NFL's highest paid player: Matthew Stafford gets 5 yr, $135 mil extension

[BobDigital]

I can understand the top QB in the NFL not named Brady may not be the highest paid QB due to contract timing. Like any other position those in the top tier flip flop being the highest paid at any one time due to how the cap tends to go up and when they come up.

However QB seems to be the one position where guys in the 2nd and 3rd tier can be paid as much as guys in the first tier. It is fairly silly.

The reason it happens though is actually pretty simple. Top QBs are underpaid even right now. Look are Derek Carr. He makes 25M a year or about 1/7th of the teams total cash goes to him. Believe it or not that is being under paid. An elite QB like that can take a fairly bad team and make them near 8-8.

Brees makes his team borderline 8-8 or 7-9 every year with one of the worse rosters in the NFL overall. Yes he has a few good offensive weapons but that really is the only thing besides him that team has going for it.

Luck makes his team borderline 8-8 and besides Hilton there might not be another legit very good player on that team.

That is how much a QB can effect a team. Take those QBs off the team and you have the Browns or SF. Basically a top QB is worth 4-5 wins nearly by himself. If the price tag for QBs for what they should be worth (top end guys) actually reflected their value I think guys like Brady/Rodgers/Brees (considering mininum wages vets and such make) should be worth 40M a year.

The fact generally we see so many top QBs in the playoffs with so few being left out shows the position is still a value add even at 25 or 27 million a year.

 

[sean10mm]

First, since the salary cap grows pretty rapidly, the highest paid QB will usually just be the top 16 starter who got the most recent contract. It kind of has no meaning.

Second, you can't pin win % all on the QB when most teams have idiots at GM and head coach. You think JIM CALDWELL is doing them any favors?

Third, there is no alternative anyway. There are no free agent QBs that are worth the cost of the pads they're wearing. Most rookie QBs are catastrophic failures at the NFL level. For most teams the choice is either to pay up and hope you get lucky, or don't pay up and turn into trash immediately and stay that way for an undetermined number of years/decades.

 

[Wheelman]

If a GM was immune to being fired (in a hypothetical situation), the best course of action would be to bring in a QB, and if he's not showing signs of greatness within a few years, bring in another one and let that one go at the end of the contract. It doesn't really help winning to tie up a ton of the cap on a QB who isn't going to win you a Super Bowl.

The unfortunate reality for NFL GMs though, is that they are not only capable of being fired, but are in fact often on a very short leash. Wins are expected to come quickly, and if they don't, you're shown the door. So when you have a QB who makes the playoffs (even if he does nothing else), you pay market value for him in order to keep your job, even though the better thing for the organization would be to cut bait and try with someone else.

It's a situation we're very lucky to have avoided here.

You're right man. But that means the GM is not doing things in the best interest of the team. As a fan of the Lions I'd be livid with Bob Quinn. I'd be calling for Bob Quinn to be fired. He cared more about saving his own ass than doing the right thing and not paying Stafford that much.

I liked what the Washington Football team was doing by refusing to pay Kirk Cousins(who I view superior to Stafford) elite money. But Washington Football team shouldn't have franchised him. Should have let him walk rather than pay ridiculous amounts of money to the QB. So the execs in Washington are just as bad as Bob Quinn and other GM's who payed QB's stupid money, like **** Assweiler, Jay Cutler, etc.

Teams are so desperate to win the Super Bowl they foolishly throw money at mediocre QB's and damage the rest of their team. Not even Brady and Rodgers deserve that kind of money. That's hamstringing your team.

I do wonder what BB would do if Brady wanted top dollar. Does anyone know if Bledsoe's contract was top dollar per year? Did BB have a hand in that contract?

 

[patsinthesnow]

Has anyone brought up how this affects a potential Jimmy G franchise tag?

The tag is the average of the top 5 highest paid players at the position right? Stafford just drove up the tag from 22 to 24 million.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You're right man. But that means the GM is not doing things in the best interest of the team. As a fan of the Lions I'd be livid with Bob Quinn. I'd be calling for Bob Quinn to be fired. He cared more about saving his own ass than doing the right thing and not paying Stafford that much.

I liked what the Washington Football team was doing by refusing to pay Kirk Cousins(who I view superior to Stafford) elite money. But Washington Football team shouldn't have franchised him. Should have let him walk rather than pay ridiculous amounts of money to the QB. So the execs in Washington are just as bad as Bob Quinn and other GM's who payed QB's stupid money, like **** Assweiler, Jay Cutler, etc.

Teams are so desperate to win the Super Bowl they foolishly throw money at mediocre QB's and damage the rest of their team. Not even Brady and Rodgers deserve that kind of money. That's hamstringing your team.

I do wonder what BB would do if Brady wanted top dollar. Does anyone know if Bledsoe's contract was top dollar per year? Did BB have a hand in that contract?

There is no debate the money for QBs like, Palmer, Cousins, Luck, Stafford and Carr is absurd. All of those players are over or around $24m a year even though they account for ~14% of the total cap.

With the cap being $167m in 2017 and expected to go up again in 2018, teams are obviously not being shy about doling out the cash for QBs that have promise and can give their team a chance to win.

Keep in mind....if you have a good QB you might win. If you have a ****ty QB you won't win. Spending another $10m a year on a player who will win 6 or more games over their backup is actually smart money.

 

[Wheelman]

Keep in mind....if you have a good QB you might win. If you have a ****ty QB you won't win. Spending another $10m a year on a player who will win 6 or more games over their backup is actually smart money.

Fair enough, but in this particular case, Stafford's record against teams that end with a winning record has already been cited. You can't win with him.

 

[Ring 6]

Stafford = Bledsoe

Pretty good comparison.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

God bless the United States of America!
Is this a great country or what?
More power to him!

 

[RobertWeathers]

Pretty good comparison.

I'll take Stafford....I think.

 

[Deus Irae]

Stafford = Bledsoe

Bledsoe's woefully underrated, even around here. He was good enough in his prime to take a team to the Super Bowl. He might even have won that Super Bowl, if his coach had shown up that day, and if the special teams play hadn't been completely incompetent that game.

Bledsoe's problem was that he was an anachronism. He was a downfield thrower when the league was transitioning to more of a short distance game. Even so, he was a top level QB for a while, until he became so dependent on his TEs for pressure relief that he become an easy read for defenses.

 

[Simpelton]

You're right man. But that means the GM is not doing things in the best interest of the team. As a fan of the Lions I'd be livid with Bob Quinn. I'd be calling for Bob Quinn to be fired. He cared more about saving his own ass than doing the right thing and not paying Stafford that much.

I liked what the Washington Football team was doing by refusing to pay Kirk Cousins(who I view superior to Stafford) elite money. But Washington Football team shouldn't have franchised him. Should have let him walk rather than pay ridiculous amounts of money to the QB. So the execs in Washington are just as bad as Bob Quinn and other GM's who payed QB's stupid money, like **** Assweiler, Jay Cutler, etc.

Teams are so desperate to win the Super Bowl they foolishly throw money at mediocre QB's and damage the rest of their team. Not even Brady and Rodgers deserve that kind of money. That's hamstringing your team.

I do wonder what BB would do if Brady wanted top dollar. Does anyone know if Bledsoe's contract was top dollar per year? Did BB have a hand in that contract?

spoken like someone who has never had to choose between frustrating mediocrity and becoming the Browns.

When rich, weak teams have to choose between mediocre results that still allowed for some success at the ticket office, and angering their faithful few by abandoning one of the few bright spot in the forlorn hope of a rebuild or yet another 5 year plan, it isn't much of a choice. Pre 2001 fans ought to have a fair idea of what I mean if their memory works properly, we nearly lost the franchise over it once or twice.

As long as you are winning some games there's always hope of catching lighting. Throw your cornerstone away and what reason is there to even watch your team? If a few extra million allows a franchise grossing 9 digits to kick the can down the street it's probably worth it.

Besides if you keep struggling along trying to hold it together, who knows, you might draft some gangly, unathletic nobody in the 6th round and suddenly all your prayers come true at once.

 

[Wheelman]

As long as you are winning some games there's always hope of catching lighting. Throw your cornerstone away and what reason is there to even watch your team? If a few extra million allows a franchise grossing 9 digits to kick the can down the street it's probably worth it.

But Matthew Stafford isn't their cornerstone. He's a LOOOOOOSER! I mean the stats back it up...

 

[borg]

Listening to some Sirius sports talk guy this AM who had this take: a QB's best friends are a running game and a great defense....and Stafford has consistently had neither. And as bad as the Lions D has been over the past 8 years, their running game has been simply abysmal.
Factor in Stafford's ability to come from behind the past few years (record setting 8 in 2016) and the fact that Detroit blew a couple other games in the last seconds....
My point....Stafford isn't as bad as people want to believe and Stafford has made Detroit better than they are. It's a team sport and his teams have been dreadful.
Regarding the coin, Detroit locked in their marquis player at a premium price and such is life for many of the less desirable FA destinations. At least they paid up for their QB verses teams like Miami, Buffalo, Houston, etc who have gone all in (now or in the past) for D linemen....a strategy that rarely pays dividends.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

hahahaha!!!!

WOW

This is where we have 2 advantages, 1 with Brady taking team friendly deals because his wife is super loaded and he makes boat loads as well with endorsements, etc..

the other advantage is from Belichick... if we have to fork over WAYYY too much money for a mediocre QB like all the other shmucks after Brady retires, the overall talent on the team will diminish and superior coaching will really make the difference.

Once BB is gone, we're gonna be screwed being held hostage by this type of situation

 

[Miguel]

Has anyone brought up how this affects a potential Jimmy G franchise tag?

The tag is the average of the top 5 highest paid players at the position right? Stafford just drove up the tag from 22 to 24 million.

No, it did not. The deal lowered the 2017 franchise tag number since Stafford 's 2017 cap number was decreased from 22M to $16.5M. Stafford was replaced in the Top 5 by Tannehill's 20,275,000. Tannehill's $25,000 workout bonus is not included in the tag calculations.

 

[nabwong]

He's 5-46 against teams with a winning record.

You laugh. But that takes so much mental toughness over the course of multiple losing seasons. A regular guy would buckle under the weight of expectation but not this guy. Matthew Stafford never quits losing. I salute you Sir!

 

[jmt57]

This is one thing Bill Polian and the people at 345 Park Avenue probably did not consider when they opted to tweak the rules in order to open up the passing game. Or maybe they did, but just didn't care.

Quarterback salary cap numbers, as a percentage of that season's salary cap.

Matt Stafford
2017: 9.9% ... 2018: 14.9% ... 2019: 15.5% ... 2020: 15.8%

Joe Flacco
2016: 14.5% ... 2017: 14.7% ... 2018: 13.9% ... 2019: 13.9% ... 2020: 14.1%

Eli Manning
2016: 15.6% ... 2017: 11.8% ... 2018: 12.5% ... 2019: 12.2%

Carson Palmer
2016: 11.8% ... 2017: 14.4% ... 2018: 11.6%

Brock Osweiler (despite Houston eating a $12 mil signing bonus)
2017: 9.6% ... 2018: 10.1% ... 2019: 8.9%

Kirk Cousins
2017: 14.3%

Sam Bradford
2017: 10.8%

Miami has a whopping 18.2% of their 2017 cap tied to the starting QB position between Ryan Tannehill (12.2%) and Jay Cutler (at $10 mil, his 6% is a relative bargain).


By comparison:

Tom Brady
2016: 8.9% ... 2017: 8.4% ... 2018: 12.4% ... 2019: 11.6%


Some others of decent value, not on rookie contracts, relative to production:

Russell Wilson
2015: 4.9% ... 2016: 11.9% ... 2017: 11.3% ... 2018: 12.2% ... 2019: 12.2%

Aaron Rodgers
2013: 9.8% . '14: 13.2% . '15: 12.7% . '16: 12.4% . '17: 12.2% . '18: 11.7% . '19: 11.1%

Philip Rivers
2015: 14.8% ... 2016: 10.6% ... 2017: 12.0% ... 2018: 11.8% ... 2019: 11.6%

Ben Roethlisberger
2015: 12.0% ... 2016: 15.4% ... 2017: 10.9% ... 2018: 13.0% ... 2019: 12.2%


If you want to dedicate less of your cap to a starting quarterback, your options are either a rookie or someone like one of these. After Brady's contract with the Patriots, Dalton's six-year 96 million extension may be the best value of any veteran quarterback contract in the NFL. even Josh McCown's $6.5 million one year deal doesn't look so bad, as it is only 3.9% of the cap.

Andy Dalton
2015: 6.7% ... 2016: 8.4% ... 2017: 9.4% ... 2018: 9.2% ... 2019: 8.5% ... 2020: 8.9%

Alex Smith
2015: 10.9% ... 2016: 11.5% ... 2017: 10.1% ... 2018: 11.6%

Mike Glennon
2017: 8.4% ... 2018: 9.0% ... 2019: 7.9%

Brian Hoyer (2-year $12 mil contract with $9.85 guaranteed)
2017: 3.2% ... 2018: 3.7%


Once you get up in that 14-15% range, I would think that it would be almost impossible to field a superbowl contender. Baltimore for example has only one winning season in the last four years - a stretch that began when Joe Flacco signed his first contract extension, prior to the 2013 season.


Teams that have a good quarterback on a rookie contract (four years with a fifth year team option) have that five-year window to build a very competitive team.

Marcus Mariota
3.1% .... 3.5% .... 4.0% .... 4.3%

Jameis Winston
3.2% .... 3.7% .... 4.1% .... 4.5%


Teams that have a good but not great quarterback are in no man's land, screwed no matter what they do. It doesn't seem that much different than it was prior to the NFL instituting a rookie salary cap. Back then bad teams kept getting saddled with enormous contracts for unproven players that often did not live up to their draft status (and salary).

Teams with a good but not great quarterback are in a similar situation today. The best option is probably to bottom out, but you do that and you also run the risk of drafting the next Blake Bortles. It's easier for a GM and HC to keep their job by re-signing a guy like Stafford, than to explain to your owner the cold hard facts of what needs to be done.

 

[JMC00]

Same team that made Barry Sanders and Calvin Johnson retire in their prime rather than continuing playing for them.

 

[Simpelton]

But Matthew Stafford isn't their cornerstone. He's a LOOOOOOSER! I mean the stats back it up...

You don't have to be elite to be a cornerstone. Every decent thing that happens to the Lions, Stafford is directly involved.

That is exactly when it gets bad. No one is saying that Stafford is elite but he's a lot better than anyone else they could give that money to.

So if you don't have a better option what can you do? The talent isn't there for a quick build and a fill rebuild is more than your job is worth. If you roll the dice and wind up with a dud you are now even further from the goal and very likely be to be fired to appease the fans or the owner. So those offended by what the Lin's did here, what do you think they should have done?

 

[RobertWeathers]

This is one thing Bill Polian and the people at 345 Park Avenue probably did not consider when they opted to tweak the rules in order to open up the passing game. Or maybe they did, but just didn't care.

Quarterback salary cap numbers, as a percentage of that season's salary cap.

Matt Stafford
2017: 9.9% ... 2018: 14.9% ... 2019: 15.5% ... 2020: 15.8%

Joe Flacco
2016: 14.5% ... 2017: 14.7% ... 2018: 13.9% ... 2019: 13.9% ... 2020: 14.1%

Eli Manning
2016: 15.6% ... 2017: 11.8% ... 2018: 12.5% ... 2019: 12.2%

Carson Palmer
2016: 11.8% ... 2017: 14.4% ... 2018: 11.6%

Brock Osweiler (despite Houston eating a $12 mil signing bonus)
2017: 9.6% ... 2018: 10.1% ... 2019: 8.9%

Kirk Cousins
2017: 14.3%

Sam Bradford
2017: 10.8%

Miami has a whopping 18.2% of their 2017 cap tied to the starting QB position between Ryan Tannehill (12.2%) and Jay Cutler (at $10 mil, his 6% is a relative bargain).


By comparison:

Tom Brady
2016: 8.9% ... 2017: 8.4% ... 2018: 12.4% ... 2019: 11.6%


Some others of decent value, not on rookie contracts, relative to production:

Russell Wilson
2015: 4.9% ... 2016: 11.9% ... 2017: 11.3% ... 2018: 12.2% ... 2019: 12.2%

Aaron Rodgers
2013: 9.8% . '14: 13.2% . '15: 12.7% . '16: 12.4% . '17: 12.2% . '18: 11.7% . '19: 11.1%

Philip Rivers
2015: 14.8% ... 2016: 10.6% ... 2017: 12.0% ... 2018: 11.8% ... 2019: 11.6%

Ben Roethlisberger
2015: 12.0% ... 2016: 15.4% ... 2017: 10.9% ... 2018: 13.0% ... 2019: 12.2%


If you want to dedicate less of your cap to a starting quarterback, your options are either a rookie or someone like one of these. After Brady's contract with the Patriots, Dalton's six-year 96 million extension may be the best value of any veteran quarterback contract in the NFL. even Josh McCown's $6.5 million one year deal doesn't look so bad, as it is only 3.9% of the cap.

Andy Dalton
2015: 6.7% ... 2016: 8.4% ... 2017: 9.4% ... 2018: 9.2% ... 2019: 8.5% ... 2020: 8.9%

Alex Smith
2015: 10.9% ... 2016: 11.5% ... 2017: 10.1% ... 2018: 11.6%

Mike Glennon
2017: 8.4% ... 2018: 9.0% ... 2019: 7.9%

Brian Hoyer (2-year $12 mil contract with $9.85 guaranteed)
2017: 3.2% ... 2018: 3.7%


Once you get up in that 14-15% range, I would think that it would be almost impossible to field a superbowl contender. Baltimore for example has only one winning season in the last four years - a stretch that began when Joe Flacco signed his first contract extension, prior to the 2013 season.


Teams that have a good quarterback on a rookie contract (four years with a fifth year team option) have that five-year window to build a very competitive team.

Marcus Mariota
3.1% .... 3.5% .... 4.0% .... 4.3%

Jameis Winston
3.2% .... 3.7% .... 4.1% .... 4.5%


Teams that have a good but not great quarterback are in no man's land, screwed no matter what they do. It doesn't seem that much different than it was prior to the NFL instituting a rookie salary cap. Back then bad teams kept getting saddled with enormous contracts for unproven players that often did not live up to their draft status (and salary).

Teams with a good but not great quarterback are in a similar situation today. The best option is probably to bottom out, but you do that and you also run the risk of drafting the next Blake Bortles. It's easier for a GM and HC to keep their job by re-signing a guy like Stafford, than to explain to your owner the cold hard facts of what needs to be done.

Great research here but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.

For example, I don't think Flaccos $ and cap is killing BAL. Their drafting has sucked.

Some QBs with high cap % are on winning teams

The cap will go up so your % will go down.