The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Monday Mailbag: Draft day trade charts, aesthetically pleasing players, rebuilding vs. retooling, and more

Episode Date: March 31, 2025

Once again, the TAFS mailbag was jam-packed with great questions from all of you out there. On this edition of the mailbag, Robert Mays and Derrik Klassen tackled questions on what a draft day trade chart looks like in a "down" year, prioritizing pass-catchers or pass protection for an elite quarterback, the best way to rebuild a scuffling team, current players who would've thrived in an earlier era, and more.Fill out The Athletic's listener survey. Three people will win $100 in vouchers at Amazon: theathletic.com/athletic/survey25Host: Robert MaysCo-Host: Derrik KlassenExecutive Producer: Michael BellerProducer: Michael BellerSubscribe to The Athletic Football Show...AppleSpotifyYouTubeFollow Robert on Bluesky: @robertmays.bsky.socialFollow Derrik on Bluesky: @qbklass.bsky.socialFollow Robert on X: @robertmaysFollow Derrik on X: @QBKlassTheme song: HauntedWritten by Dylan Slocum, Trevor Dietrich, Ruben Duarte, Kyle McAulay, and Meredith VanWoert / Performed by Spanish Love SongsCourtesy of Pure Noise / By arrangement with Bank Robber Music, LLC Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the Athletic Football Show. I'm Robert Mays. It is another edition of the off-season mailbag. As always, sincerely appreciate everybody who took the time to send in a question. Really does mean a lot. Part of the reason we do this is because the questions are so good, they make us think, and they're just fun to do. So Derek, join me to do this week's mailbag as he's going to do all throughout the off-season.

Little wrinkle today, we're going to have Bell or ask us the questions, just because I think, I don't know, it flows a little bit better. We talked about that at the beginning of the show, along with a few other things. Let's just get to it. All right, Derek, time for this week's mailbag. Doing a little something different this week. Beller is going to actually read the questions. We figured that might flow a little bit better.

I'm also not great at reading on a microphone. Like, it's a skill that you think I would have honed over many years of having to do this. And I'm not nearly as smooth at it as I want to be. So on multiple different fronts, I think this is the right way to handle the mailbags moving forward. Well, we're not news anchors, you know? where they're like their whole job is to read off of a teleprompter. Our whole job is to like try to untangle our thoughts as quickly as possible into a live camera, which is a different skill set.

And so it's nice to bring somebody else in here who can do that for us. I've always been impressed that when I'm on, let's say I'm on Waddle and Sylvie and I'm in studio with one of those guys. And I see Waddle just like rip out a printed out ad read that he has to do coming out of the break. Having to do that with like no sort of safety net like just live. It makes me anxious. I've always been very impressed at the radio guy's ability to do that.

It very much is a skill that I don't think you appreciate until you're thrust into this situation. I think there's also something about those guys having done it for so long. Like they came up in a world where that was the only way ad reads were done. And so now it's just old hat. Even like announcers though. Like Al Michaels coming out, the one I always remember, and because he was still on NBC when this was happening, the amount of La Brea ad that Al's Michael, LaBrea ads that Al Michaels had to read, the fact that he's just ripping those off, in real time. I've always been very impressed with that. So I think this handles my inability to do

this well. We take care of it with this. And also, I just think that it helps the show flow a little bit better. I'm happy to jump in. There's an unbelievable super cut of Joe Buck back in his baseball announcing days, reading off TV ads for Fox shows that lasted like six weeks. Oh, yeah. And it is just, it's hilarious. Check it out on YouTube if you got the time sometime. But you guys ready to jump in? last thing here because I just I want to at least address this for the people watching on YouTube I know my eye is weird you don't have to tell me my eye is weird I just want to get ahead of it I have a little bit of an eye infection it's just it's it's bad enough where when we got on the Zoom Beller had an audible reaction to it today so I felt like I should at least get in front

of it in some way for the YouTube audience if you're watching if you're listening to this in the podcast version don't go watch it just don't worry about it but if you're watching it there are enough doing that these days that I felt like I should at least say something. I am fine. It's getting taken care of. Don't worry about me. This is your version of like a linebacker playing with a cast on. You know what I mean? It's the Bob Costas thing. It's when Bob Costas was on the Olympics and he had that weird crazy eye. It's like this happens to the best of us when you're, I'm still a person. Right. Like so shit is going to happen and I keep I have to keep doing the job. This is just the reality of the situation. Powering through. Gotta love it.

Let's get to it, guys. Randy Lee coming with our first question. He says, I've heard a number of people describe this year's draft by saying all the players from about 10 to about 50 are the same, which sounds about right to me. Although I want my team to trade back from 12, this is a Cowboys fan, I can't believe that you would get very much in return this year. So my question is this. Assuming the teams agree that players from around 10 to around 50 have very little difference, have they modified their own internal trade value charts to reflect that in this class. Robert, why do you take this one first? I really like the question to the point where I reached out to a couple people just to ask people in analytics departments, people who handle trade value charts. And the response is what I thought it was going to be.

The chart itself doesn't change, but the premium you're willing to pay on the chart changes based on circumstances. So the same way that if you were trading up for the number one pick because you wanted a quarterback, there would be a premium you'd have to pay for that. Or even if you're trading into the top five for a quarterback, it's understood that. there's a markup on those sorts of trades. If there's an understanding that the talent level is flat for a good portion of the draft, you kind of take the opposite approach where there's a lack of a premium. So maybe if you'll pay 1.5 times as much to go get the quarterback, maybe here you'll pay like 0.8 times as much based on the chart.

The chart itself doesn't change, but what you're willing to pay to make the trades changes. I think that makes a lot of sense. And like I didn't really come about at this from that angle. sense of like what are the premiums you're trying to pay all that stuff. I came out from the angle of like this is probably true in more draft classes than you would want to believe where there is a drop off after like 12 or 13 where there's elite players like what was it I think it was the Kyle Hamilton draft where like Kyle Hamilton goes and then the next pick is Kenyon Green and there are like almost no good players after that and that was like the 13th or 14th and that's even more than you typically

think in a given draft him. He was picked in the middle half of the first round. Yes exactly And so like I think that dynamic exists more than we would want to believe it is because the draft is truthfully all about selling hope to people. But like realistically in most draft classes, you know, the number can slightly shift from like, you know, nine to 14 about how many like truly special prospects there are. But for the most part, once you get to the back half of the first round, you do start to get into the territory where like, yeah, pick 20 is no different than pick 45. It just becomes eye of the beholder. Like even last year's class, is Xavier Leggett or Ricky Piersall like actual first round? prospects? Probably not. It's just that once you're picking in that range of the first round, it kind of just becomes eye of the beholder for any of those 50 prospects.

It's funny that you say this because I think this idea has been baked into the way that modern draft charts are built, period. The way that this kind of jumped to the top of my brain as we were preparing for this show, there's a question we're going to answer a little bit later about the Jemir Gibbs pick. And if you look at the trade down with the Lions when they went from six to 12, and it's part of that deal, they move up. up from 81 to 34 as part of that trade. If you look at the Fitzgerald Spielberger chart on Over the Cap, which is, you know, it's a smoother chart than the Jimmy Johnson chart.

It's probably a little bit more true to how these things actually are valued. Going from 34 to 81 in terms of points is actually a fifth round pick. You'd think that type of jump from the bottom half of the third round to the top of the second round would be more than the chart would say is a fifth round pick. that's not the case. So there really is more of a smoothness to this that I think people probably think about, especially when you get outside of the tippy, tippy top of the draft. Right.

And that sounds like we always say that the draft is dart throws. But like that, like you said, that jump seems like it should be more. But you're baking in that like all of this after the top eight guys, it's kind of just a dart throw contest at that point. Yes. The humility and the admission that we probably aren't that good at this is baked into what a lot of these modern trade value charts look like. All right, Bell, we want to get to the next one?

Let's do it. This one comes to us from Anch Kuller. Anch says, my questions about the paths, the chargers, and Bengals have taken to optimize building around their franchise quarterbacks. They've had weirdly similar Fork in the Road team building moments and went in opposite directions. Herbert and Burrow both missed games in 2023 for Herbert, 2020 for Burrow, went on to have the fifth overall pick in those upcoming drafts.

They both had a choice of tackle or receiver for the Bengals. It was Penae Suu and Jamar Chase. for the Chargers, it was Malik Neighbors and Joe Alt. They both already had budding stars at that position they ultimately went with Slater in L.A., Higgins, and Cincinnati. In light of the Chase and Higgins extensions and all this talk about the two wide receivers and quarterback taking up so much of the Bengals cap, I can't help but wonder, isn't this what L.A. is heading for, too, too, for two years, in L.A. is heading for example, LairA. is heading to over-invest, won't the charges, won't be too far behind. If forced to overinvest in the single position group with the replacement level guys at the other one, if you already had the QB,

would you be putting your chips in a tackle or receiver? And given how these two quarterbacks play, is there something about their play style that makes one position a better investment over the other? Derek, you take this one. Yeah, so I looked at this, I started by looking at the lens of like specifically these two teams. For one, I think even though ultimately the Bengals did get to the point

where they paid both of these guys, their two receivers. I think the Chargers are not going to let like Rashon Slater play on a tag the way that T. Higgins did. They're also further away from having to pay Joe Alt in the first place. So I do think at least the money part of it is a little bit different here. But in terms of can quarterback play style and just a particular differences between these quarterbacks inform how you build a team, I think it absolutely can.

Like in the case of Burrow, his arm is not nearly as good as a lot of the other elite top quarterbacks. And I think we've seen in the way that they built the offense over that past handful of years and even dabbled in some of the undercenter stuff, he just doesn't seem to like a lot of that. Like even if you go back to LSU, his second to last season there, they were a lot more under center. And he looked like an NFL quarterback, but he didn't look like the Joe Burrow that we know now. And then the next year they go into the spread Joe Beatty stuff. And it's like, oh, he looks like he could be a potential superstar. And so one of the greatest college football seasons we've ever seen. Literally, one of the best that we've ever seen. Like he was truly phenomenal.

And so it was like, yeah, why not just build the offense that way? And literally go get one of the guys that he played with. And so I think that makes more sense for the way that Burrow plays. And for the honestly, just, you know, with Chase kind of being there in the draft, him already having played with him. So I think all of that makes sense for Burrow. And then for the Chargers and Justin Herbert, Herbert is like the statuesque, six five, get back in the pocket, absolutely rip it with a rocket.

And he can throw all these deep posts and these deep cornerouts and stuff. So like you can kind of unlock the deep play action stuff. And I know some of the analytics over the years have said, like, you don't need to run the ball to foster play action. I still believe it helps. And so if you can get an offensive line and, like, foster the run game a little bit and lean into that more of a balanced approach, I think it makes sense. And so could Herbert do the spread stuff that the Bengals are doing? Absolutely. Could Burrow, if he really wanted to, do some of the stuff that Herbert is doing under center?

Absolutely. It's just that they're slightly different players. And I think it makes sense to build the roster the way that they have with each of them. I tend to agree with most of that. Here's what I'm going to say about this just as before we even get into this, just like a starting point with this conversation, I know that he's using it as an example. What the Bengals are dealing with and how they're struggling potentially

to build around these three big contracts and we could throw three and a half if you want to put Trey Hendrickson in there. That's not normal. Like you can pay guys at the top of the market at two positions while having an expensive quarterback and be fine allocating resources to the rest of your roster. The Eagles are an extreme example, obviously. The Eagles have paid two receivers and their quarterback. They still have Lane Johnson and Jordan Milata and all these other guys that they're paying money to.

The Dolphins paid Tyree Kill and Waddle and Ramsey and Chub, Wall 2 is on a big extension. The Bengals issues are twofold. One, they're not willing to do things financially that other teams are in order to build around these huge contracts. I don't know if anybody saw it, but I was tweeting about it last week and in multiple Bengals writers, Joe Goodberry, who does a good job of covering them and is very neat, kind of deep in the weeds with the Bengals, was looking at the cap hits and how they're spread out for these two contracts. In theory, when you sign an extension,

for somebody that's on the fifth year option like Chase or that's on the franchise tag like T. Higgins, the benefit of signing an extension is because you can pro-rate so much of that money with the signing bonus early on, you can lower the cap hit in year one in order to spend more early in the contract extension windows. The Bengals didn't do that. They didn't lower the cap hits in year one,

and pro-rate stuff over the life of the contract, in part because they're not willing to spend the cash. That's the question here is you can keep the cap numbers down. Are you willing to spend the cash in order to take advantage of the lower cap numbers? The Bengals are not. That's an outlier when it comes to NFL team building and resource allocation. The chargers aren't the Eagles. The chargers aren't a team that's going to be spending at a tippy, tippy top all the time.

But they have shown a willingness to bend some of their previous rules in recent years. So I think that it's just a different set of circumstances with the chargers. They can still pay Herbert and Slater and all at the same time and not have to skimp on other areas of the roster and way the Bengals have. And the other part of this for the Bengals, this is a draft problem. The Bengals are having to worry about this stuff because they haven't drafted anyone. As part of this overall calculation, as long as you're offsetting those costs with at least average draft hit rates, then how much of an albatross those contracts feel like, it starts to become a little bit less daunting.

So that's just like the set of circumstances before we even get into the positional stuff that I think is worth acknowledging here. If they drafted at an average rate, they would be the bills. Like the bills have drafted at probably like an average clip, haven't maybe got superstars, so they've got useful players,

and that's where the Bengals would be. The other small thing that I think is funny that actually links these two teams together and why I think they both had some issues last year, neither of their interiors are good at all. Like they had two of the worst interior offensive lines in the league. And so obviously the Bengals tackles weren't good either, but both of these teams just cratered from the middle all of the time.

The second part of this question, the which would you rather have? I've said this a bunch. I think in a vacuum with an average quarterback, I'd rather have the elite weapons and a complete cohesive offensive line of bees. Like I think in a vacuum, I'd rather have that. When we're talking about elite quarterbacks, I think that calculus changes. If you look at what Patrick Mahomes has been able to do as long as he's protected,

if you look at what Josh Allen has been able to do, Josh Allen won the MVP this year in a season where they tore down his group of receivers. When we're talking about those guys at the top, top, top level, I think you can build that way. Herborough is an interesting case because I think you can make an argument that he is adjacent in terms of value and quality to those players, but I would build around him differently. because of how quickly he gets rid of the ball and how he likes to play, I think the approach that the Bengals have taken is probably the correct approach, even if it's at one end of the extreme.

With Herbert, I think that I'd probably lean more into what has worked for the guys like Josh Allen, the guys like Patrick Mahomes, where I say, I want him to be protected. I think that he can lift some of the receivers around him. But after you get outside of those guys, those four or five guys, I tend to drift toward the, give me the elite weapons and the capable offensive line. And also your scheme matters here. Right.

Like if you're the dolphins, the weapons are what matters and you can skimp on the offensive line because of how you build the team. So there are just a lot of factors that play into it, even beyond who your quarterback is and how you're trying to help that quarterback. I think that's perfect. Like ultimately you need somebody on the offense who is lifting your ceiling. And when it's one of these elite quarterbacks, they're going to do that no matter what, no matter who they're throwing to. But if you're one of these other teams that have, you know, the 11th or 12th best quarterback, that's good. but you probably need a superstar receiver to actually elevate. Like Matt Ryan was probably a good example of this.

Very good quarterback. But you kind of need a Julio Jones to be able to actually access like truly special quarterback production. I love that framing. Who's lifting your ceiling? Right. Where is that coming from? It can be the quarterback.

Sometimes your quarterback is so good that he's going to lift it on its own. But if you don't have one of those guys and I think that list is very short, the weapons are what ultimately is going to lift your ceiling along with the same. scheme in the play caller. I think this is a very reasonable way to look at it. The offensive line lifts your floor, the weapons lift your ceiling if you're dealing with 25 of the 32 starting quarterbacks. It's only for the guys at the tippy top. Those are the guys who are going to truly lift your ceiling independent of what their past catching weapons look like. All right, guys, here we go. Next question, Evans, Kronis. Evan says, looking back in the Jemir

Gibbs selection by Detroit, everyone now seems to praise the lions for proving the idea that you can justify drafting a running back that high if he becomes a staple in your offense. If I recall correctly, most people thought at the time Gibbs would be a good or even great player in the NFL, but the argument against was about prioritizing positional value and the opportunity cost that comes with using a top asset on a devalued position. If we're still using that lens, how should we actually look back on the pick, given that the Lions passed on Jalen Carter? Hypotheticals are always difficult, but couldn't you argue this team would be better off

with Jalen Carter than Jemir Gibbs, both in their impact on the field and in constructing the roster? And if not, what is the actual difference in total value to a franchise between hitting on a highly valued position like defensive tackle and a lower one like running back? Robert, let's hear from you first on this one. Let's just talk about the practicalities of drafting Jaylon Carter in that spot if you're the Lions. I can understand choosing against that route on multiple different fronts. One, you already have a penetrating, ascending three technique on your roster in Aleem McNeil. I don't think that was a screaming need for where the Lions were at that point.

They probably needed somebody who was more akin to DJ Reader than to J.1 Carter, and they eventually sought out that type of player in free agency. Beyond that, I think the Lions have been extremely intentional about the types of people that they have brought into their building. And even if we want to say that some of that stuff pre-draft about Jay One Carter was maybe a little bit overblown, it absolutely existed. So I'm not surprised that a team like the Lions who have been very protective of their culture decided that that's not the route that they wanted to go. beyond that, I think it's hard to make a one-to-one comparison here. I alluded to this a little bit earlier. It's not like they took Jemir Gibbs at six. They traded down and then they got Jemir Gibbs and Sam Leporta as part of this calculus.

So if you look at it that way, it's like, all right, that throws another wrench into it. Like, obviously, yes, if they had drafted Jemir Gibbs at the spot where they took J-O-N-Carter and Jemir Gibbs is making $5 million a year, look at the top of the running back market, that's $20 million. So that's a $15 million gap. If it's Jalen Carter in the top of the defensive tackle market where Chris Jones is making 30, that's a $25 million gap. So that's like the practical benefit of drafting a high value position and hitting on a high value position.

So in a vacuum, would you rather have Jalen Carter than Jemir Gibbs? I absolutely think that's true. That's the nature of the markets and why certain positions are more premium than others. But I think there's a bunch of different factors here where I understand how the alliance landed in this place and I don't really have an issue with how. it all played out. I pretty much 100% agree. Like I think the thing with Carter with some of the off-field stuff is worth remembering.

Like he purely on talent, people thought he was like a top three player in the draft. Like that was not a question. The only reason he fell as far as he did was some of the potential stuff. And again, maybe that was overblown. Maybe it's gone away. Who knows? But I think that was certainly a consideration for a number of the teams that passed on Carter. And then like you said, it's not just that they got Gibbs at six.

They traded down and they were able to then go back and get La Porta. And I think specifically with what. where the Lions were at in their build. One, you mentioned they already had a Lynn McNeil, which who was, you know, maybe not necessarily good enough to push you off of an elite player like Carter, but he was good enough that you didn't have to take a guy like Carter. Ascending is the word that I use. And that's the word I will stick by.

Yeah. They were, and they were justified to believe that because he ended up being the player they thought he would be. But the thing that was missing with the Lions offense up to that point, they didn't have explosive players. They had like a good foundation. They had a decent quarterback. They had Amon Ross St. Brown.

They did not have explosive players. And so they wanted to go get Gibbs at running back, who would give that to them. And then they ended up drafting Sam Leporta, who obviously gave that to them from the tight end position. So it was like the thing that this team needed most to go from good to great was explosive players. And again, maybe at the time taking a running back at 12 was too much. But they got exactly the thing that they needed to push their offense over the top. And so, yeah, if you told me in a vacuum, would I rather have Pro Bowl defensive tackler, Roble running back, probably the defensive tackle, especially on a rookie contract.

But for where the lines were at and all the other circumstantial stuff, I think they were pretty justified to do what they did. I also think, and this is kind of an old school reductionist way of thinking about it, the players need to hit, right? Like, we can do this as a theoretical exercise as an often as you want to. And yes, if we know both of them they're going to hit, you'd rather have the defensive tackle. But if you look at the draft and who else went around Jemir Gibbs, like Jemir Gibbs is the best player that went from like seven to like Christian Gonzalez.

So at a certain point, if you think the guy is going to be good, even if he doesn't play a premium position, there are drawbacks to thinking that way. Overconfidence in your ability to scout players is one of the reasons that trying to hunt for premium positions make sense in the first round. But sometimes the scouting process still matters. Like if you think the guy's going to be good and you think he fits what you want to do, I think it's still worth listening to some of that stuff. this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum or on a spreadsheet.

Like these are still real football decisions that have to be made. And that's a great point because it's almost like I mentioned with the Hamilton and Kenyon Green thing. There's a cutoff in a lot of these first rounds. And Jemir Gibbs, like, other than Christian Gonzalez and maybe one other player, like, he kind of was the cutoff. And there are a lot of guys that are still struggling to like fully hit whatever they could be. And like, if anything, my other small note on this was like, if anything, the blunder was that with the way they play defense that they didn't take Christian Gonzalez. because he would have fit them perfectly. And obviously both players are still great, so it doesn't matter.

But I think the lines were probably justified to do what they did. Look at the guys drafted around Jemir Gibbs in this draft. So they trade out of six. The Cardinals take Paris Johnson, who the Lions didn't need an offensive lineman at that point. Tyree Wilson goes at 7. You could argue that they needed an edge pass rusher. They still probably do need another one. Tyree Wilson has not been good.

Bejohn is another running back that goes eight, then Jalen Carter, then two more offensive lineman that they don't need in darnel right and peter scuronsky the next two edge rushers that come off the board at 13 and 15 after they picked gibbs are lucas van ness and will macdonald van ness who has not put it all together and macdonald who is a situational player and then the other players taken around that spot it's project drones another offensive lineman it's a manual forbes a small corner and then you get down to christian gonzalez so among all of that group again they still need to turn into players even if they play non-premium positions and i think you could make a pretty good argument that Jemir Gibbs has turned into a player.

Absolutely. He's every bit as good as the ex-12th player should be in any draft. Like he's fantastic. Yes. Yes. And so again, I think as we look at it independent of the players themselves, and we talk about it positionally, I get it. But I think in this case, I understand how the Lions went the direction that they did.

All right, guys. Next question comes to us from Eric Hua. Eric sent this question in before the Patriots signed Stefan Diggs. I still think it's a worthwhile question to answer though. So let's hear it. He says, what's the fun question? What's the worst outcome at tackle and receiver? New England can come out of the draft and the rest of free agency with that you would feel okay with.

If Carter or Hunter is there at four, I feel like they have to do it. But I am terrified for Drake. Derek, we know you are also terrified for Drake. So you got to take this one first. Yeah, the Stefan Diggs thing complicates it. Because I think without Stefan Diggs, I think the worst outcome probably would have been taking a tackle it for and then you're just left with not having any talented receivers until like the third round and then it's like oh man I don't know who we're throwing to and I've already said that

Drake could probably survive with that being the case anyway but I do think in terms of maximizing both spots that probably would have been the worst I still do think like for as good as I like will campbell but I do think the short arm stuff is like not completely unfounded and could be an issue in the NFL and then Membu who I also think is good has only really played right tackle he's never played left tackle. So I do think there's more questions at taking a tackle it for than maybe I'd believed previously. And it's just hard to pass on Hunter

if he's there. Like, I think Hunter is one of the most explosive receivers I've seen in a very long time. I think he's probably not as close to being like a 100% great player immediately as receiver, but he doesn't have to be because they signed dig. So I think I really don't know what the worst

case scenario would be. It would probably be that you draft Will Campbell and then just end up not having receiver talent. until the second or third round, which is still a fine outcome, by the way. I think that's probably, yeah, I think that's probably the answer, is that you reach on the tackle and then you don't end up finding receiver along the way. And let's say Will Campbell ends up being a fine player. He's an average NFL offensive tackle.

His career is like B minus for, or like a B version of like Taylor Decker's career. That's still a hit in the top five. You're okay with that. But passing on a guy, and let's say Travis Hunter turns into an all pro, that's a tough one. That's a tough timeline to play out. So I think best case scenario or, okay, the worst outcome of tackle and receiver, so that's, this is interesting. The worst outcome and tackle and receiver, I still think there's a chance that's your

best case scenario. Because I think if you're the Patriots and you're picking it four, and there's a guy like Travis Hunter available, you take Travis Hunter, okay? And then the worst outcome other than that that I'd be okay with, you get a left tackle with your second pick, whether that's true. trading back into the first round, maybe you use 106, which I think is their fourth round pick, to go from 34 to 28. And you take a tackle there.

Like we thought Washington was going to do last year. And then you take a receiver with one of your third round picks that you have two because the Matthew Gide on trade. Having that outcome, Hunter at 4, a tackle with your second pick wherever that lands, and then some sort of receiver dice roll in the third round that you can drop in with Polk, with Diggs, with Pop Douglas, with Kendrick. born, I think I would be able to live with that scenario in part because you are getting a guy like Hunter as part of the calculus there. And I like that one more because I do feel like Hunter gives

you, I mean, he's just a more special player than guys like Will Campbell and Membo and stuff. And then honestly, what's what's funny about the tackle classes, it seems like the further you go down in the first round, it's actually guys who are going to play tackle, but are maybe just not as good on film as the guys like Will Campbell, whereas like maybe he just ends up getting pushed to guard or something like that. But I do think that this is ultimately getting Hunter is the best outcome. What's just tricky is maybe the Giants take Hunter at three and you kind of just get stuck having to swing on the tackle. Like that is probably the worst outcome. You can live with that. If that's the case, I think that you can live with that. And then you can use your second round pick if you wanted to

draft a receiver. If you want to draft an edge rusher there and still draft a receiver in the third round, I think the digs thing is insurance against having to make a decision in the draft that you don't want to make. That same decision isn't really available at left tackle anymore. So that'll be curious too. Are they willing to sign a stopgap veteran left tackle a little bit later in the process, right? So let's say you go into the draft, you say if Hunter's there for, we're taking them, it doesn't matter. I don't care that we have a huge, huge need at left tackle. And then the way that the draft plays out, you don't love what was there for you at the end of the first or the beginning of the second.

Again, very similar to what Washington did last year. Washington drafted a tackle in the third round and then had Cornelius Lucas on the roster and they said, we'll be able to piece this together. Are you, if you're New England and the way that it plays out is you don't think there's a tackle we're taking with that second pick, are you willing to take an even bigger developmental swing a little bit later? You sign a guy like Tyron Smith to a one-year deal and say, we can patchwork this together in the short term. Maybe we'll take a bigger swing on it next year. I think that's a reasonable way to approach it. It's not as exciting or not as fun if you're a fan.

There's a little bit more downside to it because if Tyron Smith gets hurt and you're playing, and Caden Wallace or whoever your third round left tackle is, that's a dangerous place to be. But I think the downside of those sort of pads aren't quite as big as we make them out to be. And I think Washington last year is a very good example of that. That's a great point. Can I paint a best case scenario very quickly?

You sure can. I think best case scenario, I know, of course I've already thought this out because Drake guys on the team. That's exactly what I was going to say. You trade down a few picks, potentially. You draft Tet McMillan. and then now you have ammo to go do whatever you want in the late first or second round with a tackle.

I think that is like the ideal outcome for all of this. My God. I feel Patriots fans would lose their mind if that was the case. If they like had all the tackles available and Travis Hunter was off the board and they didn't take one of the tackles, I think you're probably justified in doing it that way. But I think there's enough people in the greater New England area that would be very afraid about Drake May's physical well-being at the end of that process. Probably and I might still be too, but Ted's a good. good enough prospect, I might be able to get over it.

All right, before we get to our next question, let's take a quick break. All right, Bellar, what will we got with our next one here? All right, here we go. This one is from Benjamin Meyerson. We also got a similar question from Verroon Bhutani. Benjamin starts this up. He says he's a Niners fan and he's talking about the brand-nyuk murmurs of potential trade to the Browns, the Patriots, whoever.

That's what launches him into his actual question, which is, what is the right way to approach a tear-down or a retool as a team builder. Should you trade every non-building block player who can bring back valuable assets for the Niners trading IUC and CMC, but not Kittle comes to mind? Or should you trade some and not others? How do you find the middle ground between getting every asset you can and only trading some pieces if you know you need to reset for a year or two? I think there are a lot of different considerations here. How old is the player that we're talking about and will he still be valuable when you're hoping to be competitive again? And that's not a three to four year outwe.

look like this isn't like an NBA tear down this is something where this league every two to three years you're probably hoping to be mildly competitive again and i think that's the miles garrett consideration right the browns looked at what they could get or fetch into miles garret trade and they thought we will still want to be competitive again by 2027 there is nothing we could get as part of that deal that would be more valuable than miles garrett is so i think that if he's a guy that's 29 30 years old and he's still in the middle of his prime and you think by the time we turn this around, he's still an elite player. I think you keep guys like that. At the other end of the spectrum, I think that Khalil Mack was old enough and the bears were still far enough away,

were trading Khalil Mack if you were Ryan Poles was the correct decision. I think that plays into a second part of this. How close are you to like an actual tear down? If the last thing you have to do is trade one of your elite players and the rest of the roster is a complete garbage fire and you're going to be picking at the top of the draft, I think that's easy to justify. If you're the Niners, I don't don't think having a fire sale, especially of younger pieces, who you can have for the next three, four, or five years is worthwhile because if you were San Francisco and you traded Brandon I, Yuk, and let's say even one more guy, I still think there's enough talent on the roster where you're going to win enough games where it might be better for you to have Brandon

I Yook. So I think it's a matter of how close are you to either end of the spectrum. If you're a player or two or a trade or two away from a complete nut or tear down, I think that's a matter. I think that's okay. If yours are going to be somewhere in the middle after losing these guys who still have three, four, five years of productivity left, I'm not sure I would support that. And the last thing I would say, there are cultural considerations to this, right? Like, winning is important because it breeds culture. And if you're the Chargers last year, and you have Justin Herbert, and you know that because you have borderline elite quarterback, you're always going to be competent enough, tearing it all the way down to the studs,

getting rid of Khalil Mack and Joey Bosa just to do it, maybe that's not the, the best argument because winning eight, nine, ten games, showing proof of concept, being able to kind of build a little bit of momentum in the building, there's also some considerations to be paid to that as well. So I don't think there's like a one size fits all answer, but those are the considerations I had in mind as I thought about the question. Yeah, I think talking about this stuff in broad strokes is just really hard because so many of these teams are constructed in so many different ways and the rosters are so big in the NFL compared to a lot of other sports. So I think it just complicates a lot of stuff. I do think the player age thing is a pretty good consideration.

Like Brandon Ayuk, where he is, in theory, in the prime of his career, that's not a player you want to trade, especially when the windows in the NFL can turn over one or two years. You just paid him. You just paid him. And like trading a guy away a year after you gave him a contract that included a signing bonus. I mean, what was Brandon Ayuk's year one cash value? Like, I think that's, those are the types of things you also have to take into account here. I can look it up while you're talking. What are some of the other things that you have? on your mind. And for me, so because I think talking about in broadstrokes is tough, I kind of took it more to a specific 49 years lens. And I think the cultural thing that you said is important for

them specifically. Think about how many of the guys that they've lost that were key culture and scheme fits for what they had. Traverius Ward is now out of the building. Dre Greenlaw is now out of the building. Tala Noah Hufanga is now out of the building. Debo Samuel is now out of the building. These are all guys that over the last three, four years were critical pieces to the way that the energy that this team had, the way that they were able to do things schematically, they were some of their best players. I think if you were to add to that loss by letting IUC out of the building, it's like, well, who are our pillars now? It's Trent Williams and George Kittle and Nick Bosa and Fred Warner. Like you're, you went from 10 of these guys to half of that number. Like it just,

I think all of that complicates it. And I think the other complicating factor is we have no idea if CMC is going to be good next year. So I would like to keep the past catcher that I know is really good the young one and make sure that we have at least one explosive threat on the outside to help us with that. So I think of the Niners particular case. And we talked about this a bunch during the season. They have holes on their roster, but a lot of why they were bad last year is they just had like a season from hell. Injury-wise, like the Charvarius Ward stuff. Like it was just a season from hell in a million different ways. Probably not going to happen again this year. And so even if they have some issues roster-wise, they're probably just not going to be as unlucky as they were

last year. So they're, like you said, not one of these teams that are on the extremes. They're probably more towards the middle and with a little bit of better luck. They can be a 10-11 win team again. But look at the guys that they lost. Like even if they're big names that contributed to how we understand the Niners, you can talk yourself into every single one of these. Traverius Ward, even if he still has a lot of good football left, he explicitly said he did not want to play football in California anymore after what happened with his family. And I totally understand that. So not having him back, get that. Drey Greenlaw has had injury issues and they got he got a decent chunk of change on the open market so you're paying a guy

that potentially you know has has been hurt are you worried about that same with hufanga and there's a chance that debo is closer to the end than he is to actual like productive play so i get all of this stuff it what it reminds me of a little bit is what the bills did last year where they take some medicine with a lot of guys whose names we know but weren't actual contributors to the team like ward green law Hufanga did not contribute to who the Niners were last year, and Debo is a diminished version of himself. So I think that's the comparison I would make. And even though the Niners don't have Josh Allen, they're about to pay a quarterback $55 million a year. Like, they have enough stuff on the roster where this is much more of a measured retool than it is a conscious tear down, because

I think that's just kind of where this team is at its current state. I think that's also the other tricky thing about this is like you're about to pay Brock Purdy do you really want to give up his best receiver and I know that like Iyuk is it costs you money but like at a certain point you have to like when you're paying a quarterback who is not in that elite category you have to make sure you have some of these weapons around so even if Iyuk is somewhat expensive like yeah it probably makes more sense to just keep him around and try to continue to be competitive over these next handful of years looking at it the cash total to paydots of IUC last year it was only 24 million just because his base salary it was a million bucks.

You had a $23 million signing bonus. Actually, it's a very good example of a contract that I will use later when we're talking about how teams structure bonuses in contracts in the NFL because I think that the way the Niners have done this, which is not surprising because the Niners are a team that I think does a good job managing their cap and some of the money. But the way that they structured IUC's contract and how they built the bonuses into it is actually a very good example for, I think, how teams are looking at signing bonuses and bonuses overall. We'll re-address that a little bit later in the show.

Now, though, we will address what I think is a very fun question. I threw this one right in the sheet when I read it because I had a feeling you guys would have some fun with it. Comes to us from Matthew Sterenberg. Matthew says, in addition to being a long-suffering Bears fan, I am also a fan of golf. And I've recently been thinking about how watching these two very different sports can elicit similar emotional responses. Watching Rory McElroy pull driver and rip a perfect draw touches something deep in the hidden cockles of my heart. And watching him hit a two iron six. Stinger? I want to leap off my couch and shout, yes, that's it. I'm talking about a gut level,

a static response to a specific athletic action performed by a specific individual. Scotty Sheffler is the world's best golfer, but watching him hit a stinger leaves me cold. It has to be Rory. Recently, I've noticed I have similar responses to certain NFL players, Matthew Stafford making off-schedgedged throws, Joe Burrell making on schedule throws. Patrick Mahomes might be the greatest quarterback we've ever seen, but watching him throw the football leaves me cold. The way Stafford flicks those fingers or the way burrow and corks those hips though, that's it. So my question is, which specific football actions performed by specific players make you want to leap off your couch and shout, yes, that's it.

What do you got, Derek? I mean, I could have sat here and probably listed 25 of these. Like, this could be the whole show if we wanted it to, just basically doing this. But I'll limit it to like five or six. First off, Cam Newton throwing a dig route to just insert shitty Carolina Panthers and Shever over those periods of years. That did something to my soul, dude. Some of those routes were, or some of those throws were just, he was throwing at 100 miles an hour.

They were incredible. The other one for me kind of along that, like in that era was Donta High Tower taking on a block. I mean, just nobody's done it like him. There was a game against the Titans in the playoffs, he put him in nose tackle because the High Tower could just take on block. So he was different in that sense. Bejohn Robinson right now running outside zone, like the way that he sees it, the way that he moves, the way that he cuts is phenomenal. Kind of along the High Tower thing. Khalil Mack setting the edge.

He's probably the best edge setting defensive end I've ever seen. He's unbelievable. I've mentioned this on a million other shows. Dak Prescott throwing a scene ball. He's going to throw that thing, hell or high water. And sometimes he gets picked off. Sometimes it's the prettiest throw you've ever seen. And then the last one I had was,

if you watch Jamar Chase and T. Higgins, the way that they attack the ball outside of their frame and come back to the ball, listen, after having charted many bad quarterbacks and bad receivers and watching guys. not attack the football, there is something beautiful to a pair of elite receivers who know how to make it easy. It's beautiful to watch. It's funny that you say that because when I was watching Shradur Sanders, one of the things that really jumped out to me about Travis Hunter, his football IQ even on offense, he just has such a natural feel for how to play football. And the way he comes back to the

ball and like down the stem is just like, that guy just knows how to play. Like he, there's so many aspects to his game where it's just like, that guy just knows how to play football. And so that's kind of how when you watch Jemar Chase specifically, and so just like a deep curl or something like that, that's what it reminds me of to watch Travis Hunter play receiver. It's not like the big, sexy, explosive stuff. There are just little details like that where I was like, oh yeah, that just guy knows what he's doing.

Making the life easy on the quarterback. Again, as a quarterback guy, I love the guys who make it easy, and those two definitely do. My famous one, like the one that I've probably talked about for the last 15 years, watching Phillip Rivers throw a corner route, it to me is like the most beautiful thing in football.

like the way he would layer those throws, the touch he was able to put on second level throws outside of the numbers, no one has ever done it like that that I've watched before. That to me is like football at its apex. The other quarterback thing, I love watching Gina throw a slot fade. Like the way he can just drop the ball in the bucket on some of those throws, there was one to JSN in the preseason that sticks out with me. But he had a couple of them this year. I just think that he throws those beautifully.

A couple more of that are like older school guys. like one that's out of the league again those j j wott like backdoor swim moves when he was a three technique and just like what he would do to guys and just the level of creativity and flexibility within the defense that he took advantage of i've never seen anything like that you could probably throw a bunch of erin donald stuff into that same conversation where he's just doing things no one else is capable of doing devante adams outside releases like devonte adams releasing on a fade and like what he can do to a corner to me is still one of the most beautiful things on a football field it's been a while now i can't remember when i wrote this story it was probably like

2016 2017 but talking to devante adams for a story i did about like the art of receiver releases is still one of my favorite football conversations i've ever had like we were just going through clips that i had on my phone of him asking him to explain them to me and i will never forget that it's still one of the coolest things i've gotten to do two more cam hay and Dexter Lawrence bull rushes. Just like them putting their hand in the guy's throat and being like, I don't care that you're in between me and the quarterback

right now. This is going to be a bad time for you. Gino Atkins is also somebody I would throw in there, like watching him do that to guys. And another current guy, I love watching Nico Collins on like a glance or a slant and how smoothly he plucks the ball and keeps

moving at full speed. Like that to me is just like a beautiful version of watching a high and receiver play, and I think he does that better than anybody. You know, that's kind of funny, and I think this actually speaks to both of how we kind of see the sport. We both pick some receiver stuff, but yours are a little bit more like the beauty of the position, the like, how do you piece all this stuff together, like how you do it technically?

And mine was just like, get the damn ball, dude. It's so true. And that's like I was going to throw on here. And we could do a bunch of like, I think Zay Flowers does this well. I think Brandon Ayuk does this well, guys that are really good at setting up, setting up deep, outbreaking routes as receivers. Like, I just think the mechanics of watching that is beautiful. And I think that speaks to exactly what you're saying.

Like, I appreciate that stuff more than the, I want the guy just to go up and attack the ball. And I understand the benefits of that. And the fact that you think about it through a quarterback lens because that's the position you think about it the most. And the fact that Nate was a quarterback and those are the guys that he valued, that gap between those two ways of viewing the position, I think actually does make a lot of sense when you think about it a little bit more.

But it's good. At a certain point, we're both going to appreciate every receiver in the league because, you know, you like all the guys that I don't maybe. And, you know, I like all the guys that maybe you don't as much. Let's get our next one, Bar. All right, here we go. It comes to us from Andrew Bear. Andrew says a lot of teams have reputations for being able to take scrap metal at certain

positions and turn it into treasure. The Packers are an offensive line factory. The Ravens always have capable edge rushers. The Steelers can turn any mid-round receiver into a pro bowler, et cetera, et cetera. But it seems like these reputations work out until the very moment they don't. and teams and coaches stop being able to work the magic. Bill Callahan is the most respected offensive line coach in the NFL and his brilliance was supposed to shape how the Titans could approach roster building, but their offensive

line last year was a sucking vortex of doom and they had to throw $20 million a year at Dan Moore to find competence at left tackle. Obviously coaching and development are important and some teams and coaches are better at it than others, but are we too willing to let a team's developmental reputation serve as spackle to cover up roster deficiencies? Robert, take this one. There's a tipping point with everything. And I think that the Titans offensive line talent last year is an indication or an example of that tipping point.

I think Bill Callahan is a good developer of young offensive line talent. And I think Peter Scorancey got better last year. He'll see what happens with J.C. Latham. He had the same rookie growing pains that a lot of rookies do while changing positions. I don't think that that's an indication that Bill Callahan can't develop offensive line talent. But if you look at the other side, there's nothing Bill Callahan could have done about that right guard, right tackle combination. Like at a certain point, you need to clear. bar of competency in order for the coaching to even really matter.

And I don't think those guys did. I think the benefit of the doubt stuff that we're talking about here is getting certain position groups to a passable level. But you need to have like the requisite talent there, right? So I think that when you look at the Ravens offensive line last year, this is a very good example. There were a lot of question marks, but a question mark can go either way. We know Dylan Radin's and Nicholas Petit Frere aren't good players.

We didn't know what Roger Rosengarden was going to be. And so I think with a position group like that, how many conversations do we have last summer about, man, whether Ravens can do about their offensive line? They lost some guys. What are they going to do about the offensive line? And the thought was, well, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Let's see how it goes.

We had never seen Andrew Vorhees. We had never seen Roger Rosengarten. And they eventually got that group to play at a level where we never thought about it again. The Packers Offensive Line group does this consistently. So I think this is more about having a group that you perceive as a weakness lifted into competency rather than a coach being able to raise your ceiling at a position. I think talent raises the ceiling. I think that coaching can raise the floor,

but you still need the requisite amount of talent in among that group to make the coaching even matter. I think that is a huge factor of it. And I think it's also just important to realize that when we give these teams the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't mean that it's going to work every single time. It's that if we have to be. If we have to be a good. question marks about X offensive line, four out of the 10 times. Maybe it works out for them. But with a team like the Ravens, that might be six or seven out of the 10 times. And that's the thing is just that over the long haul, it's going to make more sense for them and more often than I mean, even Bill Belichick, like for as much as we said, oh, he can get away with lesser

defensive talent or particular defensive talents. Like, there were years over his stretch where they were bad defenses. Because like you said, the talent just wasn't good enough. And they had to get to a certain bar and then he could take them to wherever he wanted to go. So I think it's more for me just when we say this stuff, it's about the long haul and it's about over a six-year sample. Are they going to be able to get away with this type of stuff consistently? And I think we've seen that with teams like the Ravens, like the Packers, the Steelers to a different extent, that you can get away with this type of stuff when you have the right infrastructure. We've talked about this a lot when in terms to coaches and how you think about the value of coaches and the phrase and kind of the thing,

I've applied to it is they're multipliers for the talent that you have. But even if you're a 1.5x coach in Bill Calhann, 1.5 times zero is still zero. And I think that every once in a while, that's the level of talent that you're going to have. And I think the right side of the Titans' offensive line last year is a very good example of that. Or even Lou Anirumo.

Three years ago, we thought he was a multiplier. And then the defensive roster just deteriorates to such a point that I don't think Bill Belichick could have done anything with that. So, like it, again, is one of those things where, like you said, you have to hit at least a two, you know, you got to be this tall to ride with the roster talent. And if you can't get there, then there's just not a whole lot of coaches who can do anything about it. It's got an excellent bar.

All right. This one is from Hank Lunsford. Hank lays the question out right off the jump. Are the Chargers overlooking cornerback one? I know this might be nitpicking because the Chargers have a well-rounded DB room with a couple studs like Derwin and Elijah Molden. I also know they have a DC that seems to make it work. matter who he has out there, but I feel like CB1 isn't being addressed by fans or analysts.

The two rookies played great, but Tar Heap still is best at slot and Cam Hart was injured fairly often. Is this a bigger need than people are addressing or am I overthinking this? We've been going back and forth, but Robert, you wrote in the sheet that you think this is a very good question, so why don't you take this one again? I just think it's a worthwhile thing to ask given the state of the roster. Like I think that asking like, oh, do they still need another corner? Probably worth bringing up. My answer to this is, I think the Chargers have shown us how they think about where they are from a team-building perspective

with the way that they've approached this off-season. They've slow-played it, and I think they're justified in slow-playing it because they still have a lot of needs. Could you justify a receiver in the first round if you're the Chargers? Absolutely. Could you justify an interior offensive lineman in the first round if you're the Chargers?

I think so. I think you could still probably do that if you, depending on what you think of your center. Like they have Andre James and Bozeman, but if you want to upgrade there, I wouldn't upset me at all. Do you need another edge player if you're the Chargers? Yeah.

Do you need another interior defensive tackle that would be worth drafting high? Yeah. And Corner is also on that list. So I think this is just a reminder that even though they made the playoffs last year, when it comes to the high end investments that are still required for this team, it's still very much a choose your own adventure sort of thing. Like they're early enough in the process here where I wouldn't be ruling out a lot of positions based on who they have on the roster.

that's a great point is that this is again a team that i think feels very confident in who they are so they don't feel like they have to go do a bunch of crazy stuff to try to fill all these holes at once and so i mean and maybe they do just draft a guy at 22 or they trade up a little bit in the first round and they take will johnson or whatever and we don't even have to have this conversation when we do that that wouldn't be surprising to you no given how they have on the roster i don't think that's crazy and i think that's kind of what he's saying here exactly and honestly the other thing i would say too is with some of those other positions of need that we're looking at, like interior offensive line and receiver outside of McConkey, obviously,

we don't have any proof of concept that they're going to have something passable at those spots next year. Like we just don't have proof of concept of it. At least with the edge rushers, you have Mack and you have Tully. And at least at the corners, you've seen the young guys play relatively well, even if Cam Hart did have issues there. So they might think this year, okay, we're not going to win Super Bowl this year. We can get by a corner for now. let's try to use our first round pick and some of our extra resources on the offense.

And then maybe next year when we actually think we can make the jump, that's when we go make our play at like a serious cornerback one. It's funny because when I'm looking at this, Cam Hart isn't the corner I would be trying to replace as part of this calculus. Dante Jackson got paid $6.5 million a year with $7 million guaranteed. Dante Jackson's contract isn't preventing you from drafting a corner if you think there's a special one available. The interior offensive line is actually the spot I would be most surprised to see them spend a lot just based on the Ravens history of approaching that position and how much I think the Chargers approach this spring has fallen in line with that.

Going out and getting low cost moves where you're saying, okay, we got Bechtin now, we still have Zion Johnson, have Andre James, and you have Bradley Bozeman. We have four guys, we have three spots. We'll figure it out. I think that's kind of how the Ravens have approached that for the most part, pre-Tyler-Linderbom. Like, he's the one that steps outside of that. But if you look at their history for the most part or in the interior specifically, they didn't spend a lot of high-end draft capital. You know, Marshall Yand, I think, was a third round pick.

I'm going to have my office for-forward guidelines taken away. Yeah, but for the most part, they didn't swing big on those spots. And so I think that's the approach the Ravens are taking, or the chargers are taking, if I'm trying to read the tea leaves here a little bit. but other than that, I think a high-end investment at virtually any position is probably on the table for this team. And I think probably should be given who else is on the roster at those spots. Yeah, I agree. This will be one where after the draft, we can actually like reassess what I think about the cornerback room.

We do this every year. And I'm spoiler alert, planning on doing it again this year. One of the pre, the post draft shows that we do is what team, what message teams send us by what they did in the draft. and the charters are one of the teams I'm like most looking forward to. Because last year, it was very clear, right? And I think that you saw how it all played out. In their minds, this is a theoretical hypothetical exercise that we saw in practice. They could take a receiver or a tackle with five.

Players that are justified taking their and neighbors in all. They ended up taking all and they took a receiver in the second round. That is a clear signal. And again, based on conversations I had at training camp, we think tackles are harder to find than receivers. So we wanted to take the tackle and then figure out receiver a little bit later. That is the message that was sent on top of this is the type of team we want to be. I'm very interested what the year two message is that is going to be sent by the Chargers because I don't think we've gotten a ton of it from the moves that they've made in free agency.

I think that will be a spicy one. That one's going to be a really good one. Well, we'll do the team. We're doing a bunch of different like bigger picture draft shows. But that that's one where I think the Chargers will absolutely fit into the discussion. All right, Bauer, what's the next one? All right, here we go. This one is from Samuel Pardee. Samuel says in last week's mailbag, you talked about how traditional offball linebackers tend to fall to the later rounds because they're so challenging to evaluate properly. So my question is this.

Imagine that Fred Warner was inserted into the past 10 NFL drafts, but everyone magically knew exactly what his career trajectory was going to be. And how many of those drafts do you think he would have been the number one overall pick? Derek, get us rolling with this one. So I took this question to mean that we only know how good Fred Warner is going to be. And then with the other prospects, we're just assuming what they were as prospects. So 2015 for me. Okay. Yeah.

I think it gets different if you assume we know how good everybody is. I took it as just what they wear as prospect. So 2015, James Winston, I think, was probably good enough as a quarterback prospect that because he was a quarterback, he still would have gone. 2016 is tricky because obviously we had Jared Goff going first overall to the Rams. But if we remember, the Rams had. had to trade into that pick with the Titans who had Marcus Marriota already at the time. So like I think there's actually a world where the Titans just stick and pick and go, yeah, we'll take the all pro incredible linebacker.

So I think that one could have been on the table. 2017, Miles Garrett, that's no question there. Baker Mayfield in 2018 was probably a good enough and highly regarded quarterback prospect that he would have gone. 2019, 2020, 2020, 2021 were all quarterbacks. It was Kyla Murray, Joe Burrow, Trevor, don't even have to think about it. 2022 was the Trayvon Walker class. even though I think Trayvon Walker has been fine and like Hutchinson was good,

I think Fred Warner goes first overall in that class anytime. And then 23, 23 is actually the trickiest one because Bryce Young does go first overall. And I think Fred Warner, the certainty of how good he was and some of the questions you would have with Bryce Young, you would think you would take Fred Warner. But I think we have to consider that David Tepper is like a very impatient person and wanted the quarterback right away. So I think there's a chance they still take the quarterback. And then last year was Caleb. So I don't think it would be Fred Warren.

This is funny. I handled it a little bit differently. I guess I like split the difference where I think you did know a little bit more about how some of these other guys' careers were going to play out. So when I went through it, if you look at 2015, like it's James and Marioita, I think I'd definitely rather have Fred Warner than either James or Marioita in that draft. So I think 2015 is a yes for me. 2016 is a close one. Would you rather have Fred Warner or would you rather have Jared Goss? in terms of his career and the overall impact.

That one's like a real conversation probably. Yeah. Well, and actually, I think the trickier one to me is Jalen Ramsey. So it's Ramsey, Tunsell and Bosa are all in that draft. You can make an argument for all of those guys. And they were all fantastic. And like, obviously there's a level of certainty that like, because you know in this scenario that you get all pro Fred Warner, it's hard to pass on that.

But Jalen Ramsey was like the best cornerback prospect we've ever seen. like checks every single box for like what is a special, special corner. And if you thought that you could hit on that, and then he did. Like he was everything he was supposed to be. And so that, he is actually the one that like makes this hard for me. Especially if we remember like the Titans had the first overall pick

so they could have just stick and pick a guy. I think you probably would have been between like Warner and Ramsey. And think about Tunsel. Like Tunsel fell in the middle of the first round is fucking gas mass bongs, which is so crazy. The fact that that is a real thing that happened. That was amazing, man. like Mahomes obviously was in the 2017 draft but even if you again want to play it out like you did

Miles Garrett was a generational like all time prospect and has justified that 2018 there are so many quarterbacks that the answer is probably no matter how you want to handle that question 2019 still probably know with Kyler 2020 know with Burrow 2021 probably know no matter which way you play it out even if you don't know the careers of the rest of the guys I think Trevor Lawrence still goes number one if you do know the careers, it's probably Trevor or Chase would probably be the number one pick in that draft. 2022, my answer is yes. I think that one is the clearest one to me where Trayvon Walker goes number one.

And even if you look at the rest of that top 10, it's definitely Fred Warner. 2023, I still think it's C.J. Stroud, like playing it out the way that I did. I think you still take C.J. Stroud even knowing where Fred Warner was going to hit. And then 2024, it's Jaden and then one of the quarterbacks. Yeah. Yeah. If you play it out that way a little bit more where it's like you know this stuff, I think it's funny that either way, 2022 is the only class where it's like, yep, side unseen, that is you would have Fred Warner.

All right, before we move on, we're going to take one more quick break. Before we get back into the show, I want to tell you about the athletics listener survey. You listen to us, now we want to hear from you. We're asking you to fill out a quick survey about you and your podcast habits by going to theathletic.com slash athletic slash survey 25.

These lucky entries will win $100 worth of Amazon vouchers. So whether you're a long-time listener or a new one, we want your feedback. Go to theathletic.com slash athletic slash survey 25. That's theathletic.com slash athletic slash survey 25. The link is also in our episode description. And with that, we can turn back to the mailbag. This question comes to us from Emily Princiotti.

She says that she loved last week's question about valuing the on-field product a bit more, and it made her wonder the following. A, would Michael Vick have been as popular in the EPA per play in passing efficiency era? And B, one a non-star player from this era who has middle of the road to, production, but an exciting play style would be considered a star and heavily revered if you plopped him back into the 99 to 2006 NFL with an identical statistical profile relative to his era. Robert, take this one first. To me, it was like big thumping guys.

Like that's the, those are the guys I was throwing in. Like, there's a chance in 2000, Leo Chanel would have been like the fifth best player in the league. He would have been like Ted Johnson. Yeah. Like there's a chance that Leo Chanel would have been like. like an all pro in 2000 if you weren't having to cover as much as a bigger linebacker. So, but any big linebacker you want to throw in there, I think we would think about or talk

about them a little bit differently if this was 25 years ago. Then running backs, same kind of deal, just like bigger running backs. Like Josh Jacobs, somebody that could just eat 350 carries a year would be somebody that we talked about like the MVP discussion in some seasons. Joe Mixon is probably in there too. And then the last type of guy I wanted to throw in there was just like a true dual threat tight end, like a guy who was a really good blocker. I looked at the tight ends who made the Pro Bowl in 2000. It was Wesley Walls.

And I can't even remember who the other. Something Sloan from the Lions with like 500 yards. And so guys like Josh Oliver, I think would just be players we talked about a little bit differently in a world before the Travis Kelsey's. had kind of taken over how we understood modern tight ends. The Travis Kelsey is the Brock Bowers, those sorts of guys. Yeah, that type of guy and even Leo Chanel to a different degree would go from like role player to like serious Pro Bowl contender type of player. I think those are good ones.

I also had another running back. I had Najee Harris who like, again, he's not the greatest player, but just eats a million carries never comes off the field. Like you probably would have done the priest's homes 400 carries like if you scaled it back to like then. So he was one for me. I had two more for that. Jalen Pitch.

Like, I think at the dawn of the, you know, turn of the century, there was a big thing of like, you remember the NFL like jacked up segments where you just had a DB who was trying to kill everybody else on the field. Jalen Petrie is, I think one of those guys. And so he could have fit into that. And then I kind of think like Trayvon Walker, because I think back then when we didn't think as much about like pressure to conversion sacks and all that stuff, you just looked at sack numbers and then you looked at the big long guy who was beating the shit out of everybody else on rundowns. and he'd be like, oh, that guy is pretty good. And so I actually think we probably would have appreciated Trayvon Walker a little bit more. I also really quickly want to answer the Michael Vick part of the question. That one is complicated because I think if you did just plop Michael Vick and his stats and like into this area and like scaled it up a little bit.

Yeah, he wouldn't be as popular. He would probably be something closer to like what Justin Fields was. And that's probably a little bit disingenuous. But you understand what I'm saying. The difference and why Vick is tough is that when Vick was. doing this at the time. He was the only guy like that. He was a revolution. He was, it was like, I remember I went, I think when I was like eight years old, I went to a Bucks Falcons game and I saw Michael Vick and I was like, I didn't know that you could play the sport

like that. Like it was, it was a revolution to me. He really, he really was. Somebody who doesn't, wasn't old enough to remember Randall Cunningham really. Right. Because when Randall Cunningham was playing, I was like seven or eight years old. And then Michael Vick comes along when I'm, in middle school. And so at the time where I'm like, my consciousness has awoken as a football fan

and I can actually remember and appreciate it, I felt very similarly about watching Michael Vick in like 2000, 2001. It was incredible. He was more than just a cool and unique player,

which is kind of the framing of the question. He was a signal for where the league was going to go, which I think kind of makes him a unique cultural phenomenon. Yeah, there's no doubt about that. Again, I know Michael Vick was a rookie in 2001,

but I remember watching Michael Vick at Virginia Tech with like real intense. Like he was a guy that you would seek out even if you weren't a Virginia tech or even a college football fan at that point. I was also too young for Randall Cunningham, but Steve Young is like some of my original football. Yeah, Steve Young's a good one. Yeah.

Another one like that. So very fun question. Thanks for sending it in. Emily. Last one here, you guys, comes to us from Brad Varian. Brad says, I was aimlessly perusing through Spot Track this morning when I noticed that Juan Soto's contract with Mets this year. includes a $75 million signing bonus, all do it signing,

not spread out over several years, no delays, just a normal man. A normal man who is otherworldly at hitting a baseball, making $121 million. It's about $740,000 a game for a regular season in Major League Baseball for one year of playing baseball. Frankly, Brad says he has too many questions here, but they all boil down to this. Would any team in the NFL be willing to utilize an outrageous signing bonus like this

to their advantage? If the Eagles had Josh Allen would, how we give Josh a check for $100 million at signing so we could get his cap hit down and keep the rest of that roster together. Thanks for reading and congrats one Soto. Robert, take this one. I alluded to this a little bit earlier in talking about the Brandon IU contract. So the way that, and I'm not a cap expert, I just want to say that as we get into this

question. But one of the reasons that I don't think you see this outside of the fact that the NFL has a real salary cap and the fact that cash becomes a consideration, like you still have to have to have the cash on hand to pay the rest of your roster. So if you had out $100 million signing bonus, you would still have to figure out how to pay the rest of your 52 guys with, let's say, a team is willing to spend $50 million more in cash than the cap. That's probably a high number. Even for this year, it would be $330 million. Then you'd have only $230 million in cash to pay the rest of your roster.

So that's something to think about there. The baseball owners are a little bit more liquid when it comes to the cash and how they're willing to throw it around. But when you think about the cap considerations for this, the brand and I you contract to me is a very good example. So if you look at IUC's contract in year one, he has a minimum-based salary and a $23 million signing bonus. The way that signing bonuses work in the NFL is they become prorated over the next five years of the deal. So one of the reasons that you don't want to do that is because if you put in option bonuses in future years and you convert those to signing bonuses, you can then pro-rate those over the rest of the deal. So with Iyuk's case, he has a $23 million signing bonus in year one. He has a $23 million option bonus in year two and a $25 million option bonus in year three.

They have two void years on the end of this deal. So the option bonus he gets in 2026, then pro rates over the three remaining years on his deal and the two void years. So in actuality, this is kind of like giving him a $65 million signing bonus. You're just putting that $65 million signing bonus over three years because you're taking the fullest possible advantage of the proration that comes along. with the structure of that contract. I got to be honest, I've got nothing here. Like the cap stuff is not quite my wheelhouse. And so I'm actually pretty glad that you were able to explain it that way.

That actually made sense to me as someone who doesn't do as much digging into the particulars of how the cap stuff works. But like, I think what you said of- proration to the best possible advantage if you're doing it huge signing bonus like that. Some teams do that. Like the Texans give out big signing bonuses now and how they structure their contracts. but if you truly want to wield the proration, the option bonuses are probably the best way to do that because you get the benefits of a signing bonus later into the contract. So you can just have multiple signing bonuses essentially.

And that's what you've seen a lot of teams that are creative against the cap. That's what they're doing with this kind of stuff. Okay. That makes a lot more sense. And then the only consideration I had with which you already brought up was it's, I just don't know if there's an NFL owner that has that kind of cash on hand. I mean, there's not that many people in the world that have that kind of cash on hand yearly. And so that would be the only consideration for me. Yeah, again, I think that the proration benefits you if you do it the way that some of these teams like the Niners have done it with the IU contract.

All right, that was a weird one, but I just, the IU contract and seeing it in real time during the show actually made me want to go back and answer that one. It's perfect. Sometimes some of these questions do tie into each other in a pretty beautiful way. All right. That is all we've got for today. sincerely appreciate you guys listening. We will be back tomorrow with the next iteration of on the clock. We did our first installment last week with picks one through six. I have a draft expert on the show. We ask him, all right, you are team X on the clock. We'll start with

the Jets on Tuesday. Here are your three options when you're on the clock. Which direction are you going? So we're doing that tomorrow. And then we will have some other fun shows coming your way this week. Me and Derek will be back on Wednesday. And then actually this week, week instead of a Thursday show, we're going to be pushing our show to Friday because Dane has to turn in the beast on Wednesday. So we're going to let him do that, take a breath, and then record for us on Thursday. We're going to talk about the running backs in this year's class with Dean for Friday's show. So that is what is on top over the next few days. Hopefully you're looking forward to it. We appreciate you spending the time with us. We'll talk to you very soon.