The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Free agency mailbag: New staffs, Tyler Linderbaum's catbird seat, the cap space tipping point, and more

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

We're all free agency, all the time over the next two weeks on The Athletic Football Show. And what better way to kick that off than with your questions? Robert Mays and Dave Helman tackle questions on how new coaching and front office staffs handle free agency, the great spot in which Tyler Linderbaum finds himself, the idea of the importance of cap space as potentially outdated, and a whole lot more on this episode of TAFS.Connect with The Athletic Football ShowYT: https://www.youtube.com/@TAFootballShowPodcasts: https://podfollow.com/the-athletic-football-show/viewX: https://x.com/TA_FootballShowIG: https://www.instagram.com/tafootballshowTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tafootballshowDiscord: http://discord.gg/theathleticfootballshowBuy our merch! http://theathletic.lnk.to/tafsmerchCall us: 847-448-0701Email us: [e-mail]: Robert MaysCo-Hosts: Derrik Klassen and Dave HelmanWith: Michael BellerExecutive Producer: Michael BellerVideo Producer: Katy DuffyAudio Producer: Michael BellerSocial Producer: Scott KrinchFollow 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. Another mailbag for you guys today. Obviously, Monday was filled with our Combined Recap with Dave and Dane, breaking down everything that happened in Indianapolis. If you have not listened to that, highly encourage you to check it out. If you have not started listening to Building the Beast in general, now is the time.

We're officially in the off-season schedule, and we are creeping closer and closer to the draft. So if you have not been listening to our draft coverage with Dave and Dane, and highly encourage you to get on that train now. Today, we're going to be digging into your questions about free agency. Appreciate everyone who's sent in some thoughts via Discord or the email. No Derek today. He will be back with us a little bit later in the week.

Today it's me, Dave, and Michael Beller digging into your free agent mailbag questions. Let's get to it right now. So they're off-season mailbag here on the athletic football show. Melbag Monday just had such a nice ring to it, but it's not Monday. because we needed to do a combine recap coming out of the weekend, which is available in your guys feed right now, Dane Bruegler and Dave Hellman breaking down the week and the weekend that was in Indianapolis.

But we still needed to hit at least one mailbag this week, even as we kick off our offseason and free agency coverage. And so that's what we're digging into today, David. We're hitting your free agency questions as we get ready to dive head first into our free agency coverage on the show over the next couple weeks. I love it. I feel just like PFF. If you go on PFF, you can toggle between NFL and NCAA.

I just, I pull down the drop-down menu. I spend three days talking about draft prospects and I just toggle back over. Let's talk about some free agency. Let's have some fun. We'll have shows every day for the rest of this week. We're going to have several more free agent shows on Wednesday through Friday, just about this class. We're going to hand out some free agency superlatives, I believe, this week.

So we'll talk best fits, best bargains, buyer beware type stuff. So the next three shows after this one will all be kind of bigger picture looks at free agency. And then I assume we've mentioned this at some point, but next week we're hitting free agency in the same way we have for really the last couple years. We're going to be having live shows coming your guys way at least Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday of next week. The one on Monday will be very similar to what we did last year, where we went live, I believe, at 11 a.m. Central and we're on for five straight hours as the sightings were rolling in. We will be doing that again. So if you want to come spend the first day of the tampering period with us, which is actually the first day of free agency for anyone paying attention, we encourage you to do so. We'll have plenty of guests, tons of guests going to be coming your way. We'll finalize that list over the next couple days. But it's one of my favorite weeks all year to do the athletic football show, and we are blown it out in the same way that we have recently, and we are very much looking forward to that. Today, we're going to be hitting some mailbag questions, but before we dig into those, as it's probably going to happen every day

for the next two weeks, even before actual free agency kicks off, we've got a little bit of housekeeping that we need to take care of. I'm glad you phrased it that way, and I'm glad we're doing as many shows as we are over the next two weeks, because I know the minute we finish recording this, there's going to be another trade, and that'll happen throughout the next 12 days. So I'm glad we have a lot of the opportunities to address things that happen right after we finish doing shows. Both of these trades involve the Houston Texans. Let's start with the one that has a player coming back to the Texans. David Montgomery on his way to Houston in exchange for fourth and seventh round picks along with,

let's call him utility linemen, juice scrugs, in exchange. for David Montgomery. The Texans absolutely had a need for kind of like a grinder early down running back. You know, they drafted Woody Marks to be sort of a past catching compliment. He had to take on a much bigger role than that last year in the absence of Joe Mixon and Nick Chub just, you know, kind of being out of gas. So it makes sense for the Texans to kind of seek out this skill set. They gave up a decent amount. And it sounds like according to a couple people covered the Texans that there was another maybe competing offer that had come in. The original report was it was a fifth round pick going back to the Lions.

So it sounds like another team might have tried to jump in and top that offer so that potentially forced the Texans to maybe sweeten the pot a little bit. But Fort Seventh and Juke rugs for Montgomery. Right now Montgomery making $6 million this year. He'll be on the CAFR 9 million next year. So it essentially amounts to a two-year $15 million contract for David Montgomery, who's, I believe, heading into his age 29 season. I was just thinking while we were getting ready to do,

this. To me, at least, it feels like it flew under the radar in the league landscape that David Montgomery clearly wasn't all that happy with the way his last season in Detroit wound down. He averaged seven carries a game down the final seven games of the season. I remember at the time thinking like, oh, this is, this is weird. And it just didn't ultimately matter because the lions wound up not making the playoffs and you roll into January and you've got other things to worry about, but you look back at it now and Brad Holmes had some interesting comments about wanting to get him more involved if he was in Detroit in 2026. And I know Montgomery like yesterday refuted a report from Jeremy Fowler that he wanted out of Detroit. But funny timing about that, he gets traded

a day later. So this makes a lot of sense. I think the signs that it might happen were there. I think he's got plenty of gas in the tank based on what we've seen of him over the last, even this past season where he wasn't getting that many carries with Jemir Gibbs blowing up. I'm firmly in favor of it in that regard. I just think it's funny. And I'm not even hating on the Texans because their offensive line isn't good anyway. But I kind of love the way the Texans are just like, ah, this isn't good. Let's cycle all these guys out of here.

Okay, this isn't good either. Let's cycle all these guys out of here again. Like, eventually I think you want to land on an offensive line you can build with, but I guess they feel like they're not quite there yet. Let's talk about the Montgomery thing first. just from Houston's perspective. Looking at the running back market and free agency, the top of the market,

it's possible that it just got a little bit rich for their blood as they did their initial digging in Indianapolis. Breece Hall doesn't sound like he's going to get away from the Jets. And so that leaves Kenneth Walker likely is the top option on the board. And if there's no Bruce Hall, and you know this better than I do, but based on everything I've heard about the running back class, is not very good.

And so there's a chance that a couple of these guys end up making a decent chunk of change in free agency, because teams don't love the running back class. So if you're priced out of the Kenneth Walker market, if he's making between $10 or $11 million a year, which we'll address another question on here, and you don't like any of the other skill sets available or you're not in love with them,

let's say Travis ETN isn't the type of back you want to add. Do you love a Rico Dowdor or a Tyra L.G? Are you worried that there are going to be a lot of teams bidding for their services? This is a certainty move, right? By making this sort of move, you no longer have to wade into free agency without this type of player on your roster.

What I would say is a fourth round pick, a seventh round pick and depth at your offensive line, that's a steep price to pay for a little bit of certainty for a guy who's going to be 29 years old. So even if we know who David Montgomery is and, okay, just plug him in and let's go, there's a certain price to be paid here if you're the Texans and they paid it. I agree with that, but I'm glad you framed it in the context of the rookie running back class. And, I mean, there's always going to be talent.

And I like a lot of the guys coming out this year beyond Jeremiah Love, which, I mean, let's be real. The Texans have no shot at Jeremiah Love in this year's draft. But it's easy to fall in love with the promise of like a day two or day three pick. I mean, you could look at it and say, Woody Marks had a perfectly good rookie season for the Houston Texans relative to where he was drafted. But if you're looking for a little bit more than that, if you're looking for a lead back who can do everything and do it, consistently. I do think that's a little bit easier said than done to find if you don't have a really premium pick. Like those guys that can do everything from day one are typically top 40 picks. And even then, I mean, perfect example, Trayvion Henderson, phenomenal playmaker,

pick 38 last year, still not a well-rounded running back who was ready to step in and get nitty gritty with the pass pro and be in every down back right away and the further you go down the draft board the harder that is to find like of course you can find useful players rj harvey is another guy drafted on day two who had a perfectly good rookie season i think counting on it down in and down out is a little bit easier said than done unless you really hit a home run in the draft even at running back even knowing that that's an easier position to find production at than than most if you want that unquestioned bell cow i don't have a problem with you seeking it out in david montgomery and it is a steep price to pay but if you felt like it was a big need yeah i mean outside of jeremiah

love i don't think you can say that that guy is there for you so i really wouldn't be surprised if that motivated their decision making i think you could easily say you know tyler alger is 25 you know he's going to this is age 26 season could you have given a similar contract to a guy like tyler alger without having to give up the picks and is that a better route but i'm sure there are going to be multiple teams that want to see if they can bring in tyler l geo for a similar thing so again you're paying for certainty the question is how much of a premium are you willing to pay for that certainty did they pay too much the other deal that the texans made today they trade titus howard offensive lineman titus i think is probably the most accurate way to describe him as he's played so many different positions

to the cleveland browns in exchange for a fifth round pick uh they that howard signs a three-year $63 million extension with Cleveland upon this trade entering his age 30 season, which is a pretty nice contract adding into his age 30 season for Titus Howard on a third deal. The Texans save about $18 million in cash by making this move. That to me feels like the reason that you would do something like this is that you have a CJ Stroud contract potentially on the horizon. You have a C.J. Anderson or a Will Anderson contract, definitely on the horizon. DeNeil Hunter probably needs an extension, you know, potentially heading into, if not this

offseason the next off season because he's going to be a free agent. So that $18 million in cash, even if you're only saving about $4 million against the cap, that gives you a little bit of wiggle room and some other areas that you can spend this offseason. The question, though, is you were getting rid of like the playable offensive linemen on this team and now you have to find other ones. It's possible that they're looking at this and saying we could find a starter for half that price that we feel 75% as good about, which I understand that.

that line of thinking, but now this puts yet another thing on your offensive line to do list this offseason if you're Nick Casaria. I don't know if I buy that bit about half that price because I saw, you know, this trade is coming with a 60, I think, $65 million extension for Titus Howard. It comes out to roughly $21 million a year. And there was a lot of chatter when the trade first happened on Monday morning like, ah, that's a steep price to pay for Titus Howard. Howard and then you look at it and you're like, okay, that's like six or seventh among right tackles in salary per year. And it's like if you include left tackles, not even a top 15 contract. Like that is how expensive capable offensive tackle play is in the NFL right now. And so

to think that there's a guy out there that's only worth $11 or $12 million a year who is not noticeably worse. And by the way, Titus Howard's not, like he's not this rock solid guy that you feel amazing about. I don't know. I mean, like, I'm not trying to say he's an all pro and you can't afford to let him go, but it's really, really hard out there to find offensive tackle play. I think it's telling, though, that the last couple times that they've shuffled their offensive line around and they've landed on their best five, he was the left guard.

Yeah, fair. And I think people talk about him as a right tackle because of what the Browns need and the versatility. I get that. But still, letting guys like that walk out the door. I just think they're easier to replace than. than you might guess. I think it's just a matter of if you think he's a guard,

can you find a guard for about half of that in free agency? And I think in this class you could argue that you might be able to. And I wouldn't be surprised if that was the Texans thinking, whether it's just getting the most bang for our buck possible. On Cleveland side, like I said with the smart ass comment before, I mean, the Texans at some point need to fix their offensive line, but I kind of appreciate the way that they're not beholden

to players that they could probably improve from. You know, like just because it's bad doesn't mean you can't seek to get better. So I do appreciate that. From Cleveland's perspective, they just need bodies. They were going to have to get creative to make this thing work. And so to see them, the first thing they did is swing a trade for a player in this price range. I mean, Andrew Barry at the Combine mentioned specifically what the Bears did in the offseason last year where they had to find, use multiple different avenues to find a collection of starters in order to field an office.

line. That's where Cleveland is. So now we've got one via the trade market. I assume we're going to get one or two via free agency. I assume we're going to get one or two via the draft. So the Browns are going to have to attack this from every angle that they can. And this seems to be their first foray into the market. All right. Let's get to the mailbag questions for today. As always, sincerely appreciate everyone who sent in these questions, whether it be via Discord or the athletic football show at gmail.com email address, which you can use at any time because we will be doing these consistently over the entire offseason. Here to help us with those mailbag questions. It is producer and voice of God extraordinaire, our buddy Michael Beller.

You know, I've always wanted to make money with this voice of mine, and I guess this is a way to, not what I imagine. I imagine being in Pixar movies, but this is a decent consolation. You imagine being in Pixar movies and instead of it. That's the app breaks during our show. And also, I mean, let's not take the Pixar movie thing off the table just yet. I mean, you're a young man. If you want to change gears at some point, I want you to live your dreams. All right, we got about a dozen questions that we want to hit today.

So let's get started, Beller. What's our first one? Yes, let me just also say, we had some great questions from ESQ Rhapsody, Matt Fastow, about Rico Dowdell, about the Jim Leonard defense. Those are going to be answered in the episodes Robert talked about at the top of the where we are finding fits for potential free agents. So great questions. We'll tackle those later in the week.

We're going to start this one with a question from our guy, J.G. On Discord, he says, how difficult is it for a new staff to attack free agency? Even when the GM stays in theory, the scouts have to be retrained on what they're looking for for this regime. Do establish teams and staffs have a significant advantage in free agency? Robert, why do you kick us off here? Undeniably, yes. I mean, I think that on so many different levels, is this true? Right.

I mean, you know your team and your process so much better if you've had multiple years to hone that process. Even teams that ended up becoming successful, like the example I would throw out, the Seahawks signed two linebackers in free agency before the 2024 season. Neither of those guys worked out. They had to trade for Ernest Jones midway through the year in order to find a guy that fit who they wanted to be on that side of the ball. And so I think that just understanding who you need and what those players look like, that's something that you absolutely. can hone over time. I also think that if you haven't established staff, kind of what JG was referring to, there's a better chance that you're not chasing player archetypes that are going to be outdated by the time you get a new staff in there. I mean, this happens all the time. Think about

the Jets Titans trade that just happened. The reason that that deal occurs is because the Titans drafted to Vandre Sweat for a different defensive system. Now they bring in Robert Salo. They need different types of players and they have to trade away a guy who has been good over his first couple years because the system changes. And then there's one more else. element of this that I'd want to address, but I'll let Dave talk about, you know, his initial feelings first because I actually think there's one thing that in talking to people in GMs about some of the mistakes they've made, I think that there's one other bucket of this that I don't talk about or think about enough, but I do think is worth mentioning.

So clearly it's better to be a continuous staff where you can get four or five, six years in. And a lot of this stuff starts to become like muscle memory if you have enough continuity. Having said that, I think if you're in this process and you're not one of those established staffs, I think it's kind of a leg up to be new. And all that stuff that the question asker outlined is fair. But when you get to a new job, that is the prime time where assuming the finances are remotely feasible, you're going to be given the resources to make it work. Like the owner, the GM are going to say, okay, you're the new head coach.

Okay, you're the new OC or DC. What do you need? What is your scheme? Who can we bring in that's going to help you do what you need to do in year one? We are aware that we've got to spend some money because what we have is nothing like what you require to work with. We joke about it every year. We joked about it a lot with Vrable last year. The first thing guys like that do is they get in the chair and they just start acquiring guys

that they can trust to do what they want them to. And sometimes those guys aren't always, like, great at what they do. But you got to start somewhere. And year one is before you have evidence for good and for bad. So, I mean, just to be blunt about it, in year one, you haven't proven that you can screw it up. And the ownership and general manager is not going to say, ah, well, you know, we did that two years ago and it didn't work out. And we burned all that money or we burned a draft pick. So I think this is, it's a very optimistic time, and it's a time where you know you have to spend money to make money.

And so I think by and large, new staffs, new coaches, when they get into those jobs, they can count on having resources made available to them to make their jobs easier. So that's a different question, though. That question is, is it good for the staffs themselves? And the answer to that is probably yes. Unquestionably, yes. Is it good for the long-term organizational health of the franchise? I think that we can debate. And the two examples I would throw out,

I think it also depends on how good your staff is it identifying the talent that they want. And so from a bear-centric lens, I remember when Matt Iberfluse got hired with Ryan Poles, the first thing, I remember what they tried to do? The first move they tried to make is to sign Larry Ogun-Jobie to a contract that was probably too much money for Larry Ogun-Jobie

because Matt Eberfluse needed the three technique in that system. And then they signed Germain Edmunds, because they needed length at linebacker, and now one year into the new staff, they're trying to trade Tremaine Edmonds. But then on the other side, Ben Johnson comes in, oh, I can make these offensive linemen work, these are the types of guys that I want,

and all of those things work. And if he's going to be here for the next 50 years, then none of that really matters. But obviously, the hit rate and whether or not this is a good practice to give your guys the types of players they need is almost directly correlated to how good the coaches are you're allowing to make those decisions.

It's hilarious you bring up Fluse because so much of my lived experience was Dallas and Fluse coached under Rod Marinelli who spent an eternity looking for a three technique and trying to get bigger at linebacker and doing all the same shit. And they had very mixed results would be nice. They didn't have a lot of good results doing it. But yeah, no, I get your point. but if the coaches are good at their jobs, then that's how you become that

continuous staff where you can settle in and get used to your parameters. Unfortunately, not that many coaches are as good at their jobs as we want them to be. I mean, I think that's the brutal truth. And I think every single year, you know, I think there's just this,

there's this expectation that football people know more than us and are smarter than us about so many things. And in a lot of ways, that's true. But every year, You still see teams attack free agency and make decisions almost like it's Madden, where it's like, guys, I promise you don't have to hand out this $70 million contract just because you have the cap space.

The last thing I wanted to hit, and this is something that I've thought about more and more and after talking to people, is that when you get in as a first year GM, I think that those are the moments where you're actually more prone to lose the in-house free agents that might be worth keeping. because if you get hired on, say, January 15th as the new general manager, you have essentially a month and change to figure out if you want to give market level extensions to some of these guys who are hitting free agents. That's before you have that much just familiarity with your staff and what they want.

That's before you've really been able to dig in, I think, to the extent that you want to on those players within this certain situation. one that I'll throw out. And I'm not even like, this isn't even to degrade the job that he's done there. But in Moni Aeson, for its first year in Arizona, Zach Allen and Byron Murphy were free agents. Both of those guys had been pretty big hits for the teams that signed them. And so I think that's one other area where being a new staff can potentially be,

have some landmines, is that you are just not as familiar with some of those in-house guys that might be worth keeping as a staff that had been around them and understood them for the last four years might be. I, Butler, what's our next one? Nick W. with the next question, Nick says, I know the money complicates things significantly, but if we could put that aside, is to really a worse option than Kyler?

Having to his peaks arguably been higher than Kyler's? Also, how come we're not talking more about Justin Fields as a downside outcome of the reclamation quarterback option? Dave, we'll go to you first on this one. I think Kyler is definitively, pretty definitively a better option. And I know that Tua really had some high highs. I know he's done a lot of good things in this league,

4,000 passing yards, whatever it was a couple years ago. Two things come to mind. Number one, just going off of this last season, it seems pretty evident and obvious to me from watching Tua in his most recent season, whatever degree of mobility and ability to win outside of structure and win when the play doesn't go exactly, the way it's drawn up.

It seems to me to be pretty shot. I mean, I remember Robert, we talked about it on a, like, right after. I think it was Monday night when they played the Steelers. And it was just, it was unbelievable the way that he did not have a chance if the ball did not come out immediately. And then the other thing is even bigger. And I want to be clear, I'm not trying to make light or be flippant about this. I think it is a very real and very serious thing.

But if I'm evaluating Tua's future. and whether I want to invest in him as my quarterback, the concussion history has to give you an enormous amount of pause. Three diagnosed concussions in a two-year span. He missed significant amounts of time because of it in multiple years. And I vividly remember talking about whether it was smart or feasible or advisable for him to keep playing football. Like I said, I'm not trying to be cute about that.

But if we're talking about giving him a big contract to play football, how can you not think about that? And so for me personally, as far as spending real resources on Tua, I'm pretty much out on it. And that's not to say that he can't play good football over the course of the rest of his career if somebody's willing to give him a shot. But it would be enough to scare me off of giving him any kind of sizable contract. Yeah, I guess my devil's advocate point would be that Kyler hasn't exactly had a clean bill of health over the last like four or so years. Right. I mean, he played five games this year.

He missed half of the 20, 23. season coming back from an injury and then he missed seven or five games in the 2022 season with that same knee injury. And so he's had a pretty extensive injury history as well, but I do think the two is scary, right? Absolutely, we'll give you that. My pushback to your pushback would be, again, I mean, knee and leg injuries are run-of-the-mill things that happen to athletes. I think concussion is just in a category all to itself, especially when it is a problem that has cropped up multiple times. In top of that, two has had some of the same stuff. And again, I think you look at over the course of his career,

the way it seems like some of his mobility and athleticism has been sapped because he was not always that guy. And then I knew we were going to talk about this, so I just spent a little bit of time looking. Go back and watch Kyler this year before the foot injury and obviously before he wound up getting benched. The stuff that makes him Kyler still looks like it's there to me when he's healthy. And that is, that's a big if, obviously.

But it's a bet I'm a little more comfortable making. My thought on this is that if you look at the numbers, the peaks of the Tua offense, Tua's offenses, have undeniably been higher. I think this has just been the constant conversation I've been trying to have about that going back like three or four years. Let's like dig one layer deeper and understand the context behind those numbers. Like the offense is specifically tailored to everything he can do well and it's built through those things.

I think that they both of these guys have limitations relative to. to your ideal quarterback. I think that the limitations around Tua puts you into a much smaller box as an offense than the limitations around Kyler Murray. And even that, like if we want to look at the numbers, obviously again, like Tua's efficiency numbers

as a passer in his best years are significantly better than anything that Kyleor Murray has ever done. But I think a lot of that credit goes to the structure of the offense and the talent that was around him and what Mike McDaniel was doing. Two years ago and this is, there was some pushback to kind of our Kyler conversation on the

that we did last week with Derek. And I can understand some of that, but I also just don't think that Kyler has been like a lost cause as a player over the last couple years. Yeah, this year was an absolute wash. But if you go back to 2024, Kyler in 2024. 0.06 EPA per dropback,

and he was seventh in dropback success rate. It was over 50%. And the comparison that we were making on that show was between Kyler and Sam Darnold as it relates to being the Vikings quarterback and the idea that maybe Kyla would look better in a new circumstances. That year where Sam Donald was like this incredible reclamation story and that, oh my God, what a bounce back year for Sam Darnold,

when Kyler was at 0.06 and 50%, 0.04 and 49% for Sam Darnold. In that Viking situation. And so to me, it just hasn't been that long of a period of time since we've seen Kyla Murray play at least a top half of the league starting quarterback. and that's why if you can get him for free, which it seems like that is going to happen. And I think that also just plays in one more layer of the Kyler discussion as we've had it over the last couple weeks.

I think that we've been talking about Kyler as it relates to his current contract and that number compared to something like what you would have to pay Malik Willis. Well, that's kind of a fanciful conversation and reality that's never going to exist. It's very likely that he is going to be released and that you would have to pay Kyler Murray

the minimum. And so, Kyler Murray for the minimum and all of the other available quarterbacks in this cycle may be outside of like Gino for the minimum, which I, reading Jeremy Fowler this weekend at Dan Graziano talking about how people in the league still think Gino has gas was to me just, it was incredibly rewarding. I was just like, thank God that somebody thinks he's worth playing. But for me, if you have to pay these guys a million and a half dollars to be your starting quarterback for 2026, it's Kyler and it's not particularly close because again, I think that he didn't has way fewer limitations. The other thing too,

I mean, yeah, I guess, I love how this happens is over time you just become like a Kyler stand when that was never your intention in the beginning. His salary right now on his current contract is like 13th in the league. So we're not even talking about him as an upper echelon player.

And if he gets released, now you're just taking a flyer. Like that's, it's a no brainer to me. And if it doesn't work out, so the hell what, which leads me to the Justin Fields part of this, I would argue the Justin Fields thing is a great example of why you swing the bat. Like Justin Fields, if the Jets cut him,

they could make him a June 1 cut and have it be negligible, or they could take it all this year, which I would guess they do because it's not like they're close to competing anyway. And they have a time of cap space. That cap, the dead money, if they just cut him outright right now, is $22 million. They have $90 million in cap space. It's nothing.

And it's a team that's not ready to compete right now anyway. If Justin Fields had worked out, it could completely change the calculus of what your team is. And it didn't work out. So it is a middling cap hit for a team that needs to do a hell of a lot more anyway. And so I like the downside is nothing compared to the upside of finding a quarterback. You should be willing, if you need a quarterback, you should be willing to do. do shit like that all the time, in my opinion. Yeah, I also just think that we've like,

I feel like we've kind of lost the plot with these like reclamation quarterback conversations. Like if you're signing a guy for a million bucks, even if you're signing Daniel Jones for $14 million for on a one year deal, if you're getting top 20 quarterback play from that player and you're putting him into a really good situation, that's a phenomenal outcome. Like, I don't think Kyler is the eighth best quarterback in the league, but I think he can be the 18th best quarterback in the league.

And if you're paying him a million and a half dollars and he's throwing the ball to Justin Jefferson, Jordan Addison, T.J. Hawkinson, and playing in that offense, I think you're probably going to feel pretty good about that. And so that to me is like, we've warped the discussion. Like, he doesn't have to be worth 30 million. Like that, he probably wasn't worth the contract that they gave him.

But on whatever the second chance contract is going to be, it's not hard to imagine a scenario where you're very glad that you gave him that deal because he's giving you 10x what the value of that contract is going to be. Lottery tickets, man. Buy as many as you can and you won't care about the money that you wasted if you ever hit. All right, we're going to take our first quick break and then come back and run through a bunch more of these. Hi, Ballard, what's our next one?

Buddy 318 writes in and says, we know that as the salary cap continues to go up, free agency gets worse as teams have more flexibility to keep their quality players. How close are we to the tipping point where even having cap space isn't important because there aren't enough quality players worth paying. Do we need to push more fully into the idea that free agency is strictly where you go to replace draft mistakes with competency? What do you got here, Robert? There are a bunch of different layers to this question and to the answer. The first thing I would say is, yeah, let's start with the cap space part. There's absolutely a middle ground to be found here because you don't want $100 million in cap space.

because if you have $100 million in cap space, that means that you haven't re-signed any of the players on your team for the last several seasons, and your team probably isn't very good. The Patriots last year, and what they did in free agency, is a massive historical outlier

when it comes to how far they went in the playoffs. And I honestly think that if we're going to, if other teams are going to look at what the Patriots did and think if we spend $300 million guaranteed on players, we're going to go to the Super Bowl, I think you're probably going to be disappointed moving forward. Because I think the Patriots are closer to a, let's call it like the 2017 Jacksonville sort of run. Like that's the team I always keep in mind where we threw a lot of money around.

We got better for one single year and then we fizzled out in the playoffs. The Patriots went a little bit further than that. But the Patriots in most years are probably like a divisional round team, right? And so I think that having $100 million and them wielding it the way that they did, there aren't many lessons there. I think, but I still think cap space is important to an extent because you want to be able to add players to the roster and not be completely hamstrung to do that.

And I honestly think that more than cap space, it's financial flexibility, right? And like, why are you up against the cap? Like, I look at the lions, for example. The lions are over the cap right now. But one of the reasons that they're over the cap is because they have a bunch of young players on massive extensions. If the Lions wanted to restructure Amon, Ross, St. Brown, Pene Soule to be a little bit more aggressive in free agencies, that they would be able to do that.

So I think more than is cap space overrated, the idea of financial flexibility is maybe a tiny bit overrated, but I still think having it in any given year is worth it because it allows you to do essentially whatever you want to do. I think it's overrated relative to what your goals are, right? like every team can create financial flexibility. And I mean, it's March. Something's more than other, though. Of course. That's the problem. And I think that you compare a team like the Lions to a team like the Bears

or the Bills, right? And a team like the Bears of the Bills, if they're going to free up money, it's going to be because they're moving on from players who are contributors for them. They don't have a lot of like young guys with big base salaries to restructure. And so that's why I think the financial flexibility versus cap space thing is a little bit different. No, I agree. And the joke I was going to make was that we have to talk about the Saints in March.

That's just what you do on an NFL podcast. They're the worst example. Well, what's funny is it's an annual debate where Saints fans are very happy to tell you we can create all the space we need. It doesn't matter how far over the cap we are. But then the counter to that is, okay, and you get cap compliant and then what? You have to do all this shit just to be compliant. You're not making the team better.

and that's the risk that you run when you do that too much. So I do think you got to find some common ground between being willing to push the issue. I think teams that have a window should be trying to do restructures and create flexibility for themselves. But you got to weigh that and say, how close are we really? And is this going to have enough of a result to where we're comfortable with the bind that it's going to put us in two or three years from now? I do think salary caps, like the question was, when do we get to a point

where salary cap space is overrated? I think we're there. Yeah, I mean, there are going to be good players available every single year if you know where to look for them. But by and large, I was just curious.

Every year, I'm going to shout him out because he does great work. Greg Rosenthal's top 101 free agents that he works so hard on. It's completely subjective. It's not, I mean, it's Greg's opinion,

but I think he does such a thorough job on it. It is a good, it's a good look at the top of the free agent market. And I went through it today. By my count, there's like 30 guys on the list that are 27 or younger with a proven track record of production. Like those guys do not make it to the market by and large. Or if they do, they're late bloomers or guys who overcame injury history and things like that. Otherwise, you're either getting extended or tagged. So the idea that you're going to splash around in free agency and find these cornerstone players,

I mean, the Patriot signed Milton Williams last year, and that was awesome. But most of the rest of that stuff was third contracts, veteran players, guys that you can move on from in shorter order. And I think that's the balance that you have to strike. Like, I'm not really looking for cornerstone players in free agency. I'm looking for complementary pieces that can either address a mistake that I made in the draft. or compliment something that I already have at a reasonable price. That's what I'm using free agency for.

And my view on that is the idea that, in the question from Buddy, do we need to push more fully into the idea that free agency is strictly where you go to replace draft mistakes with competency? It's kind of to me like the spaceman meme. It's like it's always been that way. Like even if we used to have years where there were more guys worth throwing a lot of money around for because they were these third contract players hitting free agency, how many of those guys were worth having?

You know, there are some years where there are examples at that. Like, we'll talk about the 2023 free agent class a couple different times over the next hour or so. Like, guys like when Jesse Bates hit free agency. Like, there are not that many guys at the top top of the market this year compared to even over the last couple years. And I think partially that's because teams can spend more money and they retain those top of the market guys. But this free agency class overall, even if it doesn't have those headline grabbing guys, there are still a lot of like starting caliber players available in this free agent class.

A lot of the guys that you talked about, they're third contract players. Maybe they have an injury history, something like that. They're not guys that you're going to be paying $20 million a year. But I think even if the top of this class isn't very strong, the second, third, and fourth tiers of it, I think have a chance to produce a decent amount of starting level players. And I think that's always where you should be shopping in free agency, no matter what the class looks like. here's a question for you. Do you think?

Because it felt like when I was coming up, definitely when we were kids and even when we were like younger covering the league, it felt like getting to that second contract and having a team pay you on that second contract. Like, it felt like such a process and these hoops had

to be jumped through and you had to be like an elite caliber player to just no questions asked, get that deal. And I feel like because of the way that the cap jumps these days, I just think the threshold for signing guys is that much lower where teams are just like, yeah, we'll do this contract. If it doesn't work out, we'll get out from under it in two years. And that's probably easier than fishing for this guy's replacement in free agency in the draft.

And so you just, I hate to call it watered down because there are good players available in free agency, but those blue chip guys just don't reach the market the way that they did even 10 or 15 years ago. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that, again, it's just, it goes back to this thing for me where I just don't think you ever really want to be paying sticker prices for free agents in any given year. Like, the best example for me in this class, David Edwards is like the second ranked interior offensive lineman on any free agent big board in this class for most people. And the number one guard, you know, for a lot of guys. David Edwards made $8 million combined in the last three years with the Buffalo Bills. Eight million combined.

Right now, both the athletic and PFF have him making $11 million a year on this contract. So the goal should be not can we sign David Edwards in free agency. The goal every year should be, how can we find the guy who is David Edwards two years ago? That's always what you should be hunting for, and I don't think that's really changed very much. that being said, I think David Edwards 11 million is fine. I think he'll be a competent starter assigned by somebody. But again, I think that can you get one or two layers deeper in the class should always be the goal? What's the next one about?

All right. One of those big name free agents this year is going to be Tyler Linderbom and Andrew Kocentino has a question for us. It is as simple as this. What should the Ravens do to rebuild the interior of their line if they do retain Linderbom? What should they be doing to rebuild the interior of their offensive line if they don't? retain Linderbom. So do they or don't they? And what do they do from there?

Dave, what do you take this first? For obvious reasons, I think it's a little easier to do if you just re-sign Linderbom, which I'll be interested to see what that number looks like. Eric Dacosta said last week they made him a market setting offer and there's no deal done. So I assume Tyler Linderbom and his people think they could get a healthy chunk of change if they get to free agency. But if you resign Linderbom and I know like this is the time of year where you're going to be critiquing Tyler Linderbaum. I think people are down on him and the season that the Ravens

offensive line had in general. I would be perfectly happy with the Ravens resigning Tyler Linderbom at the very worst. He's a top 10 center in the NFL. I think he's probably better than that. I don't think he was the only culprit for the Ravens problems last year. So re-sign him and then I'll tell you what I would do. I'd draft a guard and I'd prosper. And I look, I'm sure there are other things Ravens fans would love to draft, but man, it is very tempting to re-sign Tyler Linderbaum and take that number 14 pick and draft Vega Juane out of Penn State and just maul the shit out of everybody for the next two or three years. Like that, that's what I would do. And obviously, that's very expensive between the extension and using a first round pick. But look at the way your team is built.

Look at your quarterback and the remaining time that Derek Henry has in the NFL. I would try to maximize that and I would feel perfectly good about it. If Linderbaum walks, I think you're probably dispersing the money that you would have spent on him between multiple players. I think you're fishing for a discounted center. Maybe you find out how much Sean Ryan costs

or maybe you kick the tires on Lloyd Cushenberry who just got released by Tennessee. And then you'd still, you'd probably want to draft a center anyway, which I think makes sense because if you listen to Building the Beast, you know, the sweet spot. for centers this year is probably like end of day two maybe even into day three so day only has two in

his top 100 yeah no there's there's not a tyler linderbom in this class so if you want to draft that replacement you're probably talking about using pick 80 or pick 115 on it and so you can't just go into the draft with that being your strategy strategy which is why i would definitely sign a center in free agency even if it's a step or two down from linderbom and i think you'd probably want to sign a guard too and and And obviously, I guess you could do that even if you sign Linderbaum, but I'm just assuming that's going to be a healthy chunk of change going to center. So I think that probably influences the caliber of guard that you can sign. I can't help but notice John Simpson is available again and only 29 years old. Maybe we just get the band back together.

So those are a few of my ideas. I would re-sign Linderbom. And like I said, I think it would be really fun if they tried to really invest at Guard and turn this off. line back into a big, big strength. I liked this question because it put me in a very practical place when thinking about what the Ravens should do here because it's easy to be like, oh, well, you know, $21 million a year is a lot for a center. Think about how you could redistribute that money.

You get two starters for that price and is that actually the best use of those resources. That's a fun thing for like an asshole like me to say without actually thinking about the practical reality of it. And then I actually went down the road two or three steps. I did not enjoy the experience because there aren't a ton of free agent centers available in this class either. You mentioned a couple of the guys even like two or three rungs down like a Sean Ryan. But one step down, you know, Connor McGovern, Cade Mays, guys like that,

both of those are bigger bodied players who I'm not sure fit what the Ravens run game is mostly going to be built out of as they move to Dwayne Ledford as their offensive line coach and just thinking about what the Bears game, the Bears run game was with Declan Doyle last year. Like, I think they want to be like a zone heavy team. And I'm not sure like a big hulking center like Cade Mays or a guy who used to be a guard and Connor McGovern necessarily fits that style of offense. So beyond that, let's say you don't resign them. You don't like the options available for a free agency for the way that you want to play. We just said it. There are only two centers in Dane's top 100. And both are outside the top 80. So would you feel good walking into the

draft with a center need? so the more I've thought about it, I'm like, I don't know, man. It kind of seems like they should make this work because I don't love the alternatives. And the other thing, too, you're so right. Like, it's so tempting to say we could get three players for the cost of Tyler Linderbaum. If all of those guys are mid to bad, who gives a shit? Like, I'd rather pay a premium for Tyler Linderbom, which like I said, I know this wasn't his best year. It really wasn't the best year for anybody that plays O-Line for Baltimore.

I'm still comfortable betting that he's got really good football in front of him, particularly if you can invest a little bit in the rest of the offensive line. Even if you don't want to spend the 14th overall pick on a guard, draft another guard to play next to him. That guy will probably look better because he's playing next to Tyler Linderbaum. I think that's, I think that's completely fine. I think I would rather fill in the cracks around Linderbom with draft picks or cheap signings than try to just do this whole thing. thing with middle tier free agents and draft picks. I don't, that doesn't sound particularly fun to me. I think I'm in the same boat.

And if you look at the Ravens Cap situation, like obviously the Lamar contract is looming over all of this. He has a 74.5 million dollar cap hit this year. If you, and I assume they're going to move off from Milan Humphrey, he's not going to play on that $26 million cap hit. So let's hypothetically say they cut Marlon Humphrey. They're looking at about 27 million in space. If they just want to restructure Lamar's deal, like totally restructure it, like to the fullest

extent that they can, they can create a ton of cap space this year because he's a massive base salary. You're pushing money into next year, but now you're just giving yourself another year of runway to negotiate that extension you're trying to negotiate with him right now. And you look at a 2028, they have a ton of cap space. And so if they just want to keep pushing out Lamar's money to be able to have some more flexibility here, it seems like something that they would be able to do. And so I kind of think I'd rather just move on for Marlon Humphrey at 26 million,

bring back Tyler Linderbaum and see if I can share. cheap out on one of the many outside corner who's available in free agency, rather than wading into what seems like a pretty thin interior offensive line and especially center group in both free agency and the draft. And to go back to what I said off the jump, like so much of what the ravens want to be and what has made the ravens dangerous revolves around their offensive line. And so trying to skimp on that, especially when you've got however, I mean, I'm not going to put a timeline on how long Derek Henry is going to be good at football because maybe he'll do this till he's 50. But we should be trying to maximize what's left on that contract at the very least and make life easier on Lamar.

I would way rather invest in that and make it work everywhere else. Yeah, the idea of the Ravens signing Tyler Lindrebaum and then giving Isaac Salamalu like a one year $9 million deal to play left guard and just rolling with Emery Jones and being like, that's our plan. that to me feels more appealing than we'll figure out a way to replace Tyra Lindelbaum. I'm not sure in a vacuum Tyro Lindelbaum is worth $21 million a year. Like I don't think he's the best center in the league. I don't think that his play has necessarily been in line with the best center in football and paid not even paid like it, paid like it with a bullet. Like Creed's making $18 million a year.

And so if you're like blowing that market out of the water, I'm not sure that's good business in a vacuum. None of this shit happens in a vacuum. I was going to say, I mean, that's the nature of free agency. And at the very least, it's a guy who's played in your scheme, a guy that's played well, a guy that you're familiar with. And like I said, yeah, no, I mean, I don't think Tyler Linderbaum's the best center in the NFL. I think he's close enough to that mark that I think it's okay to pay him that contract. Or at least I've made my peace with it anyway.

Yeah, I have now. Again, after doing that exercise, I've certainly made my piece with it. If I was on the fence before, I am no longer on the fence. But what's our next one? Sam Rosenberg has the next question. Sam also has one specific to a team, and that team is the Green Bay Packers. He says, the Packers have a few high-profile free agents at premium positions and could be in line for multiple valuable compics. How should they balance that consideration with filling important roster holes at defensive tackle and corner within the context of their competitive timeline? Robert, why do you take this one first?

Just in general, I feel like compic considerations should probably be a tiebreaker in decisions like this. I don't think they should be like the driving force and whether you're going to sign free agents. But I also think that if you look at what the Packers might be getting with these compics and who they're going to be shopping for and free agency and how much money they'll have to be using, I assume that if we play this out,

it's likely going to be like a third round compick for Rashid Walker based on what happened with Dan Moore last year in the market for guys at that level at that position. The Willis one will be interesting. Justin Fields was the fourth round comp pick last year. Like that $20 million a year, AAV falls just below the third and fourth round threshold. And so if Willis is making 30,

then it's likely going to be a third round pick. If it comes in a little bit less than that, that it's probably going to be right on the border of that third and fourth rounder. But in order to cancel those out, you need to be signing very expensive free agents. And I'm just not sure the Packers are going to be hunting in that sort of range.

They have more guys that are going to be getting free agency and count into the compic formula. Dobbs, Walker, and I think those guys are probably going to be around like the fourth, fifth cutoff. It seems like that's going to be the most expensive type of free agent that the Packers are going to be able to sign. So I don't think it should be like a huge consideration as you're going through this because my assumption is at the end of all of this, you're getting at least a third and probably

a fourth round comp pick in next year's draft. I was imagining Brian Gutakun's reaction to this question. if Brian's a fan of the show, I don't know. Hopefully he is. But I was imagining Brian Gutakus being like, what else do you want from me? I did Xavier McKinney and Josh Jacobs like two years ago. We did Aaron Banks last year.

Like, we're the Green Bay Packers. We're not doing this every single year. And so I just, between the money that they've spent in free agency recently, and I understand Sam, who asked the question, that you don't have first round picks because of the mica trade, like your avenues to really improving the team are slightly limited, but I'd be pretty surprised if the Packers are splashing cash three years in a row. Like that just doesn't sound like Green Bay to me.

And so, yeah, I, whatever, you know, if it's a third for Walker and a fourth for Jake for Willis, or maybe if, especially if it's two thirds, like if Malik Willis hits that threshold where you get a third round pick for him, I absolutely expect the Packers to protect that and not be throwing money around just. to say they did. A lot of the time when you get third round compics in free agency, those are going to stand because there just aren't that many free agents that you're paying at a level that's going to cancel that one of those out. Like, there aren't that many free agents making that sort of money in a given year.

The Willis thing is interesting because it's not just the, the way the compact formula works is I understand it. This is not an area of expertise for me. But there are three different things that play into like the overall point system that delineate where a player falls. There's the AAV, which is, I think the most important. important factor of all of this. There is playing time. So the percentage of your snaps also play into the compact formula and Willis is going to get dinged there. So even if the AAV falls into

a certain range, there's a chance that because of the playtime stuff, maybe that swings it one way or the other. And then season long awards also factor into it as well. I believe it's my understanding. From what I understand, there's only like six people that firmly understand that formula. And I don't know if Roger Goodell like lets them out of the office honestly. So that's my guess. And so I do not think based on my expectations for the Packers Free Agency plan and where those compics are going to land, they're going to be at risk of canceling out those ones.

They're going to be there at the top. All right. We're going to take one more quick break and then come back with a couple more of your question. All right. Let's get to the next one here. All right. You referenced this a little bit earlier, Roberts.

We're going to go back to you with this one first. Paul Martin. Maybe a Seahawks fan still celebrating the super. Bowl wants to know what do you guys think the contract teams are going to be for Kenneth Walker and Torek Willen. Looking at the Walker one. So if you're just trying to project it out similar types of contracts over the last couple years, my guess it's probably like three years, 33 million.

And some of that is driven by the fact that if there is no Breece Hall in the market, does that drive his value up a little bit? Three years 33 would land like right around where Kyron Williams, signed with the Rams. That was Kyron Williams' extension with the Rams. Kenneth Walker's only 25, turns 26 in October. He's at 825 carries over the last four years, which is just not a huge workload for a 25-year-old running back.

And based on what he did in the playoffs and just the need to add, like, explosive playmakers to your offense, even if he hasn't quite been as consistently a contributor to an offense in the same way that Kyron Williams has, I don't know, $11 million a year for Kenneth Walker. talk myself into that. It sounds like we had similar thought processes. Processes, processes, I don't know.

Processes. I said four years 48 or three years 36, I would put him, I would slot him somewhere in the James Cook, Kyron Williams neighborhood. And if it gets all the way up to 12 a year, I would guess that's just the free agency tax if there's multiple offers coming in or whatever. But yeah, I would slot him in somewhere on James Cook and Kyron Williams's block. Tariq Wollin is going to be an interesting one because I think there are competing factors on both sides here.

You know Tariq Wollins going to be 27 this year? Is that old or young, in your opinion? Olds? Yeah, that's old. I was going to say, like, I would have guessed like 25, 26. So he's going to be 27 this year. This is age 27 season, which for corners is something worth paying attention to. So if you look at last year, Pulse and Adibo made $18 million a year.

Brandon Stevens and Nate Hobbs were at $12 million a year each in last year's free agent group. I think he probably lands somewhere closer to the Pulse and Adibo range than the other two. And I think some of that is Super Bowl tax. Some of that is people being really tantalized by the talent and just like what he can give you there and just the physical ability.

But if he made $18 million a year in free agency, I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. And if he just got like whatever the inflation price for that deal for Paul Sin and Debo and all those other guys that's time for $18 million deal last year, if that's what the contract ended up being, that also wouldn't surprise me. Even if I'm not sure I'd want to be the team that gives it to him. Yeah, I would be nervous about offering him that contract, but the talent is the talent. The Super Bowl tax is something worth noting. I said $75 to $80 million worth of the contract. So somewhere in that neighborhood.

It's easy for me to imagine him getting like a top 10 deal, not remotely near the top of the market, obviously, but like if he slots in at the back end of the top 10, that wouldn't shock me. And who is that right now? Those are a lot of the guys that we just said, the guys who signed for like that number last year. The back end of the top 10 would be like,

Denzel Ward, Marlon Humphrey, Marshawn Latimore before he gets cut, Tyson Campbell, Legerius Sneed, that type of neighborhood. Interesting. I'd probably go one step down from there. So you got one, two, three, four,

five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Yeah, so like the Pals and a Debo contract was like 13th among corners last year. So if he slots like right in around there, like in that Jalen Johnson, Legerius Neid type range, because again, those contracts were signed two years ago that I don't think I'd be surprised by that,

even if I would be a little bit wary if I were the team doing it. Even having said everything we just said about where free agency is right now and teams preferring to hold on to their own and being more responsible, I still, I expect teams to be antsy and anxious to, A, spend their money

and be make sure they can address a major position of need and I think that's how somebody like Rick Wullen might get two or three more million per year than you would say you would expect. All right, what's the next one? All right, Pete's Gum. As soon as one's from Discord, Pete's gum's got an interesting one for us. He says two questions about explosives and free agency. Number one, do you see teams putting explosive stats up next to counting stats and how they value free agents? And two, have we tracked explosives for long enough to know whether the explosive rate tends to be a function of the play?

or more consistent to the play caller. Robert, take this one first. Yeah, I think that I'm not sure that as teams evaluate like a receiver, for example, which is one of the examples that Pete used, Pete's gum used, in trying to figure out the types of players who this might change the calculus for. I don't think that teams are looking at, looking at it with that level of granularity personally. Like his explosive play rate as a receiver was X.

I think it's just like what the skill set is that they're giving you as a player. And so my guess is that this is just baked into like the archetype of player that you're chasing. Like if you have a speed guy, he's probably one able to give you like a little bit more in the explosive area. I also just don't really think that explosive plays are necessarily a product of the players themselves. I think there are explosive offenses that are good at creating explosive plays. Like to me, the best example of this is Rashid Shahid is an incredibly explosive player based on his skill set. But the offense itself was, he was not explosive in Seattle because he's explosive.

Seattle's offense was already explosive before he got there. He didn't even make that many plays offensively after he got traded there. And I also think, and this is something that I've been thinking about, and I really do want to dig into this, because if you look at teams that have been really successful over the last few years and offenses that have been really explosive over the last few years, speed is not necessarily like a necessary component to being an explosive offense. You know, like coming into the season, it was my biggest question about the Seahawks offense in general is that they didn't have any downfield explosiveness for the most part.

Where were they going to find that? And then they were one of the most explosive offenses in the league. One, because JSN ascends, but two, just because they were good at creating explosives. The Rams have been extremely explosive over the last several years without traditional speed receivers as like a big part of what they do. So as far as the second part of this question goes, I think that we have more explosive offenses than offenses that are explosive because they simply have explosive players.

I mean, understanding that everybody in the NFL is a freak athlete, yeah, like has Shanahan ever had that guy that's just like a jaw-dropping burner? Am I forgetting somebody? Sure. Okay. Sure. So, yeah, case and point. I was thinking more San Francisco, but yeah, like it's not a prerequisite.

I was just thinking, and don't get me wrong, like when you're negotiating with free agents, obviously, like the agent is bringing the counting stats to the table. We're bringing the GPS numbers to the table. We're outlining our case for why we should ask for what we're asking for and teams are countering with all that stuff. I think when teams are looking for guys that they think will fit their scheme or think makes sense for them, I think you're probably just putting on the tape and a room full of coaches and evaluators are saying, yep, he can do that.

Look what he looks like coming out of his break right there. Look how he looks running that route. That is perfect for what we're looking for. And like when a team is identifying players to go after, other than like the budget and making sure you have the money to do it, I don't think stats factor that heavily into the equation. I think a bunch of guys who know a shitload about football or just watching the guy play football.

deciding if they think he's a fit. I'm sure that there's some efficiency numbers baked into like an overall profile for guys. Like I think that we're at that place. But again, I'm not sure it's getting that deep and that granular when you're discussing these guys and you're stacking them up against each other. All right, Bell, we got a couple more. We got a couple more. This one is from Christian Hansen, Christian says we consistently hear that building a team through free agency is a foolish strategy that almost never works. With that, I'd love it if you all could compile some proven winners in free agency over the last five to 10 years.

Are there any trends about why they were successful? Dave, let's go to you first on this one. The funny thing about that, Christian, is we can just all reset the clock and the New England Patriots, Reached a Super Bowl spending the GDP of a small nation on free agents. So whether that is repeatable or something you should strive to be, I don't think it really, I mean, it does matter. But the fact that a team just did it, I think gives renewed hope for why you're not necessarily a loser for spending money in free agency, which honestly, for us as fans of the

league and people who talk about it, I think it's fun to know that you can do things different ways, and we don't just have to write off the teams that spend a bunch of money in free agency as teams that are going to regret it two years later. That's probably true, but it's not necessarily true thanks to the 2025 New England Patriots. Another team that I always think about them, and I don't even know if it's fair to do it. But I brought up Brian Gutakunz a few minutes ago. I always think about the 2019 Packers. And Green Bay has been so famous for not really spending money.

Mike McCarthy famously had no say in what the Packers did from a personnel standpoint. And then Goody and Matt LaFleur got there. And in 2019, in like 12 hours, they gave 66 million to Zadarius Smith and 52 million to Preston Smith. Brian Gutakunz was just like, all right. we're fixing this defense problem right away. And they threw in like $35 million for Adrian Amos too. So right off the bat, they just spent a ton of money on their defense.

And they were second in pressure rate that year. They jumped from 27th in EPA per play to 13th in EPA per play. The Packers went 13 and 3. And the two Smiths, it didn't really end well for either one of them over a long enough timeline. But the first two years they were there, Preston Smith and Zadaria Smith combined for 42 sacks. on a Green Bay team that made the NFC title game in back-to-back years.

So that's what I call bang for your buck. Like if you're going to drop a bunch of money, identify two or three badass players that are going to make a difference and go get them. And that's exactly what those Packers did. I think there are a few different connection points between the teams that have done it well. Like the 2024 Eagles are a good example of this to me,

where the three big guys out there are through out there, Sequin, Zach Bond, Mackay Beckton, right? And they had misses that year too. Like they missed on Bryce Huff. but Seekwan is two things. Sequan is we're buying the dip in terms of positional value and we are buying the dip when it comes to the situation he's coming from. Right?

Like we just think our situation is so much better. We'll be able to get more out of this guy than the previous team did. They were correct about that. Bexton is we're betting on talent and it costs nothing, right? This is a top 10 pick. He's been in a horrible situation. We think he'll be better for Austin he did in his last stop. He did.

Bond positional change. Right? So guys just at transition points, whether it's the transition point for them in their careers, whether they've been banged up a little bit, whether or not the circumstances around them have been poor and you think you can give them better circumstances. Those are often the guys that are worth betting on. I mentioned earlier the 2023 Cardinals was Zach Allen. The 2023 Broncos are a good example of free agency working out.

They pay Zach Allen when there's a regime change in Arizona. He ends up becoming very good for them. They get Mike McGlinchie that year. they got Ben Powers that year. That was a lot of second contract guys. And so if you can find those second contract players that are available for a reason that you can understand, right? Like the Zach Allen thing, McGlinchy,

they haven't really paid multiple offensive linemen since Trent Williams got there. So second contract guy that may be worth paying, his previous team didn't believe that. And I think the other one is that I kept coming back to was guys that you know. Right. So I think that a lot of the mistakes

that we make in free agency are you're trying to project what a guy will do in this situation. When you have an understanding of how that will go, I think you make fewer mistakes, right? So the 2024 Texans, San Jose Al-Shire, DeNeil Hunter, DeNico Autry. And those were all guys that just fit who they wanted to be. Al Shire had literally played for DiMico Ryans in San Francisco. The 2025 Rams, like going out and getting Coleman Shelton, they had Coleman Shelton on the roster already. And then the last one is just the types of players that you're signing and like the band of players you're trying to pull from, the 2021 Bengals are the best example of that to me. Where you have all these guys that are making like $7, $8 million a year and you were able to find like five starters over a two year period.

The 2024 Eagles is a really good shout. My favorite thing about that is they signed Devin White to a bigger deal than they signed Zach Bond to. And Devin White didn't make it out of training camp. And it was like, oh, that's so embarrassing. They whiffed on the contract. And then the guy that they gave no money to at all was an all pro. And so like, hey, if you throw enough resources, it doesn't matter who hits as long as somebody hits. I think this all comes back to the why is the guy a free agent?

Why is he available? And if I can figure out a very good reason, maybe I can see something that other teams cannot. And there's danger in thinking that way. Like you're going to make mistakes that way. But you're also, I think, going to find a bunch of value in free agency and any given class and those are the players often that are worth chasing. All right, Bellar, last one. Last one indeed, and this is from Christopher Amstrup.

Christopher asks you guys, how do you think the 49ers should approach their wide receiver situation in free agency? Brandon Ayuk, he's going to be gone. Effectively, already has been gone for more than a year here. Ricky Pearsall coming off an injury plagued season. Juan Jennings, he's a free agent. You can't really count on anyone else down the depth chart. They could have some help in the draft, but we know that Kyle Shanahan is hesitant playing

rookie receivers. Feels like they need to add a veteran or two. Who do you think they should target? Robert, you start us off here. Can I interest you in a Romeo Dobbs to the Niners? Obviously. You can interest in me and damn near anybody, any receiver to the Niners. Like if he's got a modicum of talent, I'm in on Kyle Shanahan bringing the best out of him. If that's my inherent bias, I'm okay with it. I think he fits very well with what they need. And if it's Dobbs, Pearsall, and then you want to You want to draft maybe a guy for depth, and then you're rolling back with Kittle and McCaffrey. Dobbs in that offense with a healthy pierceau.

I can start to talk myself into that. Here's one. This is a conversation I had. I did not come up with this. And to be clear, this is not a prediction. But I thought it was very fun because, in my opinion, it's a little bit of a departure from what the Niners are and what Shanahan's offense has.

been. I was talking to somebody in indie, Robert, and this is somebody who would know, and they said, you know, if he's not willing to re-sign where he is, Mike Evans in San Francisco could be a hell of a lot of fun, and I think it makes sense for a lot of reasons. And I was pretty into that. Again, not a prediction, but I could get on board with that. I 100% can get on board with that. I mean, it seems like a similar type of receiver that we're seeking out here, right? Like, I wanted the chiefs or a team, like I want them to go get a big bodied guy. And like,

Juan Jennings is somebody that I thought about for them. And I think other people had talked about Mike Evans. So that would just be like, again, we're talking about similar archetypes of receivers here. Like just all, them all moving around to different places. I guess,

Ted, the more vague answer is I can't imagine you go into the draft without having done something at receiver. and I guess it's just going to depend what tier of free agency they want to shop at. I keep coming back to the Dobs thing. I think he'd be perfect.

I think he's exactly what they're looking for and it will be a position and team fit that I will have on my mind as we dig into free agency next week. For today, that is all we've got. We will be back tomorrow with just a general overview of this class, positional strengths, positional weaknesses,

maybe a couple team needs that we have at front of mine. I wonder what Team X is going to do at this spot. So just be a high level look at what the 2026 free agent group will look like. Excited about that. For now, that's all we got. Appreciate you guys listening. We'll talk to you very soon.