. So although it's guaranteed, it's also prorated over the life of his 4 year contract, equating to just a $2~mm cap hit next year (8.5/4).

So Sanchez will cost the Jets just $5.375mm for 2012, which is roughly what he's worth (on a good day).

by Jerry :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 6:50pm

For the record, "guaranteed" means he gets paid even if they cut him. The purpose is restructuring is to convert salary which counts against the year it's paid to signing bonus, which is prorated over the (remainder of the) contract. The advantage to the player is that he gets a big check earlier, while creating cap room for his team.

by jonsilver :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 4:39pm

Exactly right...

by JIPanick :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 2:07pm

His supporting cast actually isn't that great. While the line is quite good, the skill positions are overrated due to the name value of Zombie Tomlinson and Zombie Burress (as well as high-draft disappointment Edwards, who is competent but far from great).

by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 4:19pm

His line is quite good. That is what I was referring to.

The skill players are fine too. its not ike he has bad skills players.

by jonsilver :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 4:52pm

1) the line regressed from 09-10 without Faneca or a good replacement...it significantly regressed from 10-11 with the replacement of Woody by Hunter...by the end of 11, it was barely competent at run blocking and a bad pass blocking group...

2) By the end of 11, the skill players were not fine, either, with the exception of Holmes when he wanted to be and Keller as a receiver...Plax was slow, Curley was green, Ladanian was just about out of gas, Greene was adequate and McKnight was erratic...

by CeeBee (not verified) :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 1:24pm

I don't have anything intelligent to say, except:


by PaulH (not verified) :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 3:35pm

This is basically a smoke and mirrors deal. He was guaranteed 17 million or so anyway over the next couple of years, so this is just a few bucks thrown in with the extra year as a public vote of confidence. Anyone who really thinks this is a major new investment just hasn't looked at the contract numbers.

If Sanchez continues to flop, they'll pay him the next year or two and then move on (probably with some coaching and front office turnover included). If he really starts to play at a high level, they'll negotiate a real long-term extension with a lot of new guaranteed money.

This one is just barely worth the comment. Again, it's all just a glorified PR statement.

by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 03/12/2012 - 11:05am

Spot on. They'll be able to cut him if they want in the future either when he doesn't improve, a much better option pops up, or they clean house in the front office. Their window is quite small now. Another wasted year and Rex is bye-bye.

by Southern Philly :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 4:19pm

Andrew Brandt pointed out that it's only an increase in guaranteed money of $2.5M over the next two years. Another case where the initial numbers are misleading.

by Biebs :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 4:35pm

I wonder if this means that the Jets are close to signing Chad Henne on a cheap 2 year deal, giving Sanchez a legit (if not particularly exciting) backup, who can start if Sanchez does stink in 2012

by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 03/12/2012 - 11:12am

Sanchez isn't all that exciting himself. In a fair and open competition, I seriously question if Sanchez could beat out Henne...which is why you likely won't see one of those regardless who the backup ends up being.

by Michael19531 :: Sat, 03/10/2012 - 5:43pm

"but it's hard to reconcile that with the fact that he'll make more money than Aaron Rodgers will next year."

That's a f***ing disgrace!!!

by Jim Glass (not verified) :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 2:53am

Sorry guys, this is no big deal.

Sanchez got a slight increase in guaranteed money in exchange for agreeing to restructure to create several million of cap space for the Jets this year (which they badly needed).

That is all.

The "$58 million" is the meaningless hyperbole of the *un*guaranteed contract.

If he doesn't lift his game, he'll get cut long before he sees the extra $38 million in the out years.

Personally, I don't know why players seem to so go for these contracts that give them an unguaranteed "$20 million in year 3, $30 million in year 4, $40 million in year 5..." when there is no chance whatsoever that they will ever see that money -- all it guarantees is that they'll be cut before its payment comes due.

by Danish Denver-Fan :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 4:18am

Getting cut is, for reasonably good players, a good thing. Now they get to test the market and get a new signing bonus. If noone is interestered you restructure/resign with the old team.

Problem, of course, is if you are so bad that there's no job for you in the league, which I guess is a fairly likely scenario for Sanchez in 2014 or 2015.

by sundown (not verified) :: Mon, 03/12/2012 - 11:23am

When's the last time you saw a starting QB get cut and end up resigning with his old team? Maybe if the guy was older and didn't mind being a backup, but that doesn't describe Sanchez. As for him not having a job, Sanchez could have a long life as a backup QB as long as he doesn't let his ego get in the way.

by AJ (not verified) :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 5:12am

I just cant fathom why this deal was made. its not like sanchez's contract was running out and he was far from proven...Not even the front office or locker room was sold on him given how much lobbying there was for manning. And yet...they chose to extend a guy while he was still under contract for another two years. Makes really no sense

by Lance :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 6:20pm

It's about cap room. Consider the following made-up deal:

Signing Bonus: $10 million
Base Salary:
Year 1: $4,000,000
Year 2: $5,000,000
Year 3: $10,000,000
Year 4: $14,000,000
Year 5: $20,000,000

The cap pro-rates your bonus so that the $10 million is spread over the 5 years, so it only counts $2 million a year. Now, suppose you're in year 3 of this. You're going to get paid $10 million over the course of the year, and your cap hit is $12 million (10+2=11). Now, also suppose that your team is in serious cap trouble.

Here's an easy solution to give yourself more cap room: re-structure the contract so that in year 3, your base salary is now $1,000,000, and you get a new "signing bonus" of $9,000,000. As before, this guaranteed money-- $9 million-- is spread over the remaining 3 years (3, 4, and 5). That's just $3 million a year.

Now, it looks like this:
Bonus: $9,000,000
Year 3: $1,000,000 [Cap hit: $1 million + $2 million (old pro-rated bonus) + $3 million (new pro-rated bonus)=$6 million]

The reality is that you weren't going to cut the guy anyhow this year, so there's no real harm in converting his base salary into a guaranteed bonus. The advantage is that it gives you cap room-- instead of a cap number of $12 million, it's just $6 million-- and it doesn't cost any more than before.

The problem is that years 4 and 5 are now a mess. However, you probably went into the original deal realizing that you weren't going to pay them anyhow. Instead, if by year 4 the guy is still someone you want, then you restructure the whole deal and extend it another 4 or 5 years, and give a big signing bonus but turn the base salary into some very low number.

Remember: those huge base salaries at the end of long contracts are just ego numbers. No one is going to pay them. If you're good then when the times comes, they give you a new deal. And if you're not good, they cut you and don't have to pay you at all.

by loki13 (not verified) :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 11:33am

I've read through all of the comment, and there seems to be this binary division-

either this is the worst deal ever, because the Sanchize sucks,

or this is just brilliant cap management.

Let me posit a third possibility- this is an example of a cowardly front office that can't make up its mind, which makes it an example of a relatively cap-friendly deal, but still a poor decision unless the Sanchize really is the answer at QB. Allow me to explain-

Some people believe that he is a franchise QB. Other's believe he a replacement level QB (a Henne, at best, with better PR). Until this extension, he was guaranteed no money.

Now, he is guaranteed for this year and the next.

Those who say it is cap-friendly are correct in two aspects- it decreases the amount this year, and the last three years are "make believe money." But they're also missing the point.

Either he is the answer, or he isn't. The Jets are now committed to two more years of finding out; they should now by know. If you accept that he is a replacement-level player, they could've cut him, swallowed their loss, and moved in another QB (a Henne-type) or made a move to get the real QB of the future. Instead, they have a minimum of two more years.

What result? Either he continues to suck, and suck horribly, but the rest of the team is good enough that they don't completely bottom out, and they're stuck with two more years, no high-QB draft pick, and put in the same position that they are today.

Or he plays like he has been- just kinda acceptable. And then in two years, the Jets will be forced to make a decision about him again, with the anchoring effect of this current contract.

The only possible upside is if he really is a franchise QB. Then the move is brilliant. But if he isn't, the move is stupid, because they're just postponing making the hard decisions, while the rest of the roster ages.

by jonsilver :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 5:10pm

Deal or no deal, the rest of the roster will age...the Jets were built to "win now" by Tannenbaum-Ryan...holes have already appeared (see my previous post), but there is no way they can become one of the worst teams in the league in time to draft a potential franchise qb to play alongside the current roster, and (once Manning said "I'm not going to play for you"), no way they can get someone better than their view of Sanchez's upside in 2012...there is no guarantee that Flynn will be better, and he would cost a lot more than the incremental cost for this new Sanchez deal once the bidding war for Flynn starts among the Manning losers...their best shot at becoming an elite team again is taking the money they have in cap space and their draft picks and getting help at O-line, linebacker and safety...Sanchez played much better in 2010 than in 2011, and the reason can be easily seen...just compare the average amount of time before initial pass rush pressure in the two Jets' seasons...their obvious belief is that a better O-line will lead to a Sanchez who is better than any other realistic choice at qb in 2012...they may be proven wrong, but it's not a given in March...

by are-tee :: Sun, 03/11/2012 - 10:25pm

I know there is a common belief that Sanchez "regressed" this year, but the fact is he had more combined passing and rushing touchdowns (32) this season than any other QB in Jets history. The Jets had one of the most efficient red zone offenses in the league and Sanchez deserves a lot of the credit for that. The team's problem was scoring from beyond the opponents' 20 yard line, but the receivers bear a lot of blame for that for failing to do much after the catch, and not getting open downfield very often. And he had as many fumbles as he did in each of his first two years, but the Jets only recovered two of them.

by CoachDave :: Mon, 03/12/2012 - 11:02am

So in summary...anything good that the Jets offense did, "Sanchez deserves a lot of credit for that" but anything bad that the Jets offense did, others "bear a lot of blame for that". Ridiculous.

And who cares how he compares to Jets QBs of old. Are you aware of the motley crew that the Jets have put out under center for 30+ years?

Compared to his peers (who he SHOULD be compared to), he's worse than average:

26th in DYAR, 28th in DVOA, below average in: Y/A+, Comp%+, Int%+, Sack%+, Rate+

He is inaccurate, he makes stupid decisions with the ball and I don't see him getting considerably better after 47 starts.

by Rabbit :: Mon, 03/12/2012 - 7:13pm

There's actually a good bit of logic to your summary. Since as far as I'm concerned, the only thing Sanchez does well is play-action, if the Jets running game is rolling he has just as much to do with the entire offense's success. However, if that offense can't function for other reasons, like his WR, RB and/or OL stink, that's not exactly his fault. He can play fake but he can't force defenses to bite on it.

Henne is a better QB. Sanchez is a better QB for NYJ though. That said, the team should scrap both him and 'pound n' ground' and recognize the era they're playing in.

I am glad they haven't.

by loki13 (not verified) :: Mon, 03/12/2012 - 11:05am

Maybe I didn't make my point very clear. What I think is missing from both the people booing this decision and from the people saying it's just good cap sense is this-

This is just a holding decision; in my mind, that's what makes it bad, *unless* you view him as the answer. The two replies seem to indicate that he isn't that bad, or that he could be good. Which is what the front office must be thinking. But isn't the point of what I wrote.

In my mind, a good front office, at this point, should have properly evaluated Sanchez. They should know if he is the answer or not. I have my own opinions about that, but I could be wrong (I thought Titanic was going to flop, after all).

This decision guarantees his money for the next two years, and gives an anchor effect (despite it being "make believe money") after that. Which means that the Jets are tied in, not just this year, but next year as well. If he is the answer, if he is a franchise QB, then this is a great decision. People will be lauding the decision for years to come.

But if he isn't, then this decision only prolongs the inevitable agony, and puts them in a worse position than they would be in.

What's notable to me is that it indicates that they haven't really made up their minds- and I find that remarkable given the amount of time and experience they've had with him.