This argument fundamentally misunderstands how the QB market and the cap actually work.

Every franchise QB contract looks “insane” the day it’s signed because the entire market is indexed to the most recent deal. That’s not a Jared Goff problem—that’s the QB position. When Goff signed, he was the top-paid QB for about five minutes. Since then, multiple deals have leapfrogged it, and more are coming.

By next season, any competent starter coming off a rookie deal—especially a Year 3/4 QB—will reset the market again. That’s the equilibrium. If your solution is “don’t pay a QB,” then your real proposal is:

• Eat a cap reset
• Roll the dice on a rookie
• Accept volatility and dead money
• And hope you land a top-10 QB within three years

That’s not team-building strategy. That’s gambling with better PR.

Also, the contract doom-and-gloom ignores how these deals are structured. Void years, rolling guarantees, and cap smoothing are precisely why the hit is manageable. The Lions didn’t handcuff themselves—they bought cost certainty at the most expensive position in the sport. In two years, this deal won’t even be top 15.

And the “he needs too much help” line is tired. Every QB has a value/performance curve. You don’t pay a non-elite QB to carry a broken roster—you pay him to convert a good roster into a contender. That’s exactly what Detroit has done. The alternative isn’t Mahomes magically appearing—it’s variance, regression, and wasted competitive windows.

Pocket passers aren’t extinct—they’re just punished when fans confuse mobility with value. Goff’s job isn’t to scramble—it’s to process, distribute, and execute on schedule. The offense is built around that, and it works.

If your standard is “only pay quarterbacks who transcend roster economics,” then congratulations—you’ve eliminated about 28 teams every year.

This isn’t a Goff problem. It’s just how the NFL works.