How does Justin Houston’s deal measure up two years later?
By Britt Zank
Two years after signing Justin Houston to the largest contract in Chiefs history, how does the deal look in retrospect?
On July 15, 2017, the Kansas City Chiefs signed Justin Houston to a six-year, $101 million contract. Almost two years later, I think it’s time to see how good that contract has been to this point.
To begin to review, you have to go back one year before Houston was even signed. Before the 2014 NFL season, the pressing debate centered on who should get paid first: Justin Houston or Alex Smith? I wish I’d been writing for Arrowhead Addict at that time because the entire conversation drove me nuts and I would have loved this outlet. I simply could not understand why anyone would think Smith should get paid before Houston.
A look at the timing
Smith was a known commodity at that point in his career. Nothing he was going to do in 2014 was going to affect how much his contract was going to be for. He wasn’t going to throw for 5,000 yards and 35 touchdowns and demand a top money contract. On the flip side of that was Houston, who was coming off a season where he averaged one sack per game played. Yes, he was coming off an injury-plagued season in 2013 and his health was not guaranteed, but he was a young star who had ranked as the 49th player in the league according to the NFL Top 100 Players list. It was clear if could stay healthy for a full season, he could be one of the best pass rushers in the league. That’s a guy you sign as early as you can.
The Chiefs didn’t see things my way and they opted to pay Smith and let Houston go into the season without a new contract. Smith proceeded to have an average season of 3,265 yards and 18 touchdowns. By every metric, he had a worse season in 2014 than he had in 2013. Does anyone reading this think his contract number would have been larger after a season like that?
We all remember what Houston did; he nearly broke Michael Strahan’s single season sack record. Houston set career highs in sacks (22), tackles (59) and forced fumbles (4) in 2014 and finished behind only J.J. Watt for Defensive Player of the Year. Does anyone reading this think his contract number would have been the same before the greatest statistical defensive season in franchise history?
By waiting a year on Houston, Dorsey cost the Chiefs money and some salary cap position.
The fact is, the Chiefs could have signed Houston before 2014 for a cheaper price and signed Smith to nearly the same contract after the 2014 season. By waiting a year on Houston, Dorsey cost the Chiefs money and some salary cap position. No matter what happened after that, it was a bad move by Dorsey to sign Smith over Houston in 2014.
A look at the cost
So the contract was bad in terms of timing for sure, but what about the actual cost? For the first two years of the deal, Houston made $18.2 million according to Spotrac.com. In comparison he will be making $22.1 million in 2017 alone, so the first two years of his deal were the cheapest years . This is good because Houston’s production was not worthy of the big money spent over the last two seasons.
The Chiefs have played 35 games since the contract was signed and Houston has only played in 17 of them. It’s hard to be productive when you aren’t on the field. Nobody can predict injuries, of course, so that’s not at all Houston’s fault. In fact, I would put the majority of the blame for his prolonged injury on the Chiefs for their horrible mishandling of it from the start. But if we are talking about a contract, the player has to be on the job to perform.
When he did play Houston was okay, but not outstanding. In two years, he accumulated 11.5 sacks and 55 tackles. Three of those sacks came in his dominant performance against the Denver Broncos last year. That game was awesome, but it was his only dominating game of the year. I dare any fan to look at Houston’s statistics and play on the field and say he is playing as well as they expected when that $106 million contract was signed.
Despite not being dominant he has played well when he’s been on the field. If you go back and watch film, you’ll see an above average outside linebacker. Teams would run away from him play after play because he is still one of the top run-stuffing OLB in the league. Go back and watch the Pittsburgh Steelers game from January, you won’t see many of those big runs to Houston’s side. Despite the sack numbers not being as high as we’d all like, he still put plenty of pressure on the other team’s quarterbacks. He knee was still weak and he didn’t have the closing speed he used to have.
So after two years what are we to make of the Houston contract? First, we can say for certain that the timing of it was horribly mismanaged by Dorsey. If the team was going to give him a blank check no matter the price, they should have paid him after 2013 when they could have conceivably signed him for less. Finally, Houston has not played as expected. Because of injuries, Houston hasn’t been able to put up the numbers expected when the contract was signed.
On the upside, Houston is saying he’s feeling stronger than he was in 2014. The big money of the contract is only now starting up, so there is still plenty of time for Houston to live up to this deal. If he avoids the injury bug, there is no reason he can’t return to the dominant quarterback destroyer we all know he can be. If he does that, than in another two years we could look back and call this contract a fair deal for all parties involved.