Really enjoyed this read, especially the dive into how teams are forced to commit ~20% of the cap to a quarterback not at the caliber of the league’s top signal callers due to the scarcity of options/risk of starting fresh in such a pass heavy, quarterback dependent league. I wonder if this trend will be reckoned with in the future by teams collectively deciding to offer “almost-franchise” quarterbacks less than market leading deals because of the disadvantages it creates at other positions. Especially considering the Browns decision to give DeShaun Watson a massive $230 million fully-guaranteed contract, do you think quarterback deals will continue to rise, or will teams start to be more cautious/offer less?
One point I also had a thought about is in reference to the statement about Sam Darnold/Baker Mayfield you made near the end of the article. As the league has become more pass heavy, I’ve noticed that the defensive response in the emergence and now established popularity of the 2 high safety shell. Teams are more willing to force quarterbacks to make accurate, short-to-mid yardage throws into tight windows rather than risk allowing big plays from deep throws by quarterbacks with significant arm talent. I believe that this has led to the increased success of traditional “field general, system quarterbacks” such as Goff, Mayfield, and Darnold over raw athletic talents like Murray, Prescott, or Watson. Teams were so early to label Mayfield, Goff, and Darnold as busts, but once given time to develop and settle in to the pace of the league, they are now thriving in this new system-quarterback friendly league. Is it fair to label Darnold/Goff/Mayfield as busts so early into their careers, and to attribute their success solely to the playcaller, system, and amount of playmakers around him? Should teams emphasize instant success of their high draft picks, or focus on developing the quarterback they have into more of a system-quarterback while building the offense around them? There are so many factors that go into this, especially with the underrated importance of a good offensive line and established running game, that I am very interested to hear your thoughts on this.
I think your first point about teams trying to decrease the amount they spend on "almost-franchise" options would probably lead to more optimal team construction, but is unlikely to actually happen any time soon. The reason I think so is because of how hard it is to imagine teams collectively reducing contract prices at a position that is viewed as being so important across the league. While something like what your describing seemed to happen to running back contracts over the past few years, I think what came before the collectively lower salaries was a league-wide opinion that running backs are expendable - I don't think the league will get there with these "almost-franchise" options anytime soon. Only one team in the open market has to be willing to pay to set the price, and I think that there will be several teams willing to bid up the services of quarterbacks like Lawrence, Tua, etc. for a long time.
I also think that your second point about the changing skillset necessary for QBs in the league is spot on, and it wasn't something I touched on when discussing Darnold's resurgence. The shell look you are describing is a response to the explosive passing offenses that accompanied Mahomes, Allen, and other talented deep ball passers leading the league's best teams. Almost every team has adopted the shell look, essentially daring the offenses to beat them repeatedly underneath rather than to give up a longer look over the top. You can see the effect of that in Mahomes's numbers over the least few years, where his average yards per attempt have fallen to fractions of their previous highs. I think that in some ways quarterbacks like Goff, Baker and Darnold might be better suited for that environment, but only in that they aren't being asked to make some of the risky throws that got them in trouble earlier in their careers. I think each of these quarterbacks is pretty different, but all three of them have definitely benefitted from playing on better teams that have more structured schemes. Darnold in particular has benefitted from O'Connell encouraging him to take the easy pass, and the weapons around him actually getting open for those passes, rather than look for the big shots that he's struggled with over the years. How much credit you give the play callers is tough to prove, but I don't think it's a coincidence that O'Connell and Canales (now Liam Cohen) are two of the league's best regarded play callers and Darnold and Baker are both thriving under them. Goff is a more complex case, because he had McVay before, but a lot of the reports about his time in LA basically said that he struggled with the complexity of that scheme, and that Johnson's works better for him because it gets his first read open more often.
good O-line's and receivers also definitely a factor for all three. I think to your point we probably shouldn't label a quarterback a bust until we see them work with a competent o-line, group of playmakers, play-caller. I do think the league is more mindful of that now with Darnold, Baker, and Geno having their career revivals, so that second chance for QBs that flame out early might be more common.
Thanks again for reading and asking these! Hope these answered some of your questions and even if you don't buy all the answers they gave you more food for thought.
Nice piece … as I’m reading this it’s amazing how opposite the Bears operation has been with their last 3 QB Picks -Mitch Trubisky, Justin Fields & Caleb. They still haven’t hired a ‘competent’ OC/Playcaller that has a clue how to not only Teach a young
QB but also cohesively Call Plays! How long has Papa Bear Halas been rolling over in his Grave???!!!
It looks like you got your guy! As a Packers fan I'm hurting, but for the Bears I think Johnson and Williams is a home run pairing. I fully believe Williams has the tools to be worth a big extension and that if anyone can get it out of him it's Johnson.
Big Purdy fan but I'd love for someone to put down the highest % of cap number at which they'd be thrilled to pay Brock Purdy, or rather, the highest % of cap number at which they feel they can confidently field a Conference Championship-round competing team around him.
I think it's probably just south of 10% of the cap for Purdy. For Mahomes and Allen it probably goes up to 28%. Maybe Jackson and Herbert stick around 22% or so, but everyone else I'm moving down to around 10%. Even Mayfield and Smith are not quite good enough at 12% of the cap to really push those rosters forward.
I tend to agree with these numbers. I think Burrow at around 20% isn't horrible with a little better drafting in Cincinnati. Mayfield I think is worth a lot more than Smith, who at his price I'd be moving on from. For what it's worth I don't think 12-15% of the cap for Purdy would be bad to also pay for a level of continuity in SF (and make sure you don't squander the limited McCaffrey, Williams, Kittle prime years).
One of the issues with Joe Burrow is that the bengals scouting department has woefully underperformed (and is underfunded). Is there actual data correlating scouting payroll / draft hits with quarterback EPA?
Thanks for reading! So I don’t know of any data comparing scouting payroll to draft hits, but I do know that over the long term there haven’t been any franchises that have consistently outperformed in the draft, so if there are advantages in funding scouting departments they are probably relatively small and volatile ones
I'm not sure if you've done it intentionally, but I feel you've given Kyle Shanahan way too much credit here. You seem to think he can get great QB play out of just anybody as a play caller. I simply disagree. The story begins with Matt Schaub, who had a 49.8% success rate and 5.7 CPOE in 2007, without Shanahan calling his plays, and who you called a replacement level option. To me, this is incorrect. Matt was merely a breakout that hadn't happened yet. In my view, it would've happened with plenty of OCs.
From here, Kyle moves to Rex Grossman at QB, a guy who had been good before, but was not good under Kyle. RG3 up in 2012. RG3 down in 2013. In 2014, Kyle deals with Bryan Hoyer in Cleveland, who is awful. Kyle couldn't get anything out of him. 2016 Matt Ryan was great, but 2015 Matt Ryan was no better than he was with other people calling the plays. We'll call that 50/50. From here, he becomes HC in San Francisco, and remains just as reliant on the quality of his QB there.
The 2017 SF offence generates -0.119 EPA/Play under CJ Beathard. -0.093 under Bryan Hoyer, and then 0.335 under Jimmy Garoppolo. Is this head coach difference? Absolutely not. If it were, then why did it take a great QB to get everything straightened out? After all his knee stuff, Jimmy wouldn't be a great QB anymore, which explains why he'll never get these type of results anymore, and he becomes the ultimate Shanahan project player.
In 2018 the offence gets CJ Beathard again, who is awful. In 2020 it gets Nick Mullens, who is good but not as good as he'll be once he leaves SF. In 2019 Jimmy is ninth in CPOE and ninth in EPA/Play. In 2021 he's seventh in CPOE and fifth in EPA/Play. Is that the head coach difference? I don't think so. Then we get to 2022, where Jimmy is cooked and Brock is a rookie, but both put up great results anyway. You've got me on that one.
But then there's 2023, where again a SF QB's CPOE translates directly to their EPA/Play. Brock led the NFL in each. Is that the head coach difference? Once again, I don't think so.
So what are we left with then? I can find maybe two seasons where Kyle Shanahan boosted a QB who didn't deserve to be at the top of the league (2010 Matt Schaub and the 2022 hybrid).
This leaves us looking at Brock Purdy in a whole new light. Do we still think he's undeserving of the money? Where's the Shanahan boost? He's had 15 years as a play caller and you can barely find it. I believe there's a lot of recency bias around that 2022 season that makes people think Kyle can carry just anybody to good results, when his track record says exactly the opposite. In the absence of a great QB, his offence seems to struggle a lot. This may make Brock even more valuable to SF than he is elsewhere, because contrary to the claim that the Shanahan offence is not QB-centric, I can't find any evidence of that.
thanks for reading! I think our main source of disagreement is the quality of the quarterbacks in question - I am not a Matt Schaub believer based on his before/after numbers with Shanahan. I think RG3 is some of Shanahan's best work with him (along with McVay, LaFleur) essentially creating a scheme from scratch to cover up for his deficiencies. His injury late in 2012 really limited what he could do physically, and is what I tend to throw his huge regression on. I also think the Matt Ryan MVP year, along with getting top play out of Garoppollo before him looking listless on the Raiders are also two instances where Shanahan provided serious value as a play caller.
I think your point that the statement I made about getting solid play out of *all* quarterbacks is probably under qualified. I think a more nuanced and correct version is that above a baseline quality, Shanahan has shown an ability to get much better play than that quarterback's results otherwise suggest. Purdy might never leave the 49ers and we might never know what he looks like outside a Shanahan offense, but the last overall pick, with serious deficiencies in typical NFL qualities being able to come on so well, so quickly I also think has to be largely credited to Shanahan and his work with quarterbacks.
I appreciate the note and your (very informed) perspective - and hope you're back to read and give feedback on the next one!
The Matt Schaub thing depends on your perspective of what a QB coach means. In 2007, with Kyle as his QB coach (but not play caller), Matt had a 5.7 CPOE and a 49.5% success rate. Poor turnover luck keeps his EPA/Play to 0.03, sure, but I think that actually works in my favour in this case, because it gives an alternative reason for Matt's much improved results (without improved peripherals) in 2008 and 2009. Additionally, after Kyle left Houston in 2010, Matt's peripherals went way down, but his results did not.
Doesn't that speak to the genius of the scheme? The scheme that Kyle Shanahan was not a part of, with OC Rick Dennison? Even if the argument is that they merely copied what they were doing before, that is tantamount to arguing that Gary Kubiak (and NOT Kyle Shanahan) is the real genius here, because the scheme carried Matt more after Kyle left than when he was there.
From there, he went to Washington, and got the worst season of his career out of Donovan McNabb. In 2011, Rex Grossman's 23rd place ranking in success rate and 24th place ranking in CPOE translated to a 25th place ranking in EPA/Play. No lifting being done there, and as far as the RG3 years, for your argument to hold that Kyle Shanahan gets more out of a QB than their baseline, we must argue BOTH that RG3 was not an NFL level QB anymore the instant he hit the ground in that Seattle game, and that he was never that great to begin with in 2012.
If 2013 and 2014 were somehow above baseline, that means RG3 was probably the worst QB in the NFL at the time. I have no problem arguing that, we just have to be clear that's what we're arguing here. You've got me on 2016 Matt Ryan, but this is very much the Brock Purdy argument. It's an explosion that happens when you combine the best QB in the league with the Shanahan system. Matt Ryan had gotten to his 2016 peripherals before, but he had never gotten to his 2016 results before. The play caller gets credit for those results, no question, but that doesn't mean he made Matt Ryan a better player in a fundamental way.
From here, we move to San Francisco, where we run into the same dichotomy as I was talking about in the first comment. You have Jimmy Garoppolo, who was much better in SF than elsewhere, but you also have Nick Mullens, who has been much better since he got out of there, and deserves at least a try to be an NFL starter right now in my opinion. I know Nick Mullens has only about 200 plays of good non-SF play, but Jimmy has only about 200 plays of bad non-SF play, so it's fair game in this case.
What am I supposed to make of this? By your argument, it would just be that Nick Mullens' baseline improved immensely, and the 49ers didn't notice, allowing him to leave so they can draft Trey Lance instead. This seems like we're jumping through hoops though. I think the clear interpretation is at least that the Shanahan system doesn't work for everybody. Not everybody is lifted by its majesty, even if perhaps most are.
In essence, I think arguing for Kyle Shanahan is arguing that he's never had a good QB except 2016 Matt Ryan and 2023 Brock Purdy. You must argue that all of Matt Schaub, RG3, and Jimmy Garoppolo are overrated. You must argue something fundamentally changed about RG3 midway through, which I'll grant you isn't that difficult, but you must also find a way to explain the 2010-2012 Texans, who got similar results out of a much worse Matt Schaub than Kyle Shanahan got. You must also find something to say about Nick Mullens, elsewise leave Jimmy Garoppolo out of it altogether, because if Nick's sample is too small, so is Jimmy's.
Some people are willing to jump through all of these mental hoops at once, but I'm not willing to do it. I think Kyle Shanahan works great when he has good QBs, and tends to lose double-digit games when he doesn't. That sounds awful regular to me, for a man who's supposed to be such a wizard. The only exception is 2022, with a washed up Jimmy G and a rookie Brock Purdy, but a great offence anyway. He gets full credit for that from me, but I still believe 2022 being so recent leads to Kyle being residually overrated still.
As far as I'm concerned, Kyle Shanahan is a guy who really knows how to goose the results out of QBs that are very good, and can't get anything out of QBs that are bad (except 2022). I don't think this is an insult, but it's a misnomer in my opinion to call him a mean raiser as a blanket statement. Nick Mullens would disagree. So would Rex Grossman. He got nothing different out of Bryan Hoyer than anybody else did. He got nothing different out of Matt Schaub than anybody else did.
I think that if a QB is able to be great in the Kyle Shanahan offence, it's actually quite the signal that they're good, and not the other way around.
Who are some coaches you think do a better job than Kyle? I think you’re argument is valid, but I’m really just not sure what other coaches are able to get positive results from below average QBs (in my eyes) ie: jimmy g, schuab, mullens, hoyer. This is not to say I didn’t get your point about Kyle “not getting anything different” out of these QBs than anyone else, but rather what coaches are able to get something different out of QBs on that tier.
I think you're right that perhaps there's a structural break somewhere, where players become so bad that no scheme can lift them up. Still, there's a pattern of Shanahan players (other than in 2022) not really outplaying their peripherals, and not getting dramatically worse after they're rid of him. Matt Schaub's peripherals got dramatically worse, but results stayed the same when Kyle left. RG3 got better when Kyle left. Nick Mullens, etc.. You're probably right in your premise, but even your premise violates the commonly held assumption that the Shanahan offence can work with anybody back there. It's very far from true. About half the QBs who've ever been in the Shanahan offence have been awful. That's not to say they wouldn't be awful in any other offence, but some people like to treat Brock Purdy like he's a garden gnome, and even Will Levis could do his job. That's the point I was trying to disprove.
As far as those who are good at lifting QBs, who I would take over Kyle, I trust you mean other than Sean McVay, who made a top five QB out of Kirk Cousins, and has been carrying the empty shell that was once Matthew Stafford around for a long time now.
Beyond the obvious, let's look around the league at some other QBs who have performed well above their peripherals in recent years. The immediate example that screams at you is Justin Herbert, who's done it constantly, which leads me in the direction of Joe Lombardi, the former OC of the Chargers, and current OC of the Broncos, a team who just got an unreasonably good offensive season out of a rookie QB in Bo Nix, a season after getting more than anybody else has been able to get out of post-Seattle Russell Wilson. I don't know why he's not a Head Coach already. He'd be one of my top choices.
I also have a side-eye on Drew Petzing, OC of the Arizona Cardinals. He had tremendous impact as QB coach in Cleveland on getting the best out of Jacoby Brissett, and has gotten great results out of Kyler Murray and James Conner (two players who I do not believe in). It's not his fault he doesn't coach defence. It's kind of too early to tell on him. He's not set in stone in my mind like Lombardi is, but he's done good stuff so far.
It must be said that Josh McDaniels spent years and years getting the best out of a very physically limited QB in Tom Brady, and even recently has gotten more than he deserved out of both Derek Carr and Aidan O'Connell. I'm not sure he's in the Kyle Shanahan conversation, but as a QB lifter I think there's something to that.
I'm just rambling at this point, but I've given you four names who have more of a history of getting more out of their QBs than their peripherals say they should get than Kyle does. None of this means I would necessarily pick them over Kyle, but there's plenty of food for thought to be had here.
Completely agree on your Purdy point. I think the fact he was a successful late round pick has probably skewed the credit disproportionately in Kyle’s direction in a league where nearly every QB is a former 1st or 2nd round selection…at some point, everyone has to come to grips with the fact Purdy is just as good as many of these 1st/2nd round guys. Appreciate your 4 examples as I was more interested in guys (outside of McVay) that you thought were able to get more out of that tier of QBs.
it hurts my brain thinking about how much QB salaries have ballooned in the past decade. At this rate, there will be a $100mil/year QB soon, which seems insane.
that said Alex, I feel like it was known that Tom Brady would take a lesser salary to keep a better roster around. Do you know of any other star QB's who have done that?
thanks for reading! So of quarterbacks today the prominent example would be Patrick Mahomes. While his deal at the time of signing was worth around 20% of cap, he hasn’t renegotiated it for more yet, which he certainly could have done. Now his deal is a relatively team friendly % of cap, and with the cash leftover the chiefs have been able to pay the best interior offensive line in football, Chris jones, Kelce and others. They have also killed in the draft, landing a lockdown corner in duffie, and other offensive weapons like Pacheco and rice. It’s probably hard to do team building any better than KC has done it over the Mahomes era.
Didn't they restructure his deal in 2023? Spotrac indicates that his cap numbers through 2026 are higher than Burrow's (they moved money from 2027-2031 to the next 4 years).
I talked a little in the piece about the cap manipulation that GMs have at their disposal (and how the AAV numbers I use are a simplification that ignores them) but using a simplifying assumption that all these quarterbacks are restructuring all the time depending on the level of talent around them and contracts that need to get filled, I think the AAV is probably the most useful to think about these deals
Great piece, and few observations. A look at the highest paid quarterbacks along with their utter lack of post-season success calls the entire "franchise/elite quarterback" paradigm into question. That's before you think about Nick Foles in 2018. Yet, the NFL is too dimwitted and scared to see any other path as they continue to go over the cliff like lemmings.
You're right of course - the diminution in the roster for a labor-intensive sport like the NFL 1-3 years out after the QB mega-deal is inked (depending on structure, other rookie deals etc.) ensures the franchise will be decline unless the front office can master the roulette wheel that is the Draft.
The Bengals' problems that you touch on began with Burrow's cap eating contract after visiting the Super Bowl three years ago on his rookie deal loaded with assets around him. At a high team level, Burrow has more in common with Purdy than the media would like to admit. Successful QBs need talent around them and on both sides of the ball to make their contracts worthwhile.
This includes Burrow having to now deal with a diminished defense, Joe Mixon sent packing and his two top WRs playing pissed when they couldn't get an extension after he got paid. Depending on what happens over the next few months, 2025 could be even harder for Burrow and Cincy as the pieces that were key to his success three years ago continue to melt away.
Ironically, the two quarterbacks you note as exceptions - Mahomes and Brady - have taken team friendly deals over the years to avoid this moral hazard. Mahomes took less so Kelce, Jones, and Humphrey got their money. Brady took less - particularly in Tampa - in exchange for power to buy the groceries. Those moves paved the way for Super Bowl champtionships. Yet. these were approaches Burrow explicitly did not take and the Bengals are now struggling as a result.
When you stare at the successful counterculture approach of Mahomes and Brady, you realize quickly that you simply cannot pay a single player a cap crushing amount of money and be successful...or at least sustain success for long. If that is true for the likes of Mahomes and Tom Brady, why would anyone think that Prescott, Herbert, Lawrence, and the rest are somehow different and exceptions to that rule?
Take Detroit. Brad Holmes was smart enough to push the day of reckoning down the road for the Lions by outright replacing two key offensive assets - Hockenson and Swift - with rookies on cheap deals to avoid upcoming paydays as the media expressed puzzlement and criticism of the strategy on Draft Day. Holmes was proven right, and LaPorta and Gibbs have made Goff look more affordable. Holmes' overall ability to draft well has made the Goff contract palatable...but that is the tough road you must take when you drop a bag on someone.
That's before you get to injuries. These franchise quarterbacks with diminished resources around them get hurt - a lot. It seem as if each year 60+ quarterbacks start in the NFL and some - perhaps Deshaun Watson - might never start again. Nobody outside of the insular NFL buys a Lamborghini expecting it to be in the shop for half the days they want to drive it. The financial irresponsibility of the franchise quarterback paradigm is only magnified when you analyze it as dollars paid per snap. Ask Dallas or Jacksonville.
While the media has inexplicably heaped criticism on Purdy from the start, the 49ers’ problems are far more profound than him. Deebo and Bosa have regressed, the Niners never seemed able to replace Ryans as DC and Shanahan remains stubbornly disinterested in that side of the ball, the MCM trade yielded one year of value before a disastrous needless extension, Greenlaw can’t get back on the field, Aiyuk was a distraction who came back a shell of 2023 before getting hurt, and Kittle, Trent Williams and others are getting long in the tooth.
The list of problems for San Francisco is long and begins with a defense in decline and too many regressing overpaid assets before you even get to Brock Purdy. Not signing Purdy won’t solve the many other more critical issues they now face; it will only highlight them.
However, it seems that the 49ers and others might be starting to confront – or at least recognize - the insanity of the existing approach to the position. Purdy is the titular focus of the piece, but the better example is Sam Darnold. After blowing it out in 2024 with a loaded roster reminiscent of Joe Burrow in 2021, the Vikings are actually considering letting Darnold walk for nothing to replace him with an untested rookie on a bad leg but a great contract. Think about that for a moment and what it says. That’s an insight into how bad signing these quarterbacks to expensive extensions really is…even when you have one in the hand.
The emerging counter approach might be to negotiate by emphasizing that playing for the current team has advantages for the QB beyond money and that to ensure long term success they have to offer under market terms commensurate to those added benefits like Mahomes and Brady. The argument goes that the QB will still have generational wealth plus a terrific environment and structure built for their long-term success in an organization that values them. Remember, Jimmy Garoppolo and Kirk Cousins thought money was the answer. Take less and be happier longer.
This was unsuccessfully tested by the Giants with Jones, but he had not performed, had zero leverage and the Giants just underpaid him because they didn’t really want him but had no other viable option in their minds.
Darnold and Purdy could be different. They both might very well realize that they are better off with their current teams than without, even for more money…and understand that some portion of their success is due to financial flexibility of the front office to sign other assets. They might be inclined to take significantly less money as a result.
Winston Churchill is credited with saying, “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” What you call the “quarterback-centric orthodoxy” has been exhausted. It's a dead end for most. Maybe this year we can trust San Francisco and Minnesota to try something different.
I think you've hit the nail on the head Grant. What you need to win is not a great QB. It's great QB play. These are two related concepts, but are not exactly the same. I've been calling Sam Darnold a great QB for years, so I'll gently step around the 2024 Vikings and use the Houston Texans last year as an argument instead. This is a team that got really good QB play out of a player in CJ Stroud with very little individual skill.
If CJ were just a tiny bit better, the Texans could've been a SB contender last season. This year, their offensive depletion mirrors that of a big boy QB contract, and we see what that's done to CJ's production. That's what happens when you give a bad player the big contract. Your offence goes straight into the abyss, but what happens when you give a merely good player the big contract?
This is where we run into the problem. Where does good stop and great begin? I've spent a lot of years debating whether Justin Herbert is even good. Others think he's great. Regardless, he got his big boy contract assuming he would take a step forward, and his offensive production stayed relatively the same this season. His cap number is merely big (instead of huge), and is going to get much bigger in the future. I'm not sure how this is going to work for the Chargers. The same is true for the Jaguars, who gave Trevor the big contract assuming he would eventually become worth it.
I'm sceptical of this approach (awarding contracts to players, on the hope that they will one day be worth the money). I also put Joe Burrow in this category. Awarding money to players who have already been to the top of the leaderboards (Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson) seems to work a lot better. This puts Brock Purdy (who finished first in EPA/Play and first in CPOE in 2023) in a unique position to me. He's been to the top of the mountain. By the logic I've been expressing, this would make him worthy of the big contract.
If we treat the offensive injury issues he faced this season as indicative of what he'll face under his big boy contract, he is absolutely worth the money. He still finished eighth in EPA/Play on a SF offence that was still top ten. This ii better than Patrick Mahomes has done since 2023, when he really began feeling the brunt of his contract. He's finished tenth in EPA/Play in both 2023 and 2024 on a KC offence that's been roughly tenth both years.
Insofar as Patrick Mahomes is worth his big boy contract, I think Brock Purdy is worth his, on the condition that the SF roster doesn't get even worse than its battered state this year. Offence is still not the problem in KC, and I think the Chiefs have shown you can build a defence capable of carrying an offence that is not Super Bowl calibre, and do it on a budget.
Right now, that seems to be the prevailing strategy in the NFL. Hamstring your own offence with the QB contract, and then build an elite defence on a budget. In years past, there used to be plenty of good teams with bad defences. In 2024 there are zero. Not a single team with a defence worse than 17th placed Tampa Bay is worth talking about. This is not true on offence. The offensive top 11 contains several also-rans (CIN, ARI, SF) and if you go down to 13th you find ATL, a team who apparently didn't hamstring themselves enough with their big QB contract, and wanted to do it more.
It's a defensive league these days, and I can't help but question the interaction between that and the fact that the league's highest paid players are all offensive.
I think one thing to note is that despite the injuries, Purdy still played quite well. He was top tone in basically every important QB statistic and the offense was 5th in Yards Per Drive and 11th in Points Per drive. While I'm concerned about Kittle aging in the long term, I think this offense can still be quite good without CMC and Deebo. While I do think the QB market is inflated (half the QBs shouldn't be getting 40 mil+), I think Purdy has earned a deal more so than Trevor, Kyler, Herbert, and Jones did.
thanks for reading! I think that from a results perspective there is no doubt that Purdy is as worthy or more than a lot of the guys getting franchise deals. I think the problem for San Fran is around how well they'll be able to compete going forward, and because they have such talented weapons and Shanahan leading them, whether getting into the quarterback-centric team build is the best strategy for them. I think the big pro to it is that Purdy seems like a pretty stable option, but he doesn't have the ability to make those bail-out, special throws that I'd be excited about if the roster is going to get significantly diminished around him.
1. I think Purdy's accuracy, rushing ability, sack avoidance, and not relying heavily on yac (#1 in completed air yards per attempt) will make him more resilient than most when the talent decreases. While not having those S tier throws may keep him from being the in the best QB in the league discussion, I think he can be consistently in the top-10 and break into the top 5 from time to time
2. However, that is still no guarantee the 49ers will still be SB contender. Brees and Rivers producing like a top QBs for years but did have an elite team for long stretches of time. I think your hope if you are the 49ers is that Purdy can be a top 10-5 guy and that you get a couple of good defensive drafts (ie. last two years Chiefs).
Your first point is definitely possible, but I’m a little more skeptical about Purdy’s upside. Regardless though, I think you bring up a great point about the best case scenario for the niners Super Bowl chances in your second point: hitting in the draft. I think mahomes is good enough to drag anything to the Super Bowl, but the Eagles are a really compelling example of a team giving a big contract to a good but not elite QB and then covering for it by drafting well. The nines have been great in the draft lately and if they hadn’t made the Lance deal, which cost them a ton of draft capital in past years, I think they’d have the depth to be better able to handle the losses that come from signing Purdy. Also an important thing to consider about the draft is that it’s very random, no team has demonstrated an ability to beat it over time, so i don’t love it as part of a “strategy” that goes after signing a franchise QB. If you give out that mega contract, you should theoretically accept normal returns from the draft and having to make it worth from them, and then you might get lucky and do better than that.
Really enjoyed this read, especially the dive into how teams are forced to commit ~20% of the cap to a quarterback not at the caliber of the league’s top signal callers due to the scarcity of options/risk of starting fresh in such a pass heavy, quarterback dependent league. I wonder if this trend will be reckoned with in the future by teams collectively deciding to offer “almost-franchise” quarterbacks less than market leading deals because of the disadvantages it creates at other positions. Especially considering the Browns decision to give DeShaun Watson a massive $230 million fully-guaranteed contract, do you think quarterback deals will continue to rise, or will teams start to be more cautious/offer less?
One point I also had a thought about is in reference to the statement about Sam Darnold/Baker Mayfield you made near the end of the article. As the league has become more pass heavy, I’ve noticed that the defensive response in the emergence and now established popularity of the 2 high safety shell. Teams are more willing to force quarterbacks to make accurate, short-to-mid yardage throws into tight windows rather than risk allowing big plays from deep throws by quarterbacks with significant arm talent. I believe that this has led to the increased success of traditional “field general, system quarterbacks” such as Goff, Mayfield, and Darnold over raw athletic talents like Murray, Prescott, or Watson. Teams were so early to label Mayfield, Goff, and Darnold as busts, but once given time to develop and settle in to the pace of the league, they are now thriving in this new system-quarterback friendly league. Is it fair to label Darnold/Goff/Mayfield as busts so early into their careers, and to attribute their success solely to the playcaller, system, and amount of playmakers around him? Should teams emphasize instant success of their high draft picks, or focus on developing the quarterback they have into more of a system-quarterback while building the offense around them? There are so many factors that go into this, especially with the underrated importance of a good offensive line and established running game, that I am very interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Thanks for reading Zach!
I think your first point about teams trying to decrease the amount they spend on "almost-franchise" options would probably lead to more optimal team construction, but is unlikely to actually happen any time soon. The reason I think so is because of how hard it is to imagine teams collectively reducing contract prices at a position that is viewed as being so important across the league. While something like what your describing seemed to happen to running back contracts over the past few years, I think what came before the collectively lower salaries was a league-wide opinion that running backs are expendable - I don't think the league will get there with these "almost-franchise" options anytime soon. Only one team in the open market has to be willing to pay to set the price, and I think that there will be several teams willing to bid up the services of quarterbacks like Lawrence, Tua, etc. for a long time.
I also think that your second point about the changing skillset necessary for QBs in the league is spot on, and it wasn't something I touched on when discussing Darnold's resurgence. The shell look you are describing is a response to the explosive passing offenses that accompanied Mahomes, Allen, and other talented deep ball passers leading the league's best teams. Almost every team has adopted the shell look, essentially daring the offenses to beat them repeatedly underneath rather than to give up a longer look over the top. You can see the effect of that in Mahomes's numbers over the least few years, where his average yards per attempt have fallen to fractions of their previous highs. I think that in some ways quarterbacks like Goff, Baker and Darnold might be better suited for that environment, but only in that they aren't being asked to make some of the risky throws that got them in trouble earlier in their careers. I think each of these quarterbacks is pretty different, but all three of them have definitely benefitted from playing on better teams that have more structured schemes. Darnold in particular has benefitted from O'Connell encouraging him to take the easy pass, and the weapons around him actually getting open for those passes, rather than look for the big shots that he's struggled with over the years. How much credit you give the play callers is tough to prove, but I don't think it's a coincidence that O'Connell and Canales (now Liam Cohen) are two of the league's best regarded play callers and Darnold and Baker are both thriving under them. Goff is a more complex case, because he had McVay before, but a lot of the reports about his time in LA basically said that he struggled with the complexity of that scheme, and that Johnson's works better for him because it gets his first read open more often.
good O-line's and receivers also definitely a factor for all three. I think to your point we probably shouldn't label a quarterback a bust until we see them work with a competent o-line, group of playmakers, play-caller. I do think the league is more mindful of that now with Darnold, Baker, and Geno having their career revivals, so that second chance for QBs that flame out early might be more common.
Thanks again for reading and asking these! Hope these answered some of your questions and even if you don't buy all the answers they gave you more food for thought.
Nice piece … as I’m reading this it’s amazing how opposite the Bears operation has been with their last 3 QB Picks -Mitch Trubisky, Justin Fields & Caleb. They still haven’t hired a ‘competent’ OC/Playcaller that has a clue how to not only Teach a young
QB but also cohesively Call Plays! How long has Papa Bear Halas been rolling over in his Grave???!!!
It looks like you got your guy! As a Packers fan I'm hurting, but for the Bears I think Johnson and Williams is a home run pairing. I fully believe Williams has the tools to be worth a big extension and that if anyone can get it out of him it's Johnson.
Big Purdy fan but I'd love for someone to put down the highest % of cap number at which they'd be thrilled to pay Brock Purdy, or rather, the highest % of cap number at which they feel they can confidently field a Conference Championship-round competing team around him.
I think it's probably just south of 10% of the cap for Purdy. For Mahomes and Allen it probably goes up to 28%. Maybe Jackson and Herbert stick around 22% or so, but everyone else I'm moving down to around 10%. Even Mayfield and Smith are not quite good enough at 12% of the cap to really push those rosters forward.
I tend to agree with these numbers. I think Burrow at around 20% isn't horrible with a little better drafting in Cincinnati. Mayfield I think is worth a lot more than Smith, who at his price I'd be moving on from. For what it's worth I don't think 12-15% of the cap for Purdy would be bad to also pay for a level of continuity in SF (and make sure you don't squander the limited McCaffrey, Williams, Kittle prime years).
One of the issues with Joe Burrow is that the bengals scouting department has woefully underperformed (and is underfunded). Is there actual data correlating scouting payroll / draft hits with quarterback EPA?
Thanks for reading! So I don’t know of any data comparing scouting payroll to draft hits, but I do know that over the long term there haven’t been any franchises that have consistently outperformed in the draft, so if there are advantages in funding scouting departments they are probably relatively small and volatile ones
Interesting piece Alex!
I'm not sure if you've done it intentionally, but I feel you've given Kyle Shanahan way too much credit here. You seem to think he can get great QB play out of just anybody as a play caller. I simply disagree. The story begins with Matt Schaub, who had a 49.8% success rate and 5.7 CPOE in 2007, without Shanahan calling his plays, and who you called a replacement level option. To me, this is incorrect. Matt was merely a breakout that hadn't happened yet. In my view, it would've happened with plenty of OCs.
From here, Kyle moves to Rex Grossman at QB, a guy who had been good before, but was not good under Kyle. RG3 up in 2012. RG3 down in 2013. In 2014, Kyle deals with Bryan Hoyer in Cleveland, who is awful. Kyle couldn't get anything out of him. 2016 Matt Ryan was great, but 2015 Matt Ryan was no better than he was with other people calling the plays. We'll call that 50/50. From here, he becomes HC in San Francisco, and remains just as reliant on the quality of his QB there.
The 2017 SF offence generates -0.119 EPA/Play under CJ Beathard. -0.093 under Bryan Hoyer, and then 0.335 under Jimmy Garoppolo. Is this head coach difference? Absolutely not. If it were, then why did it take a great QB to get everything straightened out? After all his knee stuff, Jimmy wouldn't be a great QB anymore, which explains why he'll never get these type of results anymore, and he becomes the ultimate Shanahan project player.
In 2018 the offence gets CJ Beathard again, who is awful. In 2020 it gets Nick Mullens, who is good but not as good as he'll be once he leaves SF. In 2019 Jimmy is ninth in CPOE and ninth in EPA/Play. In 2021 he's seventh in CPOE and fifth in EPA/Play. Is that the head coach difference? I don't think so. Then we get to 2022, where Jimmy is cooked and Brock is a rookie, but both put up great results anyway. You've got me on that one.
But then there's 2023, where again a SF QB's CPOE translates directly to their EPA/Play. Brock led the NFL in each. Is that the head coach difference? Once again, I don't think so.
So what are we left with then? I can find maybe two seasons where Kyle Shanahan boosted a QB who didn't deserve to be at the top of the league (2010 Matt Schaub and the 2022 hybrid).
This leaves us looking at Brock Purdy in a whole new light. Do we still think he's undeserving of the money? Where's the Shanahan boost? He's had 15 years as a play caller and you can barely find it. I believe there's a lot of recency bias around that 2022 season that makes people think Kyle can carry just anybody to good results, when his track record says exactly the opposite. In the absence of a great QB, his offence seems to struggle a lot. This may make Brock even more valuable to SF than he is elsewhere, because contrary to the claim that the Shanahan offence is not QB-centric, I can't find any evidence of that.
thanks for reading! I think our main source of disagreement is the quality of the quarterbacks in question - I am not a Matt Schaub believer based on his before/after numbers with Shanahan. I think RG3 is some of Shanahan's best work with him (along with McVay, LaFleur) essentially creating a scheme from scratch to cover up for his deficiencies. His injury late in 2012 really limited what he could do physically, and is what I tend to throw his huge regression on. I also think the Matt Ryan MVP year, along with getting top play out of Garoppollo before him looking listless on the Raiders are also two instances where Shanahan provided serious value as a play caller.
I think your point that the statement I made about getting solid play out of *all* quarterbacks is probably under qualified. I think a more nuanced and correct version is that above a baseline quality, Shanahan has shown an ability to get much better play than that quarterback's results otherwise suggest. Purdy might never leave the 49ers and we might never know what he looks like outside a Shanahan offense, but the last overall pick, with serious deficiencies in typical NFL qualities being able to come on so well, so quickly I also think has to be largely credited to Shanahan and his work with quarterbacks.
I appreciate the note and your (very informed) perspective - and hope you're back to read and give feedback on the next one!
The Matt Schaub thing depends on your perspective of what a QB coach means. In 2007, with Kyle as his QB coach (but not play caller), Matt had a 5.7 CPOE and a 49.5% success rate. Poor turnover luck keeps his EPA/Play to 0.03, sure, but I think that actually works in my favour in this case, because it gives an alternative reason for Matt's much improved results (without improved peripherals) in 2008 and 2009. Additionally, after Kyle left Houston in 2010, Matt's peripherals went way down, but his results did not.
Doesn't that speak to the genius of the scheme? The scheme that Kyle Shanahan was not a part of, with OC Rick Dennison? Even if the argument is that they merely copied what they were doing before, that is tantamount to arguing that Gary Kubiak (and NOT Kyle Shanahan) is the real genius here, because the scheme carried Matt more after Kyle left than when he was there.
From there, he went to Washington, and got the worst season of his career out of Donovan McNabb. In 2011, Rex Grossman's 23rd place ranking in success rate and 24th place ranking in CPOE translated to a 25th place ranking in EPA/Play. No lifting being done there, and as far as the RG3 years, for your argument to hold that Kyle Shanahan gets more out of a QB than their baseline, we must argue BOTH that RG3 was not an NFL level QB anymore the instant he hit the ground in that Seattle game, and that he was never that great to begin with in 2012.
If 2013 and 2014 were somehow above baseline, that means RG3 was probably the worst QB in the NFL at the time. I have no problem arguing that, we just have to be clear that's what we're arguing here. You've got me on 2016 Matt Ryan, but this is very much the Brock Purdy argument. It's an explosion that happens when you combine the best QB in the league with the Shanahan system. Matt Ryan had gotten to his 2016 peripherals before, but he had never gotten to his 2016 results before. The play caller gets credit for those results, no question, but that doesn't mean he made Matt Ryan a better player in a fundamental way.
From here, we move to San Francisco, where we run into the same dichotomy as I was talking about in the first comment. You have Jimmy Garoppolo, who was much better in SF than elsewhere, but you also have Nick Mullens, who has been much better since he got out of there, and deserves at least a try to be an NFL starter right now in my opinion. I know Nick Mullens has only about 200 plays of good non-SF play, but Jimmy has only about 200 plays of bad non-SF play, so it's fair game in this case.
What am I supposed to make of this? By your argument, it would just be that Nick Mullens' baseline improved immensely, and the 49ers didn't notice, allowing him to leave so they can draft Trey Lance instead. This seems like we're jumping through hoops though. I think the clear interpretation is at least that the Shanahan system doesn't work for everybody. Not everybody is lifted by its majesty, even if perhaps most are.
In essence, I think arguing for Kyle Shanahan is arguing that he's never had a good QB except 2016 Matt Ryan and 2023 Brock Purdy. You must argue that all of Matt Schaub, RG3, and Jimmy Garoppolo are overrated. You must argue something fundamentally changed about RG3 midway through, which I'll grant you isn't that difficult, but you must also find a way to explain the 2010-2012 Texans, who got similar results out of a much worse Matt Schaub than Kyle Shanahan got. You must also find something to say about Nick Mullens, elsewise leave Jimmy Garoppolo out of it altogether, because if Nick's sample is too small, so is Jimmy's.
Some people are willing to jump through all of these mental hoops at once, but I'm not willing to do it. I think Kyle Shanahan works great when he has good QBs, and tends to lose double-digit games when he doesn't. That sounds awful regular to me, for a man who's supposed to be such a wizard. The only exception is 2022, with a washed up Jimmy G and a rookie Brock Purdy, but a great offence anyway. He gets full credit for that from me, but I still believe 2022 being so recent leads to Kyle being residually overrated still.
As far as I'm concerned, Kyle Shanahan is a guy who really knows how to goose the results out of QBs that are very good, and can't get anything out of QBs that are bad (except 2022). I don't think this is an insult, but it's a misnomer in my opinion to call him a mean raiser as a blanket statement. Nick Mullens would disagree. So would Rex Grossman. He got nothing different out of Bryan Hoyer than anybody else did. He got nothing different out of Matt Schaub than anybody else did.
I think that if a QB is able to be great in the Kyle Shanahan offence, it's actually quite the signal that they're good, and not the other way around.
Who are some coaches you think do a better job than Kyle? I think you’re argument is valid, but I’m really just not sure what other coaches are able to get positive results from below average QBs (in my eyes) ie: jimmy g, schuab, mullens, hoyer. This is not to say I didn’t get your point about Kyle “not getting anything different” out of these QBs than anyone else, but rather what coaches are able to get something different out of QBs on that tier.
I think you're right that perhaps there's a structural break somewhere, where players become so bad that no scheme can lift them up. Still, there's a pattern of Shanahan players (other than in 2022) not really outplaying their peripherals, and not getting dramatically worse after they're rid of him. Matt Schaub's peripherals got dramatically worse, but results stayed the same when Kyle left. RG3 got better when Kyle left. Nick Mullens, etc.. You're probably right in your premise, but even your premise violates the commonly held assumption that the Shanahan offence can work with anybody back there. It's very far from true. About half the QBs who've ever been in the Shanahan offence have been awful. That's not to say they wouldn't be awful in any other offence, but some people like to treat Brock Purdy like he's a garden gnome, and even Will Levis could do his job. That's the point I was trying to disprove.
As far as those who are good at lifting QBs, who I would take over Kyle, I trust you mean other than Sean McVay, who made a top five QB out of Kirk Cousins, and has been carrying the empty shell that was once Matthew Stafford around for a long time now.
Beyond the obvious, let's look around the league at some other QBs who have performed well above their peripherals in recent years. The immediate example that screams at you is Justin Herbert, who's done it constantly, which leads me in the direction of Joe Lombardi, the former OC of the Chargers, and current OC of the Broncos, a team who just got an unreasonably good offensive season out of a rookie QB in Bo Nix, a season after getting more than anybody else has been able to get out of post-Seattle Russell Wilson. I don't know why he's not a Head Coach already. He'd be one of my top choices.
I also have a side-eye on Drew Petzing, OC of the Arizona Cardinals. He had tremendous impact as QB coach in Cleveland on getting the best out of Jacoby Brissett, and has gotten great results out of Kyler Murray and James Conner (two players who I do not believe in). It's not his fault he doesn't coach defence. It's kind of too early to tell on him. He's not set in stone in my mind like Lombardi is, but he's done good stuff so far.
It must be said that Josh McDaniels spent years and years getting the best out of a very physically limited QB in Tom Brady, and even recently has gotten more than he deserved out of both Derek Carr and Aidan O'Connell. I'm not sure he's in the Kyle Shanahan conversation, but as a QB lifter I think there's something to that.
I'm just rambling at this point, but I've given you four names who have more of a history of getting more out of their QBs than their peripherals say they should get than Kyle does. None of this means I would necessarily pick them over Kyle, but there's plenty of food for thought to be had here.
Completely agree on your Purdy point. I think the fact he was a successful late round pick has probably skewed the credit disproportionately in Kyle’s direction in a league where nearly every QB is a former 1st or 2nd round selection…at some point, everyone has to come to grips with the fact Purdy is just as good as many of these 1st/2nd round guys. Appreciate your 4 examples as I was more interested in guys (outside of McVay) that you thought were able to get more out of that tier of QBs.
it hurts my brain thinking about how much QB salaries have ballooned in the past decade. At this rate, there will be a $100mil/year QB soon, which seems insane.
that said Alex, I feel like it was known that Tom Brady would take a lesser salary to keep a better roster around. Do you know of any other star QB's who have done that?
thanks for reading! So of quarterbacks today the prominent example would be Patrick Mahomes. While his deal at the time of signing was worth around 20% of cap, he hasn’t renegotiated it for more yet, which he certainly could have done. Now his deal is a relatively team friendly % of cap, and with the cash leftover the chiefs have been able to pay the best interior offensive line in football, Chris jones, Kelce and others. They have also killed in the draft, landing a lockdown corner in duffie, and other offensive weapons like Pacheco and rice. It’s probably hard to do team building any better than KC has done it over the Mahomes era.
Didn't they restructure his deal in 2023? Spotrac indicates that his cap numbers through 2026 are higher than Burrow's (they moved money from 2027-2031 to the next 4 years).
For more on Mahomes restructure (it doesn’t add money but rather moves it in a team friendly way): https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2023/9/22/23882451/chiefs-salary-cap-patrick-mahomes-contract-details-more-money-now-added-flexibility
I talked a little in the piece about the cap manipulation that GMs have at their disposal (and how the AAV numbers I use are a simplification that ignores them) but using a simplifying assumption that all these quarterbacks are restructuring all the time depending on the level of talent around them and contracts that need to get filled, I think the AAV is probably the most useful to think about these deals
Great piece, and few observations. A look at the highest paid quarterbacks along with their utter lack of post-season success calls the entire "franchise/elite quarterback" paradigm into question. That's before you think about Nick Foles in 2018. Yet, the NFL is too dimwitted and scared to see any other path as they continue to go over the cliff like lemmings.
You're right of course - the diminution in the roster for a labor-intensive sport like the NFL 1-3 years out after the QB mega-deal is inked (depending on structure, other rookie deals etc.) ensures the franchise will be decline unless the front office can master the roulette wheel that is the Draft.
The Bengals' problems that you touch on began with Burrow's cap eating contract after visiting the Super Bowl three years ago on his rookie deal loaded with assets around him. At a high team level, Burrow has more in common with Purdy than the media would like to admit. Successful QBs need talent around them and on both sides of the ball to make their contracts worthwhile.
This includes Burrow having to now deal with a diminished defense, Joe Mixon sent packing and his two top WRs playing pissed when they couldn't get an extension after he got paid. Depending on what happens over the next few months, 2025 could be even harder for Burrow and Cincy as the pieces that were key to his success three years ago continue to melt away.
Ironically, the two quarterbacks you note as exceptions - Mahomes and Brady - have taken team friendly deals over the years to avoid this moral hazard. Mahomes took less so Kelce, Jones, and Humphrey got their money. Brady took less - particularly in Tampa - in exchange for power to buy the groceries. Those moves paved the way for Super Bowl champtionships. Yet. these were approaches Burrow explicitly did not take and the Bengals are now struggling as a result.
When you stare at the successful counterculture approach of Mahomes and Brady, you realize quickly that you simply cannot pay a single player a cap crushing amount of money and be successful...or at least sustain success for long. If that is true for the likes of Mahomes and Tom Brady, why would anyone think that Prescott, Herbert, Lawrence, and the rest are somehow different and exceptions to that rule?
Take Detroit. Brad Holmes was smart enough to push the day of reckoning down the road for the Lions by outright replacing two key offensive assets - Hockenson and Swift - with rookies on cheap deals to avoid upcoming paydays as the media expressed puzzlement and criticism of the strategy on Draft Day. Holmes was proven right, and LaPorta and Gibbs have made Goff look more affordable. Holmes' overall ability to draft well has made the Goff contract palatable...but that is the tough road you must take when you drop a bag on someone.
That's before you get to injuries. These franchise quarterbacks with diminished resources around them get hurt - a lot. It seem as if each year 60+ quarterbacks start in the NFL and some - perhaps Deshaun Watson - might never start again. Nobody outside of the insular NFL buys a Lamborghini expecting it to be in the shop for half the days they want to drive it. The financial irresponsibility of the franchise quarterback paradigm is only magnified when you analyze it as dollars paid per snap. Ask Dallas or Jacksonville.
While the media has inexplicably heaped criticism on Purdy from the start, the 49ers’ problems are far more profound than him. Deebo and Bosa have regressed, the Niners never seemed able to replace Ryans as DC and Shanahan remains stubbornly disinterested in that side of the ball, the MCM trade yielded one year of value before a disastrous needless extension, Greenlaw can’t get back on the field, Aiyuk was a distraction who came back a shell of 2023 before getting hurt, and Kittle, Trent Williams and others are getting long in the tooth.
The list of problems for San Francisco is long and begins with a defense in decline and too many regressing overpaid assets before you even get to Brock Purdy. Not signing Purdy won’t solve the many other more critical issues they now face; it will only highlight them.
However, it seems that the 49ers and others might be starting to confront – or at least recognize - the insanity of the existing approach to the position. Purdy is the titular focus of the piece, but the better example is Sam Darnold. After blowing it out in 2024 with a loaded roster reminiscent of Joe Burrow in 2021, the Vikings are actually considering letting Darnold walk for nothing to replace him with an untested rookie on a bad leg but a great contract. Think about that for a moment and what it says. That’s an insight into how bad signing these quarterbacks to expensive extensions really is…even when you have one in the hand.
The emerging counter approach might be to negotiate by emphasizing that playing for the current team has advantages for the QB beyond money and that to ensure long term success they have to offer under market terms commensurate to those added benefits like Mahomes and Brady. The argument goes that the QB will still have generational wealth plus a terrific environment and structure built for their long-term success in an organization that values them. Remember, Jimmy Garoppolo and Kirk Cousins thought money was the answer. Take less and be happier longer.
This was unsuccessfully tested by the Giants with Jones, but he had not performed, had zero leverage and the Giants just underpaid him because they didn’t really want him but had no other viable option in their minds.
Darnold and Purdy could be different. They both might very well realize that they are better off with their current teams than without, even for more money…and understand that some portion of their success is due to financial flexibility of the front office to sign other assets. They might be inclined to take significantly less money as a result.
Winston Churchill is credited with saying, “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” What you call the “quarterback-centric orthodoxy” has been exhausted. It's a dead end for most. Maybe this year we can trust San Francisco and Minnesota to try something different.
Thanks.
I think you've hit the nail on the head Grant. What you need to win is not a great QB. It's great QB play. These are two related concepts, but are not exactly the same. I've been calling Sam Darnold a great QB for years, so I'll gently step around the 2024 Vikings and use the Houston Texans last year as an argument instead. This is a team that got really good QB play out of a player in CJ Stroud with very little individual skill.
If CJ were just a tiny bit better, the Texans could've been a SB contender last season. This year, their offensive depletion mirrors that of a big boy QB contract, and we see what that's done to CJ's production. That's what happens when you give a bad player the big contract. Your offence goes straight into the abyss, but what happens when you give a merely good player the big contract?
This is where we run into the problem. Where does good stop and great begin? I've spent a lot of years debating whether Justin Herbert is even good. Others think he's great. Regardless, he got his big boy contract assuming he would take a step forward, and his offensive production stayed relatively the same this season. His cap number is merely big (instead of huge), and is going to get much bigger in the future. I'm not sure how this is going to work for the Chargers. The same is true for the Jaguars, who gave Trevor the big contract assuming he would eventually become worth it.
I'm sceptical of this approach (awarding contracts to players, on the hope that they will one day be worth the money). I also put Joe Burrow in this category. Awarding money to players who have already been to the top of the leaderboards (Josh Allen, Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson) seems to work a lot better. This puts Brock Purdy (who finished first in EPA/Play and first in CPOE in 2023) in a unique position to me. He's been to the top of the mountain. By the logic I've been expressing, this would make him worthy of the big contract.
If we treat the offensive injury issues he faced this season as indicative of what he'll face under his big boy contract, he is absolutely worth the money. He still finished eighth in EPA/Play on a SF offence that was still top ten. This ii better than Patrick Mahomes has done since 2023, when he really began feeling the brunt of his contract. He's finished tenth in EPA/Play in both 2023 and 2024 on a KC offence that's been roughly tenth both years.
Insofar as Patrick Mahomes is worth his big boy contract, I think Brock Purdy is worth his, on the condition that the SF roster doesn't get even worse than its battered state this year. Offence is still not the problem in KC, and I think the Chiefs have shown you can build a defence capable of carrying an offence that is not Super Bowl calibre, and do it on a budget.
Right now, that seems to be the prevailing strategy in the NFL. Hamstring your own offence with the QB contract, and then build an elite defence on a budget. In years past, there used to be plenty of good teams with bad defences. In 2024 there are zero. Not a single team with a defence worse than 17th placed Tampa Bay is worth talking about. This is not true on offence. The offensive top 11 contains several also-rans (CIN, ARI, SF) and if you go down to 13th you find ATL, a team who apparently didn't hamstring themselves enough with their big QB contract, and wanted to do it more.
It's a defensive league these days, and I can't help but question the interaction between that and the fact that the league's highest paid players are all offensive.
I think one thing to note is that despite the injuries, Purdy still played quite well. He was top tone in basically every important QB statistic and the offense was 5th in Yards Per Drive and 11th in Points Per drive. While I'm concerned about Kittle aging in the long term, I think this offense can still be quite good without CMC and Deebo. While I do think the QB market is inflated (half the QBs shouldn't be getting 40 mil+), I think Purdy has earned a deal more so than Trevor, Kyler, Herbert, and Jones did.
thanks for reading! I think that from a results perspective there is no doubt that Purdy is as worthy or more than a lot of the guys getting franchise deals. I think the problem for San Fran is around how well they'll be able to compete going forward, and because they have such talented weapons and Shanahan leading them, whether getting into the quarterback-centric team build is the best strategy for them. I think the big pro to it is that Purdy seems like a pretty stable option, but he doesn't have the ability to make those bail-out, special throws that I'd be excited about if the roster is going to get significantly diminished around him.
1. I think Purdy's accuracy, rushing ability, sack avoidance, and not relying heavily on yac (#1 in completed air yards per attempt) will make him more resilient than most when the talent decreases. While not having those S tier throws may keep him from being the in the best QB in the league discussion, I think he can be consistently in the top-10 and break into the top 5 from time to time
2. However, that is still no guarantee the 49ers will still be SB contender. Brees and Rivers producing like a top QBs for years but did have an elite team for long stretches of time. I think your hope if you are the 49ers is that Purdy can be a top 10-5 guy and that you get a couple of good defensive drafts (ie. last two years Chiefs).
Your first point is definitely possible, but I’m a little more skeptical about Purdy’s upside. Regardless though, I think you bring up a great point about the best case scenario for the niners Super Bowl chances in your second point: hitting in the draft. I think mahomes is good enough to drag anything to the Super Bowl, but the Eagles are a really compelling example of a team giving a big contract to a good but not elite QB and then covering for it by drafting well. The nines have been great in the draft lately and if they hadn’t made the Lance deal, which cost them a ton of draft capital in past years, I think they’d have the depth to be better able to handle the losses that come from signing Purdy. Also an important thing to consider about the draft is that it’s very random, no team has demonstrated an ability to beat it over time, so i don’t love it as part of a “strategy” that goes after signing a franchise QB. If you give out that mega contract, you should theoretically accept normal returns from the draft and having to make it worth from them, and then you might get lucky and do better than that.