As Rodgers saga shows, keeping a franchise QB happy is almost as important as finding one
The acquisition of a franchise quarterback has for decades reigned unopposed as the most important, and probably hardest, task in building an NFL contender. In the past year, a challenger emerged. Finding an elite quarterback is still the most crucial mission for an NFL front office. Almost as important, and increasingly harder, is keeping that quarterback happy.
Last week, reigning MVP Aaron Rodgers rattled the NFL when his disillusionment with the Green Bay Packers, which had led him to tell team officials he wanted out of the organization, became public hours before the draft. Rodgers had been the center of the Packers’ universe for 13 seasons, a Super Bowl champion who had taken them to 26 regular-season wins and two NFC championship game appearances over the past two seasons. Having ruffled Rodgers primarily with the selection of heir apparent Jordan Love in last year’s first round, the Packers find themselves in a staredown with a franchise icon.
Even before Rodgers’s ire surfaced, quarterbacking discontent defined the NFL offseason. The Philadelphia Eagles traded Carson Wentz after a season in which he was benched and reportedly stopped speaking with former coach Doug Pederson. Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson challenged his front office to better protect him, and his agent publicly shared a list of teams to which he would accept a trade. Before copious civil suits alleging sexual harassment and assault clouded his future, Deshaun Watson demanded a trade from the Houston Texans because he believed Texans ownership didn’t listen to his input on key hires after vowing it would.
Star players have grown more strident in dictating their situations, and in some cases teams have stumbled in response.
“It’s bizarre what’s been going on,” former New York Giants personnel executive Marc Ross said. “Number one, (the quarterbacks are) just being more vocal about it. You really hadn’t seen that before. I just don’t understand it from a team standpoint. You can’t bend over backwards from a team standpoint and you can’t do everything they say. But there are situations going on now that could have been avoided.”
The NFL’s star quarterbacks watched in 2020 as Tom Brady left New England in free agency, after
several years of the Patriots declining to extend him the long-term contract he sought, then led Tampa Bay to a Super Bowl victory. The Buccaneers had surrounded Brady with a wickedly talented roster, including some players Brady pushed them to sign. Coach Bruce Arians pointedly remarked that unlike Patriots Coach Bill Belichick, he let Brady serve as a de facto coach during practice.
The Buccaneers’ ability to recruit and mollify Brady while winning a championship illustrated a new line teams may have to straddle. They have to placate their quarterback without sacrificing
their team-building vision, and they have to make hard decisions without upsetting their quarterback.
“As an advocate for players, there’s a part of me that always wants to stand up for players,” said one prominent agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “But as someone who loves football, this is ridiculous what’s going on. We got a bunch of big damn babies.”
Referencing the release of reserve wide receiver Jake Kumerow last year, which reportedly angered Rodgers, the agent added, “They cut your buddy, and now you’re going to pout about it?”
Even still, the agent acknowledged the reality: Teams must cater to their star quarterback to stave off controversy.
“I don’t know if they owe it to him, but it is 2021,” the agent said. “We’re in an era where social media has given us instant information. It’s a different time. Teams that are living in the old way of doing things are going to alienate players. You have to communicate, especially with a franchise quarterback.”
Peter Cappelli, the director of the Center for Human Resources at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, studies and teaches how to manage talent. The nature of football and the structure of NFL organizations are not analogous to the business world, but many concepts of managing employees are universal.
“There’s an art to giving people the perception of influence without giving them control,” Cappelli said. “Some of that is when you take their advice, let them know you took their advice. Which is a simple thing, but it matters. In the world of sports, the coaches are not always the most modest people in the world, either. You’ve got big egos on both sides. Both of them want respect and recognition from the other.”
Elaine Farndale, associate director of the School of Labor and Employment Relations at Penn State, said employers and employees enter into two contracts. There is the financial contract, which is straightforward, and there is the psychological contract, an unwritten pact.
“It’s what you expect in a workplace,” Farndale said. “You expect to be treated fairly, not have tasks dumped on you, not to be asked to perform tasks completely out of your skill range.”
Cracks in the psychological contract form when each side has separate expectations, and it is easy to see how that could happen in today’s NFL. Before his recent turmoil, Watson may have looked around the league — or to the NBA — and seen other star players have an influence on their franchise’s power structure. NFL owners are likely to view their teams as theirs to control in full and may not understand the influence quarterbacks possess in public perception.
“The star has a lot more power in the relationship,” Farndale said.” ... They can kind of use that psychological contract more in order to try to force the hand of their employer.”