The Athletic Football Show: A show about the NFL - Monday Mailbag: The best QB who could get traded, changes in Detroit, Travis Hunter's usage, and more

Episode Date: May 12, 2025

The mail carrier came knocking and yet again brought us more than our fair share of great questions. Which successful team of the last five years is most realistic for current bottom-feeders to replicate? Are the Steelers still an elite franchise? Why doesn't Sean McDermott get as much respect as Kyle Shanahan? Which quarterback is the best who, in theory, could get traded? Robert Mays, Derrik Klassen and Michael Beller answer those questions, and a whole lot more, on this episode of The Athletic Football Show.Host: Robert MaysCo-Host: Derrik KlassenWith: Michael BellerExecutive Producer: Michael BellerProducer: Michael BellerSubscribe to The Athletic Football Show...⁠Apple⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠YouTube⁠Follow Robert on Bluesky: @robertmays.bsky.socialFollow Derrik on Bluesky: @qbklass.bsky.socialFollow Beller on Bluesky: @mbeller.bsky.socialFollow Robert on X: @robertmaysFollow Derrik on X: @QBKlassTheme song: HauntedWritten by Dylan Slocum, Trevor Dietrich, Ruben Duarte, Kyle McAulay, and Meredith VanWoert / Performed by Spanish Love SongsCourtesy of Pure Noise / By arrangement with Bank Robber Music, LLC Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the Athletic Football Show. I'm Robert Mays. It is another Mailbag Monday here on the Athletic Football Show. And thank God Michael Bell is back to help us read the questions. Just a blanket statement that I say at the top of every single one of these. Sincerely appreciate everyone who sent questions along. We always get so many of them. They're always so good.

I love doing them. Today's was no exception. We have a blast with these. And there were a ton of fun questions. So let's get to this week's mailbag with me, Derek Klesson. our producer Michael Beller right now. It is another mailbag Monday here on the athletic football show. I had to read the questions last week, which I didn't enjoy.

I don't like doing that. But thankfully, we have Michael Beller, our producer, back in the fold to help us work through these. We're just better as a trio, Derek. I think that that's what we've learned is that I'm just not capable of carrying all of this on my own. It's like when you have an NBA team and you have two good guys, then you add that third piece.

And it's just like, oh, this is actually how it should be. That's kind of how I feel about the. the mailbag progress we've made over the last month or so. And then you have to play some games when they're, you know, sick, injured a little bit. And you're like, wait, this actually sucks to do what we were doing beforehand. This isn't as fun. It's going to be, what's going to be fun is a couple of years from now when I'm doing a podcast and we just retroactively decide that Beller wasn't good like they did with Chris Bosch a couple

weeks ago where Rich Paul was just like, you know what? Like Chris Bosch actually didn't contribute that much to the heat. And it's like, Rich Paul, I am older than 10 years old. remember what those heat teams were. Chris Bosch is a Hall of Fame player. So hopefully you don't get thrown into the bus that quickly as we get a little bit deeper into this, Beller. I feel like you'll stand by me. I feel very confident in that. And I am more than happy to be Chris Bosch. I feel like I was born to play the Chris Bosch role. So let's do it. Let's get into it. All right, guys. I like this first one because it just boom straight to the point. Didn't have to add anything. Michael Haney says

of the highly successful franchises of the last five years, whose formula is the easiest to replicate for the league's bottom feeders. Robert, take us away on this first one. So first thing I'll say, I'm wondering how we're defined in the highly successful franchises of the last five years. Like, are the lions in there? Do the lions deserve that?

The Lions have played in one NFC championship game got blown out. So if the Lions are part of the conversation, I might allude to the Lions. But if we want to have the success be a little bit more fully formed and for a longer period of time, this might be a controversial answer. I think my answer is the Niners.

and I understand that there are difficulties in forming that path because not everyone is going to have Kyle Shanahan, right? Like you don't, not everyone has a top two play caller. But I think the general idea of I'm going to hire a head coach that I think is a force multiplier in a positive way as an offensive play caller, that being the foundation of things. And having Kyle Shanahan be your North Star as you look for the next version of that guy. I think that's a reasonable place to start. they do not have a top five quarterback. They have quarterbacks that they've cycled between and they've consistently had really good offenses.

So I think that's also part of it is a lot of these teams that chiefs, the bills, etc., they have these guys that are really, really hard to find at the position. So I think saying we'll just get the next to one of those, that to me is a non-starter. So I think that's another point in the Niners favor. And the Eagles are kind of in this general mold. And I think we could probably talk about the Eagles here.

But I think some of the things the Eagles are allowed to do some of the financial levers the Eagles are able to pull. That to me feels like not every organization would be willing to do that. To me, the Niners, if you look at the cash spending, some of the contract structures and things that nature, they operate like an aggressive, urgent, modern organization, but they're not at totally one end of the spectrum and on one poll like the Eagles might be. So I think that's why where maybe you couldn't replicate every single element of it, but I do think overall the picture the Niners are bringing to the table,

you could steal a lot from that. I think you absolutely can. And like the Niners are a good one because, again, they're not in any sort of extreme with the way that they operate. Like Kyle Shanahan's a very good coach, but he's not doing anything that's like what the Eagles are allowed to do at their cap and stuff like that. There's none of that stuff.

I think the Niners were a really good one. I would have had them in there. And obviously, I think with all of these, even if you can see the path of like, okay, higher head coach, blah, blah, with any of these teams, they still needed something special to happen. Like even if you do the hire the offensive head coach thing,

they're probably not going to be as good as Shanahan. My example for this, because they didn't actually have to do anything weird to get there with this, was you be the Bengals, where you're just dog shit, and then you get the number one picket quarterback, and then you're bad again because the team probably isn't good enough, and then you luck into another star player.

And obviously, it's unlikely that they will be as good as Joe Burrow and Jammar Chase, but like simply being bad for a couple of years and getting lucky that the guy is, good. I don't think it's like that unachievable for a lot of these teams. Like that's what the Titans are hoping they just did. We have another question that's going to hit on this a little bit later

in the show. So I don't want to spoil that conversation. I think that path is a little dicier than we make it out to be. I guess is what I would say. I think that path has pitfalls that we don't properly acknowledge when we think about teams just being bad and getting the quarterback

as part of that process. But again, we have an entire separate question devoted to that. So I'm not sure I totally want to step on that answer right now. Yeah, we'll get to that one a little bit later, but that's why I kind of wanted to throw that one in there as a little bit of a teaser. I think the other two things I would point out here, a couple other organizations I would mention, the Eagles, the Rams I would throw out there again, teams that don't have one of the alien quarterbacks that they've been consistently successful.

I think with both the Eagles and the Rams, having a real appetite for risk and being able to do things that maybe are big swings and then you live with a downfall, like the Rams, they didn't see the pick because they gave it to the alliance, but the Rams were very bad for a year. The Eagles were very bad for a year. Being able to live in those valleys because guys have job security, I think that's something else that I would imbue my organization with whenever possible. Like making sure you're empowering the people that you've hired as decision makers

where they're not operating in a way that's afraid because I think there are a lot of benefits on the other side of that. You can throw the Niners in there as well. I think they have an appropriate risk application. tight, maybe outside of the trail and straight. I think that's definitely part of it. You have to have an ownership group and like a front office regime that is like everyone is cool with being bad once.

You can have the runway to just be bad for a little bit, but not to the NFL, man, not a lot of teams get that. Maybe that's, again, the owner's fault, the front office's fault, whoever, but a lot of teams just don't get that time to do that. And with Mishanahan and McVeigh, I think they were empowered pretty early because they were very sought after coaches. They got a lot of power and consolidated a lot of power pretty quickly. So I think that's one of the reasons.

that they felt some security and how they were building things. And the last one I would throw out, the pre-Lamar Ravens, I think, are still something that's worth chasing. They were still a very good, very successful organization before they had a guy who legitimately could win the MVP in any given year. And we'll talk a little bit more about the Ravens over the course of this show because we had a couple of questions that hit on it. But I just think that idea of we're going to find every edge possible while trying to kind

of live within ourselves. I think they're a very good example of that over like multiple decades. That's actually them and a couple of the other institutional teams that have been around for a while. There's another question we're going to talk about that later. So I have some different thoughts on that in a little bit. Let's not step on those. Let's get to our next question here, Beller. All right.

Speaking of institutional teams, Nicholas Ross writes, I have been a Steelers fan my entire life. In fact, the first real photo of me is with a can of Iron City beer with Super Bowl 14 champs on it. It was emptier or so, I'm told. My question is this. Can we still regard the team as an elite franchise? I get it. The winning records are nice, but this feels like an upgraded version of the Saints with no real chance of contending as currently run. Do you agree? And what should we do, we being the Steelers, to be thought of alongside the likes of the Eagles, Chiefs, and Ravens again? Derek, we'll go to you first on this one. The Saints comparison is tricky for a number of reasons. And I know we said that it's an upgraded version, which is absolutely true. And I think where you can start with, that is the Steelers for whatever we want to say about them have made the playoffs four to the five last years in a very difficult division. The Saints did one time and that was in 2020 where it was Drew Breeze's

final year. So for them it's very obviously been the quarterback. I think what also makes these two teams different is that all the frustrations we've had with the Saints is like they keep borrowing, they keep being too aggressive, they keep doing this stuff and then just like stepping on the rake again and it's ah, we traded up for this player who's not quite what he was supposed to be and now we don't have extra picks. With the Steelers up until maybe the DK Metcraft trade, it was kind of the opposite. Like they just weren't doing enough. Like the Kenny Picket draft pick.

I think we all knew was just like, ah, well, they need a guy, whatever. They'll just take them. And so I think they fell into the pit trap where they were too comfortable. So I think it makes them and the Saints very, very different. I think the only point of comparison that actually is pretty good is that they both have like aging stars on defense. And this is less true now that the Saints have gotten rid of them like Lattimore. But they both have aging stars on defense.

defense and have kind of struggled to piece together the youth movement to like bridge those classes from eight years ago to now. And so that's where I think that you can maybe get a little bit of samezy, but I don't know, man, if the Steelers had average quarterback play this entire time, they'd be like an 11, 12 win team, but they just haven't had that. I think there's some truth to that. I don't know if it's just a quarterback problem. Now, the first thing I'll say is I would 100% agree about the urgency point, because I think that is at the core of this. If you look back, and we're going to look back years from now, but even in real time, I was saying this, when you have T.J. Watt and Cam Hayward, maybe not in their absolute primes, but still playing at a very high level.

And you have the capability of fielding like a top five defense and you're a proud franchise. The Kenny Pickett, Matt Canada era is just unacceptable. And it was in real time. And the quarterback part of this, I've tried to show them a little bit of grace because as you go through the individual years, it's hard to find the decision that would have been better. although I absolutely think they could have shown more urgency in some of these moments. Like, why weren't they a Gino team this offseason? Like, I think even if you can kind of explain all of the quarterback decisions, I think there

have been a lot of half measures. And I don't think the Canada thing is justifiable or defensible in any way, shape, or form. So I think their inability to really make the right decisions at those points were really important. And then they just never stumbled into a quarterback. Like, the best comparison for me, in terms of how they've operated over the last five years, They're like the Cowboys that the Cowboys hadn't lucked into Dak Prescott. Yeah, that's really good, actually.

That's what the Steelers feel like. And like, I think actually the reason they've both had success is obviously the Cowboys get to luck into a quarterback in Dak Prescott. And the Steelers have had Tomlin forever, who is their version of like raising this in a level that it probably doesn't deserve. Whereas for the Cowboys, it's been deck. Yes. And so, but I think that's part of the problem here as well is that if you look at the Cowboys, is the other point of comparison with Pittsburgh and Dallas to me, and a part where they diverge,

the Cowboys have drafted well for the most part over the last five years. If you look at the Steelers, and I think you saying they haven't bridged the eight years ago drafts with the current ones with the youth movement, I think that's absolutely right. This team just hasn't drafted well over the past like five to seven years. So let's leave last year's draft class out of it. And I think the 23 group still has some promise with Porter, Benton, Nick Herbig.

But before that, here are the day one and two draft picks for the Pittsburgh Steelers in reverse chronological order. Kenny Pickett, George Pickens, Najee Harris, Pat Fryermuth, Kendrick Green, Chase Claypool, Devin Bush, which cost them a first and second round pick, Deontay Johnson, Terrell Edmonds, James Washington, Chooks a Corre for. Those are their day one and two picks since drafting JJ Watt or TJ Watt in 2017. Alex Highsmith in 2020 is like the Outwire and Pratt Firemuth is a solid player. Other than that, that's a rough place to be.

And so Tomlin is a good enough coach where he lifts the floor of that group, but there's no ceiling razor because you don't have the quarterback to do it and you don't have the influx of talent to do it. And so I think that's how we arrive at this version of the Steelers where they're competent enough, but there's nothing that's really driving them back toward the top on either a roster talent level or a quarterback level. And all those hits are pretty much offensive skill players, like for the most part. And it's guys that like were nice, but not ones that they wanted to keep around necessarily. Yeah, they're not on the team anymore. All of them are not on the team anymore.

Exactly. And so even if they were good for the Steelers for a little bit, they weren't long-term pieces for them. And that's always a problem with the draft. Right. And I think it's interesting too with with this draft stuff. If you go back even a little bit before that, they've missed on so many corners up until Porter. They missed on Edmonds as a safety. You mentioned, um, dude, Sanquez Golson, Burns was like,

It just all these guys already burned. Like just all these guys they missed on for the longest time. And then you mentioned the linebacker pick, like outside of having Watt and Hayward for the longest time. And then they had to trade for Mink of Fitzpatrick. So that wasn't even like their draft pick. Like they just, it's been hard for them to piece together enough guys on a defense to have consistently the level of defense that they probably should have when like you said, you have those two stars. I will say this. Before we smash the panic button,

I want to see what the next 12 months look like for the Steelers. This season is kind of like whatever. Like you've kind of painted yourself into this corner based on what this quarterback class looked like draft wise. Going into next year with an extra third potentially in the Pickens deal, a third round pick for Dan Moore is a compensatory pick. A fourth round pick for a guy who I cannot remember. But they have multiple comps coming plus a third round pick that they just traded for Pickens. How are you going to go get your quarterback? or combine that with can you hit an average run of luck in the draft?

Like, can you just get hot again? Because we've seen that happen over and over again with teams where you have a stretch where you're cold and then you get hot again. So I want to see what the final move for the quarterback looks like in the 2026 off season before we say that this team is completely rudderless and we give up on whatever this era of the Steelers feels like. I agree with that. And honestly, if they fail the quarterback thing one more time, again, it's a hard thing to do.

but at that point, it'll have been like a decade since they figured it out. And it's like at that point, even if I still think Tomlin's a good coach and they still are doing some good stuff, you probably have to probably have to walk the plank there. Let's get the next one. All right, guys, Quint Frawman brings us our next question. Quint had a long preamble. It's all under the heading that he's a Ravens fan and was talking about how many picks they made specifically four picks in the sixth round.

I think I should make five picks and screw up. Anyway, he gets to his question, which is, I'm wondering at what point, the collecting of a lot of picks winds up being seen as less useful than collecting a large total value of picks. Would having three picks in the top 40 and nothing else be more useful than one in the top 40 and 10 later than pick 100? And is this calculation different depending on where the team is and how many holes there are in the roster?

Basically, where is the equilibrium between value and volume? What do you got here, Robert? I think top 100 picks are definitely the focus. I've talked to executives and people that are in charge of trade charts and how they're trying to maneuver themselves. I think that's always going to be the focus. But I also think it's worth having more swings in general, kind of no matter where you are as a team.

And all those fours that the Ravens consistently have, those are helpful because those turn into players every once in a while. And they don't turn into players that often. So when you have two to three fourth round picks, maybe let's say two on average in almost every single draft because you played the comp pick game, ultimately that's going to be better. beneficial for you. But there is diminishing returns. He mentioned the Ravens having four six-round

picks. To me, it's like the Rick Spielman special. If you go back through the Vikings drafts over the last 10 years, they've got like a combined six picks in the sixth and seventh round almost every single year. For the most part, you're not going to get a lot of players with those sorts of picks. But I think the place where I ultimately land is, every single year, do you have your top 100 picks that you came into the draft with plus one every once in a while? Can you pick one up? every so often. But we traded this player. You know, the bills had that extra second in the digs trade.

Like just try to find a couple of those, pick them up on the street when it's possible. And then also, are you making essentially the picks allotted to you in a given year or maybe one more? Like, are you making at least seven picks a year and potentially eight or nine consistently over multiple different drafts? Because I do think in that way, volume is important. I think having 12 picks with five of them in the sixth round doesn't really matter. I think that's probably.

At a certain point, you get so late in the draft that these are basically UDFAs at that point anyway. I think the framing of the question where it's what I rather have three top 40 picks versus all these picks outside of the top 100. The problem is that I think in most drafts like 15 to 70 is so nebulous that if you're only getting these three picks in the top 40, I don't think that's that valuable. Where I think it becomes a more interesting topic to me is like, would you trade everything to have two top 12? picks because those are the guys that I think are much more surefire assets obviously it's the draft nobody is surefire but I do think that that makes more sense than the three top 40 where it's like once you get past 15 men it's it's a lot of guessing for everybody so I don't even know if that's that valuable I still wouldn't rather have two top 12 picks rather than all of my picks I think that's what

I wouldn't either but I it's I think it's at least more interesting than the like three in the top 50 Probably. But if you look at it, I think that's been the biggest lesson that we've taken away from modern trade charts. Like if you just go look, you can look at it right now if you're listening to this show. Just go to over the cap, look at the Fitzgerald Spielberger trade chart. The biggest takeaway from that chart is that the gap between a pick at five and a pick at 50 is not as big as previous versions of the chart would tell you that it is based on the expected returns from that pick. it smooths out a lot more than you would expect when you look at something like the Jimmy Johnson chart where the fifth pick in the draft and the 30th pick in the draft, there's like a massive, massive difference between those.

And obviously, the hit rate, the quality of players, everything, undeniably changes as you go further down in the draft. Like that's real. But I don't think it's quite as pronounced as conventional wisdom or previous approaches would tell you that it is. it's it's probably not i think the only issue i would have with in this scenario where you have only one top 40 pick and a million outside of the top 100 i do think even though general hit rates and just like finding generally good players you want more bites at the apple i do think to have truly elite players and like ceiling raising players you probably do need those

top 15 picks and so like even if you feel the decent team with a million guys outside of the top 100 who are fine you're probably less likely to find like you're all pros and your like consistent pro bowlers. Yeah, I think that's probably right. I think that's probably right. But I think you also have to offset that with building out the depth of your roster with those guys that you find in the second and third round. Like it's really important to be able to.

And it's positional dependent too, right? That's so like if you need a tackle. Exactly. You better go up. So this to me would be a perfect example of this, right? So Ronnie Stanley, you need a top 10 pick to find Ronnie Stanley. you don't need a top 10 pick to find Kyle Hamilton or Tyler Linderbaum. And you definitely don't need a top 10 pick to find Justin Matabeeke.

But you need all of those guys to create the Ravens roster. Like Justin Matabike is a necessary component of finally getting there. And so I think that's why even if the headliners are the wise that you have to find in the top 15, having those top 100 picks to build out the rest of the connective tissue of your roster is very, very important. They really are the argument for both. That's good. I like that. All right, guys. We're going to do a quick break here and then we'll be back with some more questions.

Okay, next question comes to us from Paul Winsauer. Paul says, if you suddenly found yourself as the all-powerful owner and decision-maker of an NFL team, is there a team building or coaching strategy you would implement that we don't typically see, perhaps because front offices and coaches are too focused on job security or avoiding media and fan backlash. For example, I've often wondered whether a team could succeed by continually streaming high upside project quarterbacks, actually giving them time to develop and only handing out a major contract if one turns into a true top five difference-making quarterback. The savings at the QB position could then be used to build a strong roster around these developing QBs, giving them the support they need to potentially grow into elite players.

It seems unlikely we'll ever see this in the real world as decision makers rarely have the time or job security to let such a plan play out. Plus, there would be massive internal and external blowback for trading away a Brock Purdy type player once it's time to pay him. It's a great question. Derek, you take this one first. Yeah, this question is like libertarianism. Like the idea that there are just no consequences for the things that I do. All the rules are forbid. Is that what libertarianism is? I mean, more or less, that's kind of what they believe.

Is it like, yeah, laws are fake and we should be able to do whatever we want. That's like a pretty, it's a little bit of a disingenuous way to frame it. But more or less, that's what they believe in. And so this to be actually makes like being a general manager uninteresting. Like if there are no consequences, I will always have this. time to eventually feel the good team. However, the quarterbacks thing probably is the right one, just because it's the most valuable position in sports and doing whatever you can to find a top five guy is the most valuable thing. I actually don't know if the cap savings, you know,

where you have the two-year window is even the most important part to me. It's just that you're constantly trying to find a top five guy and that's what really matters. I think if it were to not be the quarterback thing for me, for me, it would just be like finding some extra way to consistently have more offensive linemen on the roster and like invest an obscene amount in the offensive line to make sure that we are the Eagles or the 2016 Cowboys literally all of the time. Like that that probably is the answer to me. It's a really, really good one. I had the quarterback one is probably mine for reasons I'll get into, but making sure that you're just pumping an inordinate amount of resources into the offensive line over and over and over again. And even the defensive line too. Like can you make sure that you're not

leaving a single draft without taking an offensive or defensive lineman in the top 100. It may be, it may be even multiple. It's because it goes back to like what Mike Zimmer has said where he's like, if I just want to play cover two, I can find a corner at the 7-11, man. I don't, I got with, but with defensive linemen and all pro pass rushers and all pro tackles, it's a little bit harder to do that. You really have to invest in those guys. So we'll spend our first round pick in the trenches every single year, throw one more

top 75 pick at it. Just keep doing it. Yeah. have to find the right dips in the markets, though, and the right zags. And I think partially what we've seen with Corner, and maybe I'm giving him way too much credit for this, but I think the Eagles finding Quinyon Mitchell where they did is partially a product of the way that corners are currently being drafted. Quineh, Mishel was a more talented player than somebody who should go in the 20s. But he fell because that's the way that we're approaching the position as a league right now.

So I think there are certain like rigid dogmatic ways that you can look at and being like, we're going to invest in this position. This is who we're going to be. But I think the best teams are always going to be the ones that ride the waves a little bit and kind of see around the bend in ways that other teams can't. So that's my only pushback on that is like, all right, well, if we're doing that every single year, are we actually putting ourselves at a slight disadvantage because we're not being nimble enough to read the market as it starts to shift?

You also might nuke the market if you're doing that. right like if you are hoarding the resources to that level like all of the quality offensive linemen and all of the draft picks and stuff like that you might actually like skew the market in a way that is very uh very odd i think taking having your entire offensive line just be first round picks though i do support that and i think that you could do the same thing about like with defensive linemen as well my answer to this is probably the quarterback one and it's only because i was going back through it today um i used to be a sports writer um way back in the day and I going back through and reading like several things I've written about this subject where it's like, why don't teams move on from quarterbacks that they think are on the border of being worthwhile and paying those guys. And I wrote a piece for the ringer in 2019 that was right when the Rams had already paid golf or were about to pay golf. It was the Dak Prescott conversation.

And I talked to a lot of different people essentially about why this happens. Why teams commit to these guys that they probably should be a little bit more health. hesitant to commit to. And the main driver of it is job security. It's not having egg on your face, et cetera. But I just think that while I'm sympathetic to some of those arguments and some of the cultural considerations and the locker room and all of that, I would like a team to kind of push the limits a little bit more than we've seen in the past. Like I think there are different potential examples to use here. Like, Dak Prescott, I think, was always a quarterback that was worth paying when you looked at the infrastructure that he was playing in and how he was able

to succeed. Whether he should be the highest paid quarterback in the league, that doesn't really matter to me. But if he should be paid commensurate with the top eight to ten at the position in the realm of like where Jordan Love and those guys are right now, I think the answer to that is yes. And that's kind of how he had been paid previously before he had total and complete leverage over the Cowboys. An example that I think is on the other side of the line, like let's say you're the dolphins and you just play it all the way out. You let to a play out his fifth year option and if he plays well, you have to use the tag on him.

If they had done that, they would have paid $14 million against the cap more than they have over the last two years, but they would be able to move on from him after this year. Who's complaining about that? Tua. But that's not for him to complain. Like, who cares? Like, if you're the dolphins, you probably don't care about that.

And that's what I thought they should have done because the thing is with guys like Tua compared to potentially other quarterbacks in that range, they knew he was limited in the way that the offense had to function when they signed him. And they did it anyway. And so for teams that are in that bucket, almost like the 2018 Rams, it's just like, do we really have to do this? Like, do we really need to? I guess the Rams are different because they at least made the Super Bowl, right? You had proof of concept in a way. but I think teams where you feel like you're limited and you already know that, hamstringing yourself to a massive quarterback contract is always tricky.

I think that's a great way to put it, because if you've realized a certain ceiling, backing away from that ceiling is very hard to do. And the dolphins have not realized that ceiling. And so I think that backing away from that is a little bit easier to do. Maintaining flexibility is more important than the risk of potentially taking a small step back in that case if you're Miami. And I think that's a subtle but important difference with the Niners and Brock Purdy part of this conversation. The Niners know they can be on the doorstep of a championship with Brock Purdy. So I think that paying him and trying to maintain that level at the very least is probably something that's worth chasing,

even if you're obviously going to have to make some compromises roster-wise after you pay that person. Right. And even Purdy is more flexible than Toease. He's a better athlete. He's a little bit better of a creator, like all that jazz. he has some sort of plan B where it's not he needs everything to kind of be set up for him in the way that Tua has. That's my answer.

Going back and reading that story today, I always worry about stuff like that and going back and reading stuff that's six years old, like how bad are some of these things going to age? And I felt pretty good about that one. I felt like that one still holds up if you guys want to go take a look at it and try to glean some sort of takeaways from it.

Like you pushing clicks away from the athletic, unbelievable. Alex Cohn, He's got the next question. Alex Cohen's got our next question. He says, the situation in Detroit is fascinating to me with a CEO type head coach. How much do you think Dan Campbell's job will change in the season with the Lions replacing staples of the organization with two new coordinators who aren't quite on the Ben Johnson, Aaron Glenn, soon to be head coach level, at least yet?

What do you got here, Robert? I think he'll be more involved with the offensive game planning, similar to what we had heard he was doing that year where they fired Anthony and Lynn Midway through the year earlier. demoted him, where him and Ben Johnson were kind of working in tandem overseeing the offense. Like that, that's my expectation. And I think that when you're a CEO type of head coach, or any type of head coach, honestly, your job changes every single year because it has to change based on the requirements you have

around your staff. Like, there are going to be years where even if Sean McVeigh is always the play caller, based on who the rest of his offensive staff is, he feels more or less compelled to be bigger part of game planning because he feels like he has the right people to support him right like there are years where i assume this is true where after kyle shanahan lost both mics lefleur and mcdaniel and he had guys that maybe were a little bit more junior making up the bulk of that offensive staff bobby sloick etc i have to imagine that he felt a little bit less comfortable just riding with whatever they said just think if you're a manager in any position or in any business

like if there are people you've never really work with in that capacity you're going to want to want to check their work a little bit more than you would have previously. And I think that comes with potential drawbacks, right? Like Nick Siriani did this in 2023. He loses both coordinators. And I think Nick would tell you this, he was much more involved in the offensive planning and execution when Brian Johnson was there compared to Shane Steichen. And I think that left some of the other management concerns in the building untended to.

And I think that there was an impact of that. So even if it changes, it's sometimes to the. detriment of the organization. I think that's the type of stuff that you have to avoid if you can, even though it's difficult. It's going to be very difficult, but I got to say, I actually trust that Dan Campbell has a very clear understanding of what it is that he's done well and what it is that his staff has done well to this point. Like, I just don't imagine him. Undeniably. Like, I just don't imagine him having the issue that Siriani had when he was a little bit of a younger coach trying to meddle in the offense that way and just make sure it was this and make sure it was

that when you have this new play caller. I can see Dan Campbell like, yes, helping and shepherding somebody along into the new role, but I just don't feel that like by week nine, we're going to get reports. Ah, Dan Campbell is meddling in the offense too much. I just, I can't imagine that. So I trust that Campbell's going to do a really good job of letting these guys do their job. I think he handpicked these guys to do the job. So maybe I just have too much faith in Dan Campbell, like a little bit too much blind faith.

But I just feel like he's wired the right way to actually handle this type of stuff. I think that's fair. And I also think that, again, these guys are managers of people. Like, you guys are, I'll say you all have jobs. I assume a lot of you have jobs. I assume a lot of you have bosses. Like, what is a good boss? What is a bad boss?

A good boss is somebody who there's an expectation. There's an accountability. Somebody who makes you want to work hard. That's a real skill. And that's what head coaches are. They're the bosses of the organization. So I think some of those skills are a little bit softer and a little bit quieter. We'll address that in a second with the next question.

But I think he has shown a real ability to, they're shown a real propensity to succeed in those areas and ways that a lot of other head coaches do not. And that's why I think it took Shanahan a lot of time to get to this. It took Siriani time to get to this. It took McVeigh a little bit of ups and down with this because their entry into the league was, I'm a play caller.

I'm a scheme designer, all this stuff. With Dan Campbell, I think it was pretty immediately like, no, I'm gluing everything together. And that's why I'm good. That's why we're good. So I think it's just a little bit of a different. like why did you come up in coaching thing that helps Campbell a little bit here? I think that's fair.

What's next one, Barr? All right, let's get into another coaching question. We've got a few really good ones coming up on tap here. But we're going to get into another coaching question. It comes to us from Philippe Moran. Philippe says, my question is, why does Kyle Shanahan enjoy such a pristine reputation, especially when compared to others like the bill's Sean McDermott.

Both took over struggling franchises and turned them around, both acquired franchise QBs, albeit going about it differently and with San Francisco spending a lot more draft capital in the process. both have struggled finding top talent in the first round, despite San Francisco picking in the top 10 more often. The Bill's sin, it seems, is running into the chiefs earlier in the playoffs than the 49ers, but San Francisco losing in just as heartbreaking fashion in the process. Yet the football media constantly ranked Shanahan among the top in his profession. Why is that?

What do you got here, Robert? I think it's just that his impact is more remonstrable than Sean McDermott's is. Like, Kyle Shanahan is the play caller for a consistent top five offense. there's no ambiguity about what he's adding. That doesn't have the league quarterback. Yeah, and that's exactly. He has taken Jimmy Garoppolo and Brock Purdy to Super Bowls. Like, it's very obvious to understand what Kyle Shanahan is adding to the Niners success.

Sean McDermott has Josh Allen. And so as a CEO type head coach, I think it's hard to appreciate what he contributes because it's just a little bit less overt. And it certainly doesn't help that the side of the ball that he has occasionally been responsible. for has been the side of the ball that has ultimately petered out for the bills at the end of each of the last two, three, four seasons. I have been very vocal about the fact that I think that Sean McDermott is underrated and that we don't appreciate some of those other elements of what he's brought to the organization. But in terms of why it's framed like this, that's my answer. I think it's just much more obvious and clear what Kyle Shanahan is doing for his team day in and day out. I think the level of

playoff success and then why they've struggled in the playoffs compared to these two teams is kind of what does a lot of it for me like obviously the niners are getting to the Super Bowl these these number of times or even the falcon the 2016 Falcons with Shanahan calling the place they're getting there because the offenses are insane and obviously with the Niners they had some good defenses but they're getting there because of historically good offenses for the most part whereas with the bills and I understand that you have to typically go through better quarterbacks in AFC, the Lamar's, the Joe Burroughs, Patrick Mahomes, like all those guys. So I understand that. But it has been the Bill's defense, a relatively vanilla, typically softer, smaller defense

that has ailed them in the playoffs. And so I think when we assume that McDermott is responsible for a lot of that side of the ball and that's why they continue to fail, I think that's why he gets knocked down to peg. And I agree with you. He's a good coach. But I think to me, I almost conceive of him more as like half a CEO coach, half of a scheme guy. And that kind of muddies the water of like how exactly do I value what he does, where Shanahan is just like, well, he calls the best offense in the league every other year. Yeah, I think that them hiring Bobby Babbage and I think empowering him a little bit more, is probably taking some of the defensive orchestration off of Sean McDermott's plate.

This is another team where you're on probation. Like the Bill's defense is on like long term playoff probation this year. Like, I'm going to give you this year. You got to prove it. When you have, you dumped all of your resources this offseason into the defense outside of signing Josh Palmer. Like, all of them. You drafted three defensive linemen. You signed Joey Bosa.

You signed Michael Hoyt. You drafted a corner in the first round. Like, if you look at what happened, and that's why I was so okay with the way they approached the off season, where I kind of sympathize with Brandon Bean getting his pissed off as he was about the receiver question, it's like, if you watch the bills at the end of last year and you didn't think that size, speed and the ability to affect the pocket on defense. We're not the most important things that the bills needed to address. I don't know what team you were watching.

And so I appreciate them handling it this way. But now if that doesn't come with the necessary evolution and improvement on defense, then we can have a hard conversation. But I'm not quite ready to have it yet. Yeah, like if they lose another playoff game, but the defense actually plays the way that it's supposed to play and did during the regular season, then I'm not going to do. the whole Sean McDermott's defense thing sucks.

It'll just be like, oh, well, they ran into Mahomes again, or they ran into Joe Burrow, whatever it is. And like, that can be fine. To play the other side for Kyle Shanahan for just a second, even though I believe he is like a top three coach in the NFL, the buck does stop with him for a lot of stuff as the head coach. There's no doubt. Like, I think some of the instability with the defensive play calling the past few years,

I think that you can pin on him partially, obviously. And then I think the trades for Trey Lance and everything you had to give up for CMC and obviously the CMC trade like worked and the only reason you can say it hasn't now is he's been hurt but they did give up a lot to make those two trades and you can see why the roster has atrophied a little bit around that so generally he still does a lot of incredible stuff but there are reasons that you can see why they failed that like ultimately do stop with shanahan probably i think that's right but i think that makes it as a much more difficult conversation because when you have coaches that have personnel control or have an outsized influence on personnel and

there are stuff on the bad side of the ledger, but also, like, what do we, they found Brock Purdy in the seventh round. Exactly. Who gets credit for that? And so I think that just becomes so much more difficult. I try for the most part when we're having these sorts of discussions to isolate it, to the coaching itself, because even with Belichick, right? Like, I don't think.

Yeah. And when I was stacking up coaches in the NFL in 2022, I wasn't putting Belichick further down the list because he was a bad GM. He was still where he was on the coaching ranks because of what he was as a coach specifically. So I try to keep those things separate when I'm tiering these guys or trying to build the hierarchy because Sean McDermott doesn't get any positives on the personnel side either. So how are we going to weigh that when it comes to evaluating him as a coach versus Kyle Shantan. That's completely fair. That's actually a really good point because yeah, Belichick, I think, would have been on very opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of choosing the players versus how he utilized them.

And I think that's instructive when we try to find out why certain organizations have progressed positively or negatively in the way that they have. So if you look at the Niners and you try to figure out why the Niners are where they are, that Kyle Shanahan as GM part of it is very, very important. But to me, that's different than evaluating him as a coach as we're trying to stack the, stack up these guys next to each other. All right, guys, we have questions on Travis Hunter. We've got a great QB trade question. We're going to get to those after our final break of the episode. Okay, next question is from Nick Sandberg.

Nick's email talked a lot about the Travis Hunter usage discussion and then he got to his question, which was, I may be totally over or maybe underthinking this, but won't the answer in what Hunter's usage is be week to week, opponent dependent based on their strengths and weaknesses? In season, we talk a lot about weekly game plans and strategies for how one team should prepare or change certain concepts to match up more successfully against their opponent's style of play on both sides of the ball. And we know how seriously coaches have to take that week over week. So what a matter to the Jaguars week to week game planning to get him on the

field for the snaps that matter most on either side of the ball based on who the opponent is that week? Super fun question. What do you got here, Derek? I think for offenses makes more sense because you hold the pen as the offense. So if you think that there's a particular thing that we can expose and Travis Hunter can go do all of that, then that makes sense. I don't really get it as a defensive back thing. Like, I think you are so often in terms of coverage on the back foot, not on the back foot, but you are responding to what the offense wants to do. And I think the mental burden of like fluctuating his uses on defense week to week,

I think it's just asking a lot for a player that presumably is also going to play a majority of the snaps on offense. So to me, I think, I got to be honest, I don't love the idea of him playing receiver. and then like moonlighting as a DB, I think it's just going to be hard to figure that out. If they do it, it needs to be in a scenario that is consistent week to week and also specialized already.

So like if he's just a red zone player, where it's like this is a particular package of plays that we're running, we know we're going to be in the red zone, nine plays every week, whatever, and we can use you there. Fine. I just, I don't love like some weeks we're going to use him 30 snaps

because we think this coverage is good. And then only 10 snaps next week because we just don't. Like I just feel like that's going to be such a weird to ask for him. I agree with that. And I think part of the reason I land there is that he's not Patrick Stratan or Doreau Rivas. Like that's not where he really excels as a corner.

He has unbelievable spatial awareness. And I think as a zone defender is where he really shines as like a special football player. And swapping in a guy, swapping guy in and out in that sort of structure is very difficult because you're risking the integrity of your coverage overall because it's about the hole. it's not about one piece of it. And so that's why I agree with you. I think it's going to be hard to use him as a package player on defense if you're going to play

a lot of his own. I think based on Anthony Campanile's history and what the Packers have done over the last couple years, I don't anticipate them being like a 50% man coverage team, even if that was the best way to use him. I honestly, the more I've thought about this, I 100% agree with you and that I think using him as a package player on defense doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Maybe I'm not seeing something, but to me it doesn't make a ton of sense. and I think that he should be a full-time player on offense based on value and just usage

and all those other things. So I think the place where I land is, I'm going to see if you can do both full-time. I'm just going to see if he can do it, right? Like, I'm just going to see if he can potentially do it. And do we find a way, whether it's in the week or within meetings, etc., that can lessen the mental burden on him? You know, now he is a full-time professional athlete. there's no class there's nothing to worry about like is there any way mentally you think you can get him

ready on both sides of the ball because physically he has shown that he can hold up in that way in a way that no college player we've ever seen in the modern era can do it so i think my my favorite answer here even if it seems far-fetched initially is just to say it like let's just see if he can do it all and scale back if we have to i mean if you want to primarily draft him as a receiver which they did and then also play him on defense. I'm probably closer to the side that like you might as well just try it full time and see where he sinks and swims and you can keep the defense the same every single snap and all that stuff rather than again this week he's going to play 40 snaps for us.

This week he's going to play 10. Like then you're just messing with his schedule as a rookie and like that's not good. At least playing both sides, that's going to be hard, but it's consistent throughout the year. And like that I think is pretty valuable. So I probably lean, which is the boring answer, just like play him on one side of the ball. and for me that would be defense. But if they drafted him as a receiver, I expect him to majority just play receiver.

I'm giving away content ideas here. So just this is a free one. If you are a feature writer or you're somebody who covers the NFL in like a print capacity, because I think it would be best served in this sort of situation. I want a story on like, let's say Halloween, right? So it's a little bit deeper into the season. Things have settled a little bit.

I want a story that has like a spreadsheet with Travis Hunter's schedule on it. I want to know where he is when. I want to know which meetings he's in. I want to know which coaches he's talking to. Like, is it a situation where he flip-flops? Is he in offensive meetings on Monday and defensive meetings on Tuesday? Where does he practice? You only have a limited amount of practice time.

I want it that granular. Like, I think that the Jags have shown us they will give you the access. So someone, some enterprising person here that is a national NFL writer or Jaguars writer, I want this. I want this somewhere along the way. And not as a theoretical thing. I don't want it to be written in like July when we have all these pie in the sky ideas.

I'm talking about like week six what was his day to day schedule in week six. Well, I want to see like early September versus like do they completely shift to something else by early December? Like are they just like, all right, whatever we were doing early was too overwhelming for this reason or another

or we actually decided we want him to focus more on defense or maybe we want more offense. Like how would that change 12 weeks into the season? Again, these are free content ideas. If you want, this is up to you, but if you want to use it, feel free because I just want it to exist. If fingers crossed for us here at the athletic that Mike Silver made a good enough impression in Jacksonville during a draft week and that maybe he can get that story. If I was a better coworker, I would drop this in Slack or to some of the editors that work for the company and not just be throwing it out on a podcast. But no one ever said I was a good one.

You're decent enough. Last question here, Nick Nelson, another fun one. And he says in recent years, we've seen quarterback trades Matthew Stafford, Russell Wilson, Gino Smith, Aaron Rogers, Matt Ryan, some of even Carson Wentz has been traded multiple times. I can't imagine there's actually an amount of draft picks a GM would accept for Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, or Patrick Mahomes. So who is the best quarterback that a GM would trade away regardless of like whatever he's getting back? What would it take him?

Who is the best, best, ultimate top of the line quarterback that a Q, that a GM would actually trade away? What do you got, Robert? This is an awesome question. It's hard to answer. I think that if you go down the tiers, right, if we just do the top 10 quarterbacks in the league and we just move through all of them. Like the top three guys are the top three guys.

I don't think they're getting traded for anything. I don't think Burroughs getting traded for any number of draft picks for a bunch of different reasons. I think the Chargers, based on Jim Harbaugh's public expressions of love and devotion for his quarterback last year, are probably on that list as well. So as you move past that, I think the question then goes to some of the really,

really valuable young guys. right? Like, what would Washington take for Jaden Daniels? I don't know if that price exists. Nothing. Yeah. Now, based on how last year it went. What would the Texans take for C.J. Stroud? I think that's another one that I'm not sure that price currently exists based on how the last couple of years have gone.

Where I land on this is that I think, and the financials are another consideration here, but let's just say the financials are you could get out from under it. the Cowboys would take Dak would trade DAC for the right price. I think it's the DAC They've been flirting with it for Yeah. They've been flirting with it for like five years though.

The DAC Kyler Range is probably where I would land, I think is the right answer. I think if you call the Cowboys right now and again, I think that if they traded them after June 1 in theory, it would be possible. If you call the Cowboys right now, like we'll give you three ones for DAC. I think they would do it.

And I think the Cardinals would probably be in the same boat. I think Kyler Murray is the most interesting here because like Dak I think is a better player, but he's also much older and he's even more expensive. Whereas Kyler, I think is interesting because you are, if you're trading for him, you are theoretically getting what is going to be the prime of a quarterback. Like that late 20s, like that is exactly where quarterbacks shine. And he's a guy who's flashed MVP potential, but has been incredibly inconsistent the entire time. But like I could see why a team would want to spend three, first round picks to be like, we can get more out of Kyler than we've gotten. I can also see why the Cardinals, given what they've gotten out of him for five or so years have been like, it's pretty good,

but I'm not sure this is going to be enough for us. So I think it's a regime that did not draft him. That as well. Like if it was still, if the cliff was still there and they were still playing well, then it's like, yeah, they probably don't. But again, when you're not tied to the guy draft pick wise, then yeah, you have a little bit more incentive to move on, especially if this upcoming year does not go as well for them as I think they're hoping. So it would probably be those two for me. And then I mean, I'm not the biggest two of them, but I think in general he's considered a top half of the league quarterback.

And that should be someone considered for this conversation. The other one that I would throw out. Because again, if you did it as a post-June 1st next year, pre-June 1st would be a little bit harder. And going back to the, this regime did not draft this player. We'll see how it goes this year in Jacksonville. I mean, okay.

So for as good as I think Trevor Lawrence is, he probably is in the Kyler Murray bucket where it's like, okay, you've shown some really good stuff. We believe that if we're a different team, we might be buying your prime. But yeah, if you're Jacksonville and you're Liam Cohen and you think there's a little bit more on the bone than he's, uh, I could see it. I can see it. And I don't think this is the worst. Like quarterbacks have done well after that, right?

Like Stafford obviously did Carson Palmer. Golf? Golf got shipped off for nothing. Yeah, he got shipped off for nothing and then became a much better player. So it can happen. but that's actually, that's a really good one that I would have had blinders on because I love him. Yeah, I don't think I would do it, just to be clear about that. But I think that's somebody where like, depending on how this year goes,

you're trying to read the people in this situation, right? Like, we're Paul Newman in Color of Money here. Like, you're a student of human moves as much as you're a student of football moves. And so the idea of, well, if you're James Gladstone, you in your heart of hearts are not deeply committed to making this person work. And so if there is a price that you think you could get him for based on how this year goes, it's a phone call I'd at least make if I were a team that was in a place of desperation at quarterback. Was he in the building when the Rams traded golf?

He probably was, right? He absolutely was. He's been less needs assistant forever. So that's another reason why I think that he is somebody that. So he has proof of concept here. Yes. And he's somebody that I think is open to big extreme ideas. We've already seen that.

So yeah, he was with the Rams for nine years from 2016 through 2024. Okay, wait. So I have a different question. If there is a equivalent to the Gough Stafford trade with Trevor Lawrence, who is it supposed to be? But who are they giving back to him to them? Oh, I don't know. I don't know if you're I mean like you're swapping the quarterback back.

But that's kind of what I'm questioning. Like, is there a team that would want to just swap the quarterbacks? I mean, it might just be Dallas truthfully. but yeah the finances of it make it complicated so that's why i probably wouldn't and that is like such a rare thing what the what the details are but just looking through like the starting quarterbacks in the NFL right now that's a really good question it would probably be a team that's like not overly committed to the guy that they have

here's a good one what if carolina gets to the end of this year and they're like you know Bryce is nice but i think that we need a little bit more if we're going to realize our ceiling. And if you're Jacksonville, you'll just take him back. You just want to move on. Yeah. Yeah. You just want somebody who can, like, actually play.

That was really scrolling through the quarterbacks. That would probably be the first team that came to mind. And again, the finances of this are potentially difficult. But if you're the dolphins and you feel like you can move on from two after this year, I think the way that his bonus structures worked out and everything else, I think that'd be hard after this year. But those are probably the two guys I would pretty quickly throw out. No, those are both good ones.

I like that. I like that. But getting back to the C-Ws conversation we were having earlier, this is the kind of thought process. If you get to the end of this year and you're at a spot where you're picking like 28th or something like that and you don't feel good about your ability to maneuver, 28th is probably high. If you're picking 21st and you don't feel good about your ability to maneuver up the draft

or for whatever reason, you know, Garum Musbott and Nussmire went back to school and some of the guys that we had projected some development to didn't pan out the way that we thought. maybe it's only a two-quarterback class where we thought it might be a four or five quarterback class. I don't know enough about it to make definitive statements about that right now. But you get to a place where you feel like you're boxed in again with your draft options. And depending on how this jag season goes,

I think that's the type of mindset I would try and be, I would be bringing to this if I could. I mean, it's the only thing they haven't tried, right? Like get the really, really good, not really good, obviously. I think people are going to quibble about that with Trevor. But like a guy who has proven he can play at like a Pro Bowl level trading for a event like that. agreed. All right. I think that's all we got. That is it for today's mailbag. We will be back with another one next Monday. As always, sincerely appreciate you guys listening.

We'll talk to you very soon.