In the high-octane world of American football, the debate rages on: should teams stop paying quarterbacks? Or at the very least, should they stop paying most of them?
By 4:30 p.m. ET Sunday, a flurry of contracts handed out to quarterbacks in recent years have proven to be a mixed bag, from aging like sour milk to actually being palatable enough to drink. The New York Giants made waves last offseason by giving Daniel Jones a hefty four-year, $160 million deal. However, Jones’ performance on the field was less than stellar before he suffered a season-ending torn ACL, ranking a dismal 42nd in EPA out of 45 quarterbacks who played at least 150 snaps.
To make matters worse for Jones, the start of the 2024 season saw him throw two interceptions, one of which was returned for a touchdown, in a 28-6 defeat against the Minnesota Vikings. The boos cascaded down from the stands at MetLife Stadium as his QBR plummeted to 17.4, only besting the likes of Bryce Young and Deshaun Watson in Week 1.
But Jones isn’t the only quarterback with a questionable contract. Enter Kirk Cousins and his four-year, $180 million agreement with the Atlanta Falcons. While Cousins is on the mend from a torn Achilles, his confidence was further shaken by Atlanta’s bold move to select Michael Penix Jr. in the first round of the draft. In his season opener, Cousins struggled, tossing a pair of interceptions in an 18-10 loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers.
As the dust settles on these eye-watering contracts, one thing is clear: not all quarterbacks are living up to the lofty price tags attached to their names. The debate will no doubt continue as teams weigh the risks and rewards of investing in their signal-callers. Will the trend of mega-deals for quarterbacks continue, or will teams start to think twice before opening their wallets? Only time will tell in this game of high stakes and high emotions.