When the Arizona Cardinals made it clear they were moving on from Kyler Murray, the conversation immediately shifted from why to what’s next. Not just for Murray, but for the teams desperate enough at quarterback to consider him.
Advertisement
For Pete Prisco, the discussion isn’t about talent first. It’s about cost.
“Jeff, you have to ask yourself, what’s the price going to be?” Prisco said. “And is the price going to be higher than what Malik Willis is going to get? Is the price going to be higher than what anybody else is going to get?”
That framing matters. Murray isn’t entering the market as an unknown upside swing. He’s a former No. 1 overall pick with multiple strong seasons on his résumé. But he’s also not a blank slate. Prisco didn’t hesitate when comparing him to other options.
“I would rather have Kyler Murray, no questions asked,” he said. “Kyler Murray’s played games, he has experience. I don’t know what Malik Willis can do, he’s only started four games. That’s a small sample size.”
That’s the core of Prisco’s argument. Whatever flaws Murray has shown, he’s at least shown something. Teams know what functional NFL quarterback play from him looks like. They’ve seen the high-end stretches. They’ve seen the playoff appearance. They’ve seen the dynamic mobility.
“Did Kyler Murray have some issues? Yeah,” Prisco admitted. “But he’s had some good games. He’s had some good years.” So the debate isn’t whether Murray can play. It’s whether a team is willing to commit.
“The question you have to ask yourself if you’re in that market is, ‘are you committed to him for the long run?’”
If a franchise views him as a bridge quarterback, the number changes. If it views him as a long-term answer, the structure changes. And that leads to the contract comparison Prisco floated.
“Are you giving him a one-year deal? Two-year deal? How are you doing it? Are you giving him the Justin Fields deal? Two years, $40 million? Is he gonna take that?”
That hypothetical is telling. A short-term, prove-it structure protects the team. But would Murray, with his pedigree and production history, accept something that treats him like a reclamation project? Once Prisco established the financial lens, he started running through potential landing spots, and the answers weren’t clean fits.
“Let’s start with the Jets. Makes sense, they don’t have anybody,” he said.
On the surface, that pairing checks out. The Jets need a quarterback. Murray provides experience and upside. But again, the same question applies: what are you paying, and for how long?
The Minnesota Vikings? “They don’t have any cap room, and it doesn’t seem like a fit in that Kevin O’Connell offense,” Prisco said. Even if there’s a theoretical need, schematic comfort and cap constraints complicate it.
The Pittsburgh Steelers feel conditional. “Looks like Rodgers is gonna come back,” Prisco noted. “If he doesn’t, I think they could be in play.” In other words, Murray becomes a Plan B depending on how another domino falls.
He even tossed out Miami, though without conviction, and then turned to a more layered situation in Atlanta.
“How about the Atlanta Falcons? I don’t know where Michael Penix is coming off of that third knee injury. Are they committed to Michael Penix? This is a new regime.”
That’s the key. New leadership often reopens quarterback evaluations. Commitment to a previous plan isn’t always permanent. Then came the curveball.
“This is going to sound crazy, but the Cleveland Browns,” Prisco said. “We know that Todd Monken likes mobile quarterbacks. When you look at Shedeur Sanders, that’s not who he is. So could he be in play at the Browns?” Murray’s mobility still differentiates him in a league increasingly built around movement.
Ultimately, Prisco’s breakdown wasn’t about finding the perfect schematic match. It was about narrowing the decision to two variables: price and commitment. Murray is better than some of the names he’ll be compared to. Prisco was clear about that. But does better mean worth resetting your cap sheet or tying up your future?
