The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Monday Mailbag: Rule change proposals, 'can't-miss prospects' that miss, the shifting dynamics of fandom, and more

Episode Date: March 24, 2025

With free agency fully in the rear-view mirror, we're back to our normal schedule on TAFS. And that means we're back to opening up the mailbag on Mondays! Robert Mays and Derrik Klassen dig into questions about the recent rule change proposals, why it's hard to find difference-making off-ball linebackers, supposed can't-miss prospects who end up missing, building through the draft vs. making big swings, and a whole lot more.Host: 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. We are back to the mailbags here on the Athletic Football Show. Very excited to start doing these again on Mondays throughout the off season. We're going to be doing them every single week. Pretty much the whole off season is the plan all the way through the draft. And then from May 1st until we get to training camp, really enjoy doing them, really enjoy the questions that you guys send along.

So we are back with Derek Classen hitting all of the things you guys want to know. Just a quick reminder. mentioned this last week, but worth bringing up again. We are now in our offseason cadence on the athletic football show. Four shows a week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. That is what we're going to be doing all the way through the draft. We'll be having our live draft show again this year. Very excited about that.

Details on that still to come, but we're going to be rolling along with that. Very excited to do that with Dane and some fun new guests. So keep that on your radar. But on the podcast side of things, four shows a week all the way through the off season. and this is the way that we're kicking that off with another bailbag with me and Derek Classen. Let's get to it. All right, Derek, we're back with the mailbag routine. Got off track a little bit in a good way during the free agency period.

There's a lot of stuff that we had to react to. But as I mentioned earlier last week, we're going to be back in our offseason cadence now moving forward. And that's going to include a mailbag every single Monday because I like doing them and they're fun. And you guys do a great job of sending along the questions. And this was no exception. very excited about a lot of these. I think it's a really good mix of stuff. Yeah, I'm glad to be doing the mailbacks again. One, just because after, I mean, the free agency week was fun, right, but it's a slog. It's a lot going on and to like try to pick up

the pieces there is a lot. So to get back into something that's a little bit more casual, a little bit more fun while still kind of engaging the brain enough. I think I'm happy to be back here. I want to be very clear about this because I have a great job that I feel very, very grateful to have and I love doing. This is not a complaint because it's not real work that other people have to do. But this year specifically, this run of like Super Bowl combat and into free agency is just a reminder that I'm just not the man I used to be. Like it just felt like more of a slog and a little bit more of a demand than it has in previous years where it's like it's March 21st and I'm kind of tired. Like we're just starting draft coverage. And so I do think getting back into this little swing

of things is going to be nice. And this was my first time doing that game because I'd never done the Super Bowl and then we jumped into the combine and then I've never covered free agency the way that we did it where it's podcasts every week, a seven hour of life straight like just all of it. Very exhausting month in again the best way. I wouldn't want to be doing anything else, but it is still exhausting. So let's kick off this one with a question that is just perfectly designed for you. It's why I included it at the top. Andrew Newman says I'll preface my question by saying that I am old. I'm pretty sure Robert and I are the same age and I played linebacker at a D3 University that regularly played University of Wisconsin Whitewater at what someone

called the peak of their dynasty. This is incredibly esoteric Division III Midwest football stuff. Wisconsin Whitewater was very, very good at football for a long time at the D3 level. So I think I have to, I have an average to above average understanding of schemes and playbooks compared to an average football watcher I know can get more complicated. I've listened to both of you talk about the offball linebacker position being something that isn't highly valued, but also something that isn't very easy to evaluate or project. my question is what makes it so difficult?

Are schemes responsibilities that much different from college? Our offenses varied so much to say that finding a linebacker that can do all the things, it's like finding a unicorn. Are we in a period of vacillation where offenses get smaller faster? In turn, defenses catch up, and then offenses swing the other way and defenses have to catch up again. There's a lot to get into here, but I felt like I would give you the floor as somebody who pays attention to this position, probably more than any other person I know. There's a lot of different avenues you could go to this, which is a lot of different avenues you could go to this,

which is why I think it's such an interesting topic. The first one I'll start with at a very base level. I think it's very much like the tight end position where because you're kind of caught in between both worlds with the run game and the passing game, it's just a naturally very difficult transition to make. But I think the other reasons why the college game is so different from the NFL is one, the defensive spacing by alignment in college is a lot different.

You get a lot more three down fronts. And I don't mean three defensive linemen and then you still have your two outside linebackers on the edge. No, I mean literally only. only three people on the line of scrimmage. So the spacing is just significantly different. And then I think because of the hashes, the spacing ends up a lot different. Like these guys, there's more of a premium on being a little bit smaller, being a little bit

faster, being able to cover those large swaths of space. Whereas in the NFL, when things are a little bit more condescension towards the middle of the field, you have a little bit, you're just not always having to cover as much space to the sideline. So I think there's a bigger premium on speed and sometimes coverage ability in the college game, whereas in the NFL, the reality is these guys needs to be a little bit bigger. They need to be a little bit stronger. And things just happen faster.

So you're just not getting as many reps that look like the NFL game in college. And so I think that to me is a lot of it. The spacing is different. And then just there's more of a premium on speed in college, whereas in the NFL, you just have to be bigger. And I would pause this to you. I don't be curious what your thoughts about this are. I feel like in college, things are so much more spread out.

The boxes are lighter. It's really about chasing and tackling, right? It's about athleticism and that stands out. When you go to the NFL game, think about how much different it is to play against, I'm trying to think of like a nonsense college football offense. Think about how much different it is to play against like Tennessee than it is to play against the Baltimore Ravens, right? Like if you're a linebacker in the SEC and you're playing against Tennessee and then you have

to go play against this team that's using all this 21 into 13 pullers, guys slicing across the formation, like what it's doing to your eyes and all. all of the different things that you're having to process as an NFL linebacker in that condensed space is just very, very different than what you're having to do in college. That's another great point. So much of what you're seeing as a college linebacker, and there are exceptions. Like there are some offenses that do get under center. So you see it a little bit.

But a majority of college offenses these guys are seeing are it's full spread. It's a lot of like 10 and 11 personnel. And so you're getting a lot of split zone. You're getting a lot of RPO stuff. And you're getting like maybe some GT counter, but all of it is out of the gun. when you get to the NFL, a majority of teams run like some degree of under center that you're going to have to respect. Some of these college guys come in having never seen under center power. You know what I mean?

And so it's just such a transition from what you've seen at the college game to what you're going to get in the pros. And again, a lot of the stuff that you see from under center like power, duo, counter, all that stuff, it's just a lot more physical than what you're getting with some of the spread run stuff in the college game. Serim Sheik asked a similar question. I think part of his, what he was. curious about was the value of these positions. And I think that this is merely just like a supply and demand issue. Like I think that one of the reasons that you are going to pay for premium positions in the first round of the draft is that that's where you have to find those guys. Linebacker, that's just not the

case. Like it's such an instinct-based position where physical traits aren't really carrying you in the same way that safety is that you don't really have to draft a freak in the first round to find production. At other positions, corner is a stopwatch position. Defensive line is a traits position. Wide receiver is a traits position to a certain extent. These are guys where you have to seek out those sorts of physical talents. And those guys get identified as early round picks. If you look at linebackers in the NFL, we talked about this.

Roquan Smith is really the last guy who was like a top 10 pick that was like, this is a complete guy. It's not just based on physical traits. A lot of the other guys drafted in those spots, whether it's a Devin White, somebody like that, they're not drafted because of what they're going to be able to do as a well-rounded off-ball linebacker. Those guys typically come a little bit later in the draft because we're identifying and developing them based on much more than what they are physically bringing to the table.

Exactly. And because it's such a hard position to evaluate, I think teams are just scared to take those guys in the top 20 compared to like. Yes, I don't even blame them for it. It just, I think it warps people's perception of like, oh, well, linebackers don't go in the top 20 anymore so they're not valuable. It's like Fred Warner is probably about as valuable as any defensive player in the league. It's just that sometimes those guys fall to the third round because they're just harder to evaluate than other positions.

And I think it's just how easy it is to replace them, right? Like where can you fight? It's about supply and demand. And I think it's, we've talked about this a bunch. It's not about devaluing them. It's about figuring out how to pay them and why. And I think I've said this about linebackers and I believe in. I kind of feel the same way about safeties.

Let the league decide who's good. Right? Let the league decide who's good and then I'll figure out if I want to pay one in free agency because there is a supply of them in free agency. It's just an easier way to address the position than it is some of these other spots because it's so hard to evaluate coming from college to the NFL that using those rookie contracts or using just the NFL product in general to weed some guys out and decide who's worth paying and who's not. It's a viable strategy at that position in a way that it's not with a lot of other positions because you have to find those guys in the draft in a way you don't with lineback. Packers. Let's get to our next one here. I'm going to answer this sort of because it was such a good question and I got such good answers that I do want to save a little bit. Aidan Goldstein said, sorry for the ignorance here, but why are there so few difference making offensive line coaches right now? Right now people with track records include Stalwin and Calhanna Tier 1, Hank Fraley and Adam Stenevich in Tier 2,

but what exactly are they teaching that is making the difference? Is a technique, scheme, are all coaches teaching basically the same content? These coaches are just getting better at conveying it and properly motivating their players. If it's the former, are these trade secrets? Why can't more people copy and paste those methods? So the couple more questions that he asked, but at the core of this, it's essentially, why are there so few good offensive line coaches? And I wanted to, rather than me just trying to throw out an answer in terms of what I thought, I asked probably half a dozen head coaches and offensive coordinators about this yesterday. I got some really good responses. I got some good responses secondhand from some pro-offensive line coaches. And here's the broad

strokes of this. And I don't want to dig super far into it because I do think it might be worth doing a whole show about this. But I think it's a combination of everything that Aden is asking about. It's the fact that it's scheme and technique in a way that it's not for almost any other position coach in the league. If you're the offensive line coach for a team, you are probably the run game coordinator for that team. So whether it's in your title or not, that is part of your responsibilities. So the scheme part is on you. Then you're having to individually teach technique to five different players, which almost no one else is except for the DB's coach. And even the DB's coach is not having to teach the level of cohesion that the offensive line

coach is. So you're having to teach five guys individually. You're having to build the run game and the pass protection scheme. And then you're having to teach all those guys how to play together. And so there's just a lot going on there. And I think what some people do, based on some of the responses that I got, is they weigh too much on one side. Multiple guys said there's too much of a focus on scheme.

there's too much of a focus on scheme. And so you need to be able to make sure that you're finding the right balance there. And then one of the more fascinating responses that I got is one offensive coordinator told me, he said it's evolved from a drill sergeant position to a more teaching psychologist role. And most people aren't equipped with that kind of mental flexibility. And that's also part of this is that because you have these five guys and you have to figure out the way to teach these five guys, those guys are all different. They're all coming from different backgrounds.

They all need different stuff from you. So that mental dexterity and the emotional intelligence necessary to be able to connect to all five of those guys, teach them in the way that they need, and then get them to play cohesively while also having to build the scheme and the run game. The answer to this is it's just a really hard job. There's just a lot going on here. And there just aren't that many people who are able to balance all of those things together. And the psychological part is honestly really important because, like, it's a fragile position in terms of like you mess up twice in a game that might get you on the bench like that's how small the error the margins for error are on the offensive line where there's other positions like dude you can have five messups as a receiver but if you make three huge plays doesn't matter it just doesn't matter like you just are able to keep your job whereas the offensive line your big plays like you make one good duo block like it's just the it's so much harder for you to like outweigh it how bad the errors can be and that's you having to manage manage those errors psychologically and make sure you're maintaining the confidence of your guys

individually so it can breed confidence as a group. Again, that's really, really hard to do. So I want to put a pin in this for now because I do think it's a really interesting discussion and getting some insight from guys who are in these positions, offensive linemen, even some of these coordinators and head coaches who are trying to find these guys. I do want to potentially do that at some point this summer. I'm trying to listen to how full-throated some of the responses were and how excited. people were to talk about this.

To me, it's really a sign that there's a lot here to chew on. And I want to save that a little bit for later in this offseason when we can have more conversations with people. Next one here is from Jesse Jordan. And he said, as a build through the draft believer, I've always looked on with jealousy at franchises like the Packers and Ravens who've consistently built that way. And like many Bears fans, I've rolled my eyes at Packers fans

who complain about not taking big swings, thinking to myself that I would kill to have their constant winning seasons. But the recent success of teams like the Eagles and Rams, who have gone for it and torn down and gone for it again, versus the lack of Super Bowl appearances for the platonic ideals of building through the draft, Packers, Steelers, etc., has me questioning things. It's not a novel concept to say spend big during the rookie quarterback contract and then take a step back. The larger question is really thinking about the value of draft picks in different windows and being willing to eat a six and 11 season to take another big swing. I'm not interested in some kind of homerism defense of bears moves. Part of this is driven by my concern about them trading away picks for veterans, which is part of his email. But in this current window, look at a hypothetical choice between signing a 32-year-old Grady Jarrett or drafting a clone of Milton Williams.

Williams is a young good player, but it wasn't until year four that he broke out, which offers less help to a team trying to maximize this initial window. Like I've said, I've always built building through the draft to infinitely refuel a consistent winner is the goal. But now I'm wondering if it shouldn't be more building a team that is designed to be teared down. because while I've always looked longingly at the Packer's success, I now find myself wondering how many Super Bowls Howie Roseman would have gotten Aaron Rogers too. This is a really fun one. And I do think that there's a lot to chew on here.

What is your first initial thought about this question? My first thought is that we just keep reframing ways to talk about how the Eagles are allowed to build the team in a different way. And I think that that's ultimately what some of this comes down to. with Aaron Rogers and the Packers. The Packers organization can never be run the way that the Eagles are run because nobody owns them. It's just the fundamentally different way that the team can be built.

And so I think that that is certainly part of it. I still think that ultimately building through the draft is always what's going to give you a floor. And I think even when you look at a team like the Eagles, yes, a lot of their big moves are these trades that they make and stuff like that. But they are ultimately still a team that has given themselves an incredibly high floor. or because of the way that they drafts specifically with the trenches, it's just that some of these stuff that they add on top of it are the big, the Sequin Barclay moves or trading for all these other players. So I ultimately still think unless you have a very special quarterback,

you still do need to be able to build yourself up to the draft. And like, I understand that the Rams did what they did. But that almost feels more to me like an aberration than something we should take a lesson from. I would tend to agree with that. And I think if you look at the Eagles history, it's undeniable that the Eagles' bad seasons have helped set them up for success. Like them getting to draft six overall one year, the year that Doug Peterson got fired, trading down in that draft, ultimately getting Devante Smith still with a top 10 pick

and then getting a first round pick the next year, that's a huge part of this. Like that this doesn't all happen necessarily if they don't have that one terrible season to reset things. And the thing I would add to that too is like how many GMs get to survive seasons like that necessarily? That's exactly the reason. is that when you know, it's like, when you've got a Supreme Court assignment as your GM posting like Howie Roseman seems to,

you can live with that season. Doug Peterson gets the axe. You tank the final game of the year because you want a better draft pick. That is a luxury afforded to somebody in Howie Roseman's position. And I think that really does speak to why the Eagles are allowed to do some of this stuff.

Most organizations around the league, they operate with self-preservation in mind because they have to. They can't afford these swoons in a way somebody like Howie Roseman might be able to. So in a vacuum, is it better to peak in valley in order to find the right talent? I think yes. I think it's undeniably a better way to do that. I just don't think other teams are necessarily afforded the option to work that way.

That's kind of what I would be scared of. Like, it feels like for all but maybe five or six teams, if you had one of those valley seasons, that could be enough to get you fired. And it might not every single time, but it just feels like with a guy like Howie Roseman, there's almost no consideration that he would get fired after a year like that, whereas with a lot of other guys, you're going to be in hot water very quickly.

Even the AJ Brown trade. The AJ Brown trade happens in a year where they had three first round picks. There was a lot of picks to be had that year. And so I think this is my conclusion to this. And one of the things that Jesse was asking, and I think I want to touch on is this idea of me being a little bit worried that bears were trading draft picks away. And I think it could be a little bit overstated.

My concern when you're trading away a bunch of draft picks is, are you making sure you're finding cost control somewhere along the way here? Are you making sure you're consistently refreshing your roster with guys that you've drafted in the third round, the fourth round? The hit rate on those isn't great, but you need to hit on some of them in order to build a really good team over time. Like that needs to be part of the overall plan. But if you're offsetting those costs with rookie quarterback contract or with some other rookie contracts at premium positions, Roma Dunesay, Caleb Williams, all of that, then it becomes a little bit more complicated. To me, it's just all about,

are you making sure you're offsetting your costs somewhere at a point along your build? And if you're doing that with rookie contracts and you can trade away some picks, fine. When those guys get a little more expensive, can you no longer trade away those picks? I think that's understandable. The Eagles have done this, right?

Like, they were able to offset some of their expensive players with hitting on guys like Cooper DeGine and Quinniann Mitchell. That matters in order for all of this to come together. Jalen Carter is on a, rookie contract right now. That's really important. So I think it's just consciously making sure we're finding a balance between all of these things because the balance still does need to exist no matter where you are in the team building process to an extent. Next one here from Andrew Constantino. This is good because it's a little bit of news that we don't hit in the rhythm of the

free agent conversations, but I think it is worth touching on. So the Lions have proposed a rule to amend the current playoff seating format to allow wildcar teams to be seated higher than division champions if the wildcard team is a better regular season record. You're still rewarding division winners by giving them a playoff spot, but not penalizing teams for being in a good division. For example, you're not punishing the Vikings for being in the same division as the Lions. Moreover, you won't have a bad division winner host a playoff game. What do you think of this rule proposal change?

Okay, so I have a couple of thoughts. The first of which, I'm going to bring up League of Legends again. For whatever reason, they change their tournament format. every year. And the reason is, like, five, six years ago, people were just upset because for a while early on, they had kept the same tournament format for a while. So basically every year after that, they've changed the format every year. And guess what? Everyone hates the format every single year. Like, there's always something to bitch about. And so I think that that is kind of where we've derived with the NFL thing. And I kind of believe that no matter what we do to the tournament format

and the playoff format, there's going to be something to be mad about. The other thing I, other thought I have about this. I'm kind of okay with sports being a little bit imperfect in the way that these things are run. And like if you're going to complain about playoff seating and stuff, win your division. Like go win the games that you have to win. And I know like, oh, the Vikings did win 14 games. Win one more.

And this wouldn't have been a problem. And so like that is kind of ultimately what a lot of this stuff comes down to me. I think that last year was such a unique case that I don't really need to change the rules because of that. I understand the spirit. of this rule, though. I actually think the idea of not having the Texans host that Saturday afternoon game every single year

is funny to me. We're just prying away that game from the Houston Texans. Like, that's the end game of all of this. So I get the spirit of it. I just don't think it's necessary. Like, I think last year was such a unique case. For me, the bigger problem is adding the seventh team anyway. Like, that to me is probably where we've missteped the most.

But as it currently stands, I'm fine with this. If they made this rule change, wouldn't be like up in arms about it. I would be like, oh my God, how can you host a playoff game without winning your division? But I'm not, I'm not moved by this either way. I don't feel like there's some grand injustice being carried out here. So if this were to pass, I'd be like, okay, cool. If it were to not pass, it wouldn't change my life in any meaningful way. The other thing is too, I almost think it's kind of more novel and fun that in 10 years we're going to look back and be like, hey, remember the time the Vikings won 14 games and didn't get to host a play.

off game. Like that to me is more interesting than them just getting to go and do it. Yeah, I think that's totally fine. The funnier rule prop, uh, rule change proposition from last week, from the Lions is that they're the team that didn't, that wants defensive holding and illegal contact and no longer be automatic first downs. The Terry and Arnold rule. Yes, yes. The Terry and Arnold, we're playing man coverage 80% of the time team was like, you know, guys, what if we just didn't give automatic first downs if we got a defensive holding on third and 18? Which, By the way, I think is the way that the NFL needs to move, but they are like the worst messenger for this. It's like one of your most irresponsible friend being the one that's like,

consequences don't really matter. We should show everyone a little bit more grace. It's like, yeah, I guess in a vacuum. I'm not sure you're the proper messenger here, buddy. That's kind of how I feel about the lions in this moment. Yeah, we need like, we need the Bengals to go produce that rule or something like that. Which team like the Gus Bradley Colts

Like they were the team that would be like Or are they old like some of the Vangio teams That were just playing like all this soft zone Like Joe Barry being like you know what I just don't think that we should penalize people For defensive holding You wouldn't question his motives It would seem like it was coming from a pure place

So I think people would be more open to the idea with the Lions It's like come on guys We understand what you're trying to do here I don't believe you for a second Yeah we all see the game with the lions Let's take a quick break here and then we're going to come back with some of your more of your guys's questions.

Next one here. Joseph Nova Cell says, A recent mail-bed question about what it means to be a fan got me thinking. What does it mean to be a fan in general in this current media environment? I'm a Chicagoan and have multiple group texts with friends about the Bears and other Chicago teams.

The amount of time my friends and I spend discussing Ryan Poles or the McCaskies or Kevin Warren or name your executive or the salary cap or the draft far outweighs the time discussing the actual players in the roster. It makes sense giving the influence the aforementioned people have on success and their longevity with the team compared to most players. But sometimes I feel like following sports has turned into an NBA class.

What are the best ways to structure an organization? How can a team effectively allocate assets? Which teams are willing to invest in infrastructure? We root for having a smart front office and winning trades for draft picks. Is this a product of analytics? The increasing need for media content? Fantasy sports where everyone is a GM. The increased raster over turner in all sports, all the above.

Is something lost when so many of us. become this type of fan. Am I imagining the shift and fretting over nothing? Should I just shut up and relax? Really, really like this question. What are your thoughts about this? So it's a little bit tricky for me to answer because none of the football fans in my life

are really like this. So I don't have that much experience with it. And then the only other thing I really follow, again, is e-sports. And that is not really part of the calculus with the way that e-sports has run, at least in my experience. So this is a little bit difficult for me to answer.

But I do think the fan the sports element is definitely part of it. But you can sense it creeping into the discourse, though, even if it's not a part of your personal experience. Definitely. I can see it in the way that, you know, maybe people on Twitter talk to me now compared to eight years ago in terms of like the things that they are interested in the questions they're asking me and stuff.

So that's definitely part of it. I do think something is lost, by the way. Like the point of the sports is the sport. And I understand that all this other stuff is interesting. But to me, the point of the sports is the guys who are playing it. And kind of to that end, I think. part of the reason we've seen the shift is that the athletes are not relatable. Like, I can't picture myself being Quentin Nelson, but I can imagine myself being Chris

Ballard, like, and doing that job. And so that I think is part of it. It's a huge part of it. And I think with the addition of, again, fantasy sports being bigger, even Madden, where you can just like run the franchise for 15 years and just like do all this stuff and make all these trades, like because of all that stuff that really wasn't available, 25 years ago, I think that's why you've seen such a different shift in the perspective and like certain things that we're interested in. I like that point a lot. And that was one of the things I wanted to point out is that you can't imagine yourself being Max Crosby, right? Like, that's impossible. You can imagine yourself being John Spitech or Howie Roseman. Like that, that's reasonable.

Like, I've stood next to Howie Roseman. We're not any different in terms of like what God gave us physically, you know, but when you compare yourself to NFL players, it's a harder bridge to cross. And so I think that's absolutely part of it. But I also think that there's some validity in feeling this way to an extent. And the reason I say that is, if you're a fan of a team and your team isn't maximizing all of their opportunities and they're not doing these things the right way and finding the correct edges, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Right. And I think the Eagles are a perfect example of this when it comes to the balance that you need to find. The Eagles are one of the most forward-thinking progressive front offices in sports, period. They are trying to find every edge possible.

You look at the staff on the Eagles and you look at how many of those guys have got hired other places. This is a hub of progressive thinking in a professional sports context. But the core of why the Eagles are good is they have all the cool players. So it can be both at the same time. And I think I completely understand what Joseph is saying here. And I see a lot of this. And I think we're starting to experience a little bit of a pushback to this. and I'm actually comfortable feeling out what that pushback looks like for somebody in my position.

You know, as you think about the way that the NFL has been talked about now in like a mainstream context, it's very different now than it was 10 years ago when I started doing this. There are a lot more numbers. Fans are a lot smarter. And I think there's a lot of benefits to that. But to me, as we talk about and think about our role in all of this, the question comes down to this, the numbers that we're using, the numbers that we're rooting this stuff in, are they context or are they the content? Which one are they?

And I'm fine with trying to weigh it as context more than content. Because I want to be able to give support to some arguments about why certain teams are good, why certain teams feel a certain way. And doing that with numbers is fine. But I think you can go a little bit too far with it. And if I'm looking at this right now and I look at the advanced stats nerd versus that boy nice meme, I do find myself being a little bit envious of the sunny side of the bus. And I used to think, you know, maybe three, four, five years ago,

especially when I was a little bit younger, where I was a little bit more uncertain. And I feel like you needed to prop up some of your arguments with stats because you weren't as confident in the arguments that you were making, that being the that boy nice guy was less work. And I think, and that made it less valid. And I don't think that anymore. Like I think it's just a different kind of.

of work that requires a different kind of lens. And I think it's just as valid. So I think people in our position can do a better job of finding that balance and trying to pull us away from the type of discourse that we found ourselves in over the last couple years. That I couldn't agree more. That's why I feel like something is lost a little bit. And I think part of the reason is like numbers and stuff are obviously incredibly valuable. It's just I do feel a lot of the times. And I think this is less of an issue maybe now than like four or five years ago. They just kind of get taken at face value and we don't really investigate how numbers arrived there and certain stuff like that. And so I think that that can certainly be an issue. But I think the other thing with

like the, you know, the idea of that boy nice is like sports and talking about sports and why they're fun is like they're visceral. They're emotional. You can be irrational sometimes. And to just love a player whose numbers are maybe dog shit because you just think that they're overcoming their situation or whatever, there is something to, it's just like fun to defend and like understand why do I believe this, even though the numbers disagree with me. Like, I think that is as fun to investigate as like good numbers or about like whatever it is. It's a cop out answer. But I think how I'm going to land here is that it's the same as a lot of the other stuff we've

talked about already in the show. There's a balance that's necessary. I think that you do need to have a plan, a vision, you know, set of. standards and characteristics that you want to follow that are like smart and maxim and optimized for how you want to build a team. I do think that's important because your competition is doing that. Your competition is doing those things. So if you're not doing them, you are going to be left behind. But I do think that we've probably pushed it a little bit further than we need to and how we as fans think about and talk about some of this stuff. And I also think this time of year, it's hard not to talk about it that way. Like it's all contracts and team building and how you're using your assets correctly. Like this time of year, free agency in the draft, there's no time where it's more difficult to avoid that sort of framing. But when we get into the games themselves, I think we can do a little bit better of a job of not drifting so far in that direction. Howard Elson with our next one here says, with Netflix recently revealing the new cast of another season of quarterback, I found myself wishing that we instead could get a deep look at another position group, the lineman.

Do you think it would be for more compelling content to have the documentary, treatment given to the big guys up front, would anybody who didn't play offensive line in high school like you and me find this interesting? And which side of the ball would make for more entertaining TV, O line or D line? What do you think about this? So first of all, I think the D line would be way more entertaining. I think those guys are, I just think there's a little bit more energy with a lot of those guys. So I think that that would be more entertaining. You are, you landing there versus where I land on this is just the most telling thing about our personalities of all time. you. The other thing I would say is I would find offensive line interesting. And I think five to 10

percent of whatever the viewer base is here would find it just as interesting as quarterbacks to receivers, which I think is the other one that they did. I don't think a majority of people would. And this is kind of why. With the quarterbacks, one, everyone knows Patrick Mahomes, man. He's the star of the sport. And then with the way that they structured the show is they have a guy on the top, they have a guy in the middle, and then they have a guy on the bottom. And the bottom guy was Marcus Marriota. Most people still know who Marcus Marriota is because he had an illustrious college career. He started a number of games and he's kind of bounced around.

He started for a number of teams. With the offensive line, the equivalent of that would be we get like Penae Soule, which I do think a good number of football fans would be interested in. But then the bottom tier offensive lineman is like Ezra Cleveland. Like does anybody know or care about what's going on? I don't think we have to take that same treatment. I think if we wanted to have like Tristan Worf's and Quentin. Nelson and I don't name the best center in the league Frank Ragna.

Those are the three guys we did. I think that would be a fine approach for the lineman one specifically. If they did it that way, you could sell me on this a little bit more. I guess I'm being a little bit too rigid in my like the way that the show was structured. But if they did grab like all all programs, it would make more sense. But even then like I don't know. Fewer football fans, I would think generally understand how good Frank Ragnow is compared to like everybody knows who Patrick Mahomes is or Devon.

for the receivers one. There are a few different things to weigh here. I think obviously it's going to have more appeal with the defensive linemen. There are guys that you understand their impact, they are bigger stars. If you wanted to get Max Crosby and Micah Parsons and Miles Garrett to do this, I think you would have more interest than if you got the three offensive linemen that we said. Defensive linemen are generally, they have more personality. They're bigger stars, right?

Like they're the wide receivers of, I guess cornerbacks are the wide receivers of defense. but they're closer to wide receivers in terms of like how what sort of presence they have than offensive linemen who are a little bit more withdrawn. But at the same time, think about how many people reacted to that Jason Kelsey documentary on Amazon in the way that they did. And we can easily say that Jason Kelsey is an outlier in terms of how compelling of a character he is and just even his family life and his home life and whatever. I think there are more alignment adjacent to Jason Kelsey if you were to talk to them.

than the average NFL fan might think. Defensive linemen have more personality. Offensive linemen are like very smart, thoughtful people. And so the idea of going through, and this is like probably too far in this direction, but I would watch the shit out of this, if I saw an episode and it was like Ray Sean Slater going through his week, and it's just like, this is how I game plan for a guy,

this is the information, this is what I'm watching, this is how I think about the game, this is how I think about all this stuff. You'd be surprised, I think the average NFL fan, by how compelling and how impressive it is to have a conversation with a really, really good offensive linemen. They are some of my favorite conversations to have, independent of how much I like offensive wine play.

When it comes to just a nourishing football conversation, quarterbacks is probably the place to start. I think offensive linemen is probably the second place that I would go. Today, that's what I'm saying, though. I think for like 5 to 10 percent of us, it would be incredible. And I would love something like that. I just don't know if it would play as well as some of the other stuff. The last thing I will say, though, I'm talking about it both.

size of my mouth here. It's Netflix and it's the NFL. It would still work. Like it would still obviously do a lot for them. It would be totally fine. I want to be clear about this. I don't think this is a good business plan what I'm trying to do here. Like no one's ever called me a content genius. Like there's a reason I don't have a media empire somewhere. I just want to kind of exist over here in my little bubble and do my weird stuff. And so I don't, I shouldn't be in power to create the Netflix documentary. But I do think personally, I would enjoy the offensive line one a little bit more. I would be there with you. I'm trying to speak for everybody else a little bit. Alex Bartnick says, in your mind, who is the most can't miss prospect who ended up missing anyway?

And what did you learn from them? This is a great question. He said, my mind always goes to Jeff Okuda. Unfortunately, I think the only thing you can learn from him is that injuries can derail any career. That's part of this. I asked Dane today. I won't put Dane on blast with who his guys were. But a lot of the examples are injury-related, like guys that were just hurt consistently. But who is the first person that comes to mind for you when you're thinking about a can't miss prospect who did not end up panning out. I mean, Okuda is a good one. I thought he was one of the best man-to-man corners I'd ever seen play the college game. Like he was truly exceptional. And I guess you could say he doesn't have like the size to be a can't miss player because he's not small, but he was like six foot

flat, a little bit thin, whatever. But he was, in terms of the film was phenomenal. So that would have honestly been one for me. The other one to me is this is a tricky one because I will also make the case that he's not nearly as bad as people think that he is. But Kyle Pitts, like I do not at all regret saying that he is a unicorn prospect for what the position was. And he had the incredible rookie year. And since then, partly because of injury, I think partly just because some of the coaching staff shakeups and stuff has not at all been the player that, you know, he was billed to be at the fourth overall pick. But that's a guy that if Kyle Pitts came out in the draft again, like, yeah, I would take him fourth overall. Because guys who move like

that, who are that size, who have that type of catch radius, they just don't exist. Like, that you just can't find them. And that's another injury-based one. I mean, who knows what would happen if he had a clean bill of health for those four years. And I know there's probably more going on there, but I do think injuries are a huge consideration with that one. The classic one for me, this is the first one, probably a lot of people who've paid attention to leave for a long time would say. Aaron Curry, who was the fourth overall pick in the 2009 draft, he was an offball linebacker

from Wake Forest. I literally screenshot it and put it in the dock they were working on here. There was a Bleacher report story in 2009. The headline was, meet Aaron Curry, the safest pick in the. draft. He was generally considered like the safest pick. And in that draft, but also just like over a multi-year period, I don't remember people talking about a player that way. When you're looking at these guys in the top five of the 2009 draft, or even the top 10 of the 2009 draft, there were guys who were maybe a little bit more of a question mark. Like Andre Smith had like some body

composition questions. He was the six overall pick. Mark Sanchez quarterback, there's always a little bit of volatility there. Darius Hayward Bay ran fast, but they weren't sure about some other aspects of him as a prospect. So you look at that top 10 and some of the other options that were available. Aaron Curry was the guy where everyone was like, that's just one that's rock solid. I mean, like, if you just draft Aaron Curry, he's going to be a 10-year starter for you. It's not going to matter. And that just didn't happen.

And I think the only real signal from that is based on my recollection of it is that he just didn't move that well. Like he had a ninth percentile 20-yard short shuttle. And if you look at the short shuttle specifically and some of the bus we've, seen or just guys who've been underwhelming, at that point, day one picks rounds one and two, that is actually sort of a signal about which guys underperformed. Is there an inability to move like that? And if Aaron Curry now, even though he's only 6'2, 250, I feel like they would just see if he

worked on the edge and tried to figure it out. Like he would have the Jamon Davis kind of career path, but that didn't even happen for him. He played four years in the league and never played again. Because if you look at the guys that run, that have like, like that sort of body type and that sort of physical profile where they're explosive, but they don't change direction very well. A lot of those guys just become edge rushers.

Like that, that's where they are. Yeah. The Curry one is, that was like obviously, I was watching football at the time, but I wasn't tapped into the draft like in 2009. So it's not one I really remember.

How old were you in 2009? 12. So this was like right before I was probably getting interested actually in the draft. Like the Cam Newton draft is, I had like kind of been tapped into stuff, but the Cam Newton draft is the one. one where I think I first fully was like invested, invested in new players and like knew who was getting picked and stuff like that.

Whereas 09 was a little bit before that. But I've heard all the Aaron Curry horror stories. Like it is the one where anytime, if you say a prospect is safe today, someone in my Twitter mentions is going to be like, oh, Aaron Curry. And so it's just like, even though I didn't experience it, I'm very well aware of him. 2009 is the first year I went to the combine. And you were in sixth grade. That's correct.

Yeah, very rarely do I feel that we're much different in age, but that's one of those moments. This is like, oh, my God, that's a pretty crazy one for me. Next one here, I want to preface this by saying, I think it's important to acknowledge questions like this, because I think that they are a representation of how a lot of football fans feel about certain discussions about certain types of quarterbacks. And that's why I want to entertain this. Christopher Teehan says, I'm seeing eerie parallels between the way Caleb Williams and Jaden Daniels are discussed compared to Drake May and how Lamar Jackson was once talked about versus Sam Darnold.

I'm going to skip this part. I don't remember any of this in terms of like Lamar Jackson's Sam Darnold truthers. Also, Lamar Jackson played like seven games as a rookie and then won the MVP in 2019. Like these are not analogous situations to me. But the way that he's talking about this is despite putting up worse numbers than Williams and Daniels, Drake May has been treated by some as the best rookie quarterback, largely based on situation and potential. Daniels arguably had the best rookie quarterback season of all.

time, yet some still found ways to downplay it. May stands in the pocket and creates plays out of structure, and that's praised. Williams does it, and we focus on the negatives, the sacks, instead of the explosive plays he creates. It blows my mind that in redraft discussions, some NFL media members would take May over Williams or Daniels. Nothing he has done in the field justifies that, only in the realm of elusive potential that apparently can only be seen in the All-22 film. Meanwhile, a quarterback who puts up 3,500 yards, 20 touchdowns, and six interceptions is somehow behind him. A quarterback who led his team to its first NSC championship came in over 30 years is behind him.

If that sounds insane, when you lay it out, when you lay out the stats like that, it's because it is. It's just frustrating. Drake May may go on to justify all the hype, but there's no logical reason to put him ahead of Williams and Daniels right now. I'm going to take this first because I don't want to unleash you on this.

Yeah, you should probably do that. Okay? Here's where I sit with this. I understand feeling this way about Jane Daniels and Drake May. 100%. I think it is hard to justify outside of that, like, kind of elusive potential. sort of idea, taking Drake May over the season that Jaden Daniels just had. I'm willing to acknowledge

that stylistically, aesthetically, Drake May plays in a way that is easier for me to understand the benefits of than somebody like Jane Daniels. We've talked about this, where he doesn't really move around the pocket that much. He scrambles a ton, right? There are areas of the field. He doesn't access quite as much as we'd want from some other quarterbacks, even though he's gotten better at that. Jane Daniels is not how I would build a quarterback in terms of his skill set, but I think he is so good at the things that he is good at that it is undeniable what sort of presence and player he is. Like the way that he operates, how quickly he sees things,

the way that he processes the game, the way that he has a feel for space, all of that stuff, I think is remarkable. I think he is going to be a special player, and I would rather have him than Drake May if we were picking right now based on all of that stuff. It is not like cut and dry and stuff. set in stone that Caleb Williams had better stats than Drake May last year.

Like the only place where that is true is in the box score. Like that's the only place. And I don't want this to be a scolding. I want to acknowledge this. I think it's really important to understand that we have stats to better understand all of that stuff. As we're balancing sacks and explosive plays and all of these things that can be really hard to square. if you're just like, oh, which one matters more, which one matters less. We have numbers for that stuff now.

And I get that those numbers can be a little bit opaque and a little bit frustrating, but I think that we should acknowledge they exist in order for us to better understand what's happening on the field. Drake May had a better EPA for dropback last year than Caleb Williams because Caleb Williams took a astronomical amount of sacks that are hugely negative plays. And if this was a scenario where Caleb Williams had a demonstrably worse offensive line than Drake May, then we could start to have a nuanced. discussion. That's just not true.

Like, Drake May had arguably the worst offensive line in the league. Among full-time starters last year, he had the highest quick pressure rate in the NFL, according to next-gen stats. And Christopher in this argument was, he wanted to say that, or he said at one point that Drake May's situation was worse, but that doesn't matter. It does matter. Like, it's important to acknowledge this stuff. Like, he had the worst offensive line of football by most metrics and the eye test and the

least talented receiving core. So I get the Jaden Daniels thing. I would rather have Jaden Daniels. And I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have Caleb Williams, but it's at least a conversation based on a lot of rational, demonstrable things that aren't just some nebulous understanding of potential and talent. I have like, this is going to be an experience of me trying to unpack the 100 million things I have to say here.

The first of which I would like to set the table by saying I was a Lamar truther over at Sam Arnold from the beginning. So I am not one of the people that was on that side of the argument. I get a lot of stuff wrong, but I was very much on the Lamar side of that. And so I kind of set, I want to set the table here like this to me, and I do not at all mean this in any sort of negative towards Caleb Williams or Jane Daniels. Basically nothing I'm saying here is a negative towards those guys. I think they're both really good. And even though Caleb, I think objectively, statistically was the worst of all of these guys, I still think has a very bright future. This to me feels less like the Lamar Jackson versus Sam Darnold thing.

And it feels a little bit more to me, and this is a little bit extreme, in 2012, when people insisted that Russ and RG3 were better than Andrew Luck. It was absurd to me. And like this feels a little bit more like that. And I understand that Jaden Daniels, I think, is better than whatever RG3 was. And there's more to his game that I think is translatable over the long term. And Drake May wasn't quite as good as Andrew Luck was. but it feels more like that to me where this is actually more of like a serious, we need to talk about all three of these guys being really good.

And so that's part of it for me. The other thing is when you watch Drake May on film, he just does all of the stuff that the really good quarterbacks do. His pocket manipulation is incredible. He makes all of the throws that you need to make. He's as talented as basically any thrower in the league. And obviously, Jaden Daniels is in kind of a special bucket as a scrambler. Drake May is like in that next year, man.

Like he had 500 yards as a scrambler this year, which was more than Caleb Williams. And then to the point of all of the, you know, Drake May maybe not having a great statistical season, he was 18th in the league in NFL success rate this season, which was better than Justin Herbert. And again, I know that the Chargers offense isn't great.

But to be 18th as a rookie in basically any situation is pretty good. And obviously Daniels was the only rookie better than him. He was 14th. So it's not like he was that much higher. And then an EPA per drop, May was 20th. The only two rookies he was behind were obviously Jane Daniels. And then Bo Nix, who

we've talked about was played fairly well as a rookie, was in a significantly better spot than him. So like I just... The best pass-protecting group in the NFL compared to the worst for Drake May. And that shit matters. And an ex-resceiver that you can... And an ex-receiver that you can just automatic, like I know this guy's gonna get me one if I need it in Courtland Sutton.

Drake May didn't have any of that. And so I just think that this is a situation too. And even if you don't want to compare it to quarterbacks just the season, if you want to compare it to like rookie quarterbacks going all the way back to 2000, fewer than half of the 64 rookies who have, I think it was 250 passing attempts I did since 2000. Fewer than half of them have earned a positive EPA as a rookie. Drake May did it.

And again, what is one of the worst offensive situations for any quarterback this season. So for as good as I think Caleb Williams is going to be, for as good as I think Jaden Daniels is. And again, I also understand feeling it is probably crazy to take a guy like Drake May given his stats and relative accomplishments over what Jane Daniels did. But to me, it's like, it's one season, man.

Like these guys are going to have 10-year careers and we have to project some of this stuff. And I think all three of these guys are going to be good. But I thought Drake May was the best prospect. And there was nothing that I saw as a rookie that would deter me off of that. Yeah. I still think that there are elements of who Jane Daniels is that I would bet on because there are just intangible qualities that I feel like are the things that ultimately drive the best quarterbacks in the league. And he is very physically talented.

Like I just feel like he has been, he was special this year. And some of the things he did especially in the playoffs, like I'm going to bet on that over whatever theoretical upside exists with Drake May. But it's just a different conversation with Caleb Williams. And I do think all of them can succeed. And if you look at something like EPA, like, again, I understand the frustration with the opacity of something like that. Where it's like, what does that actually mean?

It's important to untangle the circumstances there. One of the, because it's not a stat about quarterbacks. It's a stat about the health of the passing game. But if we know other elements of the passing game are unhealthy, then we can understand or are extremely healthy, right? Like if we know that schematically in terms of the skill, position, talent, everything else can help prop you up, we can do the same things when the supporting cast is bad.

And so the bar that Drake made cleared statistically in a situation like that, I have no idea where he goes from here, but he checks boxes from what he did last season with that sort of production. being able to survive in any capacity and not be like objectively terrible in those circumstances as a rookie quarterback is a really, really good signal for him eventually being a capable starter or even more than that. We'll pump the brakes on like what the ceiling is because eventually you do need to see it. To me, this is different than like a Trevor Lawrence conversation. But in the short term, I think saying Drake May was as good or better than Caleb Williams is not out of line at all at all for me given the circumstances. I also, the last thing I want to say, too, the comparison to Sam Darnold is crazy because

Drake May this year was better than Sam Darnold was ever until maybe this year with the Vikings and even then, like when you again, scale for situations, it's just like, so I think the Sam Donald stuff is a little bit unfair. The other, the other quick thing, we have evidence of another quarterback in the New England offense in Jacoby Brissette. Jacobi Brissette had a minus 20 EPA and a 36% success rate. And I know Jacoby Reset's not great, but the comparison of like- Good benchmark, though.

Yes, he's the guy who, like, you need to be better than this to be an NFL quarterback. And May was head and shoulders above it, like no contest. Yeah, the last thing I want to say, I want to be very clear about this. I'm not, this isn't a like Caleb Williams is a lost cause sort of situation. That's not how I feel whatsoever. But I do think that trying to find a little bit of nuance in this discussion is important. All right, we're going to take one more quick break and then come back and hit a couple more of your questions. Next one here is from Micah Thornberg, who wanted to just talk about.

about some of the criticism of the Gino Smith trade and why there's a little bit of credence to doing things the way that Seattle did. So with the Gino Smith trade, I'm struggling to see what the crew, the Gino supporters, I think, is referring to, one of the Calks to hold on to. They've been somewhere between the sixth and eighth best team in the NFC for several years now. They tore it down around Gino and haven't fixed the offensive line. Am I out of hand for saying they were barreling toward becoming the Steelers of the NFC, always around 500, stuck in purgatory between not finding the right guy and having no real hope of the offensive. breaking through to the next tier.

It's a valid question. And I think that there are certain elements of it that I want to hit. But what is your response to this? That absolutely was on the table. And I understand that I'm higher on Gino Smith and then most people. And I understand that I maybe I thought the roster was closer to, you know, a couple of pieces away from being like a pretty consistent like 11-ish win team than maybe the Seahawks thought that their roster was.

And so I understand all of that. But yeah, like them being just a, you know, petering out as a consistent nine-win team was on the table. But to me, when you have a quarterback that is above whatever the line for we can win the Super Bowl with this guy and he can help. Actually, that's the way I want to frame it. Above the line of this quarterback can help us win the Super Bowl. And so you don't have to be a top five quarterback. But if you can be the 11th best quarterback and you very obviously have things that you can build around, that to me is something that is worth keeping, even if it's only for the next three-year window. And again, I think so much of the consternation I've had about what the Seahawks did is just, I personally believe the roster is a little bit closer to competing than they must believe that.

And if they thought they weren't close enough, I understand them wanting to hit the off ramp. And honestly, now that we've seen the way that they put it all together with Sam Donald, really only being a one-year contract and getting away from DK and getting stuff back, I think they did all of that well. I just fundamentally disagree with them taking the off-ramp to begin with. Yeah, I think that there's, both of these things can be true at the same time. You can be afraid that you were becoming one of those sorts of teams and you can also keep Gino Smith because you think he's a solution to breaking out of that, not the reason that you're stuck in the middle. And that's kind of where I sit with this.

I wouldn't compare it to the Steelers because Gino is head and shoulders better at quarterback than any of the options the Steelers have had over the last few years. When was the last time the Steelers had a quarterback that good? Was it like 2017, Van Rothera? No, I think that there was a year, maybe it was like 2019 or 2020 before Ben fell off the cliff. He actually could play. He actually still could play. But it's been a good five years.

Like one of the reasons that the Steelers are in this position is that they don't have a quarterback as good as Gino Smith. If I were the Steelers, I would have wanted to trade for Gino Smith because you need this sort of quarterback. I think that the acknowledgement that you needed to tweak something is a fair place to land based on where the roster had been and some of your struggles. But you already done that with your offensive coordinator tweaks and what you were doing schematically is going to be different. You already did that with the DK trade.

So I think that it's okay to think we need to do something differently here because we're in a rut while not trading away a quarterback that would make half the teams in the league better if he were on their roster. He's a part of the solution, not the problem. The other thing that I think probably played some degree of hand in this is that it just seems like with year one of Mike McDonald, you couldn't erase all of the Pete Carroll stuff. Right. And I don't necessarily think that like Mike McDonald hated Pete Carroll and wanted all his stuff. stuff out. But it seemed like this year was a little bit of the mouthwash of like, even if maybe we're close-ish, we just want to get all of the Pete Carroll stuff out of the door and we want to be

Mike McDonald's team. And Gino, very obviously, and D.K., to a different extent, were included in like, these were Pete's guys. These were, this was his team. And even Tyler Lockett being released, like this just felt a little bit like a mouthwash to like, we just want to go into a new era. And this is the consequence of that. Yeah. And I think that there were things that probably needed to change. I don't think you needed to change everything to this degree. And I think that's my concern with it. Ralph Malbrose says, so the media saying the Saints are in salary Capel has been a yearly right of passage since 2015. From the Capel to lack reckless trades up in 16 and 17, the football world analytics people and almost all data-driven experts hated how the Saints were

run. And as Saints fans, we loved it, laughing as the madness worked as they won through 2021. It worked until it didn't. So my question is, which team do you currently hate how they operate, but they still win anyway and it annoys you. This is a good question. I mean, I actually kind of loved what the Saints were doing. So I'm actually kind of on that side because they were, them and the Rams were like so far being insane with what they were doing. And I think you could even honestly make this argument for what the dolphins have done.

And like most of my issues with how the dolphins have done is just the quarterback that they're building around is not as good or interesting to me. I think the other teams that I have issue with are the teams that are too passive. It's teams like the Cowboys. boys for a long time, the Packers were like this. They're not anymore. I think pretty much since the Matt LaFlorera, this has not been an issue. But going back 15, 10 years ago to what the Packers were, they were certainly a team that was like, we only built through the draft. We don't go get big free agents, big trades. We don't do any of that. And it was like, maybe that's why

you only win one Super Bowl with a guy like Aaron Rogers. And so I think teams that consistently the Bengals have I think had this issue where they are not willing to. So to me, it's usually the teams that don't want to burn the candle fast, those are the ones I actually kind of take issue with. Yeah, I don't want to harp on the Cowboys thing anymore because I've, I've hit them very hard all offseason, but they're a part of this to me. Like, I think that the Cowboys have won a lot of games. The Cowboys fell ass backwards into Tony Romo and Dak Prescott and never made it out of the divisional round. Like, and then you look at the draft success they've had outside of that. Dane brought this up the other day. He said the Cowboys have drafted as well as anybody. And that's true.

if you look at over a long period of time. So I think as you look at the Cowboys, all these 10-win seasons for Dallas, like that's not a success story to me. To me, it's a story about missed opportunities. So I absolutely think the Cowboys are part of this discussion, but I don't want to belabor that. The team that I think does fit this,

the Steelers aren't much better, right? The Steelers, I think, hiring a real offensive coordinator last year, and whatever some people think of him, that is a good course correction from the Mac Canada era. I think taking that more seriously was important. But other than that, I'd be really frustrated if I were still.

Steelers fan. They haven't spent, really. They've been a team that's been like near the bottom of the league or the bottom core of the league in cash spending for like each of the last five seasons. They've taken a lot of half measures at the most important positions on the staff and the roster. And they're just good enough to draft outside of the top 15 like every year, but not good enough to actually win anything. And I think staying the course when you're that sort of team in the way that the Steelers have, that's troublesome to me. I feel like I would be frustrated about where they've arrived, but they win 10 games every single year and make the playoffs. And so you can only go so far in criticizing what they're doing. And I think that's maddening. So with the Steelers, and this is going to be a little bit of a tangent and not really about the question, they have obviously gotten away with this for a long time. And I think since

the kind of since the Ben Rothesberger era ended, it's been them more skating by with this than it actually being like a very useful way for them to run the team. And I think we're starting to see the roster deteriorate in some ways. And the defense is really old and expensive and all that other stuff. Doesn't it feel like Aaron Rogers would be kind of like the damn breaking on this style and this version of the Steelers? Like them going out and signing a quarterback, yes, them signing a quarterback like that. It's fundamentally different to me than like doing the Russell Wilson thing or the Justin Fields thing or even reaching on a quarterback like Kenny Pickett. Like those are all fundamentally different things than taking the Aaron Rogers guy who is he's going to command the building.

like just all this other stuff. It feels like this would almost be an admission that the way that things have gone for the past seven years are a little bit tired. And I just think it would be kind of nuclear in the worst way. I kind of feel like this is the last gasp for whatever this version of it is. And trying to turn to 41-year-old Aaron Rogers

to tie it all together feels like that. And I'm not even saying that's the wrong move. I just think it's very clearly an indication of what sort of corner you found yourself. self in. And I think that's where the Steelers have found themselves right now. Yeah, that's the other tricky thing. It might not even, it might be the right thing for them to do, but it still feels like this would be kind of like you said, last gasp. This is just not the type of Steelers. But they're desperate. They are. Right. I mean, like, we let's just call it what it is. Like, it feels like a

desperation move. But when you're desperate, sometimes you have to make desperation moves. And like, what are their other options? It's not going to be the drafting. It's going to be like, they're not going to be the James Winston team because they saw James in the division. and they probably know that that's not a quarterback worth having. I just, again, the idea that any team is the James Winston team as the music stops is very much an indication of where the veteran quarterback market is and why some teams are having to be a little bit desperate in their search for one. Speaking of, next one here from Mason Herman, he says the quarterback draft class seems to be a bit unique.

One or maybe two legitimate day one picks than a whole bunch of day two guys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel traditionally you get a bunch of first round quarterbacks and then a scattering of day three picks as teams look for cheap backups. Specifically, my question is if the Browns pass on a quarterback at two, who's taking one of Sanders or Milro or Dart, etc., before the Browns pick again at 67, or generally who's currently in the market to draft one of these day two dart throws, no pun intended. This is a sneaky fun one to me.

It's starting to feel like Sanders might go at three, just based on how all of this is playing out. Like if the Giants miss out on Rogers, I think I could believe them just need an answer so badly that they're willing to draft him at three, even if it's an imperfect decision. So I'm not really going to include him here. I think this is more like a Jackson Dart, J.R. Milrow, like Tyler Shuck discussion. And I think as part of that, you can make a really serious argument that I think there are like five teams that could justify taking one of those guys in the second round.

And this is all theoretical. Like, I haven't watched them yet. We're doing that next week. But just the teams that need a quarterback or an off rampant quarterback, I think there are a bunch of them before the Browns pick again at 67. I don't know how you feel. It's tricky because I just don't think any of these quarterbacks should. You have to remove yourself from that, though. I know. I know. I'm trying. In the world where one of these teams likes one of these guys, I think there are enough teams

that have a motivation to find an answer at quarterback. So I would say Seattle, obviously, with the way that they structured Sam to Arnold's contract, is certainly one of them. I mean, like Dallas maybe, but I almost, I just, I'm not entertaining this. I'm not doing this with Dallas. With Dallas, that's the thing is I don't know what their motivations are. So they are a trickier one to figure out. I refuse. We will never again on this show after this moment.

Talk about the Cowboys drafting a quarterback while paying Doc Prescott $60 million a year. I'm not doing it. Yeah, at least not in the second round. If they want to do it in the sixth, whatever. That's fine. That's fine. But any time where he's drafted high enough or like we get a little bit of tension. A competition.

And we have to humor this. I'm not doing that. The other ones are maybe like the Jets, because obviously you're not really committed to like Justin Fields. So that is one. New Orleans maybe, but like do they really feel that much better about any of these guys than Rattler? I don't know.

And then the other one to me in this group is probably Vegas, but I don't think Pete is interested in developmental quarterback, to be honest with you. I think that's all fair. But I will say, I think all of those teams are potentially in the mix here. We used to have an, an NFL where you could draft a quarterback in the second round.

It didn't happen that often, but there were guys you could draft in the second round. The hit rate on them historically has been bad, but at least those picks have existed. You know, the Andy Dalton's and the Colin Kaepernicks and the Derek Carr's, like, those picks have happened. And so I don't think that it's unheard of for a team to approach it that way where you think we'd rather have an elite player in the first round if you're the Browns and wait till 33 to draft a quarterback. In those cases, teams just trade up three picks.

get the quarterback on day one, which could happen. But this method of doing it, it's become more and more scarce, but it does exist in NFL history. And outside of like having the 50-year option as part of it, so you move into round one, I don't think there are a ton of other reasons that take it off the table. Well, so that I think is actually the problem is that you just see more guys who probably shouldn't be first-round picks that end up first-round picks that 10 years ago might not have been like, is Bo Nix a better prospect than Derek Carr or Andy Dalton was? probably not, but just need and like the first, I think, because people caught up to the fifth round or the fifth year deal being kind of a value for you.

I think that sort of stuff kind of, do you either just believe that you're going to take the guy in the first round and get the fifth year option or you're just going to wait until the third round. And that, so that to me is why the second round quarterback has kind of almost become a dead concept. Yeah, there's aren't that many of the last good one is like Jalen Hertz, right? Probably. Yeah, but Jalen Hertz is a great example. Right? Like Jalen Hertz was an incredible. credible solution for the Eagles. Like the Eagles are in this position because they spent a second round pick on Jaylen Hertz. So I don't think we should be that adverse to this if you like the guy and you think, again, I don't know if he's worth a first round pick, but he's worth the chance of him working out in the second round.

I think there are plenty of teams that if they like one of these guys, let's just say in this hypothetical, you think Jalen Milrow has a chance to be Jalen Hertz and you think it's worth bringing him onto your roster. whether that's valid or not from a prospect perspective, it's almost immaterial to this discussion. But if he is, if we're playing that out, the four teams that I would say that would be incentivized to draft him between 3 and 67,

which is the question here. The Steelers, right? We just talked about this. If there's one of these guys around that the Steelers like, the Steelers need a long-term answer or a quarterback, they're at 21 without a second round pick, which complicates it a little bit.

The three other teams out there, they're Raiders, right? maybe they're just not interested in that timeline and that lifestyle, but finding some sort of future answer at quarterback, if Gino is a two-year solution for you, I think is understandable. The Saints, right? The Saints are picking at 40. Like, the Saints need an answer at quarterback.

The fact that Derek Carr is still on this team is surprising, given some of the finances with it. The Jets at 42, like you mentioned, and the last team, what about Seattle? If they like one of these guys and they want to give themselves potentially another option, that's not Sam Darnold because it is almost a one-year solution, or it is potentially a one-year solution. They pick it 50 and 52.

So I think there are a lot of landmines there for the Browns to think, if we want one of these guys, we might have to take him at 33 or 29 rather than waiting until 67. So Seattle is definitely the scariest one to me, because one, they've already signals they wanted to move into a new era by moving off of Gino Smith, who was a pretty good quarterback. Then the way they structured the Sam Darnold contract, where they can get out of it after a year.

And then also, again, the fact that they have multiple of these, you know, second-round picks. And really, if they even wanted to move up into the late-round, late first round or earlier in the second, they could absolutely do it because they have the ammo. So there are a handful of teams that could do it. Seattle is absolutely the team I'm most scared of, I think. A couple more quick ones here. Evan Donovan says, I'll keep this simple. Give me your wildest, hottest, hardly baked takes from free agency.

I'm looking for something you may not even rationally believe, just a wild emotional response to a move you either really agreed or really. disagreed with. I'm going to put the Rams in the Super Bowl by the end of the offseason, man, because of the Devante Adams thing. Like, I'm going to get there. I know. I know.

I can already feel it. It's one of those things where I, everyone is responding to it this way. And I kind of feel like there's a zag to be had. And I'm wondering if I'm not seeing something because the approval rating is too high. But at the same time, I can't bring myself to be negative about it. Like, I love it. I love everything about it. But I think all of us feel that way to such a degree.

that I'm a little bit concerned. The thing is, the path for it to go wrong to me is so obvious that I can live with it, if that makes sense. It would just be like, just because he gets hurt. It would just be like,

oh, well, they're old and they get hurt. Like, okay, I can live with that. But like, if everyone is healthy and, like, it's running the way it's going to run, I know Sean McVeigh can cook up a top eight offense. I know that Matthew Stafford's a good quarterback if he's healthy.

And I'm pretty confident that Devante Adams is still a really good receivers. So to me, it is only coming down to, like, health and age, which again, I know is with those guys is a pretty scary proposition. Whatever, dude.

I just think these guys are so good. I know I'm going to buy into it the more I look at that roster. I think that's a good way of thinking about it where, okay, we understand that as a 32-year-old receiver signing what is your, I think your fourth contract, the hit rate in the history on that is terrifying.

The wall comes for those guys a lot faster than you want to admit. But I think all that's kind of just baked into the expectations. Like if that happens, then it's like, I'm willing to live with that. Like, they took a swing. They took the right swing for them in this moment. So I think I'm with you on that.

Mine's kind of related to that line of thinking. This is not that hot of a take. It's just something I came to as I was looking at the free agent signings. Four corners signed essentially the same deal. Okay? Three years, $54 million. Brian Murphy, Paulson, Adibo, Travarious Ward, Carlton Davis.

I understand all of those as bets in this moment. I think there is a real chance we see at least two of those as like immediate, oh my God, oh no, we've made a huge mistake. Like immediate cut candidates by next year. We're just like halfway through the season, it's just like, oh my God, I cannot believe we have this guy in the books for X in 2026. And I think I feel more that way about Adibo Ward and Davis. And with Ward and Davis, it's just the same conversation.

They're only 28, but the wall at corner comes. The wall of corner comes fast and Davis has been consistently banged up. You know, obviously, I'm rooting for Ward with everything that he's been through, but I think that there's a lot of risk involved in that contract. And there's obviously a lot of risk in the Paulson Divo deal. Like, quarterback is super volatile. And I think that's one of the reasons why betting on somebody that's had some of the flashes he's had is potentially worthwhile. But I think it's important to acknowledge the valleys, right? And maybe after this deal, you just get stuck in a valley.

So those contracts specifically, I think there's a lot of risk involved in them. and I think even if they've made sense in the moment, some of them could be looking really bad, really fast if things turn a certain way. And that, again, more than any other position, that is one where when you hit the wall, you hit the wall and you don't come back from it. Like you're just kind of done.

Whereas like other positions like offensive line, you can lose a little bit of a step and still be like a pretty functional player. Usually at corner when you lose this step, it's, you're done. I want to have this one transition from the last one because I think they're sort of related because the other contracts I would probably throw out there, there's a chance that the Grady Jarrett deal and the Jonathan Allen deal and the Javan Hargrave deals are just a disaster.

Those are also guys who are getting older and got paid a lot of money very quickly after being released. And so Evan Kronis says, what was up with the defensive tackle market and free agency? Seems that there were three to four inexplicable deals that caught a lot of media off guard, but at least a few teams seem to be on the same page in their approach, Washington, Vikings, Bears, Patriots. Especially considering DT seems to be one of the deeper positions in the draft, what is your best guess as to why teams acted the way that they did in free agency? So I think at least some, so I'll actually start by saying defensive tackle is just a really important position. They are like the integrity of everything that you're allowed to do up front.

And so we can say that like the edge rushers are flashier and all this other stuff, but you need defensive tackles to hold yourself together. I also think at least like 10% of this is just looking at the team that won the Super Bowl and being like, oh, we should be built like them, which the Eagles had an incredibly deep, defensive tackle room with like four guys. 10% is a good percentage. Yeah, it's at least part of it. That's good. That's good.

That's good. I think that's a right place to land. It's enough for teams to think about it. And so I think that that probably plays into it. And then again, defensive tackle is, it's a rotation position. Like, you just need a lot of these guys. And so to overpay for one, even if like, it's not as big a deal to me as like some other position. I think the rotation is a huge part of it.

And that to me is when you're talking about the draft versus free agency and how they affect one another. At running back, if there are a bunch of running backs available in the draft, you don't need to spend in free agency on a running back because you kind of need one and a half running backs. You need three and a half defensive tackles. So there are so many more needs there that I don't think they have as causalable relationship as tight end and running back might in free agency. So I think that's part of it. The other thing is I do think that the markets for edges and defensive tackles, the gap is closing, right? I feel like the impact and how we understand the importance of them has started to shrink a little bit.

We've seen that with the way the guard contracts compared to offensive tackle contracts. So I think some of this is, potentially, this is my assumption, teams looking at the edges available in free agency, them not, there being very few viable ones. Kulomack was one of the only ones he went back. And really it was just like Josh Sweat and Dio Dengbo are like the only guys who got big multi-year deals for the most part. So teams were in a position where they said, I don't care. if it's an edge or a defense tackle, I want to be able to affect the quarterback. Where are the guys who are going to affect the quarterback for me?

The teams that spent on defensive tackles, they also wanted edge guys. Carolina, Arizona, Chicago, we just need guys who are going to affect the quarterback. I don't care where they come from. And with Minnesota specifically, they had limited picks, limited money, and defined meets. So it's like, all right, we're going to spend on that spot because those are the guys available. The fact that these guys were a little bit older getting this amount of money, it kind of reminds me of it's almost like Jonathan Allen and Grady Jarrett were like two versions of a defensive tackle Calvin Ridley from last year where we all kind of understand that he's getting

overpaid but because there's a scarcity at a very premium position we just acknowledge that it's okay to pay a premium for that premium position that's kind of what it reminds me of where it's like yeah in a vacuum I know this is bad but I think we just kind of have to do it yes and like it can be different for different teams like with Carolina it's like we have literally nobody on the defensive interior outside of Derek Brown, it's fine to pay a little bit more money. The Patriots are kind of the same way with Milton Williams. And like you said with the Vikings,

the Vikings had so much money and two very obvious needs that they needed to fill, which were the interior of both lines. And you could argue corner two as well, whatever. But they had two very obvious needs, then just go blow whatever money you need to blow. If it costs you a little, if it's a little bit expensive, fine.

Like these were the rest of your roster for this year and probably next are intact. So you are okay to go spend a little bit more money than other teams might have been willing to at those spots. Yeah, I think it all tracks, but I do think it's just, we understand there are not that many avenues to players at this position, right? And they're so important now, and they're almost as important, according to some people that I respect,

as what you're getting from Edge guys now. And so the fact that there was a little bit of a supply of them, we're going to spend on them because there just weren't those guys available at Edge, and there was a lot of excess money to be thrown around. That's kind of where I land with it. All right. That is all we. got for today. As I've mentioned a couple times, we are now in our offseason cadence four shows a

week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. So we'll be back with three more shows this week, including a very fun breakdown on Thursday of this year's quarterback class with Dane Bruegler. And then we've got a couple other fun things brewing for early next week. I don't want to really give too much away yet because we're still ironing out some details. But we'll give you guys sort of a window into what sort of ideas we are going to be trying to put together for our draft coverage here over the next month or so. For now, sincerely appreciate you guys listening. We'll talk to you very soon.