The Struggles of Recently Extended Quarterbacks

[Doomsday101]

8 veteran quarterbacks were handed contract extensions prior to the 2022 regular season. All 8 of those quarterbacks are currently underproducing per their career standards. Our dive into the numbers


AARON RODGERS
Signed a 3 year, $150.8M extension to remain with the Packers this past March. Rodgers & the Packers are off to a 3-4 start, with a tough Buffalo matchup waiting for them this weekend.

Rodgers is posting 6 year lows in many of the passing categories to start the year, including 228 yards per game, a 94.3 rating, 6 fumbles, and a 26 touchdown pace. A damaged throwing hand thumb can certainly be factored in, but this is an offense with very little cohesion right now.

Contractually the two sides will have to be 100% committed to each other at the end of the season in order to proceed as is. A $58.3M option bonus is set to hit the books 5 days into the 2023 waiver period, setting up a boatload of dead cap for the Packers no matter how this thing ends. The same can be said in 2024, when a $47M option bonus will kick in.



MATTHEW STAFFORD
Stafford was rewarded by the Rams for his Super Bowl winning 2021 campaign with a 4 year, $160M extension, including $61.5M cash in 2022. LA finds themselves 3-3 heading into November, a game behind the Seahawks in the NFC West.

Statistically, Stafford is completing a career-best 71% of his passes, but the yardage is down, the TDs are down, the interceptions are up, the fumbles are up, and passer rating (84.6) is miserably down. Like the Packers, LA doesn’t appear to have enough horses in the barn to run a successful offense currently.

Contractually, Stafford is fully guaranteed through 2023, and 2024 fully guarantees next March. Then $10M of 2025 guarantees March of 2024. So for all intents and purposes, there’s at least $70M more to be squeezed out of this contract - for better or worse.

The Struggles of Recently Extended Quarterbacks | Spotrac Research

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

The Mark Sanchez effect. A GM starts making budget cuts to his team in preparation of signing his star QB. So, by the time his QB gets signed, there's not enough complimentary players around him. Or as some reference it...big contract/big decline. The team just isn't the same.

 

[Jake]

The NFL likes to market star QBs, for obvious reasons. I'd like to see the next CBA include something similar to the Bird Exception in the NBA. Basically, a salary cap exemption for paying your QB. Seeing a star QB struggle with cheap players around him is not the best thing for the game.

It probably wouldn't be good for parity, though. There would likely be bigger gaps between QB haves and have nots.

 

[Doomsday101]

The NFL likes to market star QBs, for obvious reasons. I'd like to see the next CBA include something similar to the Bird Exception in the NBA. Basically, a salary cap exemption for paying your QB. Seeing a star QB struggle with cheap players around him is not the best thing for the game.

It probably wouldn't be good for parity, though. There would likely be bigger gaps between QB haves and have nots.

One thing is has shown, QB need talented players around them to be successful without talent around them they don't look so great. .

 

[Flamma]

The Mark Sanchez effect. A GM starts making budget cuts to his team in preparation of signing his star QB. So, by the time his QB gets signed, there's not enough complimentary players around him. Or as some reference it...big contract/big decline. The team just isn't the same.

That's the thing. Look at Tua now. Do you pay him? He's not going to have two WRs like Waddle and Hill forever. Jalen Hurts is another example.

The NFL likes to market star QBs, for obvious reasons. I'd like to see the next CBA include something similar to the Bird Exception in the NBA. Basically, a salary cap exemption for paying your QB. Seeing a star QB struggle with cheap players around him is not the best thing for the game.

It probably wouldn't be good for parity, though. There would likely be bigger gaps between QB haves and have nots.

It would widen the gap by a lot. At least now the teams with QBs on rookie deals can compete. Ideally the better QB gets paid more, but that's not really what's happening. This is on the owners. If they want to overpay a QB, it's on them. They do it to stay relevant and make money. If you were in a football sim league and money wasn't an issue, you probably wouldn't pay Kyler Murray all that money.