The idea of the New York Giants acquiring Matthew Stafford sounds enticing on the surface—after all, he’s still one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL. But when you take a deeper dive into the logistics, financial implications, and long-term effects, it quickly becomes clear that making this move would be a disaster waiting to happen.
An Aging Quarterback on Borrowed Time
Stafford just turned 37 years old and has missed time in each of the last five seasons due to injuries.
The Giants are nowhere near being a quarterback away from contending, meaning Stafford would be stepping into a situation where he’d have to carry a flawed roster. Unlike the Rams, who have a well-established offensive system and one of the best coaches in the league in Sean McVay, the Giants are still trying to find their identity. Even if Stafford stayed healthy, it would likely take half a season for him to fully acclimate, and by that point, what would the Giants be playing for?
More concerning is Stafford’s ongoing flirtation with retirement. He’s already accomplished what most quarterbacks dream of by winning a Super Bowl, and there’s no guarantee he wouldn’t decide to walk away after the 2025 season. Trading premium draft capital for a quarterback who might not be around in a year is the kind of short-sighted move that sets a franchise back, not forward.
A Financial Nightmare Waiting to Happen
Stafford’s contract is another major issue. He carries a $49.6 million cap hit for 2025 and a $53.6 million hit in 2026. The Giants wouldn’t have to take on the full amount, but even absorbing $27 million next season would eat up almost all of their remaining cap space.
After factoring in their rookie class, they’d have about $5 million available, meaning any further free-agent improvements would need to be backloaded—something that almost always leads to future cap headaches.
This would put the Giants in a brutal financial spot. They’d be stuck with a quarterback who, while still very good, wouldn’t have the surrounding talent to take the team anywhere meaningful. With limited funds to upgrade other positions, the rest of the roster would remain a work in progress, making Stafford’s presence feel more like a band-aid than a solution.
However, the Giants would likely tear up his current deal and give him a long-term contract, which would open up an entirely different can of worms as he navigates retirement questions. They would have to front-load any guarantees on a new contract, which would likely cripple them from any big free-agent moves. We are talking about a quarterback that likely lands in the $40 million per season range, and the Giants are still paying $20 million to Daniel Jones in 2025.
Joe Schoen would have to build in dead money for the future just to lower the cap hits, meaning the bill would be due down the road, which isn’t ideal.
The Cost in Draft Capital is Too High
The Giants aren’t giving up the third overall pick for Stafford, but even parting with a second-rounder would be a costly mistake. That’s a premium selection that could bring in an immediate starter, someone who could contribute for years on an affordable rookie contract. Trading that pick for a short-term fix at quarterback when the team isn’t ready to compete is the definition of bad roster management.
If the Giants roll with a rookie quarterback and it doesn’t pan out, they’ll likely be in a position to draft another one in the future. But if they trade for Stafford, they risk entering a dangerous middle ground—good enough to win 7-8 games, bad enough to miss the playoffs, but not bad enough to secure a top pick. That would leave them with no long-term answer at quarterback and no financial flexibility to fix the roster.
The Smarter, More Sustainable Path
The best course of action is obvious: sign a free agent quarterback on a one-year deal and draft a rookie with the third overall pick. This approach keeps the team financially flexible, allows them to develop a young quarterback without pressure, and positions them for sustainable success.
- Giants’ pursuit of Aaron Rodgers ‘totally unaffected’ by recent quarterback signing
- Giants sign veteran gunslinging quarterback to 2-year deal
- Giants on the verge of losing top free agent quarterback target
Unless a team has a near-complete roster and is just a quarterback away from contention, acquiring an aging signal-caller like Stafford is a losing strategy. The Giants are not that team. Betting on a 37-year-old quarterback with a big cap hit, injury concerns, and the possibility of retirement hanging over his head would be the kind of move that cripples a franchise for years to come.