The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Monday Mailbag: Player/team personality fits, Justin Jefferson's unique traits, the outlook for an all-rookie team, and more

Episode Date: May 26, 2025

We're digging into the mailbag on this episode of The Athletic Football Show. This time around, Robert Mays and Derrik Klassen tackle questions on how a team made up entirely of rookies would fare in the NFL, how the original Antonio Brown/Raiders trade affected the league, what makes Justin Jefferson so special, and a whole lot 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. Another Mailbag Monday here on the Athletic Football Show. Our producer Michael Beller here to ask our questions. Derek Classen also join me to run through all of these. As always, sincerely appreciate everyone who sent them in. We love doing these all the way throughout the off season. You guys do a great job of making it worthwhile.

And this week was no exception. Let's get to those questions and those conversations right now. It's time for another Mailbag Monday. here on the athletic football show. I am joined by my co-host, Derek Classen, and our producer, Michael Beller, who has done a fantastic job of reading these questions all off-season. Beller, let's get to it.

What is the first question you got for us on this week's Melbaugh. Okay, here we go. Glyn Sheldon writes in. He says, what an offense of Cam Ward, Ashton, Jente, Travis Hunter, Colston, Loveland, Will Campbell, et cetera, and a defense of Abdul-Carter,

Mason Graham, Jehad Campbell, Travis Hunter again, et cetera, actually be able to compete against NFL, teams. Could they make the playoffs? Whilst a team composed entirely a first round picks or, you know, first guy picked at his position would clearly have a higher average level of talent than most teams. Do you think their lack of experience at the NFL level would hold them back? Overall, assuming an average level of coaching and schedule, how many wins would an all rookie team get? What do you got here, Robert? Not many. I think they'd be pretty bad. And it's for a few different

reasons. Let's just say it was the first player picked it every single position. And let's just say, On average, that gets you all of the first round picks and then, let's say, a dozen second round picks, because obviously they're going to be overlaps, right? There's going to be a bunch of receivers, a bunch of tackles, et cetera. I think that combination, the hit rate on those players is what, at best, 55%. So now you're talking about half of those guys even being good for rookies. And that's beyond considering the development curve for all of those players. players. So even if Cam Ward is good, you're going to have an entire rookie offensive line ahead of him.

You're going to have an entire collection of rookie receivers. I think that just compounds. When you rookie development pads and curves are maybe a little bit less obvious when they're one of a whole, right? Like you can look at a guy. I'm trying to think of a good example of this, like somebody who, like Joe All last year, right? Like Joe All was really solid for a rookie, but he wasn't like an overwhelming player. And I think that's even like a plus outcome when you're thinking about all the different things that could happen with the rookie player. So I don't know what the exact win total is. I'd say three or four.

I'd say it'd probably be one of, if not the worst teams in the league over a single season. Yeah. I don't think it would be like an embarrassing showing, but it would be they would win less than five games probably. And my read on it was one, the hit rate thing is important. Like even down the line, the best that you're probably going to get is that 50 to 55% of the players that you're talking about here end up good. And that means probably less of them.

are going to be good as rookies. The other thing is, what are the three positions that can make the game go the most wrong for you? It's quarterback, it's offensive line, it's corner. Those are really hard positions to play in the NFL as rookies, which means the three hardest. Yes, which means the game can get out of hand really quickly if those guys don't know what's going on. So I think if the conversation was like, how good could a team like this be three or four years into their career?

Like, could that be a playoff team? Maybe. year one, I just don't think so. I don't see it. I hope they would be a playoff team of three or four years into their career, given the amount of draft capital you have pumped into the roster. But in year one, I think it'd be tough. There are some exceptions to this, like the 2011 draft. Like, if you dropped those guys in, all as rookies, like, that team might be able to sneak into the playoffs because that class you're looking at Cam at quarterback, Julio and

A.J. Green are your two wide receivers from the jump. You have Von M. Miller as your number one ace edge rusher immediately. Patrick Peterson is your number one corner. Tyron Smith would be your left tackle. And all of those guys. JJ Watt. JJ Watt's second year was his breakout. By the end of his first year, he was a very good player.

But those are that type of draft class. Maybe we can have a conversation about what they would be able to do immediately. But I think you'd have to have one of those kind of all-time outlier draft classes to feel really good about your chances. Yeah. It would have to be the best. class of all time to even sniff the postseason. Cam Jordan is on that team. Cam Hayward would have been your interior player. Andy Dalton's

your backup quarterback. Rodney Hudson is your starting center potentially. The corners are decent too. Pretty good team. Actually, Mike Pouncy. And Jimmy Smith. That's not bad. Yeah. You're, you're doing okay there. All right, guys. Let's get on to our next question. James Pabiniak writes in and says, I was listening to the Coltakes episode and Robert brought up how situational context can really obfuscate the eval on a QB even more than we realize. I completely agree. And think another example is the recent strong seasons of Darnold and Baker in much improved situations. My question is, are there any former QBs you remain convinced would have had a more successful or at least longer career

had they been given a second chance in a better structure? Derek, you take this one first. So the easiest for a lot of reasons is first, probably David Carr. I mean, being thrown into an expansion team when you were that talented of a quarterback. Like I can't imagine many guys would have been good after that. Sam Bradford is another one where just highly talented, set behind an offensive line that decimated him. That didn't work out. I think Marcus Mariotta was like mildly mismanaged in Tennessee. Like I just think that that was always a weird fit. And I wonder if he had come along five years later when the offense was maybe ready for those types of players a little bit more. Like could he have actually been a player who was consistently a pro

bowler? And then for him, obviously, some of the shoulder stuff I think really hurt there. Um, And then my cheating one because this guy ended up being, like, having a good arc anyway and did have some moments on his first team. Carson Palmer should have had such a better career than he had. Like, he should have been awesome. But the Bengals weren't serious. And then he was traded to a bad Raiders team. Like it just, he should have been cooler. I mean, he shredded his knee when the Bengals were kind of like at the height of that version of the team, which I, that can't go overlooked.

And then he comes back right as they're starting to run into some of the financial reality issues that plagued them during. that time. So I think that's a really good one. Mariotta is an interesting one. I mean, I think that that one I would love to see in a slightly different context. Going all the way back, I mean, David Carr, I don't even remember that. I don't know, like, what you know about prospect Derek, or David Carr was. So that one's tough to comment on. Guys like Randall Conningham would be really interesting, right? Like, let's say Randall Conningham comes along in a different era. How do we treat him? How much more comfortable is the league with a player like that and being able to utilize him? The one I landed on was, was San Bradford. I just think that San Bernard. I just think that

Sam Bradford is going to be really misremembered for what he was as a player and what his career looked like. I was in the Big 12. I was at school in the Big 12 when San Bradford was at Oklahoma. And I just remember what type of player he was. And honestly, what type of athlete he was. He was an underrated athlete at the position. I mean, he was like the best player in every sport in the state of Oklahoma when he was a kid.

He was that type of all-time athlete. I was actually talking to a former coach of his this morning because we were going down memory lane a little bit. And he was like, yeah, you know, he's a scratch golfer too. And literally today, somebody tweeted at me that he's in like some pro-am event. And they did, they have like the best round, him and the other guy in like a USGA event recently. And so that's what we're talking about with Bradford. And then you go back and I was watching some of it this morning.

Some of the clips from 16 and 17 when he was on the Vikings are wild. Obviously the 17 is just the one game. But you go back to like 2016 event. And the two things that jump out to me from that stretch of it were how just pure of a thrower he was. Like just like such a beautiful pure thrower of the football. And also that version of Diggs and Thielen early in their careers were insane. Like insane. Those clips and those highlights of the week one game against the Saints.

Diggs makes like six crazy plays. That I remember that. It's weird to have like a, oh, I remember this Sam Bradford game very vividly. that Saints game, it's like, I think if you watched it, it would be hard not to remember it. That performance was incredible. It was a prime time game. And so everyone was watching it. It was week one of the season. So everyone was tuned in. And obviously, San Bradford was really held back by injury. But I think it was accelerated by the infrastructure of those early Rams teams when he was drafted there. Those were just not good teams. Again, speaking of my experience at the time, I was at Missouri when Sam Bradford got drafted. It was like it was right after I was leaving. And so I was paying attention to those Rams teams. teams in ways I would not have been otherwise, and it was not a good situation. So seeing him in slightly better circumstances and the fact that the one time we got to see him with an infrastructure and a support and cast like those Vikings teams, he looked fucking

awesome. I do think that there is a very different path for San Bradford had to play it out slightly differently. Yeah, he was sometimes in the way that we talk about like Gino Smith being one of the best pure, just like the ball spins the right way. Bradford had a lot of that. It was beautiful. And some of the throws I was posting earlier today, like, he just gets absolutely annihilated while throwing some of these balls from the pocket.

It's almost like if you made Kirk Cousins even more talented. Like, that's kind of like Sam Bradford's playing style. And I think that that guy in the right circumstances could have been really, really fun to watch for a long time. Absolutely. Okay, guys, next question is from Adam Sandwell. He starts with this. Two points I think most people will agree with. some franchises are clearly better destinations than others for newly drafted players' likelihood of success.

Point two, some franchises are clearly better at selecting players in the draft than others. How does one tell the difference between the teams that are better at drafting players who are thus more likely to develop into good players versus the teams that are better at developing good players, which leads to a retrospective analysis of those franchises having been, quote, good at drafting? In short, how does one disentangle drafting and developing? which teams are good drafters but bad developers. Conversely, which teams are good developers but bad drafters? What are the tangible day-to-day and week-to-week actions that differ among teams that develop drafted players well and those that do not?

Robert, take this one first. That question, that set of questions, which teams are good drafters but bad developers and which teams are good developers but bad drafters, I think it's impossible to answer because you could never untangle those things. So it's a difficult question, but it's a good one. I'm not sure there's an easy answer for it. The place where I would start is which teams have a development timeline that is pretty obvious for some of these players. And this might not be the right answer to the question, but the first place my mind goes is like the Packers and the Ravens and the success they've had with guys who are like third, fourth, fifth round picks that didn't play right away.

Right. There was a plan for how those guys were going to come along and what they would eventually become. There are exceptions to that. Like Bakhtiari and I believe Corey Lindley both started as rookie. but they had a lot of mid-round offensive linemen that they brought around long pretty slowly guys like mike daniels jumped to mind for me devante didn't play in his first year really he was a sort of a late bloomer and then you think about the ravens and like my god i mean madamekah zedarius smith pernell mcfee i mean there are just so many of them and

so i don't know like did they identify the right talent that other teams couldn't or did they have the right plan for those guys i i think it's really really hard to figure that out. And on the other side of it, I'd say the Eagles recently, that's a team where I think it's more about being able to work the draft in the correct way. Like Jaylon Carter, Quignan Mitchell, Cooper DeGine,

they hit immediately. I mean, they were good players right away. And I think that was more about figuring out how to take the right guy at the right moment. So I really don't know how to answer this. I think it's really, really hard to separate the two. I think it is too. Development, I think we go through spurts with certain teams

where it's like, man, they've been able to develop this position over this, you know, handful of stretch. But it's usually just like a position coach was there and then he leaves and it's gone. Like when for the Ravens, they had a stretch there where they were just getting like pretty quality play out of the most random street linebackers that you could find. And it was because their linebacker coach was just really good. And then he moves on and it's just like it's a different dynamic and that's not what they're doing anymore.

To me, the good drafting, I think hit rates in general are going to fluctuate for even the best drafting teams. But to me, good drafting is like, do you have a consistent plan? Like, with the Packers, it was always like specifically with the offensive line. They know exactly what they're looking for. They know exactly what they're identifying. And even with some of like the length and height and weight stuff they have at other positions, I think that factors into it. The Eagles, like you mentioned, the fact that like how thoughtful they are about how they manage the draft slots, I think makes them good drafters. And then like with the Ravens, how consistently they identify exactly what they want to do in the front seven with their third to fifth round

picks finding the Brandon Williams, the Prenel McPhee's, you know, all these guys. Like, it's such a clearly thought out plan for the types of players they're looking for in that range. And then obviously in the first and second rounds, they're just like, oh, the good player fell to us. We'll take him. Like, it's just good, it's a good draft process. Whereas you look at some other teams like, you know, the saints.

It's all over the place. And you can have a 2017 class. it works out, but that one class doesn't make you good drafters. Like, they're more all over the place and sometimes it just works. Sometimes it doesn't. The part about the position coach, I think, is a really good one because there are obviously several examples of this. The Eagles and what they're able to do along the offensive line because of Jeff Stalent,

that's very real. You mentioned Dave Merritt on a recent show we did, who is the defense backs coach for the chiefs. Think about all the guys who were mid-round picks to like undrafted guys for the chiefs who've turned into very good players. I mean, Charvarius Ward got paid. Ligerius Sneed was a fourth round pick, I believe, who got paid. And the team traded a third round pick and paid Lagerius Sneed.

There's a real track record of development and success for certain position coaches on teams. But I'm not sure that's an organizational thing. I think that's just specific to the coach or the unit that we're talking about. Exactly. Like even the Saints, like Aaron Glenn was there for a lot of the young DBs they had. And then he's moved on. It's like, I don't know if they've done like a fantastic. job with some of the DB stuff that they've done.

Like Gulli McKinthry was fine last year and Taylor has been okay for them. But it's like I think if Aaron Glenn was there, those guys would probably be a little bit better than they've been. And look at what the Lions have done. I mean, look at what Kirby Joseph did. I mean, Taryn Arnold was good as a rookie. And Brian Branch has been absolutely phenomenal. And so that's a perfect example, right?

So the Lions take Brian Branch in the second round. They get Kirby Joseph in the third round. Are those just good draft picks? Or are those guys that have? been coached in the right way from somebody who has a track record of getting the most out of players of the position. I truly don't know the answer and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to know the answer because you can't untie one from the other. It's whichever one you want it to be. That's what's funny about some of these conversations. Let's see if we can find an answer to this

one here from Brandon loves to you guys. He says has there been a more impactful trade on how the NFL works than the original Antonio Brown to the Raiders trade? I remember conversations at the time about how much dead money to Steelers were taking on how it was a bad precedent. And even though he wasn't good for their locker room, the trade would likely ruin their season. They ended up going a not catastrophic 8 and 8 and teams now take on more dead cap than ever. Did this start with the Steelers showing you can be fine while taking on these dead cap hits?

Robert, what do you got for this one? It's a really interesting question. I think looking back on it anecdotally, there were a few teams that took on a ton of dead money in the past decade or so right around this time. The 2017 Browns and the 2019 dolphins are good examples of this. but they were purposely tanking. And so you almost have to bucket them into a slightly different thing. And then the 2018 bills are another example of this,

where in year two of that regime, after they had made the playoffs, they tore everything down. And at the time, I think it was like a record amount of dead money that that roster took on. And I actually think that's a very good lesson to learn if you're a rebuilding team.

Like they made the playoffs in year one and they did not hear the siren song whatsoever. And ultimately it benefited them in a big way. But the trade part of it, I do think, is worth thinking about because getting something back makes it a little bit easier to take on that sort of dead money. So the Steelers got something back. And then the other few examples I would look at because I think this was kind of where I felt

the sea change. It wasn't necessarily with the Brown trade. It was with a couple trades that happened right after it. And it's probably because it was the same franchise that it was as much of a signal to me as it was. But the Brown or the Rams trading in back-to-back off seasons, Brandon Cooks and then Jared Goff and the dead cap hits they took on. then in the same offseason where the Rams traded Jared Goff, the Eagles traded Carson Wentz

and took on like $33 million in dead money. And so I think that was a moment where I think in 2021 the cap came down, right? Because that was the post-COVID year. But beyond that, I think moving forward, the cap is rising at such a rate that you just shouldn't be afraid of dead money. Like it's not a boogeyman in the way that it used to be. And I think a lot of the moves around that time, whether it was Brown, Goff, Wentz, Brandon Cooks, those are all the examples that come to mind for me where teams just weren't

scared off from it and they ultimately benefited by making those moves. Yeah, I would say what the Rams have done over the past handful of years is probably the most in terms of how the NFL works, both in terms of I think the acquisitions they made, like them doing the Ramsey trade was one of the first like, oh, that's what it costs to go get, you know, ex-defensive player of this quality. And then doing some of what they did on the other end where they were trading away, the guys like Cooks and Jared Gough in eating some of this dead money and being willing to do that, I think is something teams should be a little bit more open to do now.

The one I thought was going to change how the NFL worked a little bit was the Osweiler trade, where they basically just bought draft picks. Like I thought that was going to change. And we see that every now and then. But it's really not as much of a staple as I thought, like that really felt like a shifting of the tides thing. And it just never really was, which I think is kind of fascinating. I think that just goes to how few like truly,

I'm trying to find the right adjective here or the right now. And I was going to say visionary. I think calling Sashi Brown a visionary is probably overstating it a little bit. But I think that- It was creative. You know, here's the word I'll use, because this is the word that's been used to me when I've talked about executives of this ilk.

There are fewer progressive general managers when it comes to breaking the mold in the NFL than people on the outside probably. think. I think there aren't that many guys who are willing to do weird trades like that. And so if the pool of GMs who are willing to do something creative in that vein or something akin to it is five or six guys deep, you're just not going to see a lot of those trades get made because you don't have two to tango. And so I think that's also part of it. And I think that people didn't like that trade. I think that teams and the league in general thought it was kind of dirty and

there was something gross about it. And I think that's one of the reasons why it hasn't been adopted in any way since then. And the idea that it was a lot to pay for a second round pick, I think it was like $15 million or something. And that's probably more than you should pay for a second round pick. But the fact that we don't really see any salary dumps for the most part in the NFL is a little bit surprising. Because we see it in other sports. That's what's kind of fascinating is it's just kind of curious that in the NFL they were

just like, we don't do that here. None of that. All right, guys. We're going to take our first break, then we're going to get back with a bunch more of your questions. Okay, next one comes to us from Mike. Just Mike. There are a lot of us out there. This is one of us.

And he says, it seems every year there are a handful of offenses that are schematically far behind the times. Take the Bears last year or the Matt Canada Steelers from a couple years ago. I get that play calling is an art and marrying plays together as a skill that some are better at than others. What I continue to wonder is how in this decade where the importance of an elite offense is common knowledge, do far too many teams each year settle for schematically antiquated offenses. Does some coaches feel they don't have the players to create a more dynamic scheme? Or is it as simple as there being too many coaches stuck in a different time? Derek, this one's first for you.

I think there's a lot of different angles you can hit this one from. So I'll start with, I think sometimes teams can be stuck in the past. I think that this has probably been true of the Steelers at times, especially with the Canada stuff or even, I forget who the quarterback coach was for Ben Rothesberger. And then they fired the office coordinator. And then yes, like that time. type of stuff, and that gets into my next point, is that I think sometimes coaches can lean too far into familiarity and just wanting guys that they know and assuming that those guys are probably

better at the job than they might actually be. I think another aspect of this is that sometimes teams just want to feel like they're getting on base with the hire, which is what we talked about last year with the Shane Waldron thing, is like, okay, he probably, he might not be a disaster, he might not be great, but, you know, we're going to try to get on base here. And I think I think that can kind of be defensible if you already have a head coach in place and they just want to feel like they're trying to keep their job. I think that type of hire is completely indefensible if you have just scrapped the entire regime, right? Like if you're starting the entire coaching staff from scratch, like new head coach and everything and then you hire a play caller like that, it's like, well, you might as well get creative. You're throwing you're scrapping the whole thing.

Like, why are we not trying to be a little bit more forward thinking? And I think the last point I would make, we're bleeding the well dry here with the offensive guys. Like there's just not, I think, as many of them now as there were five years ago when that was a little bit more untapped. Well, I think that's part of the issue is that, yes, that's true. But if you just, if you look at the last like five years and you look at the candidates who have been hired to do some of these jobs, just picking the next guy off of whatever one of the good treases has been a better solution. than trying to find some sort of retread because you think the floor is higher. That idea of like the floor is higher we're just trying to get on base here. If you're shooting for the middle, the best you can do is the middle,

but I think you're kidding yourself about the floor. And I think that's exactly what the bear's situation was. This is a risk aversion thing to me more than anything else. The Canada thing, you're promoting your quarterbacks coach, he's been in the building, you know what he is risk aversion. Getting Shane Waldron because he's been an offensive coordinator before and you were a little bit worried about how the Getsy thing had gone, so you didn't want another first-time guy, that's risk aversion.

And so I think that drives way more of this than it probably should. And I think something on the other side, a different example of this, I think it's why what the Bucks have done over the last couple years is so impressive. Like, they decided that they were going to try something new. They were going to take some swings. And it's ultimately benefited them. It's benefited them so much that they have to replace their offensive coordinator every single year. But I still think that's probably,

where you want to hunt these guys out. And they're the best of both worlds example of this is, I don't know if the Raiders did this on purpose, but I do think it's a potential downstream effect. Hiring an offensive coordinator that you think is one of the good ones, but is not a candidate to be a head coach for one reason or another, or is not a hot candidate to be a head coach, that's the beautiful place to land.

Right? Like Chip Kelly can be the best offensive coordinator in the league this season, and I'm not sure there's going to be a rabid interest in him as a head coach. Todd Munkin has been really good over the last couple years with the Ravens. There is not rabid interest in him as a head coach. But I still think trying to seek out guys that for whatever reason, you know, are either undeveloped, undiscovered, or have been cast off and kind of a drift for different reasons other than, you know, just that guy failed and that he gets another one immediately as another retread.

That's just not what I would do here. And that's, I think what's actually fascinating about offense specifically is that it seems it's a lot harder to find guy who is a good coach and probably won't be a head coach again. Like Chip Kelly falls into that Monk and all that stuff. On defense you can find those guys everywhere. Like Fangio's not going to be a head coach again. Vance

Joseph might not be a head coach again. Brian Flores, obviously that's a very complicated situation but who knows. The defensive guys who might not be a head coach again seems somehow easier to find. Whereas on offense it's like a significantly smaller pool that you're working with. Because that's what we're chasing. Teams are chasing those offensive

coaches and so I think there's always going to be more of a reason to hedge on certain elements. Oh, he failed the first time. Well, you know, it's going to be different here for us. Because you're chasing the upside there, which I think is reasonable. The last thing I'll say about this, and I want to say this because it's something that happened yesterday on the internet that I wanted to respond to that I think is totally reasonable. I think that overall, the tone we take with some of these offensive coaches, with all of these

offensive coaches should be less derisive and dismissive than it is. These guys, for the most part, are solid professionals who are decent at their jobs. They know what they're doing. There are obviously exceptions to that. Every once in a while, you're going to get a guy who was put into the roll, was completely in over his head, and it's a mistake from the get-go. Like the Canada thing, I think is probably the best recent example of that. The Waldron thing, I don't think Shane Waldron doesn't know anything about football.

I just think that sometimes you're going to get into these moments where the water rises is a little bit faster than you're ready for. And if you can't tie it all together, the league is too good. You can get dismantled almost immediately. And so the margins, in my opinion, between like a solid, slightly above average play caller

and a bottom five play caller I think is smaller than fans on the outside probably think. And I think that there's just be more of like a tone of respect as we talk about all of these guys than there is consistently from the outside. And I love that you say, that because the margin there is when Waldron was okay in Seattle, yeah, Pete Carroll is the head coach, who is incredibly established and successful. And you have veteran quarterbacks like Russell Wilson,

who, you know, he is what he is, but like, you know, you know what you can do with a quarterback like that. Whereas when you walk into the Chicago situation, I don't think Matt Evers was nearly the head coach that Pete Carroll was, obviously. And then you have a rookie quarterback. Like, it's just the things that I think could have helped a play caller like that, you just don't get in a place like Chicago in the way that he had in Seattle. I agree with that. And the last name I'll throw out because this is the one that was brought up that kind of got me down this road. Like Greg Roman, right?

I think that Greg Roman has become kind of a punching bag. And I'm probably guilty of perpetuating that a little bit. But if you look at, and I think a lot of us are in NFL media, if you look at Greg Roman's history, he's a perfectly fine NFL football coach. Like what he's been able to do at some of these spots is very impressive. Like him setting the floor of what your offense is, I very much try. trust him to do that. He's done that over and over and over again. I think that teams, when they're seeking out their ceiling as a passing game, that's when they have to move on

from him. I think you run into a barrier at some point if he's your offensive coordinator. That doesn't mean he's like some incompetent buffoon. It's just about understanding some of the choices and some of the hard choices you need to make when you want to go from point A to point B, from point B to point C. Getting from point A to point B is really hard. And it's not easy as a coach to get your teams there, and he has done that consistently. So I think not being quite as dismissive when it comes to what these guys do and how capable they are is something that we can all be a little bit better at. All right, guys, Justin Jefferson's pretty good at a lot of things.

I don't know how much better he can get, and that's where Ben Bates takes us. Ben Bates says Justin Jefferson is typically considered the best wide receiver in today's NFL and his production through five seasons has him on track to go down as a top five to 10 receiver of all time. compared to other players with that level of prestige though think Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, even Julio Jones. He doesn't have the same freaky physical traits. Is he just well-rounded in a way no one else has ever been?

Or what unique but subtler traits allow him to dominate on the same level as some of the best athletes in the history of the sport? Robert, take this one first. Great question. Very fun question. I like doing this because I think too often we don't do this with good players where we don't talk about the specific qualities that really make them special. think we do it with quarterbacks a lot, but I think with some other positions, we don't do it enough.

And I like leaning into things like this. Jefferson's always been a fascination of mine. I mean, I wrote a story about him. It was probably my first year at The Athletic was one of the last things I wrote. And it was just about what makes him unique. And it really is the way that he's built and the way that he moves. And I think there are plenty of examples that you can point to. And I got going back and watching a lot of his catches from last year as part of this was very fun.

Like I'll take that opportunity every single time. Oh, watching the best past catcher in the league is very fun. Yes, yes. And again, it's the small, subtle things he does that make him so good, and that's why it's fun. The first catch he makes of the season, I believe. This was the first explosive catch. They're playing the Giants, and he's in sort of a cut split on the left side. And he fakes like he's going to run an over route.

So you see his shoulders start to twist a little bit like he's going to take it from the left side all the way across. And then he immediately pivots back and takes it back to the corner. And that small cell, that's what makes the corner turn, and that's what gets him in a blind spot and he's wide open. That's just subtlety and feel, right? Like that has nothing to do with explosiveness or size or the height, weight speed stuff we typically talk about.

But with Jefferson specifically, what I always come back to is he's built in an incredibly strange way. He's only 6'1, but his legs are extremely long. And so he has these massive strides. but then when you watch him change direction, he can still change direction like a 6-1 receiver. I would encourage people if you have like NFL Pro or something. And I can't remember which play this exactly was.

There's several of them. Go watch what Justin Jefferson looks like when he's making a cut or making a break on like a dig route after he's running full speed vertically. His body is bent at such an angle that it's almost impossible to understand. And his legs are so long. that it looks like it doesn't make sense,

like the way that his body is moving. And so that to me is the combination of it where he can turn on a dime and the flexibility that he has, it's like watching Gumbi play. And so there are a lot of just very specific, unique characteristics to the way his body moves and operates that other guys don't have

that are a little bit more nuanced and not as overt as maybe somebody like Jumar Chase. He, I think, in every way, lies to you as a route running. Like you mentioned the, body type. His ability to, it's the long legs. He, very different body type from who I'm about to mention, but like DeAndre Hopkins was also a guy who was built differently than you think. He's only like 6-1, but he has like the longest arms known to man. And the biggest hands I've ever seen. Exactly. So it seems like he's Mike Evans, even though he's significantly shorter than Mike

Evans. And so there's like a little bit of that dynamic with Jefferson where his legs are so much longer than it seems that he's able to do stuff that other guys of that size probably shouldn't. And then you mentioned some of the subtleties in his route running. So he's lying to you by virtue of knowing how to play the position and then lying to you by virtue of the way that the gifts that God has given him. Like that's a really, really difficult combination for defensive backs to deal with. And the other thing is beyond all of the route running and stuff, he has some of the best hand-eye coordination I've ever seen. Like it is, obviously we all remember that play where he goes up for the ball, I think, against Buffalo. We all remember that. He does shit like that

every couple of weeks, dude. It is unbelievable the way that he can find the ball, whether it's in the air, on the sideline, at his knees. It literally doesn't matter. It's truly special. And the last thing I would say that is less a Justin Jefferson thing and more of where we're at with the NFL. The other guys mentioned in the framing of the question, Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Randy Moss, Those are X receivers because that's what it used to require to be the best receiver in the league. We live in a world now where the best guy, you can live in the slot a little bit more. We do a little bit more with cut splits and all this other stuff. Like you can be a different kind of guy.

So Justin Jefferson still would have been good 20 years ago. But the conditions of the NFL may allow him to be the best receiver now in a way that maybe 20 years ago he wouldn't have been. That's a really good thing to bring up. When it comes to receiver production period in this era compared to other eras, that I think overall the conditions for playing offensive football in the NFL are easier by virtue of the rules, a bunch of different things. But I think the flexibility and the malleability from offensive coaches in the league also makes it much easier to be a really good receiver. Like there was a world when Randy Moss was playing where it was like, we're just going to stick

Randy out there and he's going to run a lot of go routes and he's going to score a lot of touchdowns. And Randy Moss was good enough to be unbelievably productive in that sort of setting. Now, go watch the Vikings offense with Justin Jefferson. He's already the best player at his position, and the Vikings are doing everything in their power to get him open as often as possible with the way he's lined up, motions, formational different things. It's a perfect example.

It was like the second or third game of the year. He was in a cut split on the right side. They sent, I think it was a receiver. It might have been J-1 Naylor in motion. And so Nailer goes from left to right, and then Nailer becomes the number one receiver. And then so the corner that was walked up and press over Justin Jefferson now has to bail out. And so Jefferson runs like a curl from 12 to 10 and is sitting there wide open because he had all of this cushion.

And that cushion gets created by a motion right before the snap. And so it's a small example. But I think if you watch Vikings film or just the Vikings offense in general, they're doing that shit all of the time. And he's already good enough where he'd be successful without all of that stuff. That's such a great way to put it because I think, even though he would be great regardless, we are doing a little bit more now, it feels like, of how do we make our best receiver even better? Whereas previously with the Calvin Johnson's, the Randys, it was like, how does he help make us better? Like what does he unlock for us?

And now I think it's a little bit more of a back and forth between those two dynamics. The last thing, along with like the angle of his legs when he's making those cuts, watch where he is on his feet. like he'll make cuts on the side of his foot and off the wrong foot sometimes he's just such a strange player it's like watching Vaughn Miller turn the edge but he's doing that as a route runner

like that's what it looks like there's a lot of that and I think that flexibility is something that we probably underrate when it comes to the position and I think he's a very good example of at its best and at its fullest capacity what it can do for an individual receiver okay the next question comes to us from Dan Addison and he says two teams synonymous with draft excellence,

the Ravens and Eagles, seem to follow a similar general blueprint, excuse me, to consistent draft success. Make the obvious pick when it presents itself at slot, especially in the first round, accrue as much draft capital as possible and build through the trenches.

Those don't seem overly complicated. So my question is, why don't more teams follow their lead? In a league known for producing copycats quickly, it shocks me more teams don't try to emulate these principles. Robert, what do you got here? I would push back at the premise of the question. Just immediately before we even get into it.

I think that there are a couple drafts recently that have really shaped this reputation for both of these teams. And you can point to the individual drafts. One of them is the Kyle Hamilton-Tyler-Lindabaum draft for the Ravens, where both of those guys fell to them. Well, how did they get two first-round picks in that draft? They traded Hollywood Brown and got another first-round pick. I think if I'm remembering correctly, that was the thing that gave them the second one. So they had to maneuver to get into a position to draft both of those. guys. So that's just a, we know we're moving on from this guy. We're going to get a first rounder.

I think they traded away a third, but they end up with another first. And that's how they get both of those players in the same draft. There's nothing, that's not it falling to them. That's them making that happen to an extent. And the same thing is true with the Eagles over the last couple years. Like the Eagles doing that, they had two first round picks in the Jalen Carter, Nolan Smith draft, which I think that's the draft where people started saying that about Philly. And then even the last draft where they got both of the corners. Quina and Mitchell, very good example. That's just, we thought that was a top 15 player. He's available in the 20s. We're going to take this and not think about it later. They moved up for Cooper DeGine. They had to make that happen.

So I just don't think this happens that often with these teams. I just think that they're very outsized examples of this. But I think both of these teams, by virtue of getting more picks and by virtue of maneuvering at the right times and the right ways, kind of set up. up their own destiny and get to create their own narrative when it comes to this. Right. It doesn't happen every draft, but they do get away with it more than others. So when we feel like it happens again on draft night, we're like, we just all grown. We're like, oh, my God, I did it again.

So it does feel like that sometimes. I would also kind of push back on it because to me, these teams are kind of allowed to do this, especially in the first round, because they are already good franchises. That's the other part of this, is that they're never scrambling. They are never scrambling. They're already good. They're never scrambling one in terms of their roster. They very rarely draft for need because usually they just fill them well in free agency or they're developing fourth round picks and all this jazz. So that is part of it. There also is a degree of stability that they're able to operate with. For the Eagles, it's obviously Roseman having been in the building forever. And then for Baltimore, it's everything. Obviously, Ozzy is no longer running the show. It's Eric Costa now. But it's like, it's all in the family. And Harbaugh has obviously been. there for like 20 years. Exactly. Right, exactly. He's been there for as long as they've been drafting all these guys. So there's just a degree of stability and we know how to do this and we know what this feels like that if you have ex franchise who has a new GM who's on his second time on

the job and maybe has a head coach who doesn't quite know what he's looking for yet, it's a little bit harder to draft well, especially, you know, when you're trying to rebuild up the thing and you have four different painful needs on your roster. I just think these teams, even though they do typically draft better than other teams, they are also afforded the flexibility and security to do that. Think about the other team that is a good example of this, an organization that has had complete continuity from one front office regime to the next over multiple decades.

The Packers. The Packers are the other team like this. And so I think that's a really good thing to point out is that because of that continuity, there's just an understanding of how we draft players and the types of players we go after. It kind of goes back into the development thing that we mentioned before because you have such a track record of how you're developing all

of these guys. And I think that gets created because you've been following a similar process or essentially the same process for multiple decades. I just looked it up. Eric DeCas's first season with the Baltimore Ravens was the first season the Ravens were a franchise in 1996. So he's been there for 30 years. You'd be pretty good at understanding how your organization and business works if you worked there for 30 years. Like this is back. to like gold watch when you retire type stuff. You just don't see that very often in professional sports. Yeah, you know all the

ins and outs and all the crevices of how we want to build this thing when you've nobody, you've never built it any other way. The team has never built it any other way. Yeah, like the Ravens are GE in the 70s. Like that's essentially what they feel like from an organization and like business stance at this point.

All right, guys, we are going to take our last break of the episode and then we'll get back with a couple more questions. Next one comes to us from Alex Bartnick. Alex says we often hear about the NFL being cyclical. The most prominent example in my mind is the speed size tradeoff, but you also have positional value, defensive schemes, run pass, run, pass, splits, etc. Logically, this means that if you are at one extreme of the cycle, the other end of the spectrum should be undervalued. So in theory, you can get really good players at that opposite end of the spectrum at a discount because other teams don't value them as much. What would be the consequence of a team consistently trying to play off meta, so to

speak, and are there any teams you think that do this already? Derek, we'll throw this one to you first. So I think that I kind of like the idea of being the team that is off meta and trying to do different things. The issue is that there are a couple of positions that are meta no matter what. Quarterback, it's meta no matter what, especially with the way that the rules operate. Offensive tackle. And we can say maybe right tackle is a little bit more valuable now than left tackle.

But like in general, I think tackle is pretty scheme and like, time proof. And then to me, I think the same is true of edge. And again, we can say that I think defensive tackle is probably closing the gap on them. That to me is not because edge rushers are less valuable. I think we're just seeing that good defensive players or good interior players are a little bit more valuable. But those three positions to me, you need them no matter what they're meta-proof. I think what's more interesting here is not the meta of positions, but it's the meta of archetypes. And what's fascinating about that is that you kind of do have to get in front of the cycle to actually like be really, really good. Those things are like the archetypal

metas are defined by teams that got ahead and did something different and then they were insanely good at it and then everyone wanted to chase them. The Legion of Boom, the way that they built their defense. Shanahan in the 90s, the Fangio defense is like these, they were doing something that other teams weren't doing, and then it was so good that everyone wanted to do it. So I actually think in a lot of ways you kind of do have to play off meta if you want to be whatever the next thing is going to be. Yeah, I think that's really good. I think a good example of that is like the Rams and all like the subtle evolutions we've seen from the Rams and how now everyone is built to stop this. What are we going to do to make teams urgency to stop that previous model misguided?

like everything they've done to set themselves up to stop what we were is not going to be able to that they're not going to be able to stop what we are and I think that that being able to stay a little bit ahead of the curve is really important there I think that I took this in more of like a schematic direction in terms of like how you're trying to build your offense, defense, whatever based on how everything else is working and I think a good example of this to me is I think there are limits to it like the pre-monken Ravens were very much a Zag met a team with the way that they were approaching things in 2018, 2019, 2020, essentially. I mean, they were incredibly good in 2019 and Lamar won the MVP, I think in part because

they were unlike any team in the league when you were trying to defend them. The problem with going so hyper-specific with that sort of approach, though, is that I think that it can leave you inflexible because when you get into the playoffs, you are going to have to play a slightly different style, most likely, because teams are so attuned to how to start. whatever it is, you do really, really well. I think the balance to be found is what are small little shifts and small little departures we can have that give us an advantage in the short term? And I think something like the Sequin deal for the Eagles this year is a really good example.

Like that is buying the dip at a certain positional market. So you're zagging a tiny bit, but at the same time, you still have really, really good areas of your roster. I don't think you can do it wholesale in very, very different. dramatic ways because I think it can pigeonhole you a little bit too easily. The Ravens are a good one because even though they were obviously out ahead of it in terms of doing something creative and all that stuff, it was niche and not something that every other team can like reasonably chase.

Like with the Legion of Boom, sure they were incredible, but you could look at the way that it was constructed and reasonably believe, oh, we can build something like that. With the Ravens, you weren't finding another Lamar Jackson. You weren't finding like Greg, like it's just the way that they built it. you weren't going to do that again. And so I think that was part of it. Another example I was thinking of as we were kind of talking about this, I think what Sean McDermott's bills defenses were at their peak is kind of a little bit

they were off meta. Think about their best players at their best were two safeties who were like kind of flip flopping and playing different roles and they were a little bit smaller guys. It was Matt Milano at linebacker and it was an undersized defensive tackling at Oliver in the middle. That is like not how typically the best defenses are built. And then by the time they got to the playoffs consistently, almost like the Ravens in those Roman eras, it just didn't quite come together the way that they wanted it to. Yeah, I think that was off meta on accident.

That's off meta because you didn't find good players of the most important positions. I think they went out and got von Miller in order to be a little bit more traditional and where their best players were. So that's almost like an accidental way of landing there, not a purposeful way of landing there. Well, that's what I'm saying, though. It's like the off meta stuff is cool. but the three positions that you kind of need no matter what in the quarterback tackle and pass rusher, if you don't have those, it doesn't really matter how good your off meta stuff is if you just don't have those three things.

And I think schematically, that goes back to if your dropback passing game isn't good when you get into the playoffs, you're probably going to have issues no matter how good everything else is. Yep. Last question of this mailbag comes to us from Gary Harris. And Gary says, what players do you think are perfect fits for certain teams from a football personality spirit perspective who never actually played for those teams. For example, Josh Gordon feels like he should have been a cowboy at some point to me. Texas native, big bodied, fluid, beast of a wide receiver who wasn't exactly squeaky clean off the field.

I feel like it's an incredibly easy thing to see him in Jerry World, rocking number 88, but it just never happened. Does anyone come to mind for you guys? Derek, when do you take this one first? Yeah, I've got a couple here. C.J. Gardner Johnson has bounced around a lot in his career, it is stunning he's never played for any of the AFC North teams, like Steelers, Ravens, like I could see it for all of them. Even the Bengals once upon a time had a bunch of hitmen at safety. So like he just, it feels like he should have been in that division at some point. But that's why this is so hard because I think that's true.

But now the Texans are that team. I think the team personalities change so quickly in the NFL that it's hard to do this. Because I think he does fit with what the Texans are. Texans are, but this historically is not what the Texans have been. Right. They weren't this until two years ago. And so it's like, can I really say that if that wasn't that true? Whereas at least like with the AFC North stuff, I can kind of still get myself to buy it. Another one I had was Deshawn Jackson should have been a dolphin at some point. And I know that a lot of people are going to think, oh, that's because right now they have Tyree Kill and Jalen

Waddle. But we have to remember, this was the team that drafted or that had Tedkin for a while. this was also the team that really invested in Mike Wallace being like one of their big guys. So like it just feels like they should have been in on Deshawn Jackson at some point. That's funny that I went the other way. My thing is that Cam Wake should have been a stealer. Because this idea of like this big powerful like speed to power edge rusher. And I know Jason Taylor was a really good player. But Jason Taylor was more of like a speed based guy.

So the idea that a player with Cam Wake's play style is in that white uniform. playing it to that Miami crowd like that just feels wrong to me that that does feel wrong Cam Wake to the Steelers is good and also too because like they kind of have a history of sometimes finding players in weird ways obviously Cam Wake didn't start his career in the NFL whereas

they had um who's the other player who like they found in a weird way Villanova the yeah Villanova yeah a guy who was just like in the army like it just feels very Steelers to find a guy who is not in a traditional way but ended up being like a very very good player just think about how much

Alex Highsmith fits with what the Steelers feel like, and then just crank that up by a lot because that's what Cam Wake was. So that was the first one that came to mind for me. Jalen Ramsey is a cowboy. Like the idea that Jalen Ramsey was never on the Cowboys, I think part of that is because he could have been. And we played that out a lot with what they were going to do

with that pick in the top five. A couple others that are just based on history at the positions. Xavier McKinney, this version of Xavier McKinney on the Packers feels weird. like the best DBs on the Packers like Al Harris was obviously really, really good as a pro and Charles Woodson was great, but I just think that Xavier McKinney's play style,

like he just belongs on the Seahawks. Just a post safety doing that. I think that fits to me. And then this goes back to like what these teams were in 20 years ago, in the early 2000s. But the Jags having Marcus Stroud and John Henderson and even like,

who was the linebacker on that team? Peterson. Mike Peterson? Mike Peterson, yes. Those Jags defenses, like Dexter Lawrence as like an echo of what the Stroud Henderson teams were, that just makes sense to me. And then the Jaggs, obviously had that 2017 team with a really good defensive line. So that's another one stylistically where I can just imagine Dexter Lawrence in those all black

jaggs uniforms from like 2004. That's an incredible. That might be of all the ones here, my favorite one. Because like the Ramsey is a Cowboys cool, but like I've already lived out that fantasy when we did that draft class, so it's like not quite as exciting. Dexter Lawrence on those jacks teams, or even on this jacks team and those uniforms is, is incredible. I think one last one I would have and it's easy to kind of get there because he already

plays similar to the guy who's there. Not to, I don't know how we're getting to two Carson Palmer references in the show, but Carson Palmer playing for Sean McVeigh would have been like incredible. And like what he did with Ariens was obviously awesome. But him and Stafford are kind of similar. And so what he could have done with McVeigh was like, that would have been really cool. I'm sure there are funny of other ones that were missing.

They're obvious. Please let us know which ones you have. You're watching this on YouTube right now. Put yours in the comments, which is a player that just never ended up in the right spot or you could just imagine in a different circumstance based on their aesthetic, their play style and what we've come to expect from those organizations. That's a very fun crowdsource question. I would love to see some of the answers.

All right. That is all we've got for today. Sincerely appreciate you guys listening. We will be back later this week. Until then, talk to you guys soon.