The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Mailbag Monday: A shifting of the QB age cliff, a longer leash for GMs, and a new occupant of the Derek Carr line

Episode Date: June 16, 2025

Robert Mays, Derrik Klassen and Michael Beller went back out to the TAFS mailbox and found another stack of great letters. On this edition of the Mailbag, Robert and Derrik answer questions on the possibility of the QB age cliff shifting (in the wrong direction), whether GMs should get a longer leash before losing their jobs, their ideal—and financially feasible—offensive lines, the new occupant of the Derek Carr Line, and much more.Hosts: Robert Mays and Derrik KlassenWith: Michael BellerExecutive Producer: Michael BellerProducer: Michael BellerSubscribe to The Athletic Football Show...⁠Apple⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠YouTube⁠Follow Robert on Bluesky: @robertmays.bsky.socialFollow Derrik on Bluesky: @qbklass.bsky.socialFollow Beller on Bluesky: @mbeller.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. It's another Mailbag Monday here on the Athletic Football Show. A ton of great questions. Really appreciate everyone who sent them in. No reason to belabor this. Let's get to this conversation with Michael Beller and Derek Klausen right now. Another Mailbag Monday here on the Athletic Football Show.

Another series of great questions. Sincerely appreciate everybody who spends the time to send these in because they're good every single time. We will never get to all the ones that we want to get to. So sincerely appreciate that. Here to help me work through those questions, like we always do, it is our co-hosts here at the Athletic Football Show, Derek Classen, and our producer, Michael Beller,

whose dulcet tones you are going to hear reading the questions. I'm very glad we've kicked into this version of it, Beller. Make things a lot easier for me, and I think just a lot smoother overall. I've loved it, as you guys know. And also, I've had these like lingering cold symptoms for like three weeks that for whatever reason won't go away. Yeah, I think that's probably it.

It sucks for me, but I feel like it takes what is already, I'm not afraid to say it myself, pretty great voice and makes it even a little bit richer and a little bit better. So I hope the listeners have been enjoying that too. So you're saying to make myself a better podcast host, I should be like licking the L platform. That's what I should be doing consistently. I'd be really good then. Yeah, hang out with a bunch of parents of four and two year olds who are bringing daycare viruses home with them all the time and you'll be great.

Yeah, just get like child sickness or start chains. smoking again. Like said something to like to roughen up the voice a little bit in a good way. We, I've always rationalized the fact that we haven't had kids yet in the sense that like, you know, whatever. Like I'll be 40. It'll be fine. I'll be on better footing. Like I'll be more equipped to handle it. And then you think about the lack of sleep and the sickness part of it and how if I don't get six hours of sleep now, I can't function at 37. And if I'm sick, I can't do anything. And the fact that both of those things are going to come at me. a way they never have as I turn like 40 years old. I miscounted the men a little bit. I'm

going to be honest with you. Excuse me. There it is. Right there. Perfect. Get ready for that. I am 40 on the dot right now. So I had the first one at 36. And yeah, it's, it's exactly what you're saying. Good stuff. I'm really looking forward to it. Let's get into these questions so I can stop thinking about how awful my life is going to be in three years. Oh, it's going to be great. And this is a great question from Tony neighbor to get us going. He says, my question centers on personal fandom. I grew up a loose Cowboys fan in Iowa. I would watch them when they were on, but at that time, the NFL was more regional, and I ended up with more NFC North games. I moved to Arizona for five years and became an Arizona Cardinals fan watching and going to games.

I have since moved back to Bears country, and I am struggling with who is my favorite team? Do I go back to my childhood roots and be a fan of the Cowboys? Do I purchase NFL Sunday ticket and stick with my Arizona Cardinals fandom? Or do I adopt the team of the area I live in currently and become a Bears fan? Thanks, guys. Again, love the show. Very excited to listen for another year. Robert, he's bringing up the Bears, so you got to take this one first.

So I emailed Tony because I wanted more information, by the way. I was like, I need more information specifically about the Cardinals aspect of this. And I was like, why did you start rooting for the Cardinals? Was it solely a matter of convenience or were there elements of the current Cardinals team that you started to appreciate? And he said, you know, at the beginning in the Kime era where, you know, the Kime Cliff era where there was a lot of struggles, it was a matter of convenience since Gannon got hired and they started doing some interesting stuff and just became a little bit more of an exciting team.

I think that there was like an affinity that he developed for this version of the Cardinals. And because of that, to me, I think my answer is the Cardinals. The Cowboys, absolutely not. Like there's not a single reason to dive back into Cowboys fandom in 2025 unless that's been, you are a died in the wall, Cowboys fan, that's been your entire life. With the Bears, I think the other kind of offshoot question I would ask here, how old is Tony? Because if you're a little bit older and you don't really need the communal aspect, of fandom, you don't think you'll be watching out in a bar, all that kind of stuff.

Then I think adopting the local team just to do it is a little bit less appealing. If you're 24 and you think that's going to be a big part of your day to day, maybe you drift toward the Bears. But I think having a weird team that no one else roots for in the city where you live and having that team be quirky and interesting for really one of the first times ever, pay the 350 bucks and watch Cardinals games. It makes you a more interesting person. sorry Derek I'm going to jump in really quick I think I'm going to guess I'm going to guess Tony's a touch younger because Robert if this were you or me writing this you would have said NFC central games when you were a kid not NFC that's what that's actually a really good bit of context so I do think he's probably a little bit younger and if that's the case and if you again how many people do you know in this new city do you feel like going out and watching Bears games and being part of that will help you meet people like we too many things are taking us away from social interaction these days if you need different avenues to embrace that I encourage

rigid. But if that's not something at front of mind for you, I think that being a Cardinals fan and hanging on to that will be a more interesting experience. I think that's basically why I lined is like, which of these is the most fun for you whatever, for whatever reason? If it's just the wackiness of whatever you think the Cardinals are going to be over the next handful of years, then pick them. If you think there's something exciting about what the Bears might be now with Ben Johnson and Caleb Williams, then pick them. If like you said, something more about the social aspect of going out and watching one of these teams in that city is what attracts you to be a fan, then go pick that. To me, there is no honor in like, I have to be a fan of this team for the rest of my life

or any of that. Like, who gives a shit? If you want to be a Bears fan for the next three years, and then you move again to, I don't know, Houston and you become a Houston Texans fan because they're really fun, then so be it. So to me, it's just like whatever you feel like is going to keep you engaged in loving the sport for one reason or another, pick that team. If you want to use 2025 is like a year-long team rush period where you're soliciting differently. You're like, all right, I don't know. Does this fit me? Do I like these guys?

If you want to use this season to do that and get a lay of the land for where you live and how much you want to be a part of it, I completely support that. You do not have to make this decision on June 13th because it's an important decision. Clearly, this is somebody who listens to this weird NFL podcast and took the time to send an email to us. So clearly football has an important role when Tony's life. and I want him to do everything he can to feel like he's making the right decision.

And these two teams specifically, I'm already throwing out the Cowboys again, sorry. But between the Cardinals and the Bears, it's like pivotal years in their franchises, right? It's like, this is kind of like to prove a year for the Cardinals. And then for the Bears, it's like, are they finally going to have a good offense for the first time

in, I think probably Tony's lifetime and certainly mine? Part of this is that I can't in good conscience suggests that someone becomes a Bear fan. It's like being like, hey, try cocaine. I'm sure it'll be fine. I can't do that with a clean conscience. So I think that's part of the reason I'm also just nudging him back toward the Cardinals because I think it's a healthier set of life choices than whatever I've endured over the past four decades.

There's absolutely no question about that. Let's get to our next question from Alex Bartnick. Alex says, with outside the pocket movement and running in general becoming more and more important to the quarterback position, is it possible that the longevity we have seen in recent years at the position falls off. In a recent show, you talked about quarterbacks reaching their mental maturity at around 28 or 29. If that's the case, but they start succumbing to the age cliff at 30, like at other positions, then what do their 30s look like? What is Lamar Jackson if he loses a step as a runner? Josh Allen, if he can't be a human bulldozer week after week, or Jalen hurts if he can only squat 500 pounds. Derek, you take this one first. It's a great question because we have to talk about how much

because we've talked about like how necessary it is to be that style of player. And I do think in a lot of ways when we talk about that style of player where scrambling is more important, I think there is this almost implicit idea that because they can do that, that they're not as mentally wired as the Tom Brady's and the Peyton Mannings and stuff. But I actually don't think that's true with some of the best guys. Like the development we've seen from Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen over the past few years, it's not because they're doing anything different physically. It's because they've leveled up mentally. They're beating the blitz better.

They're handling the pocket better. They're getting to checkdowns better. So I think it's fair to say that like when they start to fall off physically, the best of their play is not going to be there. They might not be able to play at an MVP level. But I actually think with some of the mental development we've seen from these guys and what they've been able to do as pure pocket passers compared to what they were when they were younger, I actually do think they're going to age okay.

And I think when we think of this kind of player, we think of like Russell Wilson, right? But Russell Wilson never, to me, developed mentally or in the pocket quite the way that we've seen from like Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen. And that's why I think those guys specifically might be a little bit different. There are still throws and elements of playing quarterback that were inaccessible for Russell Wilson even deep into his career in a way that I do not think is true for Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen or especially Patrick Mahomes. I think for me, the way that I've always thought about this is you use the physical talent in the first five, six years of your career to bridge the gap to the mental maturity because it's the way that you're solving problems. If you're going to be, if the defenses are going to be able to win between the ears immediately pre-snap at 24, which very few quarterbacks are, that's why having that physical ability, that scrambling ability, that improvisational ability matters so much earlier in your career. Well, if you're getting to a place like Josh Allen right now, if you're getting to a place at like 28, 29,

I think we're starting to see it with Lamar too, where you're like Diet Peyton Manning, then the ability and necessity to scramble and to create and to improv becomes less important. And I also think we talked about this a little bit when we were just talking about scrambling quarterbacks recently. We're talking about Jordan Love and Patrick Mahomes. I don't think you need to be this overwhelming,

explosive speed athlete in order to be an efficient scrambler. Like, Brock Purdy is a very efficient scrambler. I think that Lamar Jackson at age 34 is probably going to be as good of an athlete as Brock Purdy is now. So even if they fall off a little bit, I think that the 70-yard Lamar Jackson touchdown runs that you used to see probably won't be as prevalent. But I think being able to get yourself out of a sticky situation, be an efficient scrambler, all of that stuff is probably going to be on the table for these guys deep enough into their careers

for us not to be super worried about an early age cliff at that position. That's such a good point. And also because they've already shown this kind of development, I trust that like when their body starts to change, they'll find a way to adapt and understand how to change their place. That's what it is. Exactly. And those guys have proven it time and time again that they can do it.

So I think those handful of elite guys specifically, I think they'll be able to handle it. And with Josh Allen specifically, I think it's important to really make note that he is that smart. Like pre-snap, he's incredible. Post-snap, he's a great processor. I think we think he's an idiot because of some of the way that, like,

he handles himself in interviews and throws some of the picks. But, like, he is brilliant, like, pre-snap. I'm curious about this. What do you think about the way that Josh Allen handles himself in interviews makes him come off as a stupid person? Not stupid. Just like... I think it's very well thought out.

I guess it's less interviews and more like some of the content stuff that he does. You know, when he's just, like, at a golf course or, like, out and, like, hanging out. I guess so. I mean, like, be like, I don't know. Like, I don't think he's an idiot in those stuff. I think is just ubiquitous enough where a lot of people are going to get involved with it. For me, like, Josh Allen is legitimately funny.

Josh Allen is legitimately quick with a joke. Like, when that's the type of stuff that leads me to believe that a person is smart and that there's something going on there. And so every time I've ever heard Josh Allen talk, I don't come away thinking that is a not smart person. I come away thinking that person is smart. than you think he is. I think he just like comes off, I think, very normal in a way that like Peyton Manning in a lot

of ways didn't sometimes. Like he was a little bit robotic and very intense. And I just don't ever get that from Josh Allen. I guess that's fair. But to me, there's nothing about his outward persona. And some of this was like the Haley Steinfeld marriage a couple weeks ago and some like the weird online reactions to that. And part of me is just like it's funny that people outside of the football world think this is like

dumb man throwball far when in actuality i think that he actually is a kind of smart guy he's yeah i think that's i guess that's what i'm saying because i think especially early coming out of college and stuff i think people thought he was like brett farv esk in the way that he was like playing and operating it's not that it's it's like if it's closer to like if peyton manning was a super uh human at talent i agree all right let's get the next one okay richard gauge has the next one he says i've been following the coverage of the bears offseason workouts with eager eyes and ears given all the changes in Halas Hall this year. One of the things coming out of the media seems to be the idea that it wouldn't surprise

the beat if Ozzie Tripilo started at left tackle this year. That got me wondering, given the usual rookie struggles and the importance of good left tackle play, how many teams are likely to be starting a rookie at left tackle this year? And how much do you think a starting a rookie at left tackle hampers a team's chances of success? Give this one to you first, Robert. It's fun. The reason I pick this question is that I thought that my initial reaction to, you

it was pretty telling because I've never considered it this way, but I actually do think this is the case. I kind of think about rookie tackles and left tackle specifically, like rookie quarterbacks, where if you have one going into the season, this is not your year. Like, you are not a real Super Bowl contender if you have a rookie left tackle. It's not a bad thing. You can still be a really good team, but the same way that I would never pencil in a team with a rookie quarterback, even if the rest of the team was good, and say that's a Super Bowl contender just because of the history of rookie quarterbacks, I kind of feel that way about tackles where it's like even if there's a lot of other stuff going on that I can get excited about, you're probably a year away

because there's almost no chance that guy is good enough to get you to the level you want to be at to win a Super Bowl in year one. Right or wrong, that's how I personally think about it. No, I think that that's absolutely correct. Quarterback and left tackle are like, if you didn't have a guy, you probably aren't good enough. And if you have to put in a rookie in most cases first round player, then you probably weren't good enough. Obviously, the exception to this question is going to be the Chiefs,

right? But when you have Patrick Mahomes, like, you're kind of always cheating with stuff like this. So that doesn't really count. The rules don't really apply to you in the same way. And I think that we've had to get used to that. And so that's obviously the counter example to this. But the Chiefs going from the 30th best left tackle play in the league, which I think is probably even a little bit

generous, to the 24th, which is probably what you should expect from a rookie might be enough for the chiefs to win the Super Bowl again. So again, the same line of thinking doesn't really apply to them. When it comes to rookie left tackles, I think there are going to be four, right? That start. Will Campbell, Josh Simmons, if he eventually wins that job, like you mentioned, Kelvin Banks, and then if you want to throw Chipillo in there, Tripio, that would be, it's Tripio.

I know it is. That would be four. So I think that's, I don't have to look back through recent history. That doesn't seem like an overwhelming amount. I think that's probably like a pretty normal amount, all things considered. And this wasn't even like a big time tackle draft class. Yeah. And I think it's like if we expanded it a little bit to right tackles, we'd obviously

get a couple more guys like, like Mambu would be in there. Connerly, potentially. Connerly, yeah. Connerley. He's not penciled it on the front line of the depth chart right now that I'm looking at. But Connerly is a good one. But so if we're going to left tackles, it's kind of a tricky question because like, well, Campbell doesn't really matter to what the Patriots are going to like their success.

this year. They're not going to be a successful team. Like, they're so far away that it doesn't really matter. Um, so like the question is probably just Simmons and Trapio in terms of like teams that have some degree of like they think they can get to the playoffs. Obviously the chiefs are going to. And I do think Simmons's play. Like if he isn't tackle 24, then I do think we kind of end up where we were last year. Like obviously the skill player should be better. But in terms of the offensive line quality, they'll probably be where they were last year. We're in the playoffs. It's going to be a serious issue for them. And then the Bears, I think why Trapio is such a difficult one for me to wrap my head around is usually the rookie left tackle is like a top 15 pick. It's a star. It's going to be Kelvin

Banks. Last year, like it was like a J.C. Latham, something like that. And usually when it's the mid-round guy, I think you don't get something closer to get to tackle 24. You get something closer to like tackle 32. And there's a chance that he's better than that. But I think we should be ready for him to be worse than like a lot of the first round guys typically are. The positive case I'll make for Ozzy Trapio, and I know that everyone is really curious about second round tackle takes in June for a team that probably isn't going to make the playoffs. A comparison I heard someone make about him coming into the draft and having talked to him as part of the process was Mitchell Schwartz when it comes to the smarts, how mature he is,

the ways that he's hopefully going to be able to win. And I think if you're trying to build the positive, optimistic case for why he could work out in a way that second round tackles. I was going to say haven't. There have been more of them recently. Like your Donovan Smiths, your Deiont Dawkins, you know, there have been guys that have hit there that in the past that used to be kind of first round or nothing. But a lot of the reasons that you need to draft a guy in the first round for him to be

successful as a tackle is that tackle is one of those positions where physical traits are often a prerequisite to success. But every once in a while, you have guys where that's just not the case. and I love Mitch to death, I think that he would tell you that he is not somebody who thrived on physical talent. And so if you can have

a Mitchell Shorts-esque path for somebody like Ozzie Trapio, I think that is to me the best route to potentially being an outlier historically. And that, for the transition he's making is going to be necessary because he's a guy who's going

from right to left tackle, potentially. And so even then, if you're making the transition and you're not a guy who is like physically overwhelming, and he's a big guy, he's very tall. But he wasn't a guy when you watch him where it was like, oh my God,

he's just moving people all the time or he has the quickest feet I've ever seen. None of that. It's just you trust that he's going to be in the right spot. If they're throwing blitzes at him and picks and stuff that he'll pick it up. So I will say him being with Ben Johnson and some of the stuff that Johnson has done with his offensive lines gives me maybe a little bit more faith than I would if it was just like Situation X, but it's still a lot of the chance, I think. We've talked about this when it comes to how we conceive of supporting cast,

how we can see of ecosystem. How your past protection rules are taught is often a very important factor in what your offensive line is going to look like. And you look at Detroit over the last couple years and it's hard to find a team that was more buttoned up in past protection than the lions consistently were.

Like their ability to, the back is always going to the right place, the plans, etc. This was an offense, even though they had a really, really good offensive line talent that was doing a lot of things to multiply and amplify that offensive line talent. So even if you're not starting from the same place,

personnel or talent-wise, and the bears clearly aren't, I still think that there's reason to believe that you're going to be getting something close to the best versions of these guys, no matter who you're putting out there as you're starting five. All right, guys, Ben Fultz with a brick of a question here. He says, if you were in charge of the NFL,

what changes would you make to the NFL structure? This can be rules, schedule, money, league structure, whatever. Eric Briniak also wrote in with a similar question, more specific to the rules that you would want to change. This is something that we talk about, I think, a lot in June. So, Derek, why don't you take this one first? Rules changes, big changes, small changes. What do you got for us?

Yeah, I am famously a lawyer for all NFL defensive players. Fix DPI. It should not be a spot foul. It's egregious that it's a spot foul. It's ridiculous because OPI is like, what? It's like a 10-yard penalty. They can just get away with shoving and then get the ball and get in the end zone. And DPI is like, it could be a 50-yard.

penalty at certain point. So I just think like, I think people make the complaint that like, oh, well, if you make it not a spot foul, guys are just going to yank the jersey and stuff. And it's like, then let them. They're still getting up 15 yards in an automatic first down. Like, it's not a good outcome for the defense. I want 100% with you on this. I think spot files for DPI has always been something that I wish we had a better solution for. I think that automatic first downs for illegal contact. That to me is not in line. I just, I've, then the Lions obviously were the team pushing that forward this off season to try to get that rule change. I think defensive holding should be an automatic first down.

I do not think a legal contact should be an automatic first down. That is not a proportional penalty for what those look like even in real time. And the last thing with the rules, and obviously there are limits to this and how much you want to lean on it just from a pace of play perspective, I'm open to making the, like the sky judge and the going to New York stuff as robust as you can possibly make it. because if we have a pass interference or a roughing the passer that ends up becoming like a game swinging sort of play and those are bang bang players that are not reviewable if there's any sort of mechanism for somebody to be an overseer an arbiter of that stuff where it's just like guys that was not

roughing the passer like we cannot call that that sort of oversight in real time as long as it's fast I support that because what I really want and what I think is the most important part of this is just getting I just want the calls to be right and I don't want wrong calls to influence games more than they should. So those are the three things I would probably go to from a rules perspective. That's a good one. And I think for the first year or two that they try to implement that, I think it would be slow. And that's natural, right? Like it's them trying to figure out a new process and I think that would piss a lot of us off. But I think five years after they implemented that change, it would be so good. Right. Like they would have a better understanding of the flow of

getting all that stuff right. So that one I love because yeah, getting the calls right, that's ultimately the point of the refs job. And if we can help them out a little bit, then let's get there. It's a really difficult job. And I just want to, I want to diminish the impact that referees have on the game that are tried to call that stuff in real time in the moment. I think that having more referee impact from a secondary perspective where like they're trying to get the calls right, that's something that I'm okay with.

The other side of this like schedule and things like that, I do, I am like tiny bit worried. that the NFL is flying a little bit too close to the sun when it comes to how much stuff they're trying to do. I think having a game every night of the week, I think creeping up toward 20 games, I think there is a way where you are starting to sacrifice what makes you the most popular sports league in America by far. And that is scarcity and the fact that every single fucking game matters. You have been in a place where fans don't feel overwhelmed. And obviously they're trying to flirt with the right balance of how can we make sure we maintain that while trying to get more product so we can make more money. I get that. I understand that it's a business. We're all

trying to find that middle ground and whatever we do. But I think pushing your limits there, I would be careful with stuff like that if I were the NFL because I think that there probably is a line that you do not want to cross. And as they continue to push and push and push, I think it increases the chances they could start flirting with that line. I, the game's one is always going to be tricky. and I don't want, I think we don't need more games, but I think to me it's the days of the week thing. Like the point of why NFL is fun to watch for a lot of reasons is that it's a ritual. Like Sunday, Monday night and Thursday night are a ritual in a way that you don't really get with other sports where the scheduling is a little bit more fluid and up to chance and stuff like that. So like I think them doing anything that they can to move away from that is always going to be a problem.

The last thing I want to say as far as rules go, one that we should never change, the fumbling out of the. the back of the end zone or fumbling out of the end zone if you have the ball you should be punished for that like don't be an idiot don't fumble the ball i've made my stance on this note i do not think it should be a turnover i think that i can't remember where i landed on it when we've talked about it beller for me it was like it's a loss of down you go to the 20 and so you don't because i think that if you get if you follow the ball on the one yard line and you move back to the 20 yard line and it's a loss of down you are sacrificing four points like that you are not going to to score a touchdown in that situation more likely than not.

Because in the best case scenario, it's second and 20 from the 20. And I think percentages would tell you you're likely not going to score. It's probably third and 20 or fourth in 20. So I think losing four points in that scenario, to me, is enough of a punishment. I think that losing seven in that scenario is too much. And I've always said that. I think logically that actually does track. But like, to me, vibes wise, like the end zone is sacred.

Don't f*** up in the end zone. Like, that's simple as that. I've always, I get that and why people have said that. To me, it always, like, it always feels silly. It's like, this is a magical land and you can't do that in this magical land. And it's like, all right, I guess so, guys. It's, it's mean and it's ridiculous and it's probably over the top. But like, it's, again, me being a lawyer for defensive players.

I was going to say, you just said that. You just said that you were the attorney for all defensive players. So I get this. The last point I'll make on this. And it's actually something that I was going to respond to yesterday and didn't want to because I didn't think, I didn't want people to think I was complaining about my job, which I'm not at all. Bill Callahan yesterday came out and said something interesting about the structure of the off season. And he said, you know, to me it doesn't make a lot of sense because, you know, this is something I deal with from a scheduling perspective. You know, I come back from vacation typically like end of the first week in June.

So like June 8th, 9th, 10th. And then the last bit of OTAs because a lot of teams cancel the final couple practices they have are right now. And so there isn't a lot of time for me to catch the end of OTAs. And it's just like a decision that I've ultimately made. And what he was saying is, does it make sense for us to break on June 15th and then come back on July 20th when we could just restructure what the offseason looks like? And I get that guys need a break and I support guys getting a break. And I'm sure there are reasons for this.

But to me, logically, it would make more sense. The draft happens. You have rookie minicamp immediately. right like your rookies come in they get acclimated to the program you're teaching them the offense etc maybe you have some sort of voluntary program the week after that that stuff wraps up by like may 15th and then so you are you're off from the middle of may until the beginning of july and essentially you just push the other rest of your o'tas and mini camps to like july 10th and then just run it all the way straight through because what bill calvin i was saying yesterday is like

why does it make sense to train this way? Like we're training and then we're taking a five-week break and then we're starting to train again. And so I just think from a convenience standpoint, that just makes things a lot easier. There are just fewer pockets of the offseason where there's nothing going on. And then it becomes continuous from the time we re-report in early July until you eventually end. And I get that makes the season longer for players, but you also get a chunk off in the spring that you weren't getting. So I think the practice time would probably remain the same. So I just think on a bunch of different levels, to me, that tracks.

I'm sure there are reasons that they haven't done it that way. There's got to be, and I would love to hear arguments for it. But what you're saying actually does make sense to me because the way they're doing it now, it's like you're kind of having to start the car and heat it up twice before the season actually starts and you get going. So like that doesn't seem all that efficient. Yeah. Again, I'm sure there are reasons just in terms of like health and player safety and things that they've done to not do it that way. But like if your first week and a half of training camp, when you come back training camp,

quote unquote on July. Let's do it after the 4th of July. Let's say like July 6th every year is when we kick this stuff off. Then you don't have to put pads on for the first like 10 days. It can just be like mental acclimation stuff. I just think that would make things a lot easier for everybody, including me and I'm the most important person to consider as part of us. Also important to consider you guys are our ad partners. We're going to take a quick break here. And then we'll be back with some more questions. Noah Murdus comes to us with the next question. he says the thought about building through the trenches has been beaten to death recently and I wanted to put it to the test a bit on the defensive side of the ball. I have two different defenses here.

You get to choose which one you'd rather have. You are allowed to make one substitute per team if you really want to. So he kind of sounds like he doesn't want you to, but he's going to let you have it. Team one, this is the team that's loaded up front. The line, Miles Garrett, Dexter Lawrence, Chris Jones, Jalen Carter, T.J. Watton, Micah Parsons. The rest of the team, basically the back half of the defense. Second string of a random team. He says that this would be the worst unit in the NFL talent-wise by a large margin. This goes for off-ball linebackers in the entire defensive backroom. Team two, it's the inverse.

So the defensive linemen are the second string of a random team, worst unit in the NFL talent-wise by a large margin. However, your linebackers, Fred Warner, Roquant Smith, Zach Bonn, Corners, Pat Sertan, sauce gardener, Trent McDuffey, safety's, Kyle Hamilton, and Jesse Bates. Fun one here. Robert, why do you take it first? It's not even close that it's the first one. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. I don't. it's not even a conversation. Like I, so this is what's fueling this point. I was going back a couple days ago. God, I can't remember which team it was that I was rewatching. It was the Chiefs.

I was watching the Chiefs offense and I was watching their game against the Panthers. And I was watching the Panthers defensive line try to play an NFL game against a decent NFL offense. And I think that is just stuck in my mind right now where it's like I would do anything not to live that way. So I think I already believed this, but my most recent interaction with an NFL defense has pushed me even further in this direction. We'll get by with, I don't know why I'm picking him as an example. I feel like I'm picking on him. We'll get by with like Isaiah Rogers and similar sorts of players in the secondary if I have those guys up front. I don't think the other inverse of it, it papers over it the same way.

I think that a really, really, really good pass rush can make the players behind them look better. I think it's really difficult for a great secondary to make the players in front of them look better. I just don't think it transfers that way in quite the same manner. That's kind of why I'm at. Like being able to do whatever you want and coverage is cool,

playing man coverage and all that stuff is cool. At the end of the day, football is a, I have to hit the other guy at the sport. And I would rather have the guys who are doing that up front because they're going to help me in run defense. And like my switch would be like, if I can get out T.J. Watt and get in Max Crosby, we are getting into second.

and nine every single series and then we're going to kill you with this pass rush it's going to happen and like i think the only counter argument to try to fight against myself here a little bit is that if you have team two you technically do have like more good players because like on the field at one time like you have seven instead of four that's a good point but like i don't know man i would still rather have the front that is like completely completely blowing up every single play yeah that's where that's where I said with it. Like, I can play certain coverages to protect myself on the back end. Yes. There is nothing you can do outside of blitzing a ton and trying to manufacture a pass rush for yourself in order for you to overcome those sorts of talent deficiencies on the front end.

Like, we've seen teams win championships with average to mediocre secondary play. I don't think we see that many teams win championships that don't have really good players up front. That's a great point, is that ultimately at the end of the day. And you've even talked about this, like, your thing of having, like, you need a guy who can get you five pressures in a given game. And in this scenario, we have six of them. So I feel pretty good about that. I feel like if we're, I honestly think doing it this way, like, where we have more guys than we need out front and then you're filling the starters in the other team. Like, I don't think linebackers should be a part of this.

I think linebackers are just like average players in both of these situations. And it's the back end and the front that we're actually talking. about because I think it's tilted too far in one direction. Like you, in scenario one, you have backups that are listed here. You only need four guys. And so I do think that I would change the term slightly, but maybe I'm just pushing it even further like in my own favor by doing that. No, that's kind of a good point though, because like in this scenario, if I only have

to play Jalen Carter on third downs, are you kidding me? Like, come on. Yeah, you feel pretty good about it no matter what if two of those guys were your backup or rotational players. All right, guys. Matt St. Jean brings us the next question. He says, as a longtime Patriots fan, I am concerned by how widely praised the team's offseason has been since it seems like the offseason winners often struggle to live

up expectations. I'm also less optimistic about their moves, especially in the draft, than others. I want to outline some of my concerns. You can tell me if my worries are justified. So first, the Josh McDanielsire. He likes it, but he's worried about pairing him with the staff of guys he's never coached with the four like Doug Barone, Todd Downing, and Thomas Brown. And he also notes that those three guys,

Morone, offensive line, downing, wide receivers, brown, tight ends and run game coordinator could have trouble with their own portfolios regardless of fitting in with McDaniels. The draft, Will Campbell, he allowed more pressures in his final college season than any tackle taken in the top half for the first round since 2022,

while also finishing behind everyone but darnel right in run block grid. Is there a world where he looks like the Marvin Harrison Jr. of this class? A widely loved, highly professional prospect, who is a consensus top pick with an early breakout who immediately gets outperformed by more athletic players at the same position.

Also notes, there's also the positional concerns with Will Campbell. Taking a running back in the second round, even one who he likes seems very rich for New England. Travion Henderson is an explosive athlete who is an immediate and obvious fit in the offense. He's also someone with a lot of touches already and two seasons shortened by injuries. Personally, had a hard time taking someone like him with better players by consent is available at wide receiver and edge still on the board. And then finally, Kyle Williams and the third, this is basically he dislikes some of the other receivers, specifically Jalen Knoll, who are available better and notes the Patriots history

of whiffing on receivers. So, Derek, real concerns? Or is our friend Matt crazy? So I think these are all fair concerns, but I also think we're being like a little bit alarmist, assuming that all of these things are going to be the worst version of itself. Counterpoint, I support that as an NFL fan. I think that too often at this point in the character, too often people are like, everything is going to go as well as it possibly can. I think this is an incredible zag if you were a fan at this stage of the calendar. I don't think you should be like Eeyore all the time, but I think acknowledging the fact that everything might not go great,

I support this. This is why I included the question. I don't think we should assume everything will go great either. And like I even said it on our last show like I don't love the McDaniels hire. It probably is not going to be a disaster, especially if we assume that the quarterback is who we think. think that he is. And like Will Campbell, I totally get some of the concerns. And even I didn't really have him graded as the highest tackle. To me, he was like third or fourth in this class. And I kind of agree

that his ceiling is not as high as other people. He's a really sharp guy. And it seems like he's built the right way. I think he's going to be an upgrade. And that's the other thing. Even if he's not like an ideal tackle. They had probably the worst left tackle play in the league last year. He doesn't even need to be great for it to be an upgrade. And then Williams over Noel like, I agree. Like I probably like Jalen Knoll better, but at this point we're clibbling over guys who were like after 50th on the consensus board anyway. Like I just feels like we're getting a little bit too

nitty gritty in terms of that stuff. So I understand some of the concerns here, but it feels like a little bit alarmist to me, just a little bit. Yeah, I think there's some points here that I feel like have a little bit more credence than others. Like the McDaniels thing, I feel like having some new voices is potentially a good thing.

Like we talked about that when we were discussing the Patriots earlier this week. I do think that that's, something that could actually be good on the other side of it for the Patriots because you're injecting the offense with some newer ideas that weren't around for the last couple stops McDaniels had. The Campbell point, I just think that asking of Will Campbell will be the Marvin Harrison Jr. of this class is a very good way to think about it because I think that it's absolutely on the table where he's the fourth pick in the draft.

We think he's automatically going to be this hyper-elite player and there are some actual concerns about what his ceiling looks like. and there's a chance that he slightly disappoints relative to expectations in year one. Like, I think that's absolutely on the table for somebody like Will Campbell. I also think they should have drafted Will Campbell at 4 and there wasn't anybody else that was a better pick for them in that spot. That's the one that most feels alarm is because I think the Marvin Harrison Jr. comparison could be fine where it's like, okay, the rookie season isn't exactly what we wanted.

But if he has a season that is comparable to what Marvin Harrison Jr. was as a receiver, then you have an answer at left tackle. It might not be Tyron Smith where he's an all pro, but you have an answer at left tackle. I think that just setting those expectations as a fan based on some of like the context clues you can pick up, like it was a down draft. He's not an elite athlete.

Like that's actually a good thing to set yourself up for. Like thinking he is going to be Tyron Smith from day one because he was the fourth overall pick in the draft and is somebody whose name we've known for a couple years, I actually think that's setting yourself up to be, happy. This is setting yourself up to be like a pleasantly surprised NFL fan, which not a lot of people do. The Kyle Williams thing, that one's like, who knows? Like Kyle Williams absolutely could be better than J.1. Knoll. And I say that as somebody who really liked J.O. and Null.

The Henderson point, I think is a good one, though. I think the Henderson point is a realistic one. I like Trayvon Henderson. I like adding some pop to that offense. I think you could argue that at that spot, he added as much as anybody did. But taking a running back in the second round and a running back with a kind of a specific role when there were higher value players available at like premium positions and you're at the early stages of your team building process if you're the Patriots, I get quibbling with that as a fan based on where they are right now, even though I don't have a huge problem with it. The reason I think that's fine is that even though they are very early in their team building

journey here and typically you would want to target higher value positions, you already know you have the quarterback. So put as many things around the quarterback as possible. and I do think Henderson gets there. With him, I'm more concerned about the injury than like, oh, we took a running back. Yeah, I think that's fair. I think that's fair. And again, like, I think taking a running back in the second round, especially one with his skill set,

where I think, you know, he was pretty clearly to me, like the most explosive guy. He was the best in past protection. Like, you can see what the role is for him immediately. It complements what you already have in Stevenson. Like, I get it. But I also get thinking, we don't have any players on this team. Why are we drafting running backs in the top 40? I think that's fair.

That is fair. Maybe I'm doing a little bit too much of like, I just want as much around Drake Mae as possible, so I'm excusing it. And you can make an argument that he is good enough and his skill set is such that he was the best piece to help your young quarterback, even if they were quote unquote premium position players

on the board at that spot. Okay, Sam Rapson says we are in silly season where every team is looking great and a rookie's win in seven on sevens against third stringers is a clear indicator of a gold jacket in the future. So is there any way to separate the wheat from the hopelessly over-optimistic chaff? What is a true indication of real improvement in a team or player during the off-season?

And how do we distinguish that from the endless beat writer hopium served up to feed desperate fan bases? Robert, what do you got here? Is this going to be the part where I rant about the off-season NFL coverage and what it looks like? I said it on Twitter yesterday. I think that you should have to pay $9.99 to post an OTA clip. I don't think it should be illegal to do it. But I think that there should be some checks and balances. Like if you want to post one, you have to really want a post one.

And if you're a fan, I think if you want that content, fine. And I think some people responded to it this way where it's like, well, I want that. I'll pay for that. Good. That you should also have to pay to watch OTA clips in the offseason. Like you have to really, really want it to get there. I think that all of this stuff that is posted completely without context, you have absolutely no idea what's happening.

and we're trying to derive real conclusions from this stuff. They clip yesterday of the Giants defensive line and those three guys winning immediately. There's no pads, right? There are no pads. What is the offensive linemen supposed to do? And two, they're backups. Like, you are not allowed to draw any conclusions from OTA practices.

Like, zero. Like, the only thing that you should be looking at here is maybe, maybe usage. who's lining up with the first team, etc. And I think when you get into training camp, that's when that stuff really starts to matter. Who's lining up with the starters? Who's being used in what way, etc. I'm not trying to besmirch my colleagues here

because I would say the exact same thing about myself. Outside of demonstrably bad play, the Brown's offense last year in training camp is a good example of this. They truly couldn't move the ball. If that happens for an extended period of time for long enough, I think it's reasonable to start getting worried. I don't think the majority of NFL media knows what they're watching to an extent that you should put any sort of validity to their value judgments on who looks good or bad in practice.

Because for the most part, the coaches don't know by the end of training camp who they're good and bad players are. So there's no chance in hell that I'm assuming the media knows who the good and bad players are. We might not even know through the preseason. How many times have we seen players be terrible in the preseason? And then they show up by week four of their rookie season. And they're awesome. You know, we made the joke on the last show.

Like, Jamar Chase was non-functional in his preseason. And then he was like immediately one of the best players in the league. Like, we just don't know with a lot of this stuff. And like, sometimes people will bring up examples about like why what happened in OTAs actually was predictive. Like, I remember last year people were doing with Jaden Daniels. They were like, look how accurate he is throwing into the net. It's like, who gives a shit? He's an NFL quarterback.

He should be accurate throwing into the net. And then it turns out he does go on and have like an incredible rookie season. But like that clip of him in OTAs is not anything indicative of why he ended up doing the things that he was doing. So like, yeah, OTAs, all of those clips, there's almost no way to actually know how real any of this stuff is. Even until like how many times have we said early in an NFL regular season that like the first three weeks are like kind of nonsense. I've said this before. But I think that there are coaches I respect in the league. league that their approach to this, and it's one of the reasons I respect them, is you'll ask them

in July, right? It'll be July 25th, I'll be at a spot. You'll say, how do you think this is going to go? Who's going to get this role? How are you going to shape this? And I think a lot of the guys that truly have their finger on the pulse of how things are going to go, be like, I don't know. Like, I don't know. We haven't put pads on yet. Like, I don't know who's going to be good. I don't know who's going to play a role. You have ideas. Like, obviously, you spend an entire offseason and conceiving of those ideas, but you truly don't know. And so to think that we're able to pick up on this stuff from the sideline when you don't know the call, you don't know the period that we're talking about, you don't know what is

designed to do, you don't know anything. You know absolutely nothing and you're looking at it from a shitty vantage point without the ability to go back and review it. Like it's just, it's all very, very silly to me. Even the players themselves don't know. I remember there was at some point a Tyree Hill interview where he was like, rookie Patrick Mahomes, I thought he was terrible. I thought he was like, why did we draft this guy?

And then he turns out he's one of the best pastors we've ever seen. Like you just, you just have to wait. Like it's a frustrating answer, but like we just don't know. Yes. Again, I think that usage, who's lining up where, who's with the first team, who's getting opportunities, those to me are the things that are important and actionable at that time of year, value performance, things of that in nature. sure I think you have to take it with a ton, like an actual metric ton of salt every single time.

Okay, guys, the next question is from James Raleigh, and he says we are in the heart of ranking season, and I found it interesting that the GM rankings have been pretty similar from a lot of people who are doing that sort of content. Routinely in the top six are Holly Roseman, less need, and Jason Light. All three of these GMs could and potentially should have been fired after four years. They survived and have all become much better and braver for it. even Brad Holmes is pretty brave and he was on Sneed's failing staff for those first four years. With that said, should the leash for GMs be longer as it does seem that experience, specifically in failure, does seem to have helped these three in particular.

And should there be more second round hires for GMs as it does seem to be a one and done job in the NFL? Robert, what do you got for this one? I think the long leash point is a really good one. And I think that we've had a lot of successful cases when it comes to that. And, you know, I think that with coaching right or wrong, I'm curious what you think about this, Derek. And this could be misguided. But the way that I've always kind of thought about it is you kind of know if a coach has an impact on the players pretty quickly, right? Because not a lot of marination time necessary to get a sense of that. Like for the most part, guys are coming in and they're making an immediate impact.

That can be culturally, that can be schematically, et cetera. With GMs, I just don't think it's nearly as clear. like there are so many different factors that go into it like coaching for the most part is a pretty contained thing you have 53 players are you getting the best versions of those 53 players no matter what your route is to do that for a GM we're judging GMs on like a hundred different factors it's the coaches that you hire it's the staffs that you help them hire it's the players that you draft it's your free agent process all of that and if one of those things goes wrong it could have a huge outsized impact on like what you're you're you draft it's your free agent process all of that and if one of those things goes wrong it could have a huge outsized impact on like what you're team looks like. John Schneider's draft record in a lot of ways, like, would have gotten him fired over those several years. And they didn't. And I just think that being able to ride those waves when one aspect of isn't going quite as well, as long as the process is sound and you think that you have the right person in that

job, I think that I'm mostly fine with keeping those guys. Like, Andrew Barry is a good example of this to me. Like, I think Andrew Barry is a smart person who probably has it in him to build a really, really good NFL team for an extended period of time. He's made some catastrophic mistakes. I'm not sure those catastrophic mistakes should necessarily cost him his job because I think that you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater a little bit by doing that. So I generally support GMs getting more time than less just because I think it's a really

layered job that is hard to understand the impact of immediately. And I do think guys often learn from their mistakes and improve on those mistakes. Howie Roseman is another very good example of this. I agree with that. Like I think at GM you probably should get a longer leash for pretty much all of the reasons that you've kind of already laid out. And it's such a tricky in terms of, I think the reason coaches don't get a longer leash is one. You can already see the immediate impact, right? Like you were talking about.

But also, I think with coaches. Do you believe that? Do you think that's true? Yes. I think by like, I think in most cases by year two, like you know if a coach is going to have it or not. And I think what makes coaching different than being a GM is like when a coach loses the locker room, so to speak, for however you want to interpret that, it's cooked. Like they are not going to get it back. It's a great point.

On that team. Whereas like a GM can have some stumbles where one or two, the team, one or two years, the team doesn't look the way you want it. And then they can fix it. Jason Light has done this. Spielman for a long time with the Vikings, like they had some down years. And then he would kind of fix the roster a little bit. And he was able to do that. So like, I think with GMs.

in like 2015, 2016, it was fucking brutal. It was really, really bad. And now he's done an excellent job. Like, I trust him implicitly in a way that I trust very few guys. And it can look completely different. Like, think about what Les Need was a little bit earlier on when he was with the team. And then what it kind of ended up being ever since like Sean McVeigh got hired and stuff like that. You just answered your own question, by the way.

Yeah, exactly. I know, I know. But like, I just think with GMs, it's easier. to learn and to change your approach and to really iron things out over years and years. Whereas with coaching, I think, because you were, it's such more of like an interpersonal talking with the players and stuff on a day-to-day basis. It's just a different dynamic, I think. Yeah, I'm with you on that. I think that's the right way to think about it. And I think that it's not an accident that we've gotten these success stories with guys who've

gotten a little bit more time to learn from those mistakes. The only other addendum I would make is the to the point of like hiring guys again who have maybe failed at the job. I understand that, but also there's very, very, very few cases of a second time GM actually working out. And so maybe as we move into the modern era that can change a little bit, but like there just aren't many instances of a guy who's on his second job as a GM and actually making a good effort at it. Yeah, I wonder why that is. That's something I'd have to think about a little bit more. But like, I don't know. I'm trying to think of a good example of this, like Joe Douglas, right?

Like, is there anything about the Jets tenure that would, like, disqualify him for potentially doing a decent job if he were to get another opportunity? I don't really think so. See, that's where it gets complicated. And why I do think the GM thing is kind of fascinating and they can get a longer leash, it's because they must clearly have some sort of relationship with the owner. And I think why the Joe Douglas thing gets complicated is we can say, like, oh, he got desperate and they did the Aaron Rogers thing and all that.

But it's like, how much of that is him really? He was also desperate. I think it gets complicated. And he was desperate. You miss out on the quarterback. Like you are desperate at that point. I'm not going to pretend like I didn't think them chasing Rogers when they did was a completely reasonable option.

I think they were backed into a corner and had to do something desperate. Every once in a while when you have to do something desperate, you fail. Like the real sin there is thinking Zach Wilson was that guy. But if you look at all the guys drafted after Zach Wilson in that draft, there aren't a lot of hits there either. So I feel like when you miss on the quarterback, that is going to set off a chain reaction of bullshit that it's going to be hard to come back from. But missing out in that one quarterback doesn't necessarily make you bad at some of the other aspects of the job. Right.

And that was kind of the thing to go back to Spielman. Like they for a long time struggled to find the quarterback with the rest of the roster was like pretty good for a long time. Evans Kronis has the next one. And he says, are there any lessons from Vic Fangio's brief tenure in Miami that can be applied to other veteran coordinator. hires. When you look back at his resume, the gear with the Dolphins might be cast aside as an aberration considering he had so much success and stops before and after that seasons. But for the Dolphins organization and fans, it was a disaster. I asked with Dennis Allen and mine in Chicago. Like Fangio, Allen has been a quality defensive coordinator with a good track record and seemed

to be universally praised when he was hired. How can you tell if a veteran coordinator might be a good fit in a new situation? Is it as simple as player coach personalities meshing, the scheme matching the players, the ability of the head coach to ensure it becomes a good fit? Are there other notable examples of proven coordinators having a season like Fangio's in Miami? And if so, can we learn anything from why those ones failed as well? Derek, when do you take this one first? Yeah, it's a great question. And I would say the, I think to me the biggest factor is less about like meshing with the coaching staff and all that.

Although I do think that is important and making sure everyone is aligned. To me, it's making sure that the GM understands like who are the players that we need for this defense. And like I think that was part of why Vic Fangio worked in with the Eagles. is like they brought in a lot of the right guys for that defense in the one year that Vic was taking over. Whereas I think when you look at what that Miami defense was, it was a lot of players that I think he had to make do with. Like David Long to me is the best example where I think when you look at past Fangio defenses, going back even a decade or even obviously what he was working with now in Philly,

he's always had very, very put together linebackers that he can ask to cover. He did not really have that in Miami. And David Long was more of a like, this guy's not very useful unless he's moving forward. between the tackles. And Vic just clearly didn't really want to do a whole lot of that stuff, but he kind of had to. And so I think little nuggets like that where the player talent doesn't mesh with what the coach wants to do, I think that's where you can kind of run into some issues. At the core here, I think the question has to be, this is the best defensive coordinator available.

Is he the best defensive coordinator for us? I think that's the question that you have to ask yourself. The Dennis Allen part of this, one of the reasons that I'm bullish on it is that the way that that defensive front and that defense in general is built, it completely aligns with the body types and the types of guys that Dennis Allen wants. And so there isn't a lot of square peg round hole with the personnel in

Chicago specifically. The Fangio part of it, I think the same consideration extends to the personality aspect of it. Remember, have you seen Talladega Knights? Of course. Right? So when Jane Lynch comes in and one of the kids goes, you're going to break us like wild horses,

aren't you? And she's just like, yep. That's kind of I think it went for the Eagles defense last year. Like I think that they needed that sort of influence. I can't remember, I think it was a Tim McMahon story. I was reading on ESPN.com just about that dynamic. And I think one of the younger players, I think it might have been Milton Williams.

Like Vic came in and essentially like told them how it was going to be. And I think they very quickly realized that was a good thing based on the dynamics in that building. I think in Miami, right or wrong. And again, I'm not like an expert in their culture, but just kind of from the outside looking in. My assumption is that like discipline and rigid structure were not necessarily hallmarks of the Miami Dolphins building in the early years of the Mike McDaniel era. And so Vic coming in and being like, this is how it's going to be, didn't seem to go very well with the previously established

culture that they had there. So I think that's something you have to think about. Like what sort of influence, what sort of personality, what sort of presence are we bringing in in this role? And how does that mesh with everything else that we've created here? So I think that extends the schematics and body types and personnel at some ways. But I also think it's a consideration you should probably have with the personalities as well. Yeah, I think it's part of that. And then also, and this obviously the Miami Vic Fangio thing is a good example. Like, why was the guy fired in the first place?

Was it fired because the rest of the team just wasn't good enough and no matter how well they were calling plays? It just wasn't going to work. Like Todd Monkin to me is an example of this. He had the 2018 year with the Bucks where like Ryan Fitzpatrick was throwing the ball all over the are, but like that wasn't a good enough team. And then the following year, he was with the Browns in 2019. And they were like, whatever. And then he leaves for Georgia and all that stuff.

But like him bouncing around, I think probably would have scared a lot of people at the time. But when you actually like watch how he's putting together the offenses, how he's growing year to year, it's like, well, he's probably going to be fine for us if we, if we bring him in with a quarterback as dynamic as Lamar Jackson. We saw him as a play caller in the NFL for like two seasons. And those, those offenses in 2017 and 2018 with the bucks were good. they were better that they had any right to be. Like that's part of why, even independent of the Georgia experience,

I was pumped about him because he was not the play caller with the Browns. I mean, I remember vividly being there in that training camp that there are some horrific skeletons in our internet closet at the ringer.com about that Browns team. I'll tell you that right now. I remember being at that camp talking to him, Freddie Kitchens, all those guys heading into that season. I remember explicitly talking to Todd just being like,

you know, do you care about calling plays? Is that important to you? like you're taking another offensive coordinator job where you're not doing it and he was just kind of like uh you know it wasn't something that was at like front of mind for him and so i think that he's had fewer play calling opportunities because he wasn't dead set on seeking them out but when he's been given them he's almost exclusively gotten the most out of the players at his disposal even if the offenses have looked significantly different at several of those stops all right guys we are going to take our last break of the episode and then we will be back to answer a few

more questions. Okay, the next question is from Alex Bryant and Alex says, keeping cap and contracts in mind, build the best offensive line you can out of current NFL players. Let's call this 65 million and combined AAV for your starting five that's right at the bottom edge of the top 10 right now. I put that in. That was a note that I put in. I wasn't sure. It was in italics, so I thought maybe you and it feels like you, but I wasn't sure it was just there. I should, I should ask you before we got going, but we didn't and here we go. Let's do it. Yeah. If you look at it. And I think this is to the offensive line as a whole. So it's to like 10 guys, but a lot of those guys are back into the roster players and making a million bucks a year.

So the back half of the top 10 is like 62 to 68 million and combined AAB for those players. So the way that I thought about it is essentially you can have two like highly paid guys and then cheap options or you can have a highly pay guy, a mid-round guy, another mid-round guy, and then a couple cheap options. We've talked about this in the way to build an offensive line, Derek. And like, the chiefs are an example that always kind of comes to the forefront for me where you know you need the creed humphrey and joe tuni offsets in order to afford the rest of them and now because they've had to pay tray smith now you can't have joe tuni anymore you need the kings lew sumata i and josh simmons offsets to afford the other guys so i think balancing it in that way makes sense let tackle was an

interesting one like the first time i built this i skimped on left tackle a little bit i had i think Dion Dawkins, who makes like 20 million a year. I almost did that, yeah. And then as I got into my other guys, I was kind of like, oh, I can, I can afford more than I thought I can here. And I'm just going to spend the money to spend it because I want to make sure that this is locked down. So I just took the most expensive left tackle in the league and just put Tristan

Wirfs in there. He's incredibly young. He's incredibly good. Like, I just think that if I'm betting on one left tackle over the next several years, it's probably going to be him. I had Joe Alt at right tackle. I feel like this is cheating. But he's making $8 million a year.

against the cap he's on a rookie contract i think that he's ascending to be a very good option at that position um i think the other guys that you'd put there if you weren't going to go young and rookie are expensive like there are a lot of guys that have gotten paid your lane johnsons your penny soles etc and i just you couldn't do it with both of those i want chris lindstrom at guard i think that at right guard specifically like he's kind of in a different class than most of the players in the league at that position right now and even at 20 million as the market has started to go up. It's a lot, but it's not overwhelming. And then I had Tyler Smith that left guard, which again, I feel like he's cheating. He's about to get paid. But as it currently stands right now, he's on a

back half of the first round rookie contract. And I had the same thing at center. Like, Zach Frazier's making $2 million against the cap this year. And center specifically, I think it's easier to do this than at almost any other position. Because if you look at centers right now, the only like truly elite center that is getting paid high end money, now the frag rag now and Jason Kelsey are gone, It's really just Crete Humphrey. Other than that, a lot of guys in the second tier, like Drew Dalman, Lloyd Cushenberry, etc., I'd rather save 10 to 12 million and go with the young guy than pay for that tier of center play specifically.

So those are my five guys. Yeah, center was the easiest to, you know, quote skimp on because there's a lot of good rookie contract players. There's like Tyler Linderbaum has yet to be paid yet. Graham Barton, Zach Frazier. Like there's a lot of these guys that you could have picked. So I followed you on the tackles. Tristan Wurst, I think.

Left tackle was the one where I immediately did not want to skimp. I was like, I'm just getting the best player here. I'm not thinking about it. I'll figure out the rest. And Tristan Wurst to me is obviously that guy. Joe Alt, I think if I was building an offensive line for this year and what they've proven, it would pretty clearly be Joe Alt. I think if I was trying to build an offensive line in the image of what I want it to be,

I would probably lean towards like Latham or Mims, but you're really projecting there and I wouldn't want to do that yet. Oh, I thought you were going to go Membu and really, really, kind of plant your flag there. Not quite. I would think about it, but I'm at least want to get like some projection where I have at least seen them play. Whereas, you know, I've seen Latham and I really think Mims is going to be a star next year. So if I was building the offensive line fully in like my image of being a little bit bigger and meaner, it would probably be that. But I'll say Joe Alt for now. I think he's certain did. And then the interior, I also went Tyler Smith. I think that's an easy one.

But I would actually probably have him playing the other guard spot because my other expensive guard was Landon Dickerson. And then at center, I went Graham Barton. And the reason I went Barton and Dickerson is they are to me a little bit Frasier is a big player and he's mean, but I think the reason I went Dickerson

specifically over Lindstrom is I just wanted bigger. Like Landon Dickerson is 3.30 and Chris Lindstrom is like 310. So it's more just a matter of like how I want this thing to function. Just total sizes and then every single turn. I just want the biggest guys possible all the time. I just want the big guys who move the other big guys. I mean, come on.

I'm trying to think there's any, like, lessons to be learned from the way that we did this. I don't really think that there's anything that much deeper than, like, I'm just trying to offset it in the right ways, and I'd rather not skimp on certain positions and skimp on others. I think that's probably the biggest lesson to be learned is that there are areas where you can skimp in areas that you can't. And centers probably the area you can and left tackles the area you probably don't want to. I think that's really the only bigger picture takeaway I would have from the way that I thought about this. Exactly. And, like, I, there's a world where, like, you could have told me, like, I really wanted Penae Sewell to play right tackle and I can go find a young left tackle,

but there's just more good cheap right tackles than there are left tackles right now. Like at left tackle, you're going to like Will Campbell maybe, but at right tackle, it's like you have Joe Alt, you have Mims, you have Latham if you really want it. If you really want to take the swing, you can say Membu. Like there were so many more options at that spot compared to left that I was like, kind of feel like I have to pay up for the left tackle. Were there more cheap guards than we're thinking about, like more rookie contract guards than you would bet on because I didn't see that many of them.

And I think that's why I was so quick to just say I'll take Lidstrom for 20 million. Like if you look at it, like rookie contract guards, I think part of it is that a lot of the highly drafted guys at that position haven't necessarily panned out in the way that you want them to. So I'm looking at the rankings right now. So right this year at 40 and 42 in AAV for 2025 at Guard are Elijah Verit Tucker and Zion Johnson. I think Elijah Verit Tucker's been a better player when healthy, but he's been banged up pretty consistently. So I think that's, it's harder to press that button.

And Zion Johnson really hasn't been that guy. I think he's been pretty inconsistent. And so there aren't that many, like, rookie contract players at that position who've ascended that high. And I think that's why I was just pretty quick to say, I'll throw Winston in there just so I don't have to think about it. That was kind of where I landed too. And like the only other ones that I think that you would pick for guard would either be like a rookie. this year like Booker and Zabel potentially, but I think there's no reason to do that in an exercise like this. Yeah, there's no reason to do that. Or you would be cheating and saying like,

oh, I'll take Arm on Memboon, move him to guard. But I didn't really want to do that for the purpose of this exercise either. So yeah, there really just weren't as many young guards. And that kind of goes back to the left tackle versus right tackle young point. Even though there's not that many young guards to pick from, it was so easy to do it at center because there's legitimately like five. It was just so easy to do. Yeah. I think that's, it's more of a commentary. on the current talent pool at those positions. Where often at center, we have a lot of young rookie contract players, not a lot of second contract guys who are near the top of the league.

And I think it's the opposite. Where most of the best guards in the league have already gotten paid. Exactly. There aren't that many rookie contract players that even are in the top 10 at the position. Like Quinn Miner is a good example of this. Like even he just got paid. Like all these guys just got paid. That's the thing.

There were like other guards I would want on my team. Like there are a lot of good guards. the league. It's just all of the ones that I would have wanted on my team were making like $16 million, $17 million. And it's like if I'm already paying Tristan Worse for what I'm paying him and I'm going to pay for a guard, I might as well just go all the way to the top of the guard market and get like a Landon Dickerson or Chris Lundstrom. That's exactly how I was thinking about it too. I think that makes a lot of sense. All right, last one, Bella. Let's do it. Yeah, last question. If anyone who's made a mix tape or a playlist or a mix CD knows you start with a banger, you end with a

banger. We always do that here. Christian Lysak brings us that finisher right here. He says, the retirement of Derek Carr means that the Derek car line has lost its namesake. Who is the new holder of the title? Derek, why don't you take this one first? I want to add some context first, by the way. We, this is something that I think Lindsay and I actually landed on several years ago and we were talking about Lindsay Jones. The ringer? Yes. The line of like, if you're below this quarterback, then you're not good. If you're below this quarterback, you're probably replaceable.

Your team is probably in the market for a new quarterback. If you're above this quarterback, you're a definitively good quarterback. We call it the car conundrum. And I think just out of respect, like on the, around the NFL show for a long time,

Chris Westling's thing was it was the Dalton line. And so that was, that's the line of demarcation. It's like below means one thing, above means another thing. And I think with Derek Carr and Andy Dalton no longer starting quarterbacks in the NFL, they're very much is a void.

for who this player is. And I don't know where you ended, Derek. It's hard to find a guy you feel good about. It really is because I kind of landed between two names, but one is such a specific player that I think it makes it very complicated. The thing I want to start by saying is like Dalton and Carr were not that fun to watch, which I think kind of like leaned into the point of like what you're talking about with this thing. And I think the other guy that you could throw in there,

I think by the end of his time as a starter, he was a little bit better than this. but for most of his career, I think he fits this, is Kirk Cousins. And so if you look at Dalton, Carr, and Cousins, all of them, second round picks or later, right? And so there are these guys that aren't these hyper-talented high picks. They're all cut from sort of the same cloth. And I think that's why it was easy to just throw them in here as the examples. If you look at the starting quarterback pool in the NFL right now, there just aren't a lot of those, a lot of guys with that sort of resume where it's like not a great athlete, plays from the pocket, marginal physical

tools is a decent player, but like that's really what we're talking about. Which quarterbacks in the league like fit that mold? Like maybe Jared Goff, but I think he's played too well to be included in something like this. Exactly. I think he's too, I think he's too good. He is above whoever we're going to name very obviously. I think the two names I came down on for different reasons. one was to a Tongue Vailoa.

I think, I don't think he's that good, but he at least has one thing where it's like most, any quarterback below him is not going to have a thing. He's too specific. That's why he was complicated for me. You need a blank canvas for something like this. And I just don't think that, like, you can,

Andy Dalton, I've written this. I've legitimately written a story about this, how Andy Dalton, like, you can project anything you want onto Andy Dalton. Like he's just completely a representation of whatever's going on around him. He's like tabula rasa as an NFL quarterback. There are no guys like that. Like all of these guys, like there's some sort of like stylistic baggage they're

bringing to the table where you can't just blindly project what you want onto them. It's kind of weird. That's why my other one feels weird. And I, because again, those guys were like in a lot of ways very bland. andish players that you could put whatever you want on them. And this guy is very much not. Baker Mayfield is kind of that line. Yeah.

If you have something better than Baker, you're probably in a good spot. If you have something worse, you probably need another guy. And the reason I say that is the last two years, to varying degrees, he's been in very good situations, right? Last year he was 13th in QBR and the year before he was in 18th. That's like right dead on the middle, kind of if you split the difference between the two. And so, like, if you have something better, you're probably good. I think that's probably... But he's not a play canvas.

He's a very like all over erratic player. Yeah, I think that's true. I do think if I had to come up with one name, that's probably it. And that feels disrespectful to Baker Mayfield in the way that he's played the last couple years. But I also don't think this is necessarily like a marker of disrespect. I think that you include this guy in the, I want him to be the quarterback of my team. If he's the quarterback of my team, I have a legitimate shot.

And I think I would include Derek. Carr and Kirk Cousins and that for a good chunk of their careers. And I think I feel the same way about Baker Mayfield right now. Absolutely, because Derek Carr was at one point in MVP candidate. Andy Dalton had one of the most productive seasons we've ever seen from a quarterback in 2015 or whatever. Like, he was insane that year. The offense was great until I think he broke his thumb or whatever it was.

And then even Baker Mayfield just through 40 touchdowns, which like very few quarterbacks in NFL history have done. So they are right at that bar of like, you can get elite offense out of these guys. guys, but if you have something worse, you probably can't. I think the league has actually done a decent job of this for us as well. If you look at the way the quarterback contracts are structured right now, there are three guys who are in their own tier of quarterback deals, Baker, Gino, Sam Darnold.

And I think that general range is probably where we should be sitting right now. Like the middle class of quarterback contracts is probably the types of players we should be mentioning here. and that middle class while small absolutely does exist. Like it's a real thing that the league has recreated. Who comes in like right under that as far as the quarterbacks go? That's a great question. It's hard to say because I think a lot of the guys that you would probably

slot in under that right now are young players, right? Yeah. So it's like Bryce Young. Which is fine if they're under the bar for now. It's like Bryce Young, Bow Nicks. Like guys like that are probably. under that bar, but it's like, all right, well, they could be better. Like, they could absolutely improve.

And so the tearing out, the tiering period after, and we'll do a show about this in some capacity. And I'm racking my brain for a way to make it interesting because I just think that I'm tired to doing the same version of this over and over again. But if you look at the tiering of it, I think that you have those top five or six guys that, you know, that's what it is. Even when you get beyond those guys and you start thinking about what quarterback seven through 14 looks like right now,

I don't fucking know. Like, I mean, you could go so many different directions with that. And then when we get beyond, you know, that tier with like, you know, Baker and Gino and, you know, maybe Donald one step beyond that. We're talking about guys that it's just like, I don't know, like, is Trevor in that spot right now? Should he be? I don't know.

I think that he has a chance to look much better this year. Like, what do we do with the Bo Nix and the Bryce Youngs? And I just think that there's a lot of uncertainty. where I think if you did a ranking of it right now and you teared it out right now, there is a chance that it would look significantly different by the time you get to the end of this season because there are a lot of moving targets when it comes to understanding where these guys belong among the hierarchy. That's a good point.

There's too many young guys in the league for it to like, that's why this whole, you know, the car conundrum is hard to figure out. Now, I will say if you look at money like average money per year for quarterbacks, the guy right under Baker Mayfield is Justin Fields, which is, like that's in this category of like okay it's a starting quarterback. I think about it. I think that's not good enough. Yes.

I think that's why that middle class makes sense. Yeah. I think that's good. And he's making 13 million less than Baker, which is a very obvious like you're not in this tier kind of canyon. I think that's a great way to bring it up. But yeah, I think that that whole like quarterback seven through quarterback 17 right now.

It's going to be weird when we do that show. It's a rich text. There's a lot to dig into, and I'm excited to do that. But that is a conversation and execution for a different day. That is all we've got today. We'll be back on our regular off-season schedule this week. So this is coming out on Monday. We back to you guys on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday this week, doing four shows

a week in perpetuity until I die at this desk. So that's what we'll be doing here for a little while. Very excited to be back with that sort of cadence just because we've got a lot of fun stuff to dig into over the course of the off season. For now, that is all we got. Appreciate you guys listening. We'll talk to you soon.