The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Free agency mailbag: Bang for your buck in FA, the next great reclamation QB project, position changes with a new team, and more

Episode Date: March 5, 2025

The first checkpoint of the offseason—the combine—is now in the rear view mirror. Next up is free agency. We kick off our free agency coverage in earnest by opening up the mailbag on this episode of The Athletic Football Show. Robert Mays and Derrik Klassen tackle questions on reclamation projects at quarterback in this class, players making position changes after signing with a new team, where teams can find bang for their buck on the market, and more.Then, The Athletic's Packers beat writer Matt Schneidman joins Robert to discuss what the Packers need to do to get over the hump.Host: Robert MaysCo-Host: Derrik KlassenWith: Matt SchneidmanExecutive Producer: Michael BellerProducer: Michael BellerSubscribe to The Athletic Football Show...AppleSpotifyYouTubeFollow Robert on Bluesky: @robertmays.bsky.socialFollow Derrik on Bluesky: @qbklass.bsky.socialFollow Robert on X: @robertmaysFollow Derrik on X: @QBKlassTheme song: HauntedWritten by Dylan Slocum, Trevor Dietrich, Ruben Duarte, Kyle McAulay, and Meredith VanWoert / Performed by Spanish Love SongsCourtesy of Pure Noise / By arrangement with Bank Robber Music, LLC Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the athletic football show. I'm Robert Mays. Fun show for you guys today. Me and Derek took your free agency mailbag questions. Me and Derek Classen dug into just a bunch of stuff. Whether it was team-specific plan, some bigger picture free agency thoughts that we had, some rules that you guys had, questions about.

Really enjoyed all of these. Again, sincerely appreciate everyone who spends the time to send them in. There's a reason that we're doing them consistently throughout the offseason. It was fun to do a free agency-specific one. also on this show running through our conversations about teams on the cusp in both the AFC and the NFC teams that have been competitive, playoff teams the last couple of years, but haven't been able to break through. So we're doing a show, a segment about the Packers, the Lions, the Ravens, and the Bills.

Today is our discussion with Packers writer Matt Schneidman about what the Green Bay Packers can potentially do this offseason to get over the hump. Last thing I wanted to mention, just a little bit of housekeeping before we dig into this. We're doing a couple more free agency preview shows over the course of this week. And then next week, like we've done in years past, we're going to have live streams each day breaking down the free agent news. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. The difference is this year on Monday, rather than doing a show in the afternoon to kind of scoop up all the news, we're going to be doing a show all day. 12 p.m. Eastern, we will be live on the athletic football show YouTube channel with

me and Derek. We're going to be bringing in a bunch of friends of the show over that five-hour stretch. And we're going to be responding to all of this stuff in real time. Those are my favorite free agent moments of any podcast I've done over the last 15 years is when a signing happens and you just get the organic reaction to it. So we're just going to do that all day. We're just hopefully going to be live as all this stuff rolls in. You're going to get the real-time moments, the real-time reactions. And we're going to be having a bunch of friends here to help us with that. So I wanted to put that on your radar as soon as we could. March 10th, the first day of the tampering period, 12 p.m. Eastern on the Athletic Football

Show YouTube channel. So please come join us for that. And please enjoy the conversations with Derek and Matt right now. All right, Derek, let's dig into it. Officially kicking off our free agency coverage here on the Athletic Football Show. I'd like to thank the league for helping us really do this in earnest. The fact that we got our first. first few bits of veteran movement news here on Tuesday morning right when we were going to start digging into the free agency stuff. It just aligned perfectly. So we're going to answer your guys as questions today. Thank you to everyone who sent them in. We got some really good ones, some team specific ones, some more big picture philosophical free agent questions. Before we do that,

though, there are a few news items for us to hit. So I appreciate the news cycle helping us feed this show before we even got started. Every now and then the league helps us out and the timing works out. I thought we were going to have to jump straight into the questions, which are all fantastic, by the way. But it is nice to be a little bit topical and make sure we're, you know, we are recording on March 4th and it feels like we're recording on March 4th because we have some stuff to talk about.

I'm glad they held off until now. I was with my family this weekend. We were out doing stuff and we were at a concert for on Saturday Sunday, and my wife had my phone. I had it like in her bag. I was like, I'm just going to detach for a little bit. Like, you just hang on to this for the next couple days. And every single time I opened it, though, I just expected to see some sort of ESPN

learn about something crazy happening. So the fact that we actually got into this week before the news started to roll in aligned very nicely with my personal preferences over the last 72 hours or so. The first kind of dominoid fall this morning, first thing that hit our timelines was Ossa Odigizua going back to Dallas on a four-year $80 million deal with about 58-ish- million guaranteed. One of the bigger names available in free agency. We'll talk a lot about the free agency class over the rest of this week.

We'll do a defense show. We'll do an offense show. My big takeaway here is that if you're looking for the big ticket items, this is probably the wrong year. And now with Tray Smith getting franchised, T. Higgins getting franchised, and a digizua getting this extension before Free Agency even opens, we're down to like four or five guys that are really worth taking swings for if you have a lot of money. So if you're one of those teams, this is probably not what you wanted to see.

but I think a move that makes sense for Dallas, given their needs where they're at, the money they had to spend. And if you look at the market, I think a move that is in line with what he probably would have gotten paid in for agency. Definitely. And you know who I really think actually benefits from this deal the most? Milton Williams. Like, you're going to be the only guy left in the market. Yeah, you're the only guy left on the market for this, for one, this style of defensive tackle, right? Like a guy who can actually push the pocket, penetrate, get some pass rush. There are going to be some other like, you know, rotational guys and and Brunt Stuffers and stuff like that.

But in terms of your potential big-ticket defensive lineman, Milton Williams is the only guy left, man. So if he actually wants to hit free agency, he's probably going to earn a pretty penny after this. Looking at some of the reactions to this from people who really understand the cap, people like Jason Fitzgerald, the guys that look at contracts for a living all day, every day. The thought was if they were negotiating off of the franchise tag, if the franchise tag was a realistic option for a digizua here,

this is a low number because two tags, your guarantees are more than this. So the fact that it came in at only $20 million a year, it's like 7.2% of the salary cap. So it's down outside of the top 10 at the position. This feels like a good contract for Dallas and maybe an indication that his market might not have been quite as strong as we expected, given that his agent, I'm sure, had all week last week to start digging around and figuring out what might be out there if he were to hit the market. I think it is a good deal. Like this, I'll be honest, this is typically not my style of player. you know, the 280-pound defensive tackle.

You don't say. You know, you double-team him. He's not going to have a good time. Can move him in the run game, all that type of stuff. So he's not typically my style of player, but he's obviously been a productive player, specifically for Dallas for a long time. They know how to use him. I think they're comfortable with what they want to do with him in the defense and how to

build around him. So for him to take this type of deal with them, I think honestly makes a lot of sense for Dallas. It's like you know exactly how to use this guy. And it also makes sense for him. Like when you are this fragile of a, type of player, it can kind of be scary to go to a new team, new scheme, and like maybe they just don't know what to do with you. And so I think it honestly makes where there's no Micah Parsons.

Yes, where there's no Micah Parsons. Like it makes perfect sense for him to stay where he is, know that he can continue to be productive and in all that jazz. Other big bit of news today, Jonah Jackson, going to the Chicago Bears for a sixth round pick originally reported by Courtney Grun, who covers the bears for ESPM. This makes all the sense in the world, given a few different factors. One, the interior offensive wine pool in this free agent class, which we started dancing around a little bit last week, is not great. Especially with Trey Smith off the market, you're really looking at long-term answers in free agency, guys that are second contract players, the types you really want to pay. It's like Will Fries and then not much else. There's a lot of guys coming off of injury at guard.

There's a lot of aging players at guard. We'll talk more about this when we do the offense preview. but as somebody who was heavily invested emotionally and what the bears were going to do on the interior offensive line in the market this year as a team with $80 million to spend, there wasn't $80 million to go around to available free agents. So to see them go out and get a guy that has played at a high level, is somebody Ben Johnson knows extremely well,

you could drop him into an offense where there's a little bit less guesswork about what type of run game you want to have, et cetera, and you had a team that really had three interior offensive line spots that it needed to fill somewhere along the way here. That makes sense. We can get into the price and all of that, but the marriage itself is not the least bit surprising. After we learned that he was going to potentially be available,

this is always a pairing that actually tracked for me. Yeah, it's expensive, but like you said, they had so much money to play with anyway. They desperately needed to fix the interior. And like you said, whenever you bring in specifically a head coach that's supposed to be like, we're going to run this exact scheme, all that other stuff. It makes sense to go get a guy who knows, you know, what's going on there and it is going to be able to handle all that stuff well. And then like you mentioned, man, outside of one or two

other guys who were starters last year, the guard market is like you're taking the swing on like Nate Herbig and hoping that he can be something for you. Like that's not where the bears needed to be shopping if they really think they can jumpstart this offense. They needed to go make a swing like this for Jonah Jackson. So I know he's expensive. I know some of the injury stuff, but given the resources that they had and given what they're trying to do with a very young quarterback, if you can get 11 good games out of Jonah Jackson, I think that's perfectly fun. Giving up a six-round pick, people are going to look at that and think, oh, that's nothing. He comes with $17.5 million against the cap this year. It's $9 million in base salary,

and then he has an $8.5 million roster bonus that was due, I think, on the third day of the league year, which is why the Rams were incentivized to get this done. That's a big number next to a guy who misses several games a year every year and only played four games last year. The upside of this, back in a position where he's comfortable, likely at left guard, in an offense where he's comfortable with Ben Johnson, if this hits, you'll pay that every single day. But there are real risks here, given his injury history and what they're going to be paying him against the cap this year.

So the fact that they had to give up a pick, the Rams got a draft pick for this while also getting off of his contract, I think is an indication of how scared teams might be. of the free agent pool and of taking their chances there. So the Bears getting ahead of this in the way that they did, I think makes perfect sense. I think I'm also fine with it too because it's not like he has like a four-year deal, you know, four, four more five years on his deal that might be hard to get out of. He only really, they're only really committed money-wise to him this year. And I think his guaranteed salary drops to like nothing in 2026.

So if it doesn't work out this year, fine. Like you had the money to see if it would work out this year. And if it doesn't next year, then fine. It's kind of whatever. And we'll see what they do with that roster. bonus. If they turn that into a signing bonus, you split that in half. You give yourself a little bit more flexibility, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to keep a majority of the guaranteed money into this season. Two more quick things to hit here. Devante Adams released by the Jets,

this was always going to happen. I mean, the way that they structured that contract, we'll get to another one of these here in a second. The way that they initially structured that contract when he signed with the Raiders, there was some fake money at the end to drive up the AAV. He was never going to play on those deals. They were going to have to get touched or he was going to be released by whatever team he was on. So we always knew this was coming, but now Devante Adams, officially hitting free agency. We'll talk about a couple of the teams that might make sense for him a little bit later in the mailbag, but this we all saw coming.

Something I don't think people saw coming was Sequin Barkley getting a nice chunk of change on the eve of free agency here, a two-year extension at over $20 million a year, making him the highest paid running back in NFL history on paper. I say on paper because let's wait to see. see what this actually means. Is this actually a scenario where, again, they're tacking on a couple of years at the end that drive up the overall average, but in actuality isn't doing too much to change the contract. My assumption is that's probably what's going on here.

From a practical standpoint, likely not going to change a lot of the things that the Eagles can do this year and even into next year. This is just something Philly likes to do. I remember I had a conversation with Howie Roseman. It's probably seven or eight years. now. And we were talking about some of the things that he learned from his first go-around as the GM of the Eagles before he took his sabbatical, let's call it on the other side of the building when Chip Kelly was there. And remember that Dream Team, Eagles team, where they went out and they spent

all this money in free agency. And I think one of the lessons that he learned is it matters when you reward your own guys. It has downstream effects. And so you saw some of the contracts he handed out almost immediately when he retook the job. Zach Ertz, Lane Johnson, just making sure you're paying those guys in the building first because of the signal that it sends. That's what this is. Sequin Barclay is the offensive player of the year.

He does so much to get this team over the chop and just change the complexion of the offense, very loudly rewarding him on the eve of free agency as a signal to your building and to free agents, agents, everybody else in the league. This is how the Eagles want to operate. So it's not necessarily surprising. You get the benefits of very loudly giving somebody a lot of money.

And I don't think are going to realize a lot of the downside when you actually look at how most of this is structured. Yeah. And I'm just so happy for him to be freed of the New York Giants and then go into Super Bowl, have a historic season, get paid as a running back at it again, a position that hasn't been getting paid very much lately. And I think it's just great for the Eagles.

Because I think what we had been scared of maybe six, seven years ago when we were still kind of paying running back is like a guy, just has one great season and maybe the offensive line just happened to come together that year. And then some of the factors fall apart the next year and he can't produce. It's the Eagles, man. That offensive line is going to be top five no matter what. Like, Barclay is still going to be able to do maybe not 2,000 yards again. But he's obviously going to be a very, very productive player.

And these next two years are going to be like in his athletic prime still. So everything about this is just well done. Yeah. My assumption is the money that was still left in the final two years of his three-year deal, they'll just guarantee that in some capacity. and then whatever's tacked on to the end is tacked on to the end. There's a chance he never sees the two years of this extension, quote, unquote, but the optics of it are very good and the messaging of it is very good,

and this is what the Eagles continue to do over and over and over again. Let's get to the questions that you guys sent in. Again, sincerely appreciate everyone who spent the time to send one in, a lot of really good ones here. Let's kick this off with Chris Evans. A lot of these are very to the point. They're very quick, succinct, just very simple questions, which I appreciate. Chris Seven says Jared Goff,

Gino, Baker, and Sam Darnold have all resurrected their careers in the last few years. Which scrap heap quarterback is most likely to do it next season? I'm going to give you the floor on this one. I want your take on which of these guys, and there are a bunch of them. All of the 2021 class quarterbacks are hitting free agency. So we get Zach Wilson, Trey Lance, Justin Fields, Mac Jones. Daniel Jones is a part of this. So among this group, who do you think has the best shot on a low-cost potential one-year deal to help resurrect their career?

I mean, he still started games last year, but like I'm going to hold on to Justin Fields until the end of time. Not to be like the top eight quarterback that I thought he could be when he came out of the draft. But like, if Baker Mayfield can be the 18th or whatever best quarterback, like there's a world where a little bit more of improvement, Justin Fields could get to that. So that is one I'm hanging on to. but like, I also think there's a world for me where Mac Jones could like, again, I don't know if he's ever going to like be the Gino Smith where you're brushing up against top 10, but he obviously had a really good rookie season when things were put together well for him. And then honestly, last year in Jacksonville, he obviously isn't as good as Trevor and he wasn't like a great

starter. But there were flashes where it's like, you remember how accurate he is. You remember how good the timing can look sometimes. He's more of an aggressive pastor than you think. He doesn't do the, I'm going to Josh Allen throw into a cover two hole. Like he, he, he's not that kind of aggressive, but he's got enough where it's almost like watching Old Man Rivers where it's like he'll push the ball a little bit when he needs to. So there's enough there that like if you put a decent team around him, like I could see him one year finishing, I don't know, 15th in QBR and we're like, whoa, how did Mac Jones kind of figure this out again? If you had to bet on one of them, it would it still be Justin Fields?

It would still be Justin Fields. Because to me, the thing is, all these guys who have turned it around have some degree of like incredible talent. Like Baker Mayfield, obviously, you can throw the ball really, really hard. Gino Smith has incredible arm talent. Sam Darnold obviously has incredible arm talent. Justin Fields very obviously has the arm talent, and he's a really good athlete. And then to me, like Justin Fields, I don't actually know him as a person, but he just everything about the way that he handles himself in interviews and the way he talks to media, he just seems like a really good kid. Like I just, it feels like he's the guy who eventually is going to figure it out. So to me, it would still be Fields, yeah. Was there anything that you saw

from him in Pittsburgh this year that would lead you to believe? the trajectory is pointed in the right direction. Any improvements, any things that felt subtly different than what we had seen from him in Chicago that feels like we're turning the page a little bit. Last year was funny because I think when you think about him in Chicago, a lot of his best moments were he was holding onto the ball and then he was throwing the ball downfield, like some of his seam throws, some of his go balls down the field, some of those post routes he used to throw, and then obviously what he could do as a runner. And then in Pittsburgh, they didn't run him at all and they didn't want to throw it on the field with him and they mostly did a lot of

quick game stuff and a lot of boots and stuff. I thought his quick game went from one of the worst in the league, like when he was in Chicago, it was just something he was very bad at to like mildly below average with the Steelers. And I know that that sounds like a dumb thing, but if he can just be semi-functional in the quick game like he was last year and then maybe get to an offense that has the talent and maybe the coaching staff that is willing to unleash him a little bit more as a runner and down the field again. Again, I don't know if he's ever going to be the top 8, 10 guy I thought he could be, but there's totally a world where I could see him being a totally functional starter with that type of scheme around him.

So let's continue this conversation and get a little bit more specific with it. Because Will Donnelly said, free agency question he has is, do you think the Steelers will re-sign Justin Fields before free agency starts? Steelers beat reporters seem to think he's their number one choice, but another team could entice him to test the market. A lot of people don't see him as a starting quarterback, but looking at the number of teams that need quarterbacks, I think he'll have a seat at the end of the day.

What do you think? So when you're thinking about landing spots for Justin Fields, which one makes the most sense to you and which one would you be most excited about? Kind of the Jets, honestly, because at least with them, like, you know, we talked about this a little bit before almost with their direct contrast with the Steelers. Like there's a lot of similarities. Like the offensive line has some pieces. It's young.

Probably should have been better last year than it actually was. and they both really only have one true wide receiver that they're going to throw to. To me, Garrett Wilson is like an actual wide receiver one in this league, whereas George Vickens kind of had to be by, like, the fault of nobody else being very good. Like when the other guy is Van Jefferson, like, yes, George Vickens is going to be your number one. And so I think there's a little bit of something there where I really like what he could be in New York. And then I also just think Aaron Glenn, I could see him wanting to take the chance on that rather than I don't think they're going to like trade up for a quarterback.

and I don't know if they want to go the veteran route. Like, I could see him giving him a chance. So I would like the Jets. I think the Jets makes sense on that front. I feel like trying to get him at a reasonable cost to see what you have there based on where they are in their trajectory. That makes perfect sense to me. I do think, like we'll alluded to, there are people who would be excited to have him back

in Pittsburgh, given their potential alternatives. I think he has fans in that building. And because of what you said, I think they enjoyed working with him last year, just personality-wise and what he brought to the table. so I would not be surprised if there was some interest there, given some of the lack of other options for the Steelers. You know, no Matthew Stafford, obviously. Is there as, if Aaron Rogers goes elsewhere,

do they feel like a reunion with Justin Fields makes the most sense? A couple other teams that I would throw out. I'd be really curious to see what Chip Kelly could do with him. If they're looking for kind of a low-cost option, right? Like, drop him into that running game, potentially, and just let Chip Kelly go to work with him. I'd be excited about seeing that. And then the other team I would throw out, I'm not sure, depending on his market, right?

So let's say he gets the darn old price this year because the team sees him as their short-term starter. Let's call the inflation on that one year $11 million. The reason I feel like that could be a deterrent that team about to talk about is I don't know if they want whoever they sign in free agency to be their starter. But a team that I know liked him in the process and is going to add to their quarterback room this year is the Indianapolis Colts. And if you did that, in theory, you could do a lot of the same stuff with Justin Fields that you do with Anthony Richardson. But my assumption is the Colts might go, might want to go a little bit cheaper than that because I still think they're going to have their finger on the scale a little bit when it comes to Anthony Richardson winning that competition. That's the thing. I think you want Anthony Richardson to be pushed potentially.

I don't know if you want a guy who legitimately can and has shown he can be a starting quarterback. in this league in Justin Fields. And again, he's not great, but, like, he's probably not been any worse than Richardson has ever been. So, like, that I don't, and he's a younger guy. Like, I feel like if you're going to go get Anthony Richardson, you want somebody older to pair with him to maybe develop him. Like, it just feels, I don't know if would make a whole lot of sense for them.

I also think it's about resource allocation, right? Like, if you're going to sign a guy that you kind of hope doesn't win the job, paying that guy $11 million against the cap might be a little bit rich as part of that plan. So I also think that that could be a signal, you know, depending on how. much the Colts are willing to invest in that guy that they bring in might give us some indications about how much they want that guy or Anthony Richardson to actually win this job. We're going to talk more about the Richardson situation a little bit later. It's the one not really free agent specific question we got in the mailbag that I included,

just because we haven't talked too much about it at all since Chris Bauer came out last week and said they were going to add competition at some point this offseason. Next one here, multiple people asked about stalwart falcons. or Drew Dolman and about his place in the free agent conversation this year. We got a question from Austin about Drew Dolman. We got a question from Greg Felthus about Drew Dalman. Caleb Sogren is what I'm going to say. He asked one last month about Drew Dalman.

So I'm going to make this very simple. How good is Drew Dalman actually and what sort of market do you think is reasonable for him this week given the lack of competition along the interior of the offensive line and free agency this year. So in terms of like the numbers, I'm not sure. I can't say I like dug straight into a center contracts. Like I don't think I went that deep into it. But in terms of like his quality of play, to me, I think the most distinct way to describe it is he's above average, but he comes with caveats. The first is that he's a little bit lighter. He's sub 300 pounds. And he has very short arms. He had a 15th percentile wingspan when he was at the combine five years ago or whenever that was.

The other thing with him, too, is he's pretty much exclusively played in outside zone schemes, because that's his thing. He's a very good athlete. He knows where to be. He knows how to get there. You can move him around a little bit. And that's always been the problem is like he's just, if he plays against a Jordan Davis or Avila, he's just going to get mauled.

And so that's kind of been his problem. Last year, the Falcons were the most outside zone team in the league by 70 snaps. Like, it wasn't close. And that was probably, I didn't go back and look, but that was also probably the case under Arthur Smith. and so I think for very specific teams, he could be a good deal. He's just not going to be for everybody. I think that's exactly right. And they were the same under Arthur Smith

because the one offensive coach that they retained from the Arthur Smith tenure to this one was the offensive line coach, Dwayne Ledford, who comes from that sort of world. So Dahlman is a little bit undersized. He fits that offensive system extremely well because of how well he moves. But if you're going to sign a 300-ish-pound center

to a big-market contract, big-money contract, We've talked about this with the Eagles. You need to be very thoughtful about what you're putting around him, right? If you've got some massive guards, maybe you can live that way. But even the Eagles with Jason Kelsey were mostly a zone team over the last four, five, six years. That's in part because of what sort of offensive line talent that you have. I can remember who I was talking about this with at the Combine last week.

It was some assistant on some team. And we were talking about just how you construct your run game. And he was just saying that, well, yeah, if you have great players, you can just be a zone running team because it's just one-on-ones all over the place. You don't have to really create angles because you have a talent advantage. So if that's what we're talking about here, where you're dropping him into an otherwise really good offensive line, okay, that's fine. But my assumption is that's not what's going to happen. Because of the scarcity here, he's likely being dropped into a pretty bad or average situation. And so I think spending and paying

a premium for a specific type of player as a building block when you don't have to, you much else around him. I worry about that a little bit. We just watched him play his entire career next to Chris Liddstrom. This is a different sort of situation depending on which team he lands within free agency. Yeah, playing next to one of the best cards in football makes your life a little bit easier, especially when like so much of the zone stuff is communication. And like just to like put this in people's minds, like the charges, for example, they probably need a center. They just don't run outside zone and like that's not the type of stuff that they do. So I don't think he would make a whole lot of sense for them. But Ben Johnson's Lions last year were second in outside zone.

And he's obviously now with the Bears. So if like they wanted to spend big on a center, he would actually make sense for them, which is funny because he's the complete in terms of build polar opposite from Frank Ragnow. But Ragnow is just like so good at everything. It doesn't be a unicorn. Yeah, he's a unicorn. But Dalman does fit what they would potentially want to do. Yeah. And I wouldn't be surprised that the Bears did decide this is the best use of our capital, right? Even after trading for Jonah Jackson, we have all this money to spend. We have. don't necessarily love some of the defensive line options in free agency because outside of Milton Williams, it gets a little bit thin pretty quickly.

But I just think that it's important to recognize what sort of downside and what sort of limitations you could be putting on yourself by going out and signing a guy like this. The only other free agent center, it's really available in this class that's of any note is Ryan Kelly. And Ryan Kelly is getting a little bit older. And there's a chance Ryan Kelly wants to retire at this point, you know, given some of the things that he's had to endure personally over the last couple years. So it is not a deep pool of players, and I think that that will just increase the interest

in Dalman, but understand the buyer beware stuff that might come along with that. Before we get to the rest of our questions here, we are going to take a quick break. Next one here from Sam Melanson. He says, are there any position groups that typically yield the best bang for your buck in free agency and vice versa? I remember talking to Jason Fitzgerald again. Well, I'm sure he'll mention him 20 times over the next week or so, considering the great work he does with contracts and free agency.

We did a show, I want to say it was in 2021, about this exact subject, just what's positions are worth seeking out which ones aren't the hit rates at some of these spots compared to others, the availability of players at some of these positions compared to others in free agency. So I have a few takeaways from that conversation that I still remember and actually went back through that study today. But just at first glance when you looked at this question, what came to mind for you? So this is going to relate back a little bit to the Super Bowl free agency show that we did. But I think with offensive line and cornerback, because they are so, those are two very scheme dependent positions. Those are ones that I think if you take the right swing, your pro scouting is

really, really good. You can find guys who are in the middle of the table or below the table that can play above whatever you're paying them because they just fit so well what you're doing. Or it's kind of like what we've talked about where it's a weak link system. And so you don't even need him to be great. You just need him to be functional. And kind of by virtue of everybody else being good and the entire unit being good, he ends up playing more than his value. So those are the two that came to mind first. And then also like those interior run defending defensive linemen. It seems like every year there are three of those guys who get signed for less than like $5 million. and they're not going to make the Pro Bowl, but it's like, yeah, we're going to get 35 snaps out of him a game.

He's going to be a really good run defender, maybe push the pocket a little bit, and we're going to be very happy that we sign this guy. I think that's a good place to start. Two guys that come to mind immediately on those sorts of contracts, DJ Reader and DJ Jones. We're both good free agent signings. It's exactly the type of player we're talking about here. So I think that's a good thing to point out, the ones that have always come to mind when I've had this conversation, interior offensive Wyman and free agency for the most part have had a higher hit rate than some other positions. If you look at the history of center signing specifically, there's a lot of good ones in there.

Ryan Jensen, Corey Lindley comes to mind and with the Chargers. That position is typically worth seeking. Roddy Hudson was, I believe Roddy Hudson was a free agent that signed with when he signed with the Raiders. And we get traded to the Cardinals. But I think he assigned with the Raiders as a free agent. So those spots, those guys are available. and we typically see them playing out a decent chunk of those contracts when they're signed to multi-year deals in free agency.

Safety is another one of those positions. If you're seeking out the middle-tier safety market, that is a spot where you typically get a decent amount of bank for your buck. And weirdly, I think corner is another one of those if you're shopping in the second and third tier where you can do pretty well. And actually, receiver has been okay depending on which sort of guys you're seeking out. If you're looking at guys at the top of the market, you're probably going to be disappointed. If you're looking at guys who are just starting level players in that second and third tier, those contracts historically have actually been pretty good. And that kind of comes back to the idea of like when you're shopping in that third tier for receiver,

you don't need this guy to change our offense. You need him to fill a role within the offense. And that's why I think that stuff can make sense. Whereas like if you're shopping at the tip, tip, top of the market, usually you're overpaying for a guy who you think can fully change your offense and maybe just isn't quite that level of player. And even if they end up decent, you might end up a little bit disappointed. Anecdotally, here's two I would throw out. Robert Woods was a phenomenal free agent signing for the Gramps.

Kenny Galladay was a horrendous free agent signing for the Giants. So when you're going at the top, tippy top, those do not typically work out. There aren't a lot of those guys available for the most part. Like we just don't see those sorts of moves. For the most part, veteran movement and free, and with receivers over the last five to 10 years. has been through trades. You don't often see free agents hitting the market because of just teams are scared to lose those guys now, which is kind of funny considering the available receivers coming

through the pipeline and the draft seemingly every single year with this year being an exception. The positions where you just can't find anything, never sign a quarterback in free agency. Like, almost never is that going to work out for you? We've had some exceptions recently with these kind of reclamation projects that have been okay. but for the most part, if you look back at the last five, ten, 15 years, anything other than a bridge quarterback in free agency probably hasn't worked out.

I mean, just the names we could throw out. The Nick Foles deal with the Jaguars. Case Keenham's deal when he signed with the Broncos, Joe Flacco's deal with the Broncos, Mike Lennon's deal, Jimmy Garoppolo and Free Agency with the Raiders. For the most part, those contracts do not work out. A lot of weirdly... Rock Osweiler.

Like, lanky quarterbacks, by the way. Maybe that's the other. caveat is like specifically if the quarterback is too tall and lanky and a free agent, don't touch him. Get it out of there. It's so funny. All of the 6-5-66 guys are the ones that just struck out huge in free agency. And then the other one is just if there's a left tackle available on free agency almost every

year, there's a reason that guy is available. Like there's almost never do we see this. And if we do, it's guys that are deeper into their careers, you know, third contract sorts of players. Like Andrew Whitworth is the best possible example of this. But typically, that is just not a spot where you're going to be able to find somebody in free agency. Right tackle used to be.

Right tackle used to have more inventory on the market than left tackle did. Now that gap has started to shrink both with how much those guys are paid and the available players hitting the market. So tackles are just really hard to find. We'll see what happens with guard. You know, guard is, for the most part, historically, there have been guards in free agency, but as that gap starts to shrink between tackles and guards and how much that, they're getting paid, is that now, if not a premium position, then something that's bumping

up against a premium position? And does that affect how many guys are ultimately going to hit the market? Because offensive line, the tag is just offensive winement. It's not split up by position. So it's really hard to franchise a center, for example, because you're having to franchise tag a guy with the tackle contracts also in play there. but the fact that the chiefs are willing to franchise tag Trey Smith, I think is an indication that that is starting to shrink a little bit and maybe we're willing, we're less willing to let some

of those high-end guards hit the market, especially as these defensive tackles are getting paid just an astronomical amount of money. That's a really good point because really up until about maybe 70 years ago, it was like, all right, you need the left tackle and everything else we can maybe rotate in and out. That's obviously like a little bit extreme, but now there is the gap is really starting to shorten, especially with tackle. And then, yeah, the guard stuff. And I think the guard stuff specifically, too, is with how offenses are trying to play now, which that's always the tricky part is maybe in five years we actually rotate back to more of a zone thing. And maybe the interior

stuff doesn't matter as much. And you just need guys who can kind of fill the role. So that stuff is always in flux. But I do think over the next handful of years, we might get guards getting paid a little bit more. Yeah. Next one here from Daniel Dillon says, I hear all the time for people who cover the NFL, the free agency is overpaying players. Outside, the obviously good, Sequin Derek Henry and bad, Nate Davis, what leads a player to overcome the stigmas of free agency? In other words, when does overpaying for a free agent no longer become an overpay? I'm curious what your thought about this is. So I think there are, there's one mode where I think a guy was never an overpaid to begin with, and then there's two

where a guy can overcome it. I think for a guy to overcome it, you probably have to be like a sure-fire pro-bowler. You know what I mean? Like, where there is no doubt about it that this guy was that good and we paid him top of the market money. The other one is... Interesting.

So sometimes like... Well, obviously it depends on like who you're paying. If you're paying like in the second tier, like maybe you can change the conversation. But I think if you're paying for tip top of the market free agent, like one of the top three guys paid to his position, I would like him to probably be a pro-bler

for me to not consider that an overpay. The other thing, though, is some of these teams just have more money then they know what to do with. So a guy like on paper maybe is an overpay, but if they just had no other money, like no other way to spend their money anyway, like the Patriots will almost certainly have one or two guys this off season

where we're like, man, if you just look at his number relative to the other guys at his position, that's an overpay. But it's like, what the hell else were they going to do with the money? So I think that's the other part of it that kind of can complicate the conversation sometimes. It's almost impossible if you're paid at the top of the market to not be overpaid as a free agent. Exactly. Tray Smith is a perfect example of this. Let's say Tray Smith did end up hitting the market.

Let's say he gets paid Borrewine top five guard money. Tray Smith is a nice player. He is not one of the five best guards in the week. It is going to be very hard for you to recoup your investment on that sort of free agent contract. But that sort of free agent contract doesn't really get handed out that often anymore. For the most part, guys are not getting paid that way. The one I always come back to, and I'm sure I've mentioned this 100 times,

and we've done free agent shows. The contract that Joanne James got in free agency from the Broncos, he almost never played on. He was hurt like the whole time. Those sorts of deals, or speaking of former Broncos, and this went the other way, he went from Denver to Florida, like the Julius Thomas contract. That shit doesn't happen that much anymore. For the most part, teams have gotten smarter, they've gotten a little shrewder and how they hand out some of these deals.

So I think those types of contracts were from the moment that you put pen to paper. There's almost no way you can get an ROI on that deal. They're happening less and less often. When it comes to the deals I'm thinking about, even like sizable multi-year deals, I don't think you necessarily have to be a pro bowler for that to be able to be a success. Here's a couple I'll throw out. And we'll talk about a team that's used free agency fairly well over the last three or four years. Like the Mike Hilton contract.

The Mike Hilton contract for the Bengals is undeniably a success. the DJ Reader contract for the Bengals, undeniably a success. So when I'm looking at these sorts of deals, I don't even know if it matters where you're tiered out at your position. Are you playing out the majority of that contract? Are you all the way through the guaranteed money on the deal before the team even thinks about whether it's time to move on? If the answer to that is yes, then that was a successful free agent contract.

So for me, it's about how deep into it you end up getting. If you sign a four-year deal and you play three years of that deal and you make every single bit of guaranteed money that was involved in the contract when you signed it, that's a success story in free agency. I don't think it has to go very far beyond that. I actually agree with that. I think I was just mostly thinking of the handful of guys that get paid tip, tip, tip, top of the market. Because to me, I feel like whoever is the, you know, top, like bottom of tier two in free agents or whatever, I feel like a lot of the time people don't get too up in, you know, up in arms about that being an overpay. It's usually the top one or two guys at each position that people will say that about. So that was kind of how I was in my mind framing the question.

Even guys like, I'm thinking about Justin Reed, right? Like when Justin Reed's on that contract, that's a healthy contract for Justin Reed. He played it out. I mean, when you play it out, like that's a success. Yes. And so I think those happen reasonably often. And I think they happen more often now as teams have taken a slightly different approach to free agency than they had in years past. Like, if you look at this stuff,

amount of just truly dumb signings that happen in free agency. And there are a couple that come to mind that I won't throw out here. Eh, fuck it. So when Matt Khalil signed that deal with the Panthers, like five or six years ago, even in real time, I was just like, what are we doing? Like, what, what are we doing? And I just don't react to that many free agent contracts like that anymore. Every once in a while, you'll get a couple, like the Christian Wilkins deal,

while not an abjectly bad signing was very old school. Like those are just the sorts of deals we just don't see much anymore when you look at it. Even now it's just like, oh my God, that's just so much money for Christian Wilkins. And that, the second layer of that was like also why the Raiders, like how close did you really think you were? That's the more confusing part of it to me. Well, we'll talk about that in a second. I've softened my stance on like what that means and how you sequence some of this stuff. but that where like he's probably a borderline top 10 player at the position,

you're paying him like a top three or four player, those deals are happening less often now than they used to. But for the most part, I think you have a better shot at recouping some of your investment depending on how you spend in free agency. This next one is all for you. I knew you would want to answer this one. So this is why I threw this in here. It's also just a good question.

Alex Bartnick asks, two of the Eagles free agent moves last year involved position changes was Zach Bonn and Mackay Beckton and both provided access. value as they vastly outperformed expectations. The Bexton transition from tackle to guard is quite common and well documented. However, the Bonn example does make me wonder about other positions. In college, there's a prospect every year who rockets up boards after switching positions, but once you get to the NFL, it seems position changes no longer happen.

Is this potentially an untapped resource? Should more teams take low-cost gambles on players who are close to out of the league and try them at a new position, or are they doing this already and we don't hear about it because it usually doesn't work. What do you think about this? And are there any examples maybe in this year's group that you're particularly interested in? So the thing about teams trying this and we just don't hear about it a lot because it doesn't

work. Yes, that does happen a lot. Like guys will just get moved. It won't do anything in training camp and they'll be cut. And you just won't hear about it. The other thing that I think is really important to keep in mind with the positional switching stuff is just it's not an avenue for every player that is bad. Like, a lot of it depends on body type.

Like, an example I would come back to is Darren Waller. He was 6-6-2-40 as a wide receiver. So then eventually at the end of his, you know, I think he ended up getting cut by the Ravens and then goes to the Raiders and he becomes a tight end. And it's like, oh, of course that makes sense. Zach Bonn is a great example. He was an edge player. He was 6-2, like 235, man.

He was an undersized edge player. So he kind of had that like natural avenue to be like, okay, we can go to this other position where size-wise, this makes sense. me. And you see this at other positions sometimes, like maybe a safety who's a little bit too big and maybe he's a little short. Okay, maybe we can try him at linebacker. That happened more like 10 years ago as opposed to now, but it's still on the table. Corners who have maybe are very smart and will tackle, but have lost a little bit of their speed, okay, maybe we can try him at safety. But if the guy is like, I don't know, like 510, 185, like I don't want that personally playing

at safety. I don't think there's a lot of those. So some of it to me, I think you just have to keep body types in mind. And it even goes to like, if you're a failed tight end and you're 6-3-2-45, what else are you going to play? Like you would have to at that point flip to the other side of the ball and play linebacker, which in the NFL, that's just an unbelievably difficult transition. So I think a lot of it to me is just the avenue for switching positions really depends on body type. And there's just a lot of guys who fail where there's no other outlet for them to even play a different position this late in their career. I do think, that there are some stories that we just never hear about it.

We just don't think about it again, right? Like, think about the Eagles even. James Bradbury tried to play a safety this year, and it just never worked out. It didn't hit. They had other options there, so he was just recently cut. So we're not even talking about that. And there are plenty of guys who do that where, like, Dax Hill is a good example. Dax Hill was drafted to be a safety.

They moved him to corner. He actually was playing corner pretty well this year before getting hurt. So I do think it happens relatively often for teams that are just trying to find solutions. for guys who aren't working elsewhere. But I think that there are limitations to it for exactly the reason that you said. There are only so many spots you can move to depending on what your body type is.

And for somebody like Zach Bonn, I actually think that's a rare example. I think trying to take an off-ball linebacker and making him an edge player if he's somebody who lacks instincts, if you want him moving forward, that makes more sense than something like the Bond move where you're actually putting more on him

because it's a more nuanced position. And we almost never see that because I think it's a really, really difficult transition to make. That's a great point because usually you'll see, I mean, shoot it, this year's class, Abdul Carter, who's coming out. He played linebacker, I think his first year in college, and then they were just like, oh, you're too explosive. We're just going to put you on the line.

And that can happen with a lot of linebackers. Yeah, Micah Parsons, obviously. Who was the Washington linebacker they tried this with? Jameen Davis, they tried this with him. And like, actually showed some flashes before they cut him. I'm kind of surprised they cut him, but that's besides the point. That is one where they try it. Usually it's a linebacker whose instincts aren't good.

He's very explosive. We're going to put him on the line. Like you said, making a guy who was a pass rusher and putting him into the box and having to play run fits and read stuff out and read keys, edge players aren't doing that the same way in offball linebackers. So for Bond to make that transition, even though body type-wise, it made sense, you just don't see a whole lot of guys who were able to do that. Jamie Collins actually kind of did this coming out of college.

He was a little bit of a hybrid player and then ended up playing linebackers. So once every 10 years maybe we get one of these guys, but there's not a whole lot of them. This is from Tom Stockdale, who is a from the UK and is a Broncos fan. He says, my team spent big two years ago with a class that started to bear fruit last year. However, is it a trap for a team like the Patriots to have a ton of cap space as this year's free agent class appears to be lacking in options worth paying big contracts too? So the way that I was thinking about this question is,

if you are not necessarily ready to compete, can you look at free agency as a multi-year thing where you can spend maybe the year before you're ready to actually get something done. And the reason I wanted to answer this question is last year's Broncos actually have made me rethink some of this stuff in terms of how you sequence it and what the timeline looks like. So when you saw Tom's question, what was your first thought? I think you can go about it that way. And I think you can, if they are, even though they're not close to this year, if they really want to go get some juice up front and sign of Milton Williams or whoever it is or whoever the, top corner on the market is if they really want to put a different guy next to Christian Gonzalez.

I totally get it. I think the other thing that when you're in a spot like the Patriots where you have an unbelievable amount of money, and in their particular case, a young quarterback, you kind of have license to just throw a shit ton of money around for the next two years to make sure that we can develop this guy. It doesn't matter if any of these guys are on the roster or helping us in 2027, but if they can facilitate May's development for the next two years and make sure that he is on track and we can maybe draft the right guys over that span and have the freedom to draft whoever we want to develop over that span. That to me, at least like in that team's particular case is how I would want to go about it.

I think that's a very good point. And I think for a situation like that, again, the second time his name has come up here, but the Rams signing Andrew Whitworth. I don't think the Rams expected to be competitive right away. But in their minds, it was we just drafted a guy number one overall. We have to make sure that we're doing what we can to allow this guy to survive. If the Patriots went out in free agency this year, and I don't know if he's going to get to the market, but if they signed a guy like Ronnie Stanley, even though they're not willing to compete or ready to compete,

I'm okay with that because that's in service of making sure you're getting the most out of your young quarterback. But I do think if you can do both at the same time where you're giving yourself a runway with some of these guys while also helping out your young quarterback, that's the best possible example. So let's go to those Broncos teams. in my mind, I was, I think too rigidly saw this as a binary in years past where it's like, when you're not ready to compete, why are you spending in free agency? But I also think it depends on the types of free agents you're seeking out. When the Broncos spent all that money two off-season ago, they signed Ben Powers to a multi-year deal,

Mike McClinchie to a multi-year deal, Zach Allen to a multi-year deal. Those were their three like big swings in free agency that off-season specifically. Ben Powers was 26, McGlenshy was 28, but he was on his second contract, and Zach Allen was 25. These are multi-year solutions. Like, you don't, those don't have to be one-year stopgap moves. My issue is when teams make moves that don't fit a realistic timeline.

If you look at the Titans last year. I knew that's exactly where that was going. I have no issue with signing Lloyd Cushenberry, even if you're not going to compete, because what you're doing is you're getting some answers on your quarterback, and if that's not the quarterback, and you're dropping Cam Ward into that spot this year, you have a starting center who's 26 years old. You can feel okay about that.

Signing Chiodobeyae to a big money contract and trading a third round pick and giving Lagerie a need a deal, those things are not aligned with any sort of reasonable vision. If you're the Titans this year, you don't mind having to spend all this money on Lloyd Cushenberry, but would it be really nice to have the 66th overall pick right now because of where you are? it really would be. So that's my issue. Like Charvarius Ward makes more sense for the bills than the Patriots in this free agent class. Milton Williams makes more sense for some teams than Khalil Mack based on where you are.

So I think as long as you're realistic about the runway you have and how these players fit that runway, it doesn't need to be something where we're not competing now so we can't spend anything. I think that there's a middle ground to be found. And that's a good point specifically with like the ages of a lot. lot of these Broncos guys that they signed. It's all guys who are pretty much in their prime. And if the contract goes well, then you can just sign them again. And they're at trench spots, which are positions that you want to take the swings to see if this is a guy that we can continue to maybe it goes well. And we sign him to another extension. Like Mike McClinch,

he's a good example that obviously, Zach Allen is the one that has obviously worked out the best. He's gone from like, this was a decent swing for us. We want to get an above average starter. And now it's like, oh my God, he's kind of one of like the top, you know, 12, 15 interior defensive linemen in the league. getting swings like that where you get a guy you obviously now want to again repay and when they're that young, that that probably does make the most sense. Next one here from Clayton Clifford. This is a long question.

I'm going to kind of condense it a little bit here. He said, I would love to hear your guys' thoughts on Anthony Richardson. He said, the Colstrap did the most inexperienced raw but physically talented quarterback that's ever been taken in the top five and there was seemingly no plan to develop him. It's an incredibly frustrating to watch as a fan. So I wanted to just talk about the Anthony Richardson situation in general, even if it's slightly off topic, because Chris Bauer came out explicitly last week and said, we're going to add competition is going to be a competition for the starting quarterback job in Indy. So when you heard that and you just think about where we are with Anthony Richardson right now, how can you kind of make Clayton feel a little bit better about his current situation?

There are so many things that are complicated about the Anthony Richardson thing. because I think the idea that guys now have more of an avenue to stick around in college and obviously get paid for what they're going to do in college and move around and have some upward mobility in college football where obviously you see guys like Bo Nix and Jaden Daniels and all that stuff. I think that is a really good point. I also think Anthony Richardson, when he was in college and had his one year, that was a little bit earlier in the NIL track. And I think guys were maybe not as in tune to like how much that could actually. do for them. I think the other thing that is specific to Anthony Richardson, like you said,

he is one of the most physically talented people we have ever seen the position, play the position. He probably knew that he had a good chance, even leaving after one year, that he could go top 10 and top 12. And that's going, that was going to always net him more money than he was ever going to make with NIL. So I think for him specifically, that was a big part of it. It's like he probably knew he could go top half of the first round no matter what. And part of his thing was he said at Florida just didn't feel like he was, developing. And in his mind, if he thought maybe going to the NFL would be better than going to, you know, I know Jaden Daniels was there, but just LSU or whatever program he thought could do it,

I could see why in his mind he thought the NFL would just be better for that. And for whatever reason, it just, it hasn't worked out for them. You know, I think the offense has been put together relatively well for his skill set, but we just haven't seen some of the mechanical changes you probably we want in terms of like fixing his accuracy and some of that is not necessarily on the coaching staff like i know we always all point to josh allen and obviously the coaching staff had some degree of of helping that but josh allen went out on his own and was like i need to change the way that i throw more not anthony richison has done that too by the way anthony richison has worked with personal quarterbacks coaches each of the last two off seasons he works with the same guys

that brock purdy works with like this is something where he's tried to do this obviously the last offseason was a little bit different just because he was coming off for shoulder surgery, so there was less work to be done. There are a few things I think about this. One, I think that Chris Bauer coming out and saying that last week is probably more about motivating Anthony Richardson than it is about truly thinking there's going to be a quarterback competition in Indy this year. I feel like this is partially them trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube a little

bit because they gave him the starting job coming in, and maybe that wasn't the right way to handle it. The Josh Allen thing is a very good thing to bring up. Because when we look at Josh Allen, it was very tempting to say, well, look at the improvements Josh Allen made. Is this possible? Like, can you make these sorts of strides as a quarterback? Can you get more accurate, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

I think it's important to think about the nuances between all of these guys. This isn't a Josh Allen wants to work hard and Anthony Richardson doesn't sort of situation. There are layers to all of this. And I feel like this is a conversation we're having about Caleb Williams right now. And some of the, while he wasn't a very hard worker last year, et cetera, there's a million different versions of this. Like, you can be somebody who wants to work hard if it's put in front of you, but you're not necessarily a creative self-starter. Like, I was talking to a coach about this last week just about figuring out how to teach players and about what players respond to different sorts of things, different sorts of methods. And there are teams that literally give personality tests to every single player coming into the season and try to figure out, are you a kinesthetic learning style person?

Are you an oral learning person? All of these different ways to teach these guys. And so I just think that there are so many different details and subtleties to, well, this guy needs to do it this way. This guy needs to do it this way. So I don't think it's necessarily that Anthony Richardson doesn't want to work hard. I just feel like tapping into the exact things that are going to make sure he understands the demands, what's expected of him, et cetera. Maybe they just missed a little bit on that.

And now I think they're probably trying to recalibrate it a little bit. And the messaging last week about the competition here is one of their efforts to recalibrate it. I think that's a really good point. I mean, how many, at almost any position could you have a 20-year-old who played one season in college and we knew he was kind of raw could come in and play any position at a high level, especially one where you are expected to be the leader? Like it's just a lot to put on one guy's plate. And so especially now with some of the other guys that we've seen take a little bit of time on the bench,

whether it's a half a season or three in the way that Jordan Love has, I do think that there's certainly some value into it. And this is why when we talked about the Justin Fields potential of him signing with the Colts earlier in the show, I don't really like the idea of them getting another legitimate competitor for Anthony Richardson is just like, oh, survival of the fittest. To me, they need to sign a guy like, I mean, I don't even know who the veteran would be, but just a veteran who can push Anthony Richardson enough, but probably also just understands how to do, like an Andy Dalton type would honestly be perfect,

I think for Anthony Richardson. And I don't know if that's going to be on the table for them, but just something like that where it's someone who can be a little bit of a guidance for him and, like, show him what it's like to be an NFL quarterback, because I just don't know if he's gotten that type of thing. And I know they had Joe Flacco, but like, I think Joe Flacco is there to throw balls whenever he gets a chance. And that's another part of this is that I think when we're,

talking about the Anthony Richardson thing two years ago. We were thinking about the timeline on which he needed to play. It was a lot of what he needs to play to get better. That's how you get better. Patrick Mahomes sitting for a year. It wasn't about learning how to play quarterback necessarily. It was learning about how to be an NFL player. It was how do I study?

What should my time management look like? What should my habits look like? Those are the things he learned from Alex Smith. Those are the things that Jordan Love learned while sitting. And I feel like that that. part of it, maybe we're not thinking about it enough. Like that year to just figure out, okay, this is how I become a professional athlete. Even if you're not getting active reps on the field and improving as a quarterback, maybe that's setting yourself up a little bit better for a year two

when it comes to expectations. Like this is what it is to be an NFL starter and this is what I need to bring to that job. I don't think we thought about that part of it enough when just handing Anthony Richardson the starting job coming into that first year. So I think they're trying to unravel a little bit of that now. Whether they can, I think, is an entirely different conversation. Next one here from Stephen Daniels. Talked about heavy weights in the beginning of his question, which I was tweeting about heavy weights last week.

Heavy weights is a phenomenal movie that I very much enjoy. It was the 30th anniversary, but it's an entirely different conversation. So my question is regard to the Lions team building strategy for this offseason. with big deals already signed for Sewell, Gough, St. Brown, and McNeil, and likely extensions for Hutchinson and Kirby Joseph coming this year and looming big contracts in upcoming years for Jamo, Branch, Leporta, Gibbs, and Campbell, among others. How aggressive should the Lions be to win now before all these big half-pits start hitting?

Should they go big now while they have many of these elite players on rookie deals or they stay the course and continue to build through the draft and get into the compensatory pick game as they let certain guys walk? As a fan that's been patient for this team to be good, my whole life, I'm torn between wanting them to do something aggressive and win now or stay the course and be a good team for a long time. Evan Donovan also asked a similar big picture alliance question. How are you approaching this offseason if you are the Detroit Lions? I know based on how good last year was, people probably want to just maximize exactly what we have here and be like, man, if we could add one or two more things, the defense doesn't get banged up, all this other stuff.

To me, I think this last year was a little bit of a reminder that like you can, win 15 games and a lot can go well for you. And that's still not enough because you just kind of need some stuff to go right for you in the playoffs. And so to me, it's a lot more valuable to continue to keep the window open and to not like over index yourself into whatever this next year is. Because like they could again win 15 games next year and maybe they add the right pieces and just one horrific thing goes wrong in the divisional round and it just goes poof. Like I would rather just continue to make sure we can build for the next three, four, five years, consistently invest in the trenches, make sure you're okay there, especially with a quarterback like Jared Gough who kind of needs that.

To me, I would just rather kind of play out the roster thinking, let's at least win 10 games for the next years and give ourselves a chance rather than try to win 14 games next year and try to have the best team possible. I would rather continue to just have myself in the best spot as possible for the next however many years. I think so too. And I think what Stevens alluding to here when it comes to how aggressive they want to be, it's like making a huge trade for somebody like Miles Garrett,

something like that. And the reason that I feel like I would be hesitant to do that if I were the Lions is when you're paying all these guys, when you know you're going to have to pay all these guys, the draft picks are extremely important. Like, you need as many picks as you can possibly get because you're going to need to keep replenishing

the roster with cheap cost control talent when all these guys get expensive. So if you start flipping picks, for players as part of this, it puts yourself in a really difficult position because that's when the cold streaks happen more easily. If you have fewer picks, it's easier to go cold in the draft. So I just think that being smart about that part of it is important because you're going to have to offset these contracts with cheaper options somewhere along the way, and the draft is

where you can do that. And that's the thing. Obviously, we talk about this Eagles team, how talented they were, all this other stuff. And they've always done a really good job of obviously investing in the trenches and that's going to give you a really high floor. Part of the Eagles magic this year was that they hit on their first two picks at DB who were like phenomenal. And that is like sometimes you just have to continue to make sure, like the way that the

Eagles have built the roster is what I was saying is like the window is always open. And then if you can just get a little lucky with some of this stuff where you, you hit on your first two picks, they're fantastic and you get something crazy like Bonn. You signed, like to just give yourself the chances where the floor is 10 wins and then maybe something is really special one off season and a bunch of stuff goes right. That is typically how a lot of this stuff actually goes out instead of like, man, we just need to make these two super aggressive moves and that's going to put us over the line. That just always feels a little bit too fragile to me.

I think that's fair. If I were them, I would be thinking about, and maybe it's not a trade because again, talking about the draft picks being at a premium, but you have a lot of cap space this year, next year is when it starts to get eaten up a little bit. What are the moves you can make where it's a short-term deal that's not leveraging your future. What's this year's version of the Carlton Davis trade? What's this year's version of the Kevin Zitler signing? So just trying to do as many of those as you can each individual year while not borrowing too much for the future and understanding that you're going to need a lot of

those assets moving forward. That's kind of how I try to balance all of this if I were Brad Holmes. It's not easy. We're doing a whole series of interviews this week with Colton Pouncy specifically and a couple other teams that cover these, a couple other guys that cover these teams that are on the cusp and trying to balance, well, stay the course, stay the course. We want to make sure what we're doing is working. We just need to get the right breaks and the right off season. I typically lean that way. I think that's the right way to do it,

but it's also hard when you keep knocking on the door and you're unable to break it down. And if we're two years removed from this and we're still having the same conversation about the Lions, maybe the tone of that changes a little bit if you're Stephen or any other Lions fan that maybe wants to see them be a little bit more aggressive when it gets to that point.

A couple more here. Nick Valenti said, first time long time, huge fan of the show, what are some of your favorite sleeper or bounce back free agents who may have to settle for one year deals but might be able to make an outsized impact

on their new team? I had a couple names I just wanted to throw out here. I'm sure we'll hit a couple of these when we get to our free agent shows, but just in case we didn't. I liked this question. So just give me like two or three names that you're thinking about here.

I mean, in terms of free agents, like obviously Devante Adams is going to have a pretty good chance to go do something like that. Another one I'm like mildly interested in, and this isn't even a player I like, but just we've seen him be productive before in the last year or so have been very weird for him. Deontay Johnson, like, he's been a productive player and just like it didn't seem like he mesh well with the Ravens. There was a weird thing at the end of him with like the Panthers. Like I just wonder if there's a shot where maybe he just kind of settles down in whatever the next new spot is and he's able to get back to a spot where he can at least be like an 800-yard receiver again, something like that.

it's funny i kind of that ship is sailed for me like i'm beyond talking myself into dionte jonson i just like again this is probably not a guy that i would sign to find out but like i'm just curious if that like five percent chance that he kind of comes back because he's still young like he's only going to be 29 years not like he's old i just like wonder if it works out for somebody that one's one word he was on like three teams last year and none of them could make it work and i feel like that's it when we get out of pittsburgh weird shit just happens with these guys that's kind of where I'm out with Deontay Johnson. Three names I'll throw out.

Four names. One's kind of cheating. Nate Hobbs is only 25. And I actually thought he had some really nice moments early in his career with the Raiders. And he was hurt last year. So was he somebody that you could take a one year fly around and play him in the nickel and get something out of him like we saw early in his career. That one's interesting.

I kind of like I like Efei and Melo Fonwu from the Lions. He can play a bunch of different roles. He's super athletic. He's just had a really. hard time staying healthy. And so if you can just catch him at the right price for one year and you have a hole in your secondary, whether it's a safety, him playing closer to the line of scrimmage, whatever, I just feel like he's a guy that could be a good ingredient on an otherwise

good defense for the right price. Great, Drey Greenlaw is probably cheating, but he is somebody that might have to sign a one year deal. So that's somebody else I would throw out. And the last guy, I think he'll get a multi-year contract somewhere, but somebody that I think has the potential to be a lot better. than he was in 2024. I still believe that Andre Sisko has something.

Like that Jags defense last year was such a disaster that some of the flasces he showed in 2023. That is somebody where in my situation, if I thought my situation was better, he's somebody that I would take a fly around. Like if the bills, for example, like somebody like that, we're just like, ah, we trust our infrastructure. Like, let's take a run at somebody like this. I don't think they'll do anything in safety.

We had that conversation with Joe Biscali already. but I do think that he's the type of guy I would potentially take a swing up. Yeah, the entire Jags defense was so bad that it's one of those things that you don't necessarily want to like fully give someone a pass. But it's like, yeah, I could totally see this guy getting back to wherever he was in a place where we know the infrastructure is as good as it is in Buffalo. One other one I would actually throw out to go back to linebackers a little bit. Jerome Baker had a very odd year last year. But I think in the right defense where you can actually put him on the line of scrimmage a little bit, really utilize him as a blitzers. like there's a world I think where he could be useful for somebody again.

Those are the positions that I'm typically thinking about when it comes to something like this. Because with him in when he was in Seattle, them having him be an offball linebacker all the time, like really asking him to cover like a lot of ground in these two high stuff. It's just not what he does. Like I think he's a little bit more of a guy who needs to move forward, be on the line a little bit more, be a movable piece. But in the right defense, I think it could maybe work out again for him. Two more quick ones here.

I just like, this was such a specific question, and I appreciated the tone of it so much I wanted to include it. Mark Trouton says, I'm a Green Bay fan and agree with Josh Jacobs about what our needs are. The rumors last week of D.K. Meccaf for two in Romeo Dobbs, and I think this would be perfect. With Watson out for the start of the year, we need a man-beating deep threat.

Derek convinced me that Chase Young could give us some juice on the defensive line, and we need a cornerback with Jairier leaving, and I think Pulse and Adibo is the guy who's underrated and could work. We could then take a defensive line in Route 1, and address depth at offensive line later in the draft. What are your thoughts? I just want like a thumbs down or a thumbs up on this plan for Mark, because I appreciate the specificity of it.

It depends on the part of it. In terms of like signing Paulson Adivo and like letting Jai Airwalk, I'm kind of in on that. Like I actually, Adivo was the guy who actually coming into the year. I think I said, oh man, who was the corner they drafted?

Kool-Aid. I was like, I did our like weird predictions early in the year. I was like, Kool-Aid McKinstree is going to play. so like starting snaps by the end of the year. And I thought it was because he would supplant Paulson Adivo. What actually happened is Martian Latimore gets hurt and gets traded.

Either way. Adivo actually played really well and earned his starting spot. So I think that part of it would make sense for them. The D.K. Metcalf thing is really complicated because on one hand, I think he's probably better than a lot of the other outside guys that they have. He's kind of just a better version in a lot of ways than Christian Watson. I also think he would be very expensive and is a little bit too inconsistent. at certain things for my liking.

So I don't know if I love that aspect of it. But I guess in the sense that if they got him, it would free them up to not have to draft a receiver. That would be nice. But I don't know, man. That part of it is just not the type of gamble I would take. I don't think. But I understand I'm way lower on DK than most other people.

And I'm also fairly low on DKK compared to most other people. But here's how I would talk to myself in D.K. MacK. I also don't think any of this is going to happen, by the way. I think D.K. MacG. is probably going to be on the Seahawks. here's how I would talk myself into it. Think about how different the Packers' offense feels

when Christian Watson is healthy and giving you that gear. Even if we think that DK McCaff is just a slightly better version or better, slightly is, let's be honest. DK Mac has a good NFL player. He's like a tier better than that. It's just that like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

So he's a tier better than that, even if the same archetype of player. The other thing is, he plays, right? So if you can guarantee me that we could get 120% of Christian Watson for 16 games a year. That's intriguing, right? Like, that is a, that's a version of the Packers' offense I would be interested in.

I do think, though, the part of this is where you're throwing Dobbs in. Dobbs is actually, I really liked the way that Romeo Dobbs played last year. So I don't necessarily think I would, like, want to throw Romeo Dobbs in the trash as part of this. If I was just trading for D.K. Metcalfe and I were the Packers, and it was D.K. Dobbs and Jane Reed with everything else that they've got going on right now combined with Paulson-Adebo and one other edge rusher

I could get behind that. That's a plan that I could support. Yeah, who's your third down receiver if they trade away Dobbs? It's not going to be D.K. So they kind of need it to be Romeo Doves. So you actually kind of have sold me on the D.K. Metcalf thing.

Like if he can, instead of having Christian Watson for 10 games or whatever, you get, like you said, a 120% version of that for all 16. it's still not my favorite thing in the world and I know there's going to be some plays that irritate me but at least he'll have more of the good place in Christian Watson

so you've kind of sold me on it even if I think if we did this show again in a month and he is on the Packers, I would probably still be a little bit upset about it. Last one here, and we can talk, this is very quick, but I wanted to address it because I reached out to a couple people about it. Paul Bright-Cruits says, The NFL and the NBA are two leagues I follow most closely. I'm curious about different contingency trade mechanics

that are specific to each league. So what Paul is kind of asking about here is the conditional, the protected picks in the NBA, why don't we see that in the NFL? We see conditional picks in the NFL that are based on production. He gets why that doesn't happen in the NBA. But is there anything specific in the CBA preventing protections on draft picks in the NFL? So I didn't know the answer to this. And so I decided to seek out the answer to this and texted multiple GMs this

morning just being like, hey, somebody asked a question about this. Is there a rule preventing it? And everything I got back was, no. There is no rule preventing this. And one of the GMs I talked to said he's actually tried to do this before. And other teams just aren't willing to play ball. And I think in the NFL, sometimes it's really important to remember how conservative of a league this still is.

There's nothing preventing something like the Brock Oswald trade from happening again, where a team takes on the cap and they just want there's like we'll take the pick so i think preventing that stuff i just think that this is a league where a lot of the people in charge are risk averse they don't want to establish precedent that's not there and a lot of these guys are pretty old school so i think it requires two very creative people very creative gms to get something like this done and there just aren't that many of them in the league like there aren't that many new school guys who have the autonomy to make these sorts of moves. So the answer is there is nothing preventing it other than institutional culture, which I think

is a very powerful factor in some of this stuff. That's interesting because I would have actually assumed that it was illegal just based on the fact that we've never seen it before. What I would say, like looking at this and I don't actually follow the NBA that closely, but my understanding and part of the reason it seems the NBA would do this in the NFL doesn't, because the NBA draft is only two rounds and there are only a select few of true superstar level prospects, having a top 10 pick in the NBA draft is significantly more valuable than having a top 10 pick in the NFL draft. That is fair.

A top in the NFL draft is still valuable, right? Like you still have the best chance to get the best players. But there's seven rounds. A lot of the guys slip through the, through the crash. You can still get really good valuable players in the second and third round. My understanding is that just doesn't happen as often in the NBA. and so that would be my assumption as to why that happens more in that league as opposed to not happening so much in the NFL. I also think that there's just an expectation in the NBA that if you're one of these teams tearing it down to the studs,

you're going to get a multi-year runway to see a rebuild through. In the NFL, these guys are on borrow time. For the most part, you can't methodically go about a three-year rebuilding process with an NFL team. So if you're a GM and the idea of, oh, well, the protection, you know, it didn't manifest this year, so we'll just kick the pick to next year. That's harder to study. There might not be in the NFL. Exactly.

And so I think because so many of these guys act out of self-preservation, justifiably so, they're just less willing to kick the can down the row when it comes to these sorts of things. Like the idea that I could make a trade now and the pick wouldn't be realized until like 2028 is just not something that I think most NFL GMs are ready to stomach. So there are a lot of different factors in play with the practice. of this, but the short answer is it is allowed. There just aren't GMs in the NFL who are willing to explore. All right, that is all we've got for the mailbag portion of the program. But like I alluded to, and like we started last week, we're doing a series of conversations

with beatwriters that cover teams for the athletic that we're calling on the cusp. Teams that are close, two in the NFC, two in the AFC. And we're going to include our conversation with Packers writer Matt Schneidman about what the Packers can potentially do this off-season to break through after a couple solid, but ultimately unspectacular years. And we'll get to that conversation with Matt after one more quick break. So kicking off the series of conversations we're having this week about the teams on the cusp and what they could potentially do to get over the hump

is a discussion with our Packers writer here at the Athletic. Matt Schneiman about Green Bay's role in all of this. How you doing? I'm great. Forever on the cusp. Yes. I mean, that is the story of the last like 30 years of Green Bay Packers football. For the last six years I've been here, forever on the cusp. So I want to, before we get to dessert and like the fun things that we can discuss here,

we have to eat our vegetables. What are like the housekeeping things that the Packers need to take care of roster-wise before they can start potentially big game hunting in whatever this offseason looks like? Yeah, they have a decision to make on Jair Alexander first and foremost, I think. You know, you just turned 28 years old. He's played 16 games over the last two seasons out of a potential 37 that they've played because of four different injuries and a suspension. It's still unclear whether there's something simmering behind the surface, non-football related with regards to how he fits in the locker and whatever. Brian Gutiqon says all is good, but we never know if that's the case because they made it seem like all was good in 2023.

And then he gets suspended for the coin toss incident. and then Lafleur says that was the last straw in a series of things. So who knows what's really going on there. He has the third highest cap hit on the team right now behind Jordan Love and Roshan Gary. If they cut or trade him before June 1st, that frees up a little under $7 million in cap space. Right now, the Packers are in their best cap situation in the last two or three years. So they have room to make a lot of moves. Jair Alexander is the big money cut or restructure, whatever you want to call it,

that they have to do. John Thornton, his agent is here in Indy. Brian Gutakunz is going to meet with him and then decide where they go from there. But I would say that roster-wise is the biggest move. You know, when you have a bad 2021 draft, that means your 2025 free agency class is overwhelming. Eric Stokes, Josh Myers is probably the top name in that free agency class, been their starting center the last four years.

But other than that, there's nobody really that enticing in this free agent class. So like I just said to you before we started recording, it's not normal. We come here at the Combine and the Packers don't have some nationally relevant headline, whether it's Jordan Love or Aaron Rogers or Devante Adams or this or that. It's kind of quiet around them this year. How do you see the Josh Myers thing getting sorted out? Not in whether he stays or goes, but if he does move on,

is there an in-house replacement, or is that something that you think that they'll prioritize in the draft and free agency? Yeah, so Zach Tom, they actually liked him most at center. This has been going on for like four years, the Zach Tom's center move. Well, I don't think Zach Tom's like a household name yet, but what people may not realize is he got the third most all-pro votes at right tackle behind Lane Johnson and Penae Sewell. He's a top five right tackle in the NFL. He played left tackle in center at Wake Forest. He was a fourth round pick in 2022. They liked him at center most coming out.

Brian Gutakunz told us this morning when he sat down with local riders, he is like, he's probably staying at right tackle. Yeah, at this point, we've probably crossed that bridge. And then Elton Jenkins is a Pro Bowl caliber player at left guard. at center, they're either going to, so Sean Ryan, who's their 2022 third round pick, played right guard this year. Jordan Morgan, who they drafted out of Arizona in the first round last year, was splitting reps at right guard with Sean Ryan, and then he got injured and was out for the rest of the season. So what they could do is move Sean Ryan to center, played Jordan Morgan at full-time right-guard,

or they could draft this kid from North Dakota State in the first round, Zabel, the center, and have him. But, look, Brian Gutakunz has said he's not going to let one guy. game dictate how they go about their offseason, but you bet that they are going to make sure their offensive line is rock solid after what Jalen Carter and the Eagles did to them in the wildcard round. Typically in years past, if you just look at the way that they've solved these problems, it's a lot of in-house shuffling. Even like moving to Rashid Walker to left tackle, that's a move that I think other teams might have been a little bit more aggressive in how they

solved that. Especially coming off David Bakhtiari. Yeah, and I think the Packers have always had a lot trust in their in-house plan offensive line-wise. So that's why for me, when I can see of it, if I look at a hole with center, for a lot of teams, I would immediately think, all right, you're doing something early in the draft, you're doing something in free agency. I think about this team and their plans at that position, specifically a little bit different than I do with others.

Yeah, they kind of treat O-Line differently. And if you were to say, all right, name the top three teams at drafting and developing O-Line talent over the past decade and a half, The Packers are probably up there with the Eagles and whoever else. They haven't had the high-end talent recently, but they always get playable, like, workable play from guys that they probably should be able to work-able play from. Zach Tom, Elton Jenkins, even going back to the Ted Thompson days of Bactiari in the fourth round, Josh Sittin and T.J. Lang on day three. Corey Lindsley, who became a first-team all-pro in the fifth round.

Like, they're good at identifying that talent later on in the draft. And developing it. And developing it. And Brian Gooden said this morning, we're always going to add to our all-offensive line. because when Elton Jenkins got hurt in that playoff game, they had to go to their third string left guard because their second string was so bad. And that's probably because Jalen Carter is really good.

But they got to get that short up to protect Jordan Love in the long run. So even if they do go outside as a way to solve that, having them pick somebody in the third round and thinking, all right, we'll find five guys. That to me feels like a reasonable approach. Right. If you're looking at just these position groups individually, right? So you have the receiving corps and you have the front, in my opinion.

Corner we can also talk about. But if you look at those two spots, they have groups of players that, in theory, we're okay. Right? Like, we don't have a number one receiver. We don't want to talk about that. But we have four guys we feel good about. In the pastura situation, it's the defensive front overall,

they've invested so much in that spot that the fact that that's an area of need is a little bit concerning. Absolutely. Even if both of those spots are like, okay, we've filled those with the requisite amount of players, but we still need help. So if you had to pick one of those where they do something drastic, they go above in the end, you think it is on the edge? Yeah, I think so because I think, you know, everyone says... That's so tough to stomach. You paid Rishon Gary, you spent the first round pick on Lucas Van Ness.

It's like, the idea that you'd have to do something else on top of that is like, man, that's difficult. It also just might be because the options to make that splash move are more enticing at that spot. So it's easier to just say that. Now, the free agent class at corner is pretty good, with Charvarius Ward, Byron Murphy from the Vikings, Carlton Davis from the Lions. I would expect them to do something there, right?

Especially if they move on from January. Right. And they have Keishon Nixon as one of their outside corners, and Carrington Valentine, who has been kind of a part-time player the last couple of years as a seventh-round pick in 23. I think if you're saying, okay, pick one, edge-rusher or corner,

your corners have to do less if there's a pass-rush that gets home quick, than pass rush has to do if you have corners that can cover for a while, I think. But Brian Gutakunz talked to us this morning, and he was talking about how they only have seven picks so far, and he's a guy who likes 11, 12 picks in a draft. And the way the question was phrased was, you know, you don't have as many picks as you have had in years past. He said, yeah.

And so they want to add picks. And so I go to him, so that means you're not trading a first round pick for an edge rusher. He goes, well, it depends on what edge rusher. And I said, can I throw out a couple names that you? you, he said, not if they're on other teams right now, no, you can't. So are they going to be in on a Miles Garrett or make a call on Max Crosby or try and get Trey Hendrickson? I bet they'll make a call.

But I do think that there's a higher likelihood they make a splash move at that position in particular this year because Brian Gutakun said at his season ending presser, pass rush was too inconsistent. They got home against the Saints against the Seahawks against the Titans. That's great. They didn't touch Jerry Gough or Sam Darnold or Jalen Hertz. And you mentioned Lucas Van Ness. He has not broken out yet. They just fired their defensive line coach,

which to me says it's the coaching, not the players. Sean Gary had a down year. They have some decent role players at that position. They just traded Preston Smith, who was their number two for a couple years. Brian Gutakunz said, you know, it's time we start competing for championships. It's his direct quote from January.

And he said, we need to show more urgency. And that's all across the board. that quote entering year three of this Jordan Love era, combined with the options that are out there, combined with what he said about the pass rush, it makes me think if they do make a splash move, it is at that edge rusher position. See, I love this, because I think that's right. I think that's the right mindset, and I don't think that the investments they've made should preclude them from doing something like that. But I think a lot of teams, it would preclude them.

They'd be like, we've already invested so much here. Let's just see this through. We need to do defensive line coach. The inertia would take over. But the fact that they have these resources and potentially that mindset, it's probably worth doing something. And the idea of them going above and beyond being like, fuck it. Like let's go trade something for Trey Henderson, so we need to do that.

I think that's probably the right way to handle this. On a smaller scale, so they drafted Amari Rogers in the third round in 2021, and he was terrible. With all due respect, he was not good. Rich Pesaccia had him returning kicks for a season and a half. And part of the reason, there are a lot of other reasons, but they missed the playoffs in 2022 by one game because in week seven in Washington,

they lost the game by two points that season, and Amari Rogers muffed a punt on his own goal line that led to three commanders' points. They lost by two. What I'm saying is they did not go to Keishon Nixon returning kicks until week nine of that season, I think, and then he became a back-to-back first team all pro. I say that to say,

there have been times in the past where the Packers have been hesitant to admit that they're wrong with a high draft pick. He was a third-round pick. Jay Sternberger stayed around for longer than he should have. Amari Rogers stayed on the field for longer than he should have. Just because you just paid Rishongeri $24 million a year, and just because Lucas Van Ness is the number 13 overall pick

doesn't mean they're required to play a certain amount of snaps. If you can go out and get one of these guys, you absolutely have to. Yeah, I think that's right. And especially considering the fact that they've struggled to break through up to this. point. I'm wondering if we're looking at the young defensive pieces and we think, all right, all right, along with whatever splashy additions you could make, what sort of in-house development can help you get over the line on that side of the ball? Who do you think those options are? Is it Edgaren Cooper? Is it Devante Wyatt? Who has that built-in step forward that

can also help get you from point A to point B? I think probably Edjuring Cooper is the number one guy receiving, I was about to say all pro votes. He received one all pro vote for his second team as a rookie. He was the two-time NFC defensive player of the week. He was a rookie of the month. He's a stud. He has superstar potential as the phrase Matt LaFleur used with me after the season. Evan Williams, I think, is another one, a rookie fourth rounder out of Oregon who started at safety. Do you feel like guys like Devante Wyatt, Quay Walker, like those are more fully baked than they probably want them to be. Right. I still think there's a little bit of untapped stuff there with both those guys, especially because Quay Walker has dealt with some injuries. They're probably going to

extend him this offseason. Devonte Wyatt, Brian Guti Kuhn said, was their best interior pass rusher. So in terms of younger guys, I'd say Evan Williams and Edering Cooper, I think Edron Cooper is a potential all first team, all pro at linebacker in the future. So if you're looking for a guy to really take this defense to the next level that hasn't become a household name, beyond the Xavier McKinney's and all those guys, I would say definitely Edger and Cooper. Do you think there's a surprising trade that maybe we're not thinking about, where they're looking at one of these guys and thinking it didn't work out for us, maybe we can flip him for a pick and get some of those picks?

Because it feels like the room's already a little bit crowded before you added somebody else. So there's maybe somebody that is expendable as part of this entire calculus that I'm not thinking enough about. We were talking earlier just me and a couple of the other writers about the receiver room. and Romeo Dobbs, but Christian Watson's out till the midway point of the season, so they can't afford to do that. So do you think that there is a potential receiver move on the board that we're not talking or thinking enough about?

No, I don't think so. Because Josh Jacobs goes around Radio Row and says we need a number one wide receiver. Brian Gutakunz has been very adamant. We like the guys we have, and we want them to take the jump to become that number one. The whole story last year was we have four guys who can be number one on any given day, but they need, Josh is right, a proven number one alpha guy, even though Brian Gutakun said, you know, traditionally, when you look at playoff teams, guys who dominate targets, that doesn't really bode well for the playoffs, even though they went to two straight

NFC championship games with Devante Adams as their number one. Yeah, AJ Brown just won a Super Bowl. Exactly. Having good players is something helpful. Sometimes it doesn't work. I don't think a Devante Adams reunion is going to happen. A lot of people want that. people have floated you know a dk maytkaft trade uh t higgins i don't think is going anywhere so i think

it's much more likely that they draft a guy in round one or round two or round three because they've found as we all know jordy nelson's devonte adams they've found all these guys in rounds two three four and then also you have to think jaden reed duntavian wicks romeo dobbs christian watson shorts nice when they're in their first or second years but then all these guys come up for contracts in the same time frame and you need guys to take that role if some of those guys are going to leave. So they got to start grooming that next group of wide receivers right now. So that's why I think they draft guys instead of, you know, sign a proven veteran. I think it's far more likely just because of the, not difficulty,

but time it's taken to develop Rishan Gary and Lucas Van Ness, that they probably, you know, get an instant impact guy at that position more than wide receiver. The defensive line coach part of this is not surprising to me. The surprising part to me was that they didn't go out and get somebody that fit that system last year. Because if you look at it, and I've talked to people who, obviously, right, like, Havley comes in, it's kind of a bastardized version of what the Niners do from a coverage perspective, right? It was more dynamic on the back end. There were different ideas.

But the front was supposed to be that four-down penetrating front. And for other teams who have tried to build that way, one of the most important hires you can make is finding the right defensive line coach to kind of teach those guys how to play that way. because it was a big departure from what they were doing under Joe Barry. So the fact that they didn't do that. Who I ran into last night, by the way. He's around.

Joe Barry is around. He's around. He's around. The fact that they didn't do that was a little bit surprising to me in the moment. And then this offseason watching, did they hire a defensive line coach, by the way? Not officially. Rob reported that they're hiring to Marcus Covington, the former Patriots defensive coordinator. Interesting.

Because the guys they were sniffing around like Aaron White Cotton, who was the Jets defensive line coach, that's what I expected them to do last year. because those guys are familiar with this play style from the defensive line. So the fact that they're trying to kind of account for that a year later is not necessarily surprising. Yeah, and Rebravich was a holdover from Joe Berry's staff. And what Matt LaFleur, I think it was Matt LaFleur who said this at his season-ending press conference, he said at the beginning of last season he envisioned them being able to rush four, get home with four,

so did I. Drop however many you need in coverage. And they just weren't able to. to. They had to generate pressure by sending, you know, simulated pressures and what they call replacement fire zones, which for anybody who's unfamiliar with a term, is when, you know, you mug the line of scrimmage with six, seven guys, you drop a couple into coverage, and it's like what the Vikings do with Brian Flores. And one of the guys you drop is a defensive lineman, and instead of rushing a defensive lineman, you rush Xavier McKinney off the edge,

or Edger and Cooper up the middle. And you're still rushing four guys, but it's a simulated pressure because it looks like a blitz, even though you're still rushing four. Fleur wants to get home with just your traditional four, like the Eagles do, but the Packers were not able to do that. And, you know, Brian Gutakun says, we have the right guys in the room, and then they fire their D-Line coach. So that, like I said, says, it's coaching, but I don't think they have the right guys in the room right now unless Rishon Gary truly shows why he makes $24 million a year, and Lucas Vannes suddenly starts playing well. The last thing I'll ask you, we haven't mentioned the quarterback as part of this discussion at all. And I think,

that as we were thinking about football cognoscenti in a way was thinking about the trajectory of the Packers last year, a natural improvement from where Jordan Love was in year one as a starter to where he would be in year two, was part of that discussion. Right? We just assumed that the line would kind of keep going up.

That didn't necessarily happen. No. So as you're conceiving of Jordan Love's place in the quarterback hierarchy and what that means for what this team is willing to accomplish, has that conversation changed in your mind in the last like 12 months? I think it changed this year because this was the most run-heavy team the Packers have had under Matt LaFleur.

So Jordan Love didn't necessarily need to wheel them to wins with his arm like he did during his first season starting. But in order for them to win a Super Bowl, which I think they're capable of, he needs to be much better. His footwork was sloppy as something Matt LaFleur said. And that's in part because he missed so much practice time in the first half of the season and just developed bad habits since he wasn't. wasn't able to drill of that stuff in practice. Sprains is MCL first week of the season. Then Sprains is growing against the Jaguars. And that whole first half of the season,

he just couldn't get in a rhythm since he wasn't fully healthy for a long stretch of time. At the same time, he was, you know, last eight games of 2023, he threw 18 touchdowns one interception. And then through the first half of 2024, he throws 10 picks. He's putting the ball in harm's way a lot. He's not nearly as accurate. And what they need to get back to with him is finding that fine line of okay, take risks to help us win games through the air, but also, you know, pick your spots.

And he got better as that as the second half of the season went on. But, you know, everyone's always going to, you know, look at his contract and say, oh, he's paid $55 million a year. He stinks. But that's going to probably look like a bargain a couple years from now. And he needs to get a couple of things short up. And I am interested to see how the changing quarterback coach affects that because it's no longer Tom Clements.

Who retired. That was the year. Yeah. Rob reported it's Sean Mannion, who's the journeyman. backup in the NFL, who's going to be their QB coach now. Not surprising at all. I remember talking to a head coach a few years ago that said to me, the moment Sean Manning retires, I want him to be my quarterback coach.

The fact that Matt is the one that got him, I think, is a win for the Packers. But, you know, in short, Jordan Love is still, I think, a top 12 quarterback in this league. I think we can safely say right now. But in order for the Packers to get where they want to go, he has to be much better. And they know where he needs to get better. the footwork, it's the accuracy, it's the fundamentals, which is a little bit concerning because he's going into what now year six in the NFL, he's 26 years old and his footwork still a little sloppy. Can he get to that level? I think so since we've seen him do it before,

but I said this a bunch, to think that he was just going to continue on that. He was at an MVP level with Dak and Brock Purdy, the second half of his first season starting. To think he was going to stay on that upward trajectory was unrealistic. He was probably going to level out, and he did. All right. We needed to hit that before we got out of here. I'm going to go as Nick Siriani what he thinks about the Packers trying to ban the tush push. You do your thing.

I will talk to you soon. Matt and I sincerely appreciate the time. Thanks, brother. Appreciate it. All right. That's all we got. Thank you so much to Derek. Thank you so much to Matt.

sincerely appreciate both of their time. We will be back tomorrow with our offense, free agency preview. Digging into a bunch of different things. The top guys on the market. Some of our favorite finds. Some of our favorite team fits. Maybe some potential trades that might be on the market.

If we don't love the free agents who might be available. So we're going to dig into the offense tomorrow, the defense a little bit later this week. And again, we're going to be including one of those on the cusp conversations in each of our shows over the course of the rest of the week. Last thing I wanted to mention, I mentioned at the top of the show, just going to bring it up again. on Monday, five days from now, the legal tampering period opens.

We're blowing it out this year. We are going to be live for five hours starting at noon Eastern on that Monday. Me and Derek are going to be there the whole time, unfortunate for Derek. We are going to be bringing in a whole host of other people to join us as part of that conversation. Some people from the athletic, some people who are friends of the show. we've got Mike Sando, Mina Kimes, Jordan Rodriguez, David Helman, Danny Parkins, a bunch of other people have committed to doing this. And now that I've said that they're doing it, they have to do it. So this is now a binding agreement that we've entered into.

But that's what we're doing on Monday. We're going to be live for five hours running through all the signings as they happen on the Athletic Football Show YouTube channel. So please come check that out. Please come spend the day with us. We would love to see you. We would really appreciate it. For now, though, that is all we've got. Sincerely appreciate you guys listening.

We'll talk to you soon.