The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Mailbag: How players spend the bye week, what positions are most valuable, is Matt LaFleur underrated & more with Mitchell Schwartz

Episode Date: November 30, 2021

Mitchell Schwartz returns to share his Super Bowl Champion perspective as we open this week's Mailbag, full of talk about Matt LaFleur not getting enough credit, why NFL teams don't hire former agents as GMs like the NBA does, how players choose to spend their bye week, which positions are the hardest to come by in today's NFL, Micah Parson's role in Dallas and much more with host Robert Mays. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the athletic football show. Welcome to the athletic football show. Today is Tuesday, November 30th. I'm Robert Mays. Join me today. It's my good friend Mitchell Schwartz. Mitch, how you doing, buddy? I'm doing good.

How are you? I'm doing very well. I'm leaving Miami. About to go get on an airplane. So heading back to the cold, it was a nice little Thanksgiving break. It feels like post- Thanksgiving the season really settles in. This feels like we've really locked into the stretch run.

So this week is always. one that I have circled on my calendar, literally or figuratively every single year. Well, today is like 62 degrees in Kansas City, and later in the week it gets back up to 70 again. So it does not feel like fall, and it just doesn't seem like it's the holiday season. I don't mind it. I also don't mind when it's like cold and cool and the weather turns, but it's just been weird. It's been so warm here. I have a plane to catch, so we're going to get through these fairly quickly.

Again, always appreciate you guys sending in your questions. It means a lot. I enjoy doing the show so much every single week. I'm really glad we found a little groove where Mitch can do it with me. So we're going to breeze through as many of these as we can here in the next 45 minutes or so. I want to start kind of a big picture question. Brett Bossie asks, he said, good evening. He's a Patriots fan living in Buffalo.

So it's going to be an interesting week. Is this one of those seasons, he asks, where there just isn't a best team in the league? This feels like one of those March Madness tournaments in which, two four seeds and an eighth seed make the final four because the one seeds just aren't that much better than everyone else. Is that the case? In your mind, do you just think this season lacks a couple truly elite teams and that opens up the field for everybody else?

As of right now, for sure, because there aren't any. I mean, everyone that we've, you know, kind of thrown up there is the best team. They seem to have, you know, a couple stinkers early in the year. It's just like one or two, but at this point, they all seem to have two or more of them. and no one's really loving Arizona as like the true best team. I think there's still, you know, question marks there and, you know, their quarterback. Why do you think that is? It's just at a point where they have to prove it, and I'm not sure why they haven't necessarily

earned that. I think, well, I know Kingsbury gets a ton of crap for being a head coach and people don't trust him and his game management and all that stuff. I wonder if, you know, Kyler is doing such a specific version of NFL quarterbacking that we almost don't, again, trust that until he's made a deep playoff run. I think the defense is probably underrated. We just assume that's, you know, an offensive team with the head coach and the quarterback.

And, you know, we're not understanding just how good that defense is and how versatile it is as well. But, yeah, I mean, they would be the team that you'd say, oh, that's the best team in the NFL, but it just doesn't feel like that's the best team in the NFL. The flip side is, this is such a long season. I don't know about you, but it's still wild that we have, like, six or seven games left for each of these teams. It really is. And especially with how quickly everything is changing, six or seven games feels like a lifetime. Yeah. And so there's all these

teams with like two, three and four losses that could very easily just, you know, rip off a winning streak at the end of the season. They end up, you know, 13 and four. And it's like, okay, well, that was the best team in the NFL. So I think there's time for a team to separate themselves, whether that happens, especially this year, doesn't seem like that's going to be the case. But that's an interesting question. And yeah, at this point, there is, isn't like that one standout team? So you look at the Cardinals, right? They have that win over the Rams early in the season that was convincing.

That was one of the more impressive wins in the year at that point from anybody. They stomp the Browns. The Browns have been so up and down. It's hard to really contextualize what that performance means. And then they have that really big win over the Niners a couple weeks ago with Colt McCoy starting. But as you look at just how, again, how quickly things have shifted for all of these teams, it almost feels like the Rams win or especially the Titans win at the beginning of the year. It barely counts at this point.

It was in a different version of the NFL a lifetime ago. We talked about this on yesterday's show a little bit. With Kyler being out, it feels like we've almost pressed pause on the way we talk and think about them in the larger discourse because we haven't seen those ebbs and flows from them in the same way we have with other teams because the Cardinals team we know and want to watch has been on ice for a few weeks. And yet it should be the opposite that they've been able to be this good with the back of quarterback. And, you know, I played with Colt, you know, like 10 years ago. He's been around for a while.

He's had, you know, I'd say middling success in the NFL. And he's looked really good there for a couple weeks. You know, Green Bay is probably the other team that we would say is looked at the best in the NFC for the duration of the year. And their quarterback was out for a week and they look like crap. And so conversely, Arizona's looked awesome. They kept winning. So you would think that that would make you say, okay, well, this is a team that isn't just Kyler dependent. It's very well-rounded.

And they've got a ton of depth and they're able to win in multiple ways, which they are. But, yeah, again, it's just like no one talks about them. No one feels like that's the true best team in the NFL. When you were a really good team, like when you're sitting there in 2018 or even 2019, can you feel how good you are relative to the rest of the league? That may seem like a strange question, but I'm just wondering if any teams around the league feel that way right now. If they're sitting there being like, yeah, the results haven't been there, but we truly feel like we're caught above everybody else. Does a locker room sense that the way, how the hierarchy falls?

To a degree, I mean, you are pretty locked into the week to week, like, schedule. And so you think that you're the best and your record says that you're the best. And so you go out there and, you know, you beat these teams pretty handedly. And, you know, you're looking back and you're, you know, six and one or whatever. And it's like, okay, well, we are the best. We've beaten the best. And we've done it in a good way. And so you have that confidence.

But it's like on that given week against the opponent you're facing, you know, say they're not quite as good. It's not like, oh, we can take this one off and we'll still stomp them. It's like, no, this is a game. Like, we're going to put up six touchdowns and, you know, we're going to run it up. And then you go into the weeks where you're facing the good team. and it's like, okay, well, we know they're good, but we're better, so we're still going to beat them by 17. You know, there is that confidence that doesn't really matter how the game develops. You're going to win and you're going to win pretty confidently.

And so it's cool to be part of and it's cool to like see. But in terms of like stacking it up against the league at large, I think you don't do that quite as much because, again, you just get so logged into like stacking up against the team you're playing that specific week. That makes total sense. All right. Our next question said, hello Robert and Mitch. It's not out of the realm of possibility for the Packers to win 13 games for the third straight straight NFL season. Matt Lefleur is 13 and 2 in the NFC championship game. Yet it never feels like he gets as much credit as some Packers fans think he deserves.

When you and Mitch talked about your top offense of minds last week, his name wasn't really brought up. He's 2-2 against Kyle Shanahan, one-on-one against Sean McVey. He's 0-1 versus Frank Reich, but if MBS doesn't fumble the ball late, that game could have been flipped. Ignoring week one in the Jordan Love game, the offense has been good considering the left side of the offensive line has zero of its preferred starters together for a game this year. I'm just curious if you feel like Matt Lafleur gets the credit he deserves or not.

And if not, why do you think that is? I'm curious about how you see this. I mean, the if not is because they've gotten smacked in two straight NFC championship games. You know, I think it's that simple. I mean, on top of they have Aaron Rogers. So I think he gets, you know, kind of an extra. five wins just having the literal MVP of the NFL last year. And, you know, Rogers had a pretty

good year the year before as well. So I think it's a combination of, you know, they've gone 13 and three, two straight years. And they've had an awesome quarterback. So you kind of bake in the fact that like, it's a good team, good offensive line. They've got a top quarterback. So maybe the coach isn't quite as good. The quarterback is kind of carrying him. And then they get into the playoffs and they face, you know, the next best team in the conference. And they get beat and they get beat pretty handedly. You know, two years ago against San Francisco, you know, they threw the ball like eight times all game or whatever it was. They got beat pretty physically as well.

And so when you're playing those big games and you get beaten in a physical manner, I think it goes back on the coach more negatively than, you know, a hard fought game and duking it out and losing on a, you know, last second touchdown or field goal. And this year, I'd say he's starting to get the credit he deserves. You know, again, it's Aaron Rogers as the infrastructure. I guess if you ask Aaron, the roster is pretty shitty. So, you know, he is doing a good job with the crappy roster he was handed. But, yeah, I'd say it's hard to parse out what's LaFlor and what's Rogers because we know

this offense elevates offenses and team and quarterbacks, rather. You know, we've talked about it a couple times. And the reason McVeigh and Chanahan are in that conversation is because they've elevated golf and Garoppolo and, you know, Kyle's done in multiple places. obviously Andy Reid has a 20-plus year track record. Sean Payton has, you know, a 20-plus-year track record and McDaniels as well. So, like, those five guys that we talked about, they've had the track record and two of the five who are younger have shown that they can take a lesser quarterback and elevate them. And LaFleur, you know, for better or for worse, hasn't had that opportunity.

He hasn't had the lesser quarterback that he can elevate. And so, you know, potentially after Rogers leaves, you know, maybe he'll get to see that. It is a good roster on the whole. But yeah, he's designed great offenses. They're doing good stuff. I mean, they got slam for, you know, taking a running back in the second round, and that guy's turned around to be a good player, and they've utilized him well. So they're doing a lot of good stuff.

I think it'll just come down to what happens in the playoffs again. How do you extricate a quarterback's contribution from a coaches? Because I know it's hard for me to do it while I'm watching. Do you feel like you have a sense of how to do that? It would take a lot of, I think, time and film watching and something that I don't, you know, currently do or necessarily have the skill set for because I'm locked into, you know,

offensive line stuff and I can tell some formations and, oh, that's a cool wrinkle. But I don't necessarily know if he's the one creating that wrinkle. You know, you see Coach Reed has a cool play. Everyone copies it. You know, a couple years ago, McVeigh had the, you know, fake the jet sweep,

fake the hand off, fake the end around, screen back to the running back. Everyone started running that play. Well, it's like, is Lafleur, creating those plays himself. Is he, you know, taking the offense that he knows and adding to it and, you know, really building on in a substantial way? Or is he just, you know, very knowledgeable of that offense and he knows what to call it the right time? I think there's two different ways to parse that out. You know, there's the coordinators that understand, you know, the system that they learned and

can get into a groove with, you know, calling plays and knowing what to look for in defenses and how to attack. And then the top guys are creators. And so they're understanding the defense. And so they're understanding the defense better than the defense understands it itself and they know how to attack and find these seams and these voids. And it would take someone who's able to, you know, watch the film and really figure out which of those he falls into. I don't necessarily have that skill set, nor do I watch film in that manner. But it would be interesting to, you know, kind of compare his offenses to other offenses that face the same defense and see, you know, is he taking stuff from the team that played two weeks ago and using it, or is he kind of creating new stuff from his foundation?

I would say the outside perspective of how the Packers version of that offense differs from some of the other ones that we've seen is that Rogers is the differentiator, not only because of the quality of quarterback play that you get from Aaron Rogers, but because of the specific things that Aaron Rogers is able to do with the line of scrimmage and the specific things that Aaron Rogers does well, right? So if you think about all the different flavors of that offensive system that we've seen over the last five to seven years, the Packers version of it is different because of the RPO game that Aaron Rogers can play at the line in scrimmage, it's the bubbles, it's the fake bubble little vertical that they ran yesterday to Devante Adams.

It was awesome, right? But all of those things are kind of an offshoot of the aspect of the offense that Rogers brings. So again, it just makes it even more naughty and complicated and hard to figure out. I do think they do a really good job of figuring out ways to hide Adams within the offense, right? The ways they put him in the slot, the ways they use motion to get guys off of him. I think that they have done a really good job of understanding how to deploy the best receiver in the league and they've built it around their strengths.

This is a really complicated process, trying to parse all of this stuff and separate it out and divvy out credit because, There's no way to know how much work Rogers does the line of scrober compared to other people, all of that stuff. So I think it's really difficult. I think at the core of it, the reason that we do not give Matt Lefleur as much credit as other people is that he walked into a situation where he was playing with and coaching one of the greatest players in the history of the NFL and in the history of the sport.

He wasn't playing that well before LeFleur got there, which is another complicating factor in this entire thing. But I do think that's at the center of it. And I know that I'm guilty of that. Yeah, I mean, that makes total sense that I'd imagine Rogers is kind of number one. Again, to me, like the last two years in the playoffs, it's just in the most important games of the year, they haven't really shown up and played super well. So that's, you know, a factor.

But yeah, it's nice to, you know, take a job and, you know, have one of the greatest players in NFL history. I can't really knock the guy for that. And he's had as much or more success than you would expect. I mean, again, this is a very similar roster and they're doing a lot better than they had the few years before under McCarthy, as you pointed out, he's obviously gotten, you know, the most out of Rogers in the last few years. And so, you know, you could say, you know, theoretically he has elevated that guy's play.

I mean, he's playing incredible ball and obviously mentally stimulating enough to, you know, keep his attention and keep him, you know, wanting more and competitive. Because the last year or two under McCarthy, it seemed like, you know, Rogers definitely was frustrated and I don't know if checked out as the right terminology, but not quite as mentally engaged. and we're seeing that now. So credit to Lafleur for being able to unlock that. All right. Let's get to our first voice mail here.

Hey, Mays. First time, long time. With Thanksgiving coming up recently, and I know Mitch is on the show, I thought I'd try to get a player's opinion. My wife was quizzing me on how players have off during the week, you know, based on a Thursday game versus Sunday game. I was trying to go off how vets have off on Monday some time. And then I don't think they practice on Saturday,

so I don't really have an insight that much of that. But with the Cardinals on a buy, it didn't really feel the same as during a normal NFL week. I was curious what players do they want to buy? Do they watch football? Do they just try to get away from it as fast as they have out if we can? You know, I'd love to hear his opinion. Thanks.

This is a great question because I really don't know the answer to this, exactly how most players spend their buy a week. So I'm curious. How would you answer that? It depends on the guy. You know, I love watching football. Obviously, you're talking about football with you throughout the year. So I watch football.

I love to talk about it and be part of that. And so I would try to, you know, schedule my bi-week travels around having Sunday to myself, you know, to watch football and to enjoy it because that was the only time I really got to do it unblemished. I would say for the most part, guys go on vacation, whether that's back to your hometown for a few days, whether that's to Miami or somewhere warm, especially this time of year. But for the most part, you're going to get out of the city that you're living in full time and that you're stuck in throughout the majority of the year. That's why you definitely don't want to be injured during the by week.

It's kind of funny how the training room tends to thin out a little bit in the week or two right before the buy because guys are magically a lot healthier and they're able to travel and they don't have commitments to be there every single day getting better for rehab. But for the most part, I'd say guys go somewhere that they can have fun, take their mind off of football. You know, Coach Reed is notorious for giving teams the full week off and he's had a great record doing that. you know other teams you know new england in particular you know they tend to keep guys get there as much as possible not them specifically but like that's why in the last cb a you know we had some mandates on bi weeks and Thursday night games and stuff on mandatory consecutive days off because before what teams would do is they were like you know over a seven day period give you four days

off but they'd alternate you know Tuesday on Thursday on Saturday on and you couldn't really get away you know, you could fly out for, you know, one night and come back the next day. But they tried to make it so you couldn't travel or get out of town. You know, that's kind of stopped now. So if you have a buy, you have a mandatory four consecutive days off, which allows you to get out of town, go do what you want. For me, you know, and for my wife, typically it was going somewhere warmer with a beach, you know, hanging out, relaxing, you know, poolside.

I don't really drink, so I'm not like getting wasted for the week. and just lounging, reading a good book, mind off football, and then, you know, Sunday watch all the games. Best part of the buy is you still get paid a normal salary, so you're able to make the same amount of money you make during the game, except you're not playing and you get to watch all the other suckers you have to play that week. So I always took a lot of pride in being able to send on my couch that Sunday and enjoy it. Do you have a favorite bi-week trip that you took? We went down to Miami one year, and we were there, I think, for four nights and like two, of the nights it rained and it was like oh man we went to miami like in november and it was you know almost like

summer storms and wasn't quite uh what we wanted it to be but nothing that stands out off the top of my head more than you know just getting out of town and uh enjoying ourselves it we tried to go somewhere you know different i tended to get a little bit worried about like going somewhere more international so I try to stay in the United States because I'm just a warrior and, you know, with travel, I know you got some travel up coming here soon. I just don't want to risk that. And so I try to stay local and, you know, hit up one of the coasts. I totally understand that.

I would feel the exact same way. You just, if you're stuck in Italy or whatever and you're supposed to play the Raiders the next week, it's kind of the worst case scenario. Well, I mean, I don't think you're going to Italy per se, but if you're going down to like Mexico, you're going up to, you know, Canada, you know, you know, you're supposed to play the Raiders. you know, you don't necessarily want to, if you have to be there Monday for, you know, the mandatory meetings and practice, to me, I would never risk flying back on that Sunday because, you know, you're probably getting a connecting flight.

You're flying out of a foreign country. So that kind of effectively cuts your bi-week off by a day if you're, you know, worried about traveling, going somewhere that you have to come back a day early. All right. Let's get to our next one here. Peter Hudson asks, how much do major injury problems, especially with one position, is hit like the Titans receivers have been, affect the entire game plan and overall preparation. This is a really interesting question because we had some examples last year where you had

entire position groups wiped out, right? Like the Cowboys this week, they didn't have C.D. Lamb or Amari Cooper. I don't know if you have ever experienced this where an entire group gets wiped out with injuries or you're missing a couple guys. But when you have to do that on short notice, how much does it affect a game plan? Like how much can you actually put in during the week when you have to pivot? like that so quickly. It has a major impact.

I'd say O-line and receiver, probably more than anything. I mean, for the most part, you don't necessarily see teams with like three tight ends hurt. You still have, you know, probably two of your four guys and you're able to make do with that. I mean, running backs, we all know they don't matter, right? So it doesn't really matter unless you're Tennessee. If you're running back gets hurt. That's a joke. They're people.

I believe running backs matter. But receivers, you know, definitely change the offense because, you know, say you've got your three starting receivers, you know, your fourth and fifth guys, for the most part, they have a role. It's not like they're spotting, you know, all three guys. You know, the chiefs are, you know, a good example. It's not like McColl necessarily would be going in for, you know, back in the day Sammy Watkins' job. I mean, they've got such different body types and such different play styles that if Sammy's hurt, do you just plug me colon? Well, you can't do that because they're asked to do different things. And so now that's where things start to change. Kyle Shanahan is, you know, big on talking about

is, you know, five receivers kind of like a basketball unit where you kind of want different guys for different roles. Well, if three of those five guys are injured and the other two have, you know, backups that are similar body types and now you have four point cards, well, that changes things. I mean, if you have four guys that are, you know, five, ten, and one 85, you can't do some of the stuff that you want to do. So it has a big impact, you know, like I said, especially at the receiver position. O-line, you just tend to get conservative. You just don't trust your O-line to hold up and you don't trust them to help the quarterbacks. You tend to run more and run on early downs and quicker passes.

And again, we've talked about how that kind of snowballs and, you know, forces teams and offenses into worse third down situations, which really exposes O lines more. But defensively, it would be interesting because you kind of just have to roll out there. I mean, you can't really hide four guys or hurt on the D-line. You're kind of just stuck with that. I suppose you could blitz a little bit more. But for the most part, I feel like you kind of just have to roll out there with what you got. I mean, if three defensive backs are down, like, you still have to cover the team,

you know, who's playing against you. So there's only so much you can do. Or offensively, like, because guys have such specific roles, I think it takes a bit more, you know, mixing and matching to figure out how to best combat that. Yeah, it feels like offensive line would be the toughest position to deal with it. Obviously, in the Super Bowl last year, you guys had a pretty unique situation, but yet a couple weeks to prepare for that, which is a little bit different. Oh, that went well, so. I think that you, because here's the offensive line and DB are two groups that are often compared to one another just because they're reliance on one another, right? Like that group plays as a whole unlike almost any other position group on the field.

I would want to see the numbers on this, but based on conversations with defensive coaches and even defensive players, it's much easier if you have a rash of DB injuries if you're a man coverage team. if that's the way that you live because it's really easy to teach that, right? Like your players aren't going to be as good, but you no longer become reliance on the other players if you're just like, this is your guy, go out there and play man coverage. But if you're a team that plays all this zone and you have guys that aren't used to playing with each other, aren't used to communicating with each other, that's its own sort of disaster. On the offensive line, there's no version of man coverage, right? Like, inevitably, you all have to play together.

So I do think that's the one where a rash of injuries would be toughest to deal with. Yeah, the defensive back thing is interesting, though, because say two of your best four corners are hurt, I'm not sure that playing those guys in man coverage is better than backups and zone coverage with a little bit more help. That's an interesting one. I mean, honestly, the last two years in college, we've seen COVID regulations. If you don't have enough guys at a position, they just don't play the game. So it does have an impact. Like, if you don't have enough guys, you know, typically, you know, that's more for health and safety. And you know, you wouldn't want to go into a game with like six offense alignment.

But the quality drops off so dramatically that it's tough to play at a offensive line with, you know, three guys missing. Last year, by the time we got to the Super Bowl, it was kind of like five guys missing because, you know, I was out, fish was out. You know, Larry had opted out. Lucas had opted out. And Assembly was hurt too. So like all five of us would have been playing at that point if we were healthy. So we were basically missing an entire offensive line. So yeah, that definitely hurts.

And as you said, I mean, there's only so much help you can scheme up with an O-line. Like at the end of the day, third and eight is third and eight, and you still got to block the guys. And so, yeah, there's less hiding. There's less, you know, working around it. It's just kind of a crappy situation. And there are things you do to obviously help the O-line, but you kind of have to just rely on, you know, your coaching your front office to get you that quality depth. You know, that's something that, you know, the best teams are going to have guys that they can,

you know, plug in there. and give you some good snaps and a couple good games throughout the year. How would you, I mean, I know this requires a lot more specifics than just this hypothetical, but I'm going to ask it anyway. How would you approach a game, let's say, where your two starting tackles are hurt? If you feel like a run heavy game plan and getting into those third and sevens is actually counterproductive, what do you think is the best way to hide a couple backup offensive linemen and still allow your offense to function?

Really in the first and second down and the game especially, I think you do. want to get some of the quicker passing stuff. This is going to sound dushy, so I understand. I was smart enough to know when, you know, we started calling more conservative plays. And it's like, oh, well, he doesn't really trust us or, you know, we have a couple of guys out and, you know, we're going against, you know, Khalil Mack. And all of a sudden it's like, well, you know, we're going to start, you know, throwing these quicker plays and running more.

And, you know, third and eight, you're running a screen instead of running a dropback. I'm not sure that, you know, most backups would have that, you know, kind of ability to understand that but it can be a little bit defeating when you know that like oh well it's third name and we're running you know a three-step drop from you know i guess old school under center um but there is an element of like telling your guys that you don't trust them because of the play calling um i don't know how much again that's able to sink in but i think early as i said on first and second downs throwing the ball really you know rhythm throws you know really talking to your quarterback that week about hey man you know we're going to try to stay on rhythm get the ball out you know make these guys feel good

For the most part, most linemen are decent enough, and especially if they trust themselves. So getting them that ability to trust their pass set, trust the timing, trust their hands early in the game, that'll bleed over into those third down situations. And for me, I'd run relatively similar offense. I would obviously skew a little bit more of those rhythm, quicker throws. But I think you just build in formational help, you know, for tackles especially. You don't necessarily have to chip and hit the defense events every single. time, but you can do these, you know, tighter, squeezy formations and make defensive ends uncomfortable. And if there are two backup tackles playing, you know, and a tight end and a running

back are aligned on the line of scrimmage next to both tackles, they're going to assume they're getting chipped just because they know that it's not the starters and they're trying to give them help. So just the threat of getting chipped is already in their head and they're thinking about it, maybe they're a little bit slow. And that gives the tackle an advantage. So you don't necessarily have to, like, actually chip and hit them every single time. But you build in these formational advantages to just kind of mess with the defensive ends and give your tackles a little bit of help, allow them to get confident and start trusting themselves. And then again, rely on your offensive line coach and your GM to have given you good enough guys and, you know, good enough online coach to coach them up that week.

All right. Let's get to our next one here. Eric Tyler Pritt says, big fan of the show, got a question I think might be up your alley and Mitch might have some interesting insight on. I'm curious about perceived value of positions on offense versus their similar position on defense. Basically, if you're a GM of an expansion team, so you have no players, what would you look at first after quarterback? Would you look at a wide receiver or a corner, an offensive tackle or an edge rusher, a running back slash tight end or a linebacker, into your offensive line or interior defensive line? Assuming the player available for each position is elite, which is more valuable. For example, the difference between the top five wide receivers in the league and receivers five through 10 seems closer than the top five DBs and the DBs five through 10.

So it was an elite corner more valuable. I think this is a fascinating conversation. I've talked about this a lot, right? I've had so many hypotheticals and mailbag conversations and off-season discussions about if you're starting a team from scratch, how would you stack up position of value? But I've never talked with you about this. So as you look at this question, how do you think about it?

Let's start with the offense defense question first. If you're looking at a receiver versus a corner or a pass rusher versus an offensive tackle, which would you lean toward? I mean, obviously offense, especially in today's football. I mean, the Green Bay game yesterday, you know, Devonte basically just took over that game. And even when Rams was covering him, he seemed to, you know, do pretty well against the guy who's considered to be among the best corners is not the best corner of football right now. So typically the offensive guy, you know, you're the one who's in charge of the situation.

You're, you know, dictating. You're the aggressor. So the, you know, onus is typically put on the defender to try to counteract that, which is a lot more difficult. So the offense tends to have the advantage there. In terms of the overall team building, it's such a tough question because, you know, the best left tackle in football and four subpar offense alignment forms a really bad offensive line and you're never going to win any games. So it doesn't really help to have the best left tackle in football if your other four

alignment are, you know, below average. So that's where it gets into like if you only choose one of them, like which would you choose. It's so dependent on who else you have, you know, on your roster. To, you know, the person's point, it is true that, like, it's hard to find an elite lockdown corner. And so the best five guys are better than, you know, receivers 10 through 15, you know, proportionally, I'd say the, you know, top five left tackles or offensive tackles and football are, you know, really valuable.

And, you know, when you see what they can do for a team, especially for quarterbacks, I mean, like, I mean, I've been banging the right tackle is the same as left tackle drum for a while. But the quarterback has to have trust. and confidence in his offense alignment. And if he's a guy who likes to know that that left side as a right-handed quarterback is a little bit more secure, you know, he's got a Trent Williams, a Tyron Smith, you know, one of these guys who just lock it down for you, there's a definite advantage

there. And there is something that you can't measure. Like you can't measure quarterback's trust in his left tackle. But it's there. I mean, we see it all the time when, you know, good left tackles go down. And, you know, the backup comes in and, you know, gives up a couple sacks, a couple pressures and the quarterback, you know, starts getting antsy in the pocket. He's looking to his left. He's looking down. His eyes aren't downfield. It's a thing that definitely exists. And so that left tackle has

an impact on the quarterback in a way that most other positions don't have. And so if, you know, quarterback aside, you're saying, what position do you want? I kind of lean towards left tackle because of that because he's the one who makes the quarterback feel most comfortable and the quarterback is the guy who drives the whole thing. So that's how I'd go at the moment. You know, there's definitely that argument for the receiver, but I don't know, I just lean towards the offensive alignment. I think I still believe this. Even after the whole Jamar Chase, Pena Sula thing, I still think it's harder to find a great offensive tackle than it is to find a great receiver, just in the way the league currently works. I think the pool of players, who you can deem elite receivers, is deeper

than the pool of players that you would deem elite offensive tackles. I just believe that. I mean, you look at how many guys come out in virtually every single draft now at that position. So that's something to take into account. And overall, I think my general answer to this question would be that teams that I would deem analytically forward or are thinking about these sorts of things in this way, right? They're thinking about positional value. They're thinking about what we would do in a vacuum.

the belief, the widespread belief is that you should build your offense. You should be investing in your offense as heavily as possible. You should want to try to build a top five offense every single year because it's more cordial with winning and it's more sustainable. It's more consistent. Offense is consistent from year to year. So if you look at the Browns right now, right? The Browns with Andrew Barry at the helm here have just invested all of this money

into their offensive line. Their first free agent spree... Literally all the money. Yes, all the money. Their first free agent spree two years ago was on Conklin and Austin Hooper and they're building the offense. And when they built the offense and they had 11 starters, then they went to the defense. But that's where they're investing their long-term money.

And I think that if you look at what the chiefs have done, right? I mean, the chiefs, when they already had their best offense in football, drafted McColl Hardman in the second round, they drafted a running back in the first round. You could quibble with positional value there, but the values and the priorities of that organization are clear in that method, right? They're trying to build the best offense possible every single year. They did it again this offseason with the way they invested in the offensive wine. So I do believe that is the prudent way to err in these discussions. I'm always going to go offense first.

The cornerback versus receiver thing to me is interesting because I do think that the pool of corners is a little bit. slimmer, but I think overall, as an overarching rule, I'm going to err toward offensive pretty much all of these cases. Yeah, I'm with you on that. You're definitely correct that, you know, the pool of elite defensive backs and, you know, corners especially cover guys is smaller than the receivers. And so in that, you know, specific instance, I'd lean, you know, towards the elite corner over the elite receiver because you can find others. You know, it was always interesting for me, especially back when the right tackle market kind of sucked. Like, you know, we were making six to seven a year at the top end going against, you know,

von Miller and JJ Watt who were making 18 to 20 million a year. And it's like, all right, I have to block this guy who's making 20 million a year. And like, you're saying he's three times more valuable to a team than, you know, my position is. I always thought that was a little bit interesting. I know contracts are more based off of, you know, kind of historical stuff and they don't necessarily scale linearly or with the true value of what a position brings. But I always did think that was a little bit interesting that, you know, right tackles were getting paid literally three times less than the position they were blocking. How'd you feel about that? Oh, it was great. It was, uh, you know, really fun.

I mean, that's the thing. It's like you can complain, you know, people don't love hearing that because we're making so much anyway, but it's just like at any time, you're always, you know, wanting to do more, make more, you know, all that stuff. So it was kind of crappy. I mean, I'm, that's why I'm happy for right tackles now because we finally are getting paid at a much higher clip. And, a lot closer to left tackles and, you know, the top defensive ends are making, you know, 27 and a half to 30 million and right tackles are still only making, you know, quote unquote, only making 18, 18 and a half million a year. So for whatever reason, still only 60% is valuable as the guys were blocking. I don't quite understand that, but it seems like, you know,

defense-align is much more valuable, you know, percentage-wise to the cap than a single offensive the tackle is. It's just a kind of interesting quirk. Do you believe that investing that much in one premier past rush or one premier defensive lineman is sound strategy? Like do you think one often, do you think Joey Bosa can

be worth $27 million a year? Can, yeah. But again, it goes back to like what else is he surrounded by because I mean, you guys are a pretty good indicator of that. Like, yeah, Khalil Mack had that one, you know, awesome year kind of drove things, but also

Joachim Hicks was great and, like, there were corners who could cover and they had a couple really good linebackers. And so much in the way we talk about quarterbacks and really any other position, if the other stuff is surrounding them that's, you know, really good and like, okay, this one piece is going to push us over the top, then yeah, it's worth it. But if it's just one great pass rusher and there's not much else around him, I mean, there's only so much you can do with it, you want to look at like Cleveland this year. Their defense hasn't been that great.

They've got Miles, who's probably the defensive MVP at this point. But there's only so much he can do for as dominant he is. You know, Aaron Donald has been the best defensive tackle in football for eight plus years. There's only so much he could do until he got, you know, Jalen and Brandon Saley's mind and his other D-Lyman started balling out around him. So one individual, you know, pass rusher isn't going to transform a defense or team. Again, in the same way, one dominant left tackle, you know, aka Joe Thomas, isn't going to do much for, you know, an offense or a franchise. guys is just we're so dependent on who else is on our team and what else is around us that one individual piece, it's just tough to have that big of an impact.

I think that I believe you could have one, you can pay one pass rusher that much, paying two gets dicey. I think having one truly elite player in the back end and the front end and trying to build around that, I think that to me is still the best strategy. because obviously resources are limited and if I'm going to prioritize offense, I can't have the most stacked defense in the NFL so you have to cut corners somewhere

and I think that what the Rams have done a little bit what a team like Cleveland has thought about with Ward and Miles Garrett even though the results haven't been great so far I still think that's probably how I'd go about it in a vacuum. Yeah, I mean even if you look at Sinci this year I mean they let Lawson go and he had some injuries and stuff and they hadn't utilized them quite as well

but they signed Hendrickson to a deal that most people thought was overmarket. And he's had an awesome year. And, you know, he's been a big part of that defense and getting pressure on the quarterback. You talk about the Jets and the preseason and Lawson, you know, quote unquote, transformed the defense. And he was the guy, you know, getting to the quarterback. So those guys definitely do have a role and a piece. And especially if it's a guy that you drafted, you know, he's balled out for three or four years.

I'm all for rewarding that guy and, you know, making him part of your long-term plans. really health is the only determining factor there because, you know, all the offense line will tell you, it doesn't matter if Abosa only has two sacks or not. He's still the thing you think about when you go to bed every night the week you're playing. Like, he's still an awesome player and someone you worry about. And I guarantee, you know, the coordinator and the offensive line coach is worrying about that guy all week as well. And, you know, your alternate game plans based on, you know, that guy being there. So having an elite player at a position that gets after the quarterback and can have that big of an impact on the game. Yeah, I'm all for having a guy. Again, I wouldn't have two of them, especially since, you know, an elite defensive

and an elite defensive tackle would cost you 50 million right now. Like, that's something that probably isn't too palatable. All right, I got one more here. And speaking of positional value, I think this gets to the core of it a little bit. Wendell Ferreira says, hey, guys, Michael Parsons has been amazing, both as an offball lineback or an edge rusher. Considering positional value, do you think the Cowboys should move him to edge full time. Thank you. I appreciate your work. We've gotten a couple of questions similar to this over

the last couple weeks and I wanted to save it. I'm wondering how you think about this because as an edge rusher, he has more value, right? Again, in a vacuum than he does as an off ball winebacker. But do you think having somebody that can do both and the way that that plays with an offense's expectations, the things you have to plan for, do you think that having him off the ball every once in a while in order to create kind of those layers of confusion a little bit more complexity is worth it even if he has more value down to down as a pass rusher. There is an element of him being the off ball guy that makes it kind of confusing on an O line because you go into a week and you say, all right, how do we treat him?

You know, when he's lined up over the offensive tackle, I'll see a defensive end. Okay, well, now he's standing off the ball. Do we still treat him as a defensive end? Do we have to count for him everywhere he's going? You know, Houston did that with clowning for a while. They had him, like, walking around. And at the end of the day, clowning was coming. So that was a pretty easy one.

Like, hey, there's clowning. We're going to block him. We're going to count for him. You know, there's so few guys that you can really take and say, all right, you know, he's off the ball. Now we don't have to worry about him. You know, typically that guy becomes part of, you know, your count as an offense alignment and part of the blocking scheme.

So Dallas potentially, you know, especially if he can just play kind of stand up defensive end. And, you know, he's got the best. back out of the back field. He can, you know, cover the back as the back flares out. But he's accounted for from that right tackle. And now the right tackle is like, okay, you know, Parsons is my guy. Well, the running back goes out on a route and Parsons doesn't come. You know, you're still going to take your panic past that because he's so quick and you're still going to, you know, fly out of there. You're not going to be in a great position to block someone else if he's coming. And so there is some value there. I don't know how much, you know, he'd have to really play true off the ball linebacker to,

have enough value to kind of mess with pass blocking schemes. At the end of the day, the most value comes from getting out to the quarterback. So he's doing that at a pretty insane rate right now. I would just leave him there. I mean, having three elite pass rushers when they're all healthy is a good problem for a team to have. I don't think being able to cover a tight end or a running back slightly better is worth not having, you know, a third dominant pass rusher on the field, especially in a third down situation. I mean, could you imagine if those three, I mean, if Randy Gregory,

Marcus Lawrence and Michael Parsons are all fully healthy and confident and terrorizing quarterbacks, like all three of those are elite guys over offensive tackles who were the best pass blockers. Now put one of them over a center or a guard, and you can start doing absolutely crazy stuff. I mean, we see defensive ends who get kicked down over guards and they just have too much speed and quickness and guards aren't used to that. When out any one of those three can kick down, they can play off each other.

You can put all three of them on the same side. died. I mean, geez, the possibilities are endless. And so I like, you know, having three dominant pass rushers, more than two dominant pass rushers and a, you know, pretty good off the ball linebacker. I'd imagine most teams would agree with that. But I guess we'll see what they do. Yeah, I think in a lot of situations saying we're going to rush five and have that be the baseline of our offense is probably a good idea, right? And in certain situations, you walk him up and then he drops out. I think having the ability to play off ball linebacker just as a way to be. to keep teams off balance is a good thing.

But leaning more toward him playing more as an edge, him rushing the pastor more, I do think that's the way to get the most out of him. But I think, again, the more you can do, it's not a bad thing. It's not a bad thing that he can play both. And being able to deploy him both ways, just gives you different sort of options.

It makes an offense have to account for him in a different way. And I think at the end of the day, that's a good thing. Would you tend towards using him off the ball on like first and second down and then past situations come and you drop them down to rush, or do you like the idea of him being like an all-around defense alignment and then like, oh, it's third down. Now we can use him to like cover the tight end or cover the running back on these past situations.

Like which would you kind of lean in that type of situation? I do like that as an option where he's on first and second down when you're not necessarily going to blitz or you're not in a past heavy look and you're using him as a defense event. I do think that makes sense. And then when you have those, all right, now we're going to be mugged up and we're going to have all of these creepers around the line of skirmage, that's when the confusion about where he's going to be almost becomes more important. So, yeah,

I think it's a general strategy. I do like that. Yeah, and it's interesting because you'd normally do it the other way, right? You'd have him be an off all linebacker on first and second down. Like, oh, now it's a pass rush. Now you can go rush the passer. But in this weird way,

like he's better as, you know, a defensive end on first and second down. And then third down, he's good enough to cover guys, you know, one-on-one and man coverage, or in zone stuff.

And he creates that confusion. because the offensive line is probably going to want to account for him. And now of a sudden you're potentially getting free runners or at the quarterback or you are able to isolate the running back one-on-one with a true blitzer. All right. We could keep doing this for a while, but I have a plane to catch. So we got to get out of here. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to do this, buddy.

I always do. We'll be back with you next week. I appreciate all of you guys listening. Thank you so much for sending in your questions. Always means a ton that you take the time to do that. We'll be back tomorrow with a very special guest. I don't want to give it away quite yet, but it is a conversation I'm very much looking forward to.

In the meantime, please rate interview the podcast on your podcast platform of choice, and please subscribe to The Athletic. I believe our Black Friday deal is over, but that does not mean that you should not be gifting it to someone, that you should not be getting your athletic subscription. And as soon as you can, Theathletic.com slash football show. Please jump on that. We'll be back tomorrow.

We'll talk to you guys soon. This was The Athletic Football Show. No.