clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Johnathan Joseph's Contract Extension: Shrewd Move Or Not For Texans?

Houston Texans fans react to the news that Johnathan Joseph extended his contract with the team for two more years. Was it a good move for the team?

J-Jo until the end of 2017--sweet or not?
J-Jo until the end of 2017--sweet or not?
Troy Taormina-USA TODAY Sports

By now, you've heard that the Houston Texans and Johnathan Joseph agreed to a two-year extension that will keep him with the team through the 2017 season. Counting the year J-Jo had left on his deal that expired at the end of next season, the Texans are looking at paying Joseph a total of $22,000,000.00 over the next three years, with $11,500,000.00 of that guaranteed.

After signing with the good guys before the 2011 season, Joseph was an unadulterated revelation for the Texans during the team's first division and playoff-winning campaign. Particularly coming off the unmitigated disaster that was the 2010 Houston Texans secondary, J-Jo was a sight for sore eyes--a true lockdown corner in every sense of the term. While he has battled some nagging injuries since then (some of which we never knew about until after he had surgery to correct them), Joseph has remained a very effective corner, even if he hasn't duplicated the excellence of 2011.

Nevertheless, after signing Kareem Jackson to a big money extension of his own earlier this offseason and drafting Kevin Johnson in the first round of the 2015 NFL Draft, many Texans fans thought the team would be content to let Joseph walk after his contract lapsed at the end of the 2015 season. Instead of doing that, the team opted to keep Johnathan Joseph around, ensuring the secondary would enjoy continuity past Johnson's rookie campaign.

Some may say the team's decision to keep Joseph around past this year represents a misallocation of resources in a salary capped era, especially considering the question marks elsewhere on the roster. Where do you stand on the matter? Vote and elaborate, won't you?