The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Mailbag: Are Rookie Contracts TOO IMPORTANT To Team Building?

Episode Date: March 23, 2026

The TAFS Mailbag rolls along this offseason. This post-free agency episode brings questions about the Tennessee Titans draft strategy, the best coaching staffs in the NFL and...spiders vs rats? Robert Mays and Derrik Klassen dive in on the latest episode of The Athletic Football Show.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 HelmanExecutive 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. Mailbag Mondays are back. Me and Derek, Doug, through your questions. As always, sincerely appreciate everyone who spent the time to send some of these in. I love doing these shows. There's a reason we do them throughout the offseason. It's fun to be back with them.

Let's get to it with me and Derek right now. We are back to Mailbag Mondays here on the Athletic Football Show, now that we're on the other side of free agency. obviously for agencies presenting tons of stuff to respond to at all times for like two straight weeks. But now that has quieted down, we're back to doing mailbags every single Monday, which I'm very much looking forward to. We love doing them in part because the questions are always worthwhile. So thank you to everyone who sent in a set of questions. We're going to hit some of them from Discord, some of them from email.

Beller is out today. And our other producer, Katie, is not set up with a microphone right now to help us out. So I am going to read the questions. I think I can still do it, Derek. I think I can still get us by through the end of the show. It's been a while. You sure about that? You know, Belers have been taken over.

I'm sure I'll be a little bit rusty, but hopefully we can swing through these. All right. The best part about the Discord questions is all the names are so funny. Like, I'm sure I'll get some of these wrong. But I'll do my best as we get through the Discord questions first. We as a rule are going to prioritize the Discord questions for a while here. So if you want to make sure that your mailbag question gets into the the mailbag, now is the time to join

the Discord. We're going to be doing a set of AMAs next week. I know Derek is doing one. I'm in a circle doing one. So I know not the season anymore, maybe not the ripest time to join the Discord, but we're going to try to make that thing as lively as possible over the course of the offseason, and the mailbag is one of those avenues.

So let's start here with Loebbs with a Z. Are rookie contracts too important to team building, says Lobs? It's a very simple question, but I think it's one that's absolutely worth chewing on. What do you got for me, Derek? I mean, I think that they absolutely are. It just makes it way too easy for teams to,

it incentivizes teams to not hang on to veteran players because it's obviously just significantly cheaper to do that. And like, I think at different positions, you start to get into like different, like how that actually plays out. But like I go back to really the last big contract that got signed, like before the CBA where all the rookie contracts were all fully guaranteed and it was all set and stuff like that,

which is the Sam Bradford deal. Sam Bradford signed for like a, significant amount of money that you would not be able to sign for now just in terms of percentage of the cap. And so that just significantly changes the math on what you are able to do. And so now teams, because like that, because that happened, like teams are now incentivized to like you can get a lot cheaper at quarterback by just taking the guy that is high in the draft. Whereas like, if you were having to pay a Sam Bradford or something out of the draft or like,

imagine if that was not in place when Andrew Luck came out of the draft. Can you imagine the obscene amount of money he would have gotten or even the year right before that with Cam Newton. Like, just that alone. We'll talk about that. There's a similar question to that among this batch here. I think that's why those two guys were front of mind for me. But yeah, because of that, it like, it makes it to where, like, finding your avenues of,

like, having not every player on your roster has to be a good player on a rookie contract, right? That's obviously not how it's going to happen. But I do think that percentage now has to be higher than it was 20, 25 years ago, probably. This is funny. I took this a different way. I took it as our rookie contract. do we consider them too important for team building?

Like, do we talk about them too much when we're thinking about optimized team building? That's the way that I took this question. And because I do think there's an argument that we've fixated on it a little bit too much when it comes to, well, he's on a rookie contract. You know, like, that's the most important thing in the whole world, not only just for quarterbacks,

but for players of all positions. And so taking it that way, I think the answer is both yes and no. Like, I think the amount of money that you save why having players on rookie contracts is maybe a little bit overstated because if you want financial flexibility, you can still find financial flexibility

for your own players, right? Because to me, there's really not that much of a downside to not being able to spend that much in free agency. You'd love to have more flexibility, but we've talked a lot about the player pool that's available. And for the most part, the guys that are worth having in free agency are value-centric players that most team can sign

even with their cap situation. And if most of your budget is going to have to go to in-house players, teams can move money around enough to keep a lot of those in-house players. And so the idea of having all of these rookie contracts allows us to spend our money in other places and that's why it's important to have a guy on a rookie contract. Of course that matters. I think it's probably just matters a little bit less than we make it out to when we have these discussions.

But it's obviously still important. I mean, look at what Seattle was able to do last year. They signed a quarterback making $33 million a year, in part because a huge core of their team was a lot of in-house draft picks over the last four or five years. Philly, two years ago, you want to go back to that, I think their best example is all of the guys on defense were making absolutely no money.

Like the idea that you have... The Rams... That's a perfect example where you have... The Rams, I think, were 31st in defensive spending against the cap last year because of all of those guys. So it's absolutely still important. But I think when I come back to this version of the question, the other part of this is it's not necessarily the savings that come along with the rookie contracts

that drive it in terms of team success. Having a lot of rookie contract players on your team that are contributing is directly correlated to how well you drafted. So I wonder if it's like a chicken or the egg thing. Is it having a lot of rookie contract players allowing you to spend more on the margins is part of it? But having a lot of rookie contract players that we're talking about, means that you've just drafted a lot of really good players over the last little while. And it's easier to find really good players in the draft that it is in free agency because really good players don't hit free agency.

I mean, that's a really good point because a lot of like how we talk about team building and these little, you know, squeezing out these little ways to get good players and all that stuff. It all boils down to just like how many good players do you have. And like, yeah, if you're drafting well, it's like, sure, the savings are nice of like you're paying Jared versus, you know, maybe a dozen million dollars as opposed to like whatever a premier edge rush would get. But it's like the real value is just that he's a really good player. Like that's kind of all that it boils down to. That's exactly right. And so I'm sure there are tons of analytics people out there screaming

at their phones right now being like, of course the surplus value matters. And absolutely it does. Right. I mean, even the bring back to the Rams and Jared Verse, having Jared verse on a rookie contract allows you to pay Jaylon Watson $17 million a year. Like we don't think about because most good teams are built through the draft, we don't really think about how much they use free agency in order to get themselves over the top. Part of the reason that the Seahawks can afford to Marcus Lawrence is because they have so many guys on rookie contracts. And so I do think that still does matter. I think that there are just so many things that go into it that maybe it matters a little bit less than maybe the tone that we talk about it with.

Let's get to our next one here. Miles P says something I thought of during a recent pod discussion about wanting to see Brees Hall on a team other than the Jets. who are some players who are generally considered decent but not great who could have leveled up and been stars on another team or unit could be past or present. I went with some fun names from like the 15 or so years that I've covered in the NFL

that are not currently playing but I think if we had dropped them on like really good teams, we would maybe talk about them a little bit differently. Who did you come up with for this? This was one where like I would have wanted to spend like an entire hour just doing this. I only came up with like a handful

and all of mine are actually on defense and like of course half of them are linebackers. I think the one right now is Jordan Brooks. Like if Jordan Brooks was playing anywhere but Miami, like on a really good defense, we would be like that. Like if he was in Philly, we would be talking about him like Zach Bonn like that.

He was on the Seahawks before they were good. They moved him and then like Mike McDonald then comes. It's like that like he could have been like a superstar player. Like he reminds me of like a different situation obviously. But like when Brokwan Smith was in Chicago, we all knew that he was really good. And then he goes to the Ravens and it's like, oh, that guy is the best thing that's not Fred Warner.

Like I do think that there's some of that there. The other linebacker I had, who does not play anymore, but did for a while, he only really got one year when this team was good and when this defense was good. But DeAndre Levy was really, really good player. That's a really good player. That's a really good one. He was a deep cut. He was sick for the Lions, dude.

Like a really good pass rusher. He was really good in coverage, like had all this range. And they really were not good for the entirety time that he was there except for 2014, which was like his last good year, and then he got banged up for a bunch after that. We only really got to see him like one time on like a sick defense. I have one current player,

and it's mostly just because I think that his star is starting to fall a little bit. And the reason that upsets me is because he was incredible on terrible teams, and I feel like it's going to warp the way that we talk about him eventually. Dexter Lawrence, if he had been on really good teams in those couple years where he was like second team all pro,

I don't think we appreciated how good Dexter Lawrence was. during those years, even when he was second team all pro. So that was like my current player where I just feel like if he had been on a contending team, the discussion around him would be very different. The other four guys that I had are just like 2010's bangers. If Jared Cook had ever been on a good football team. My God. Yeah.

Especially like in this era of football. Like you could have like transported him a little bit forward. Jared Cook was like languishing on those Rams teams and those Titans teams. like Jared Cook on a real NFL offense in the modern day. That's one that jumped out to me. This is one where I think it's a volume-based thing. And by the time he got to a place where the volume increased, he was kind of on the downside of his career.

I would have loved to have seen Golden Tate on a team that like threw the ball 600 times rather than those early 2010 Seahawks where there were 20 past attempts a game to go around to that entire receiving core. Two defensive linemen, Snacks Harrison. That's incredible. Big time defense, right? And just like we would talk about him as just one of those guys. And then the other one, this one's like adjacent to that.

But somebody that I just thought was always a good NFL player, but was always on pretty bad teams. Corey Peters is like a good NFL player that was just on pretty bad teams a lot. You got a lot of big men, which I feel like that fits it. I came out with two linebackers and you came out with a lot of big men. I think that's perfect. I was just going through like A.V from 2010 to 2020. and like trying to find guys 400 spots down the list that were interesting. I had I had a pair of guys that actually played together that we all knew that they were really good at

the time, but it's like one of those where it's like, man, I wish they had gotten to play on like a really good defense. Ryan Kerrigan and Brian O'Rockpo were incredible. Almost said Ryan Arakpo. Ryan Rackpo was on my short list. Like Brian Arakpo playing for like mostly not very good Washington teams and then like mostly not very good Tennessee Titans defenses is one. and then Ryan Carrigan, Ryan Carrigan is like the quietest.

He didn't quite get to 100 sacks. I mean, he's at like 98 and a half or whatever. But he's like one of the quietest 100 sacks guys ever. I thought like he was obviously awesome. And those defenses were pretty much average at best the entire time that he was there. Like those two getting to have played for like a sick defense once or twice, I think would have been fun. The last one I would throw out that I think is similar to that conversation. Cam Wake, all he did was play for seven and nine dolphins teams.

And he was an incredible player. Kim Wake when I started covering the league. He didn't play until he was like 28 or at least in the NFL. He was like CFL, yeah. He was when I started covering the league like really full time in like 2012. And that was his first, he was first team all pro that year in 2012. He had 15 sacks. And he was truly just one of my favorite players in the league to watch during my first few years covering the NFL.

And those Dolphins teams were like, they were fine, right? That 2012 was Ryan Tan Hill's rookie year. Like they were just fine. They were middling teams. every year that he was there, but he was an incredibly cool player. He, I mean,

that's a good one because, like, let's just live in some imaginary world where Can Wake had gotten into the NFL when he was 22. Like, probably a Hall of Famer. The fact that he starts his career at 27 and got to 100 sacks is insane. A dominant player.

He's almost too good for this conversation. But when you said Brian Arakpo, I was like, I was like, what's like one notch up from that? Next one here, Drockipiff, that's what I'm going with.

I have absolutely no idea. tell me if I'm wrong. That sounds good enough. With all the focus on free agency and head coaches, one thing that always gets overlooked is the coaching room. One thing I personally would love to know more about it, I'm curious up. Which team's coaching rooms seem to be the most promising

or have had the biggest facelifts in a good way and why? I mean, I think that this is a little tough because like you don't really like some of the filling out the You don't know. A lot of them. Right. Filling out the positional rooms, you just, it's kind of hard. Like for us, it's like, I think

it's easy to pick. Obviously the coordinators, we tend to know a lot about. And then maybe every now and then there's like one very obvious position coach that is like maybe there's a really good DB's coach. Like Christian Parker obviously had a lot of play for a while. Offensive line coaches tend to be like big guys in that respect. But for me, it's usually like where are the defensive coordinators and stuff? Or if you bring in a head coach who obviously is going to be in that room.

So like one that came to mind for me was like the Ravens defense like bring in a Jesse Minter. I think I think Zach Orr maybe could figure things out as things go on in his career. But obviously I think kind of needed a little. little bit of time to figure out what he wanted to do and how to do it to bring in mentor to bring back anthony weaver like a lot of that i think is like a pretty huge upgrade i had the raven's offensive staff that's a staff we have not we have not talked a lot about that staff and i just think that when people are thinking about the ravens off and i think todd munkin is a great coach right i think tomank it's a really good offensive football coach but i also think

that that raven's offensive staff with deklin doyle has like unrealized upside that we are really thinking about that much. And so Declan Doyle coming over from being the Bears' offensive coordinator, he's a really impressive young coach. I would be betting on that guy. And I'm really excited to see what he does trying to really tap into a lot of the ethos and the DNA that came from that Ben Johnson offense in Chicago. And then even some of the assistants that they hired, like they got Dwayne Ledford from

Atlanta, who I think he's done a really good job with the Falcons over the last few years as their offensive line coach. Israel Wolfork is their quarterback's coach. he was in Arizona with Kyler as part of that staff and people he he has a very there's a very high opinion of him in the NFL as a coach like I have talked to multiple offensive coordinators that think he can eventually be an offensive coordinator so I just think that Ravens offensive staff is when we haven't spent a lot of a time or attention on but is one that I'm absolutely paying attention to we've talked about the Cowboys defensive staff like I think Christian Parker is I'm excited about him even some of the guys he brought over Marcus Dixon was the defensive line coach for the Vikings previously. Like I am really excited to see what that staff can do. Derek Ainsley, their passing game coordinator, he was with the Packers over the last couple years.

And I think coverage-wise, I really did like a lot of things that the Packers were doing over the last couple years. Two more I'd throw out. The Lions with Mike Kafka being their passing game coordinator and just like adding Drew Petsing and Mike Kafka to that group, I think that's absolutely that's one that's worth paying attention to. The Pets thing I love because, listen,

the Arizona thing, got excited coming out of 2024, 2024, 2025 didn't go the way that we wanted. But I think part of that was they had lost Clayton Adams that year. Well, now you have Hank Freely in Detroit. That solves a lot. And then also, like, Jared Gough just makes more sense for the way that Petting obviously wanted to run the offense compared to what Kyla was doing. So I think, like, that could be one of those, like, didn't really do what it wanted in Arizona could totally jump to this new scenario and it looks awesome. And I just think that the combination, like, Kafka's background is very different than his in a way that I feel like it could be complimentary. So I really like that one. And then,

the other one that I would throw out, Durrante Jones in Washington, and then Eric Henderson is their defensive line coach and run game coordinator. He was in Los Angeles when Aaron Donald was there. He was the defensive line coach there for a little while before going to USC. And so that those are just,

that's another one I would throw out there. Like I think the defensive makeovers in Dallas and Washington are two that I'm really curious about how those go. Next one here, MFK Savarin says, question about O line development. What separates a really good center from a really good guard? Are they all just a notch below guards traits-wise, the same way guards are considered a notch-below tackles?

If having an excellent center is so clutch for a young quarterback, how come this Linderbaum deal seems to be the first time a center's been paid as much as stars at the other O-line positions? We've talked about this in some capacity over the last couple years, including on mailbags, but I do think the Linderbaum contract kind of justifies a reframing of this conversation. And so what are your thoughts about this? So I want to start with like the purely player on player thing like center versus guard.

I think generally speaking centers are a notch below guards. And I would not say necessarily in terms of movement skills. Like a lot of centers are very good movers. They just tend to be a little bit smaller. And that's not always true. You can get guys like, you know, Ragnow was big. Ryan Jensen was a little bit bigger, stuff like that. You can get by with more body types at center than you can at guard.

The physical bar you need to clear is not as high at center. You can survive with more different builds at that position. That's a great way to put it because you can be insulated by these two bigger, better guards who are really good. You're going to get a lot of help. And so I would say size wise, like build wise, that is probably the difference. I would say in terms of like what the players asked to do, like what are some of the differences, I think having like a good first step as a center is usually really important because you're

having to just like rip to the second level a lot of the time and that can be really huge. Obviously you need to be able to handle stuff mentally in a way. way that guards don't always do. Obviously, they're picking stuff up in past protection too, but as a center, you are oftentimes at some point in your career going to be asked to call out protections pre-snap. We're calling the mic, all that sort of stuff. And then I would say, even once the bullets start flying in terms of like picking stuff up in pass pro, centers are more often like not necessarily covered immediately. They're either picking up some sort of blitzer, like some sort of linebacker, or they're looking for a twist or something like that. There's just a little

bit more movement that they're having to handle, whereas guards are getting more opportunities where it's like the guy in front of me, I am blocking him. And it's a little bit simpler that way. Looking at the next gen numbers about this, I think this is a really clean way of thinking about it. And there's some noise in these numbers because chips aren't a part of this discussion, but I do think it's still worth focusing on. In the NFL last year per next gen stats, no center in the league was in one-on-one past protection scenarios more than 50% of the time. No center in the NFL. The average for guards is 50% percent. the average.

And for tackles, it's 80%. Again, that doesn't include chips, and so that's worth throwing out there. So just how you need to hold up in pass pro and the players you're going against in pass pro are different as a guard than they are as a center. And so I think that's part of it. The other thing that I think bleeds into all of this, this isn't, we do the same thing. And I think actually this is a good analog for it. We do the same thing for linebackers and safeties.

I literally had this in my notes, yes. Where it's like, it's devalued. And it's like, well, no. It's devalued for a specific reason, right? And so we're going to talk about this. I want to talk about this with another position a little bit later when it comes to tackles and how we seek out tackles and build offensive lines. Because it's not a position that's driven necessarily by physical skill sets and there

is such a mental component to it, you can find them in more places so more of them hit free agency. It's the same thing that happens with linebacker and safety. Because you can find a starting caliber center in the fourth round of the first round of the draft and there are more avenues. That's why more of those players end up hitting the open market. So it's not a value in a vacuum thing. It's about scarcity.

And so because there are more of them, they just don't get paid as much. And there's another twofold thing in the draft where like there are just fewer of them that are like worth a top 12 pick, right? Like you just don't see that many process. Right. Like that linebacker safety center is obviously worth like a top 12 pick where you would want to take them that high. And then even if there is, you're just not.

getting as much savings by taking those guys there. When has that even happened? When has there been a center that's been drafted even in like the top 15? Yeah, center. Linderbaum is the highest drafted one in forever. Yeah, and even before that, it was probably what Frederick in like 20? And that's a, when was that 14? That was like at 31, I think.

Yeah, and that's always in the back half of the first round. Yeah, like center, it almost, linebacker in safety, it'll happen a little bit more. But yeah, like with center, it almost never happens. And so again, if you're, well, if you know why that happens is because if, if you have the physical skill set to make you worth picking in the top 12 as a center, you play guard or tackle. Yes, you play tackle.

Exactly. So it's, yeah, it's, I think that it is valuable, but again, it's because there's so many avenues to finding one. And there,

you can't, it's not based on this, a lot of the stuff that you can measure coming into the draft. And that's not why they're not drafted high. I think there's a lot of different things that go into it. All right. Next one here from Millpool. He says,

how would the NFL be different if there was a 24-hour cooling off period after a trade where you could get back out of it if you were embarrassed. This was said before the Max Crosby trade happened, by the way. Katie wanted me to know that. So this was a prescient thought from our buddy Millpool over here. That's incredible to have got that in before. I thought this was obviously like a response to the Max Crosby thing.

That's incredible foresight by this guy. What do you think? I don't think much would change. I think the teams would not want to go back on it. The Ravens are in a unique position where I just don't think they give a shit about the PR blowback. Right. They clearly don't for stuff like that. And also, I would say, listen, we need to bring back shame in society. And so if NFL teams started doing this, like, we should media, other teams, reporters just start flaming them as much as possible. And so in that sense,

if they thought that that was coming, maybe, yeah, teams really wouldn't double back on very many trades anyway. But I would hope that this is not something that is ever proposed by the league. here's my thought about this. When it comes to a trade like the, I was going to say the Max Crosby trade, but that's a bad example, obviously. When it comes to these massive trades, for the most part,

these are discussions that have been in the works for months, weeks. These guys are running the numbers on like, all right, how much should we give up? Like, you're running it by your analytics or cap guy where it's like, all right, is this the right price? Like, this is something where these things aren't done on a whim. And so for those, sorts of trades, I don't think much would change because teams have sat with this information

for a very long time. I truly do believe the Ravens changed their mind after seeing the state of Max Crosby's knee. It wasn't, oh man, we gave up too much for this player even if he's healthy. The one exception to this, and this is funny because you can't take these back because the act of the trade is then followed by something else that makes it irreversible is draft day stuff, where you're in the moment. And even if you've been discussing prices, there still is a back and forth in the moment where you have to make a decision in that exact instance while your team is on the clock. And I think that's where we can get some of these where it's like, I don't know about that. We're doing some back in the napkin math with a lot of these analytics

guys in real time being like, this is the right price for these picks. And so that's one where maybe there might be a little bit of buyer's remorse later just because there's less that go, there's less lead time that goes into some of those decisions. That's a good point. Like you might go into draft day knowing like if you're the Eagles, maybe we're going to, you know, trade AJ Brown, but you don't know exactly what that package is going to look like who's going to call when certain stuff like that. You just don't know. I think for the most part, a lot of these are set up in advance. But if there's a team that's looking to trade up that maybe you didn't talk about it that far, you know, the day before or the couple days before and it jumps on you,

I mean, I think that is some real-time decision-making that these people have to do. All right, let's take our first break here and then come back with our set of email questions. Cade Smith says, looking specifically at the Titans, they dumped resources into the defense and free agency, but the offense only had a few additions, with Wondell being the only weapon. Everything rides on your second-year quarterback of 2026, and Jeremiah Love would go a long way in taking pressure off camera work and allowing him to grow in a healthier ecosystem. Is this a situation where the Titans could choose this path instead of a traditional pick at a premium position?

They could take a Bain, Bailey, or Reese and have a potential top defense, but what does it matter if your first overall pick quarterback doesn't have the talent around him to take that step? Here's why I thought this was an interesting question. as an idea obviously we talk about this all the time and we just discussed it with the linderbom thing and the value of centers we don't really discuss it with running backs that often where it's like well you need the right running back around this young quarterback in order to take some pressure off of him that feels like a discussion that we had more 10 15 years ago and is now one of those

conventional wisdom things that old school football people just say but we discuss it in practical terms a little bit less. So I'm wondering, for a receiver or a tackle, we do this all the time. Well, yeah, take the tackle, protect your young quarterback. Yeah, take the receiver, get it, allow your young quarterback to have an outlet. Is running back the same? Like, does running back move the needle enough to change that ecosystem where it should infect your thinking in the same way?

I don't know the answer. I just think that we don't really talk about it that way. I think very particular guys can. And I think sometimes that's not going to like always immediately prove results, I think about like Todd Gurley with the Rams and Jared Goff in 2016. That team was dog shit. That team was dog shit and they needed like another thing to really get them going. But once it all clicked into place, they were sensational. And I do think the Todd Gurley allegory is actually kind of good because I do think if you're going to say,

we need a running back who can do X, Y, and Z for us, he should either be like an exceptional pass catcher. A Christian McCaffrey, Bejohn Robinson, whatever it's going to be in that realm. Or like, listen, he may be imperfect. we might get a lot of two-yard runs, but one of these times he's going to hit a 60-yarder. Jeremiah Love can do that for you. And like this Titans offense doesn't really have explosive ability in any other way.

Like maybe you get one or two like cool Wondale Robinson yak opportunities, but they don't have a lot outside of like Cam Ward is just going to make an insane throw. And so to potentially at least have like teams have to respect the idea that Jeremiah Love can go 60. And like I know that Ashton Genti is great, but that's not even really what he did coming out of college. He was more just like an incredibly efficient,

an incredibly strong player, a little bit more of like in the past catching just like really solid all around role. Love does give them an explosive element that they clearly do not have in this offense right now. So I'm not saying that they should draft Jeremiah Love. I would honestly, if they loved one of the offensive linemen, like maybe you move Francis Maui Noah over to guard.

And that solves an issue for their like, I would probably prefer something like that. But if they take love, I'm not really going to hurt them for it. Like they clearly invested in one side of the ball and they need playmakers on offense. The example you used with Todd Gurley is a good one because again, they had both of those players.

They needed Sean McVeigh and Robert Woods and Andrew Whitworth in order for you to realize the benefits of having Todd Gurley in an offense with a young quarterback. The other one that I would point to, just rookie guy that was insulated in a huge way because of the running game. And I think the running back himself had an outsized impact on the efficiency of that running game.

I think about like Russ with Marshaun Lynch. Right? That to me is like a really good example. but when you're drafting in the top but at the end of the day, I still think that it's the overall quality of the ecosystem that matters and my argument against,

even with those two examples, Russell's a third round pick. Those Seahawks teams weren't picking in the top five. And with a RAM situation, again, Sean McVeigh comes in and like McVeigh is just, it's an accelerant that is almost like hard to replicate an account for.

And so I think if you're drafting a running back in the top five, there's almost no way the rest of your offensive ecosystem is good enough that that running back's impact is going to be able to lift the quarterback as much as some of the other premium

positions that you could add. Does that make sense? I think it absolutely does. I will say with running back, I do think it is one of those things where the scarcity is real in terms of like, you cannot get a special player unless you draft them inside the top like 15. For the most part, I think now, like you really have to do that.

I'm still not sure that. that's more worth than taking like, let's just say Maui Noah is like a B plus guard. Instead of, you know, Jeremiah Love being like an A plus running back, I would probably still rather have that in front of Cam Ward and just like figure it out at running back. The other example, I think that this team was picking in the top five. And I do think the running back's quality absolutely helped lift the rookie quarterback is the 2016 Cowboys. And even that's a fourth round pick?

Well, but that team was still picking in the top five, right? They were still bad enough to pick in the top five, no matter where they ended up finding the quarterback, but the line was so good that the offensive ecosystem was quietly already better than having a top five pick would lend you to believe. I just don't think the Titans are in that same conversation. Right. So that's actually why the Dallas one is interesting.

Like Dallas was every now and then there's a team in the top five, top six, who like is a quality roster and just everything went wrong. And they just end up picking top five when they probably shouldn't have. And that was Dallas in that run. And so they obviously get a little bit of flexibility to do what they want and just take the star player that they like. Whereas like Tennessee has been bad for years now. And the roster clearly has a long ways to go.

That's a little bit of a different consideration than a team like Dallas who was good, was competitive, quarterback gets hurt. And a lot of things just kind of go awry. Yeah, I think that's where I land with it. But again, we just don't normally think about the running back in those terms compared to how we talk about other premium offensive positions in bolstering the young quarterback. And so it's a discussion worth how.

at the very least. Next one here, we alluded to this question a little bit earlier. Philip Edward says, if a team traded any of that year's draft picks, like a player they drafted, before the trade deadline, historically, which player do you think would have gotten the most draft capital? So a guy traded in the middle of his rookie year is what he's saying.

For example, I'm guessing it wouldn't be Peyton Manning as he got off to a mixed start in the first half of his rookie season. Would it still depend on where they went in the draft, or would teams look at the start of someone like Puka and say, He's the real deal. Let's give two or three first future draft picks for him. I don't think Puganakou would have gone for two or three future draft picks like at the end of his rookie year. Like this is still always going to be a quarterback when we're having this discussion.

And I do think that pre-draft analysis and pre-draft work is going to play into this. It has to. It's half a season. Pre-draft work plays into it when guys are signed in free agency after the first contract ends. They're starting in high school matters to NFL guys by that point. Yes. Yes. So I have a couple guys that I think are the clear answers.

They are both names that you said earlier on the show in another capacity. I think it probably comes down to those two. And I do think you would be more. Cam and Andrew Luck, yes. I do think we should have a discussion of like which non-quarterback would it be. But I will say, I think it's kind of unquestionably Andrew Luck. And obviously Cam Newton was phenomenal as a rookie. Like came in through like a million yards against Arizona.

Obviously looked incredible. Wins rookie of the year. But I do think if you're talking about like pre-draft consideration, a lot of people thought Cam was obviously a special prospect, but everyone and their mother would tell you that Andrew Luck was the best prospect since John Elway at the position, basically, prototype size, like incredible athlete, really good arm, nails on the chalkboard, all that stuff. Everybody loved the character, all those things.

Whereas with Cam, I think a lot of the locker room and just like how he carried himself stuff was overblown. Like Greg Olson has talked a number of times about how he would die for Cam Newton, like Christian McCaffrey, same thing. I think that was all overblown. I do think though like GMs and decision makers probably took that a little bit differently. And so like I think if you're having to split the hair there, it's probably that. And then also like Andrew Luck dragging that Colts team that year to the playoffs is like

2,500 yards in his first eight games. He was on a terrible football team. Like the fact that they did that was he was Andrew Luck was something. I think it was like unquestionably probably him. Yeah, I think Andrew Luck is the answer. Like if the Colts for whatever. reason in that moment. We're like, man, the rest of the roster is so bad. Could we deal him right now? What would we get for it?

The idea of, I mean, what would you trade for Andrew Luck at that point if you're another team for first round picks? Whatever they allow me to do. However far in the future, they let me do it. Yeah, I guess now it's, you can't do that, right? If the, if the, if the Browns get their way, you will be able to. But it would be just to do that. It would just be an insane amount of dropbacks. Andrew Luck to me is definitely the answer. So quickly, did you have one for non-quarterback. I think maybe this is just recency, but when I think about where this player was drafted

and what the beginning of his career looked like, right before the midway point of the 2021 season, Jamar Chase had a game where he went eight for 201 in a touchdown. In the first eight games of Jamar Chase's career, for seven games of Jamar Chase's career, he had 750 yards and six touchdowns. That is pretty obscene. I didn't really, I knew it like,

obviously I knew that, which actually, do you remember to the talks of his preseason as a rookie? Oh, my God, dude. It was only five years ago. He forgot how to catch the football. Oh, my God, he's going to be terrible. And then he immediately comes in. It's like, oh, he's the fourth best receiver in the league today. Yeah, that's the one where it was like, he had five catches for one-on-one and a touchdown

in his first game. And again, he's a top five pick. And generally he was the fifth overall pick in a draft that is piece on pure. talent and prospect quality, one of the three best drafts we've ever had since I started covering the sport. And so that's the only reason he was even the fifth overall pick in that draft.

So I would throw him out there. In terms of like other not, like, maybe I can't remember, what was Miles Garrett's rookie year like? So that's the thing. He actually missed the first month of his rookie year, but here's this. Here's this. The first three games that he played, week five, six, and seven, he

had four sacks. So, he was immediately exactly as good as you would think that he would be. So I would still guess that Miles Garrett, especially because of the position, right? Like it's just like the actual NFL draft. Like quarterbacks and pass rushers, when those guys are that level of talent, they go first overall. I would guess Miles Garrett like literally being like the prototype for how you build that position

and then having four sacks in his first three games after missing time. I would imagine somebody would give up quite a lot to do that. Nick Bose's rookie year was also crazy. Nick Bosa had nine. He had nine sacks, but he was like, he was a pro baller. He was a really, really good player that year. But Chase is probably the one. Like, Chase is one of those guys.

Like as soon as he stepped on the field, it was like, yep. Mm-hmm. Because even with some of these guys, and with Chase specifically, it's such a fun example because there's always a cloud of, is he actually going to be as good as we think. Like, even if you think a guy is a bulletproof prospect, you still never know. You still never know. And just seeing him do it on the field, absolutely that increases, like, what we think of them. And Chase was just one of those guys where even on like August 15th,

I think there were people who weren't sure what Jamar Chase was going to be as an NFL player. And then we knew immediately. It took one week for us to fully realize what he was capable of on an NFL field. Next one here, Eduardo Ray. I wanted to throw this one in here just because I thought it was funny that someone sent it in. Eduardo Ray said, fellas, would you rather be in a pool filled with spiders or rats? There is no water in the pool. The water is essentially replaced by the spiders or the rats.

So I feel like we didn't get enough context on this question. What are you talking about? It's very clear. Well, am I supposed to be fighting my way out of this pool? How long am I in the pool? Like, these are the questions I need to be answered. Also, I think the most important question as it pertains to the spiders, can they kill me?

Because the rats will kill me. Yeah, it's good. Yeah. The rats will kill me. Yeah. I think my answer is spiders. I see a decent amount of rats in my day-to-day life. Like I live on an alley in Chicago, and so I see a rat like every week at this point.

And they don't really gross me out that much, but that's from a distance, you know? And so I don't, I think the answer is probably spiders, but the venomous part of this is absolutely worth asking. Yeah, I think I think if I know that they're not going to kill me and I have a chance to fight my way out, I think it's the spiders because, you know, just like I feel like there's a better chance to do that. If it's rats, they're going to be gnawned into my bones way too quickly, and I'm not going to be able to dig my way out. So here's why Katie just said the idea of picking spiders is insane. And I don't disagree with that. But here's why I'm initially more afraid

of spiders than rats is because with a spider, I'm scared of something that can be in my bed without me knowing. But that's one thing, right? That's not a pool of them. It doesn't matter that I know the rat is there if I'm in a pool of rats. So that is frightening to me. What I'll say, I don't know how much I've talked about this on the show, in the last like 10 years I've done the show, the answer for me, if there were like a third option that's in the same vein, I have like a deathly fear of snakes. Like a deathly fear of snakes.

Like if I see a snake on TV, I can't look at it. I have like a visceral reaction to seeing snakes on television. we were, when I was younger, we would camp and there were times where like, we were in Texas once and I like saw a rattlesnake while we were walking around and I just went back in the car and I just stayed in the car. Like that is like the one thing that I just,

I do not fuck with snakes of any kind. I see, I mean, I totally get that. If snakes were also here, they would be third on my list. I would not want to be doing that. But I would not want to be doing that because again, like the rats,

they're going to bite the hell out of me and they're going to get me. And also the volume, like they're a lot thicker than the spiders are going to be like, I just, I also, of all these things, I'm really not like a spiders freak me out guy. I don't want to willingly jump into a pool of spiders, but like they don't really freak me out all that bad. I wouldn't say so either.

Like, I'm not afraid to like handle a spider if I see one when it comes to like killing the spider or like putting the spider outside or whatever. So I think, yeah, it's rats. The only consideration is the spiders, depending on the size, can get into ears and nose and all that stuff. whereas the rats, that's not going to be an issue. But again, I think the rats can kill me. Yeah, all right, the answer is rats. Katie says, when I get out of the pool, I won't know if all the spiders are off me or not.

If it's the rats, I'm not getting out of the pool. Next one here, Kyle McDonough says, there's always plenty of discussion about the so-called tough media cities. Whenever player movement coaching changes or many storylines come up, major storylines come up. That got me thinking less about the national media side and more about the day-to-day beatwriter presence. He's an Eagles fan.

He says there's like 15 to 20 beatwriters in the room every single time there's an Eagles event or a press conference, something like that. So Kyle's question is, what does the average NFL team's beat writer contingent actually look like? Which teams have the largest beat reporter presence, which have the smallest, and what does that impact have on the coverage of that team, the players, and the fans? I can answer this. This would be harder for you to answer.

I think that for the most part, there aren't that many standout that standout. where it's like, holy shit, there are a lot of people here on any given day. So what I always joke about, the one that I think is probably the biggest, just when it comes to the sheer number of people, even just like what it feels like to be in that room when they're asking questions, it just feels like very urgent and like very competitive just because of how many people are there. Chicago's crazy.

Like if you go like to a bearer's press conference, the amount of people in their press room and the amount of people in that press conference room, I always joke. Like being there, I always go there on the last day of training camp. essentially the last thing I do because it's 40 minutes away from home, Halis Hallis. There are as many people there as there are on the first day of training camp for other teams that I go to where it's the first day. It's like the opening press conference,

the opening practice. There are as many people in Chicago on the last day as there aren't other cities on the first day. So that to me might be number one. Philly is definitely up there. Those are the two that jump out. Dallas, I'm,

Dallas is weird because I always go when I'm in Oxnard. and so I don't know what it looks like day to day, but the Cowboys obviously have like a big press contingent. So those three jump out immediately as like some of the bigger ones. The smaller ones aren't ones that would surprise you. Like the Chargers have a small media contingent. The Cardinals have a very small media contingent. The Rams actually have a pretty small media contingent.

The ones that have never jumped out to me is like massive hordes of people, but I think other people might think this. Like when you go to like a Jets press conference during training camp, it's not like a rock concert. It's not like there are tons and tons more people there than there would be at any other team. I think that's more like the way that New York develops that reputation. That's more about the media market, right?

Like that's everything that goes into that. That's all the newspapers. It's like the tabloid coverage and the sports radio side of things. So I think that's what drives that more than the actual size of the beat writer core. That makes sense for people. No, that seems like it's more like the heat of, of being in New York. Rather than like they have more people than everybody else.

That's exactly right. And I do think that, you know, the intensity and the urgency of the questions when there are so many people, I think that you're just going to be getting more perspectives and maybe just by pure percentage, like a harder set of questions when there are more people covering the team. I think that's just inevitably going to happen because you're going to have some people that are trying to make a name for themselves. I mean, it just becomes a competitive media market. and I think that competition fuels the tone of a lot of the coverage.

I think that that can happen. I'm not an expert in this, but this is what I see kind of from afar as I parachute in and out of these places. All right, let's get to our next one here. Jorge D. Martinez says, Dolphins fan here. After the Waddle trade, the dolphins have seven picks in the top 100. How should a successful draft be defined for the dolphins?

A certain number of players signing a second contract, a certain number of starters, plus starters. What do you got, Derek? What does this successful 2026 draft look like for Miami? So I think when you have that many picks in the top 100, you got to come away with at least two pro bowlers. And I know that that's like, would typically be asking for a lot.

But when you have that many bites at the Apple, I think you absolutely have to. And so I would say that plus one more starter, like doesn't have to be a pro bowl, but just a guy that you feel good about. And then like one other secondary contributor. So I think like four of these seven guys need to be like serious. contributors for you.

And then two, when I'm looking at, and by secondary contributor, I don't even mean like a low level starter. I mean like it can be a quality rotational pass rusher, like a good swing tackle, an elite special team. Like, whatever it's going to be. It just has to be someone you are comfortable giving like serious, some amount of serious snaps to. And I would say with their current particular team build, I think almost any time that you are

rebuilding this way, hitting in the trenches is never going to hurt you. But they really need skill talent, like badly. I mean, obviously you just traded away a good receiver, but A-chan only has one year left on his contract. They don't really have very much tight-end talent. They don't have a lot of receivers in the pipeline now. So, like, they need one of those guys to hit, especially if you're going to try to make the Malik Willis thing work.

And then I know trying to, like, get a DB in the building when you're trying to build for three years out in the future can be tricky because some got times those guys don't age as well as trench players. But their secondary is so bad that it's like one of these players has to hit in the secondary in my mind. I think the best comparison point for this is where the Browns were last year. When it comes to how early you are in the building process, you really are like at square one. The Browns have more building blocks than the current dolphins do. But I think when it comes to replenishing the roster with these rookie contract players,

the Browns from last year are the best case or the best comparison point to this. The Browns last season had six picks, six picks in the top 126. Okay. Those players were Mason Graham, Carson, Swessinger, Quinchaud Junkins, Harold Fanon, Dylan, Gabriel, and Dylan Samson. Okay. I would say four of those guys are like definitive. These are going to be contributing players for us if they stay healthy for the course of their rookie contracts. Graham, Swessinger, Jenkins, Fanon. Four of six. If you're in that same boat, and if you think about the Brown's draft last year, would you consider that a successful draft?

Oh, that's going to, I assume, look like one of the best drafts of the last like five years. Like Swessinger and Fanon alone is a huge hit. And even if Mason Graham isn't as good as you wanted for the fifth overall pick or whatever, that's a starting caliber defensive tackle. That's a hit. And then even Samson's not like a hit in this realm, but that's a guy. You're totally cool giving like 12, 15 snaps a game. He can carry the load if he needs to every now.

And then like the fact that you got that in like the fourth round or whatever, that's a success. So are you talking about the dolphin? draft at the end of this in the same way that you're talking about the Browns draft. That to me is like the best case scenario. So anywhere between like four and five contributors, can one of those guys be a high-end contributor like you mentioned? Like I don't think it necessarily has to be about second contracts and what this looks like four or five years from now.

I think that you'll have a sense pretty quickly of like whether or not this is the type of draft you wanted to have when you're a team at the stage that the dolphins are currently at. And I would even say too, the last thing like comparing them to the Browns, the Browns obviously spent that pick on Dylan Gabriel on a quarterback because they needed one. The dolphins don't even have to burn a pick on that. Like I guess they could if they wanted to, but they've just signed Malik Willis. They already have Quinn Ewers who they drafted as like the mid-round quarterback thing last

year. They don't have to burn that pick. And some of these picks are higher. Like they do have a chance. They have a better chance to even replicate that draft and like somehow the Brown's doing it last year. Nathan Holden Isaiah Cash both asked us about the idea of trading Devon A-chan. And I think they kind of were treating it as like, well, now of course they're going to

trade him because they traded Waddle. And I just don't really think that, I mean, obviously the dolphins have come out and said that's not going to happen. Like, he's going to be part of this. So what do you think about just the gap between the mindset that pushes you to trade Jalen Waddle and the mindset that causes you to hold on very vocally to a player like Devon A. Chan if you're in a spot that the dolphins are in? So I think it's a few things.

One, even if you're a team that's tanking, you still have to be able to sell the idea of something. And if you don't have even Devanii Chan, you have nothing that you can sell just in terms of like, here's why you should watch this team, all that stuff. So I do think that that is important. I think another thing is like, let's say they trade him for a high second round pick and maybe some other change. At a certain point, you actually just have too many draft picks. And like you can't reasonably have that much of your roster be like a 22 year olds. That's just a bad way to do it. And so I think that you have that element of it. And then I think the other part of it is that I know he only has one year left on his deal.

but because of his size, because of the role that he plays, where he's not a 25-a-carry game type of back, and because of some of his injury history, I think if they want to retain him next year into free agency, it won't be as expensive to do it for him as it might have been for like a Ken Walker or maybe some of these other backs that get like a ton of money. Yeah, I think there's a few different things to play in.

One, he's three years younger, right? And so Jaylon Wattle's 27, DeManii Chan's 24. And running back years and receiver years are a little different, but by the time Jalen Waddle's the next three years for Jalen Waddle, he's going to be 30 by the final year of that deal. And that's probably when you're going to be competitive. Divide A-chan is going to be 27 in that same time frame. It's also the return you can get on players like that.

You're not getting a first and third round pick if you trade Devon A-chan. It's just not the price for running backs. And so I think those to me would be the two factors where it's just not worth it. The reason you trade J-Laddle, I don't even think it's necessarily in an effort to like tear the roster down to the studs to be bad. You were already going to do that. You were there. You didn't need, we're there.

We're at the foundation here. I think this is more about, this is a price that we can't say no to. And I just wonder if there's a price out there for a running back that would put you in that same mindset, especially one with some of the considerations that you just laid out. I doubt that would be the case.

And it's also not going to be that expensive to retain him. So I think for that all of those reasons I can understand why they're landing in a spot Where they would just rather have him be a part of what they're trying to build there Because like in terms of What you would get back potentially Didn't Christian McCaffrey not even net a first round pick

Like wasn't in a second round pick? I think if you add them all up it was like a first round pick But still it's not at first and a third The way that like obviously No no no no And so when you consider them like A Chan is smaller he's like not Can't really carry the load that CMC did like it's just like

Again, you get to a place where it's like the draft capital that you would get in return, it's more like, let's just keep a sick player on the roster and we'll see if we can retain him next offseason. Yeah, so McAfree went for a second, a third, a fourth, and then a fifth in the following draft. Okay, so it is a lot, but it's a lot. And I think when you add it up, it is like a first round pick, but it's not a first round pick and change like Waddle was. All right, we're going to take one more quick break and then come back and hit a few more

of these. Thomas Shane says, the Jets of the odds on favorites take Arvel Reese. And this has me terrified because he's described something of a project who might develop into a plus edge rusher. My question, is rushing the past or something you can really teach or learn this late in the game? I've always understood that skill to be God-given talent that you either have or you don't. And it turns out the Reese is just a really good off-ball linebacker in three years,

that would suck because you can find those in free agency. What's your take on this? That would not suck because linebackers of his quality, I don't think you can find in free agency very much. I have a lot of thoughts on this, actually. This is one that I think we can flesh out quite a lot. I want to start with like, I think it's generally true that the idea of past rushing is like a god-given talent. Like you could just do that or you can't.

But that boils down to athletic ability. And like, it's like some guy. And like Arvel race very clearly checks all of those boxes. I mean, he had a 92nd percentile 10-yard split among edge rusher. So like that first step that you want like the Micah Parsons, the guys like that, you totally get that. I think with Reese specifically, though, it's interesting because he's not really built like an edge rusher. Like he's pretty small.

He's six, well, not small, but thin. He's 6.4-241. And so he's a little bit taller. He's a little bit thinner. And I think I wanted to compare him to some of the guys that we consider as guys who came out as a little bit thinner. Nick Benito, I think is a good example. He was 6-3-248.

So even he was a little bit stockier when he came out. Will Anderson, I think a lot of people thought was a little bit, a little bit on the skinnier side. He was 6-4-253. And so that's a lot bigger than Arvell Rees, obviously. I think the best comparison you're probably going to get in terms of size was like James Pierce from last year at 6.5-2-45. And even that was like you just don't see many pass rushers of that size. And so I do think Reese can do it, but it's just like he would have to add, I would think at least like 10 pounds to really get into that range.

And that to me is the bigger projection than like can he learn how to use his hands better. I think it's more of a projection of like what does 10 or 12 more pounds look like on his body. Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it to lay it out there. And I do think the fact that he is a little bit smaller than some of like the guy I'm about to mention is worth is worth talking about. Right. Like in terms of his physical stature and profile, he has further to go than some of the best case scenarios with this. But with the pass rushing things specifically, I do think there are enough recent examples where the guy wasn't a full time pass rusher in college about we projected him to that in the NFL. And that like, like, Michael Parsons, there's a vision as history.

with Michael Parsons and what Michael Parsons was as a prospect. It was not some guaranteed thing that Michael Parsons would just be an edge rusher in the NFL. The Cowboys didn't use him that way early in his career, but they eventually got him to a place where he was playing there full time, and now he's one of the most valuable players in the entire league. And so this is something that happens. It happened when Jalen Walker last year. To me, the biggest consideration with this is not whether this sort of

player can learn to be an edge rusher and be an effective one because we have examples of guys doing that, I think the worst thing you can do with the guy like this is to split their time and not get the best benefits of either of them. That to me is the mistake here. Like if he's best moving forward, and this is not a revision history from my end either. This is exactly how I felt about Micah Parsons in the moment where I was like, he's a pass rusher. Like if the best value he can give your team is moving forward. If you have the body type or you're even on the edge, like the brink of getting there, and the best thing you do is move forward, just make that guy a pass rusher.

That's what he should beat. And so I think that's to me the biggest consideration with guys like that is not trying to split the difference in getting nothing. This almost reminds me of like the discussion that we have a lot of times with tackles where it's like you let him fail at tackle and then you move him if you have to. That's kind of how I feel about Reese as like an edge player. It's like you let him do it, you let him figure it out. And if two years in it turns out he's just not what you wanted, then you can use him more as

a stackbacker. And honestly, I do think whoever takes him on the edge, like, will use him as a moving piece. They will play him as a stack every now and then. Like, there is value in him being able to do that a little bit, but he should probably primarily be at edge. The thing I will say, he is like, if he didn't play edge at all in college,

outside of like maybe some various packages, but if we didn't consider him an edge, we just purely considered him like a stack linebacker. He's still like a top 12 pick. Like, he's awesome at playing stack linebacker. Like the range is awesome. the way he hits, the way he tackles. And so he could still turn into a very good player there.

It's just you would obviously try to prefer to get him to be the pass rusher first. Next one here, Josh Alexander says, I've been thinking about how we talk about offensive line building around the draft. Every year, it feels like teams get mocked an offensive lineman in the first round, even when they already have three or four established starters. I get wanting stability at front, but at some point, isn't that just diminishing returns. Most good offenses can function with one replacement linemen as long as the other four spots are solid,

and there isn't a true black hole in the lineup. So why do we treat five high-level offensive linemen is the ideal worth spending premium picks on? Instead of acknowledging that upgrading that fifth spot might offer less value than adding a player into a position that can move the needle more, is there something about how teams analyze or think about offensive line construction

that makes them prioritize completeness over maximizing overall roster impact? I'm a Chiefs fan who's confused at the frequency in which we are mocked to tackle at nine when they already have four legitimately good starters up front and have four glaring needs at wide receiver, edge, and DB. And there's a lot to dig into here, but where did you take this answer? I think like the general answer versus specifically the chiefs, I think are like two different answers.

But where I start with is it's true. You don't need five like a really good offensive linemen. You probably need three or four. But the reality is that over the course of the season, one or two of those guys is going to go down. And so if you do have five good guys and two of them go down, you're still kind of insulated because three of them are still very good players and it can help you. that way. And then I also think that having five good guys, it does make game planning easier and more fluid. Take the

Chiefs, for example, like what they look like going into this year. If left tackle through right guard is super solid, but we have questions about what Jalen Moore can be and we need to help him a lot and all this stuff. Even if because the rest of the guys are good, you can find good ways to game plan around it and still be a good offense.

God, it would be a lot easier if we just didn't have to think about the right tackle that much. And so maybe that's not necessarily more valuable than picking like a Carnell Tate and it's like, oh, we just have a guy we can go to on third down now. Like, I think that's a more different discussion. But like it does have clear value of like the game planning element of it. It makes things so much smoother, so much easier for you, I think.

Yeah, I also, there aren't a lot of teams where they've spent like five first round picks on offensive alignment. Even the teams that are driven and their success is driven by having really good quality offensive line play across the board, they're composed in a way that's different than that. Like the Eagles being the best recent example, Jordan Malato was a seventh round pick. that developed into that guy. Cam Juergens was a second round pick. It's having five good guys, it doesn't necessitate

spending five huge draft picks on those guys. So I think that's one part of this. The other part of it is it's just about having the fifth guy clear the bar. He just needs to clear the bar for you. I think that's most important. The chief side of this specifically, I think we do this too often

when it comes to draft picks. And I'm guilty of this as well as a guy that roots for a team. You look at it and it's like, well, there's not an immediate hole there right now. So why do we need to spend a draft pick on that? Jalen Moore is a free agent after this season. Okay?

And if you look at tackles specifically, you can't find tackles in a lot of places. I was looking at this. So let's just say, we're talking about the 2027 chiefs after Jalen Moore hits free agency. And if Jalen Moore hits free agency and he plays well, you're in a spot where you're paying him $18 to $20 million for a team that's already.

already spending a lot of money on its roster. So you're likely going back into the draft to try to find your replacement of tackle. Of the 64 starting tackles in the NFL, let's just say, for argument's sake, 56 of those are guys that teams aren't actively trying to replace. Would you say that's fair? That's probably true. Yeah. Okay?

So let's say there are 56 starting tackles in the NFL right now that teams aren't actively trying to replace. 43 of those players were drafted in the first two rounds. And I would bet of the, the left tackles, that's even higher. Like that percentage of them. Oh, and a lot of the left tackles and just the tackles in general that are outside of that, they're these guys who are like striking and notable development stories.

Like Spencer Brown, Bernard Raymond, Jordan Milata, guys that have are super toolsy that for one reason or another were drafted late. Ryman's an older prospect from Germany. Spencer Brown played at Northern Iowa. We just talked about Milata. So if you're the chiefs and you're trying to project this thing out to, three years and you're thinking about where you can find a right tackle that you're going to be a part of your team for the next couple years.

Even if you don't have a hole there right now, I think sometimes you have to think about that. Like the Bears were a good example of this to me last year. They drafted Ozzie Tripill in the second round and as a fan of a team, I'm like, well, they have a fucking left tackle. Like, Braxton Jones is coming back. Why do we need to do this? And then think about if he doesn't get hurt, how happy you'd be if you pick that guy in the

second round and how happy you even were last year. So I just think for that position specifically and tackle specifically, it's okay to be thinking one, two steps beyond what your depth chart looks like in this exact moment. And again, I think too, like the last thing I would say with where they're picking, and we had this discussion on a previous show, but like you're not going to get a chance as the chiefs to draft that many like clean tackle prospects in the top 10 like this. I know they drafted Simmons in like the 20s last year. He was not a clean tackle prospect.

Exactly. You don't want to have to be threading the needle of like, like hasn't played a ton, his knee, all this other. So like, you don't want to have to be threading that needle all the time. And it worked last year. Like, he looked good. You don't want to have to be living there all the time. And if you don't have to do that, that would be nice, I think.

Last one here. This is from Benjamin Rengay, who's from France. And he apologized for a terrible English in the email. It was not terrible English. Every person who's a non-English speaker always does that. And then I'm like, listen, buddy, your English is 10 times better than whatever my Spanish sounds like. You mentioned multiple times, he says, during the coaching hiring process.

The fact that ideally, either the head coach quarterback duo or the head coach GM duo or even the GM head coach quarterback trio should be on the same timeline in order to protect yourself from a lame duck situation. I think that's the correct use of that expression anyway. While I think you made multiple great points for this idea, I would like to present a counter argument that you can use as a question. How much can we trust an organization to hit on multiple key roles like GM head coach or quarterback at the same time when if they happen to be in this position, they probably

failed to identify that talent before. While I understand the time line argument, I think the main danger of this alignment is that the possibility of one role being carried by another is bigger, like a great head coach carrying an average quarterback. While it does exist in other situations, I think having everybody aligned could create a greater version

of breaking up the team. In addition, doesn't this alignment between multiple key roles make it to some extent more difficult to evaluate each individual contribution on its own? I mean, so I think the idea of reframing it as like the fear of like, well, if this team was bad and they couldn't identify these before, how are they supposed

to hit all three at the same time? I do think that that actually does make a lot of sense. But what I would say is that, like, I think it's okay if one or two of them are carrying an outsized weight or like an outsized portion of the success. If the other two are competent enough. That's inevitable, right? You're never going to have those guys pulling an equal weight with one another. That just never going to happen. And like even if you look at a lot of the best teams over the last handful of whatever. Like, I think the 49ers are a good example. Brock Purdy's a fine quarterback.

But Kyle Shanahan and what the way that that front office is built, they to me are clearly the ones that are orchestrating a lot of this. And that's okay. They're one of the most successful teams over the last decade because he's been there. Also, Brock Purdy didn't come in with those guys. Exactly. They were getting by with Jimmy Garapolo. Yes, exactly.

This happens very rarely. Well, I guess Garapolo did come in in year one. So by the end of their first season together, they had made a commitment to one those quarterbacks. But I think this just doesn't happen very often. Like the best example of we got quarterback GM head coach all in the same year and it's been that way since the start and we've been successful as that's happened is the Lions when they had golf, when they traded for golf in that first year.

But for the most part, the quarterback is not a part of this. I think that the alignment with the GM and the head coach is important for a reason that we've hit on a lot. It's not even just the lame duck situation. It's, is everyone that's a decision maker within your organization? making a decision for the same reasons. That is to me the most important part of this. When Ryan Poles got that extension,

everyone laughed at the Bears. I think part of the reason that you do that is because now he has some security where he's not making decisions with knowing his job is on the line because he's a hot seat GM. So now you have the same sort of timeline where there's a runway for the coach

and the general manager. On the other side of this, like the flip side example, is Terry Fontno. Right? Like Terry Fontonow is making decisions knowing that, man, I haven't won for several years. I talked about that with the Falcons ad nauseum in the moment

where I was like, you got a year one coach and a year three GM and that distance between how much urgency there is for those two groups to win, inevitably it's going to infect the decision making and the thought processes and how quickly this stuff needs to happen. And so I think just getting those two timelines aligned and making sure that you're never robbing one area of the organization to pay another because you feel your feeder against the fire,

I think that is worth thinking about. I couldn't agree more. Like all three players and decision makers and whatever it's going to be, being on what is like a B or B plus level timeline together is better than like three separate A plus timelines in theory that don't actually mesh with each other and they're all fighting against each other in terms of the decision making like having some sort of cohesion like we can do this together. It's going to be a lot more sustainable.

I also don't think you need to blow it all up at the same time. I think we have so many examples of that. The best possible example of it, and I've mentioned every time when I'm thinking about how this could work out well, less need was the GM of the Rams when the Rams were like, not a very good team and playing in St. Louis. He stays, McVeigh comes in. Jason Light had, he took his lumps early on as the GM of the Bucks

and multiple head coaches. They get the right head coach and the right play caller in there. They become a playoff team consistently. John Schneider, right? Like, how are we talking about John Schneider at the end of the P. Carroll era? Then Mike McDonald comes in and we've seen that it can work many, many times over. I don't think that all of these teams that need to cycle through guys like this should be hitting the nuclear button every single time. Some teams need a hard reset.

The Lions needed a hard reset. That was the right thing to do for them in the moment. I think the Niners, based on, think about where the Niners were before they hired, Hal Shanahan. And what those, the Jim Tom Sulla year and the Chip Kelly year, they needed a hard reset. And so I think in certain moments, that is worth seeking out. And I think we have plenty of examples of it happening when you try to align those guys as tightly as possible. Right.

And I will say, too, like, if the GM is the only holdover, well, that makes sense because he's hiring the two guys that are below him anyway. So, like, then you get to alignment anyway. So even if that guy was part of whatever the previous iteration of the team was, you still end up at alignment either way. All right. That is all we've got for our first mailbag back. Excited to keep digging into these over the course of the off season. For now, that is all we got. Thank you to everyone for sending in their questions. We'll talk to you guys later.