The Kevin Sheehan Show - Free Agency + 50 Yrs Ago Tonight

Episode Date: March 9, 2024

Kevin with a shorter weekend podcast with Nick Akridge/Pro Football Focus talking free agency and the QBs in the draft. Kevin also remembered the legendary Maryland-NC State ACC Tournament Championship game 50 years ago tonight. Kevin played a part of his interview in 2022 with Billy Packer with Packer sharing his memories of calling the game that night.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You don't want it. You don't need it, but you're going to get it anyway. The Kevin Cheehan Show. Here's Kevin. The presenting sponsor of this podcast, as always, is Window Nation. Call them at 86690 Nation or head to WindowNation.com. Mention my name. You'll get a free and home estimate.

And if you're in the market for new windows, March is a good month at Windonation. Buy two, get too free with no limit. Plus, no money down, no payments, and no interest. two full years. If you've been thinking about new windows, give Windonation the first shot. 86690 Nation, WindowNation.com. So I'm putting out this weekend podcast, in part because I had a really good conversation on Friday with Nick Ackridge from Pro Football Focus, and I just wasn't able to get into the show on Friday. So you will hear from Nick coming up. He's a senior data analyst with PFF. He's been on the show many times previously. We'll talk free agency with Nick.

His favorite team is Washington, so he's been thinking about free agency as it relates to Washington. We'll also get some of his quarterback draft evaluations. He has evaluated Caleb Williams, Jaden Daniels, Drake May, and J.J. McCarthy. So we'll get his thoughts on those four quarterbacks as well. This from Dan, I got this from Dan the other day. He wrote, Kevin, I'm not sure I completely understand NFL free agency. Why are we allowed to sign Zach Ertz before free agency begins? And what's the point of the tampering period? Those are good questions.

I do think that many of you are confused by the legal tampering period, confused as to why some players are signing before free agency begins. And I'll be honest with you. I had to look up specifically the reason why Zach Ertz was able to sign. And the legal tampering period, I know what it is. I don't know what the point of it is. What it is is a period of about 52 hours in which agents representing players on expiring contracts can communicate and negotiate deals with teams.

Those deals can't be officially signed, fully executed, until free agents. begins, but it is this period this year Monday at noon, March 11th at noon, through Wednesday at 4 p.m. March 13th at 4 p.m. That's the beginning of free agency. It's this 52-hour period in which they can get deals agreed upon, which is why beginning on Monday we'll start to hear about free agent deals that have been agreed upon and will be fully executed when free agency begins on Wednesday. Now, the point of it, there's a lot out there, but there's not a lot of clarity on why the legal tampering period exists. I cobbled together a bunch of things and basically came up with this as the most consistent answer. The legal tampering period helps streamline the process and

allows teams to have a better idea of their potential signings once free agency officially begins. It's also looked at as kind of a period in which teams can, like, officially and legally tamper, and it puts this fine line between illegal tampering and legal tampering in place. So any contact prior to Monday at 12 noon is prohibited, and there have been penalties for that, consequences for that in the past. Now, I think we all have this sense that the combine in particular ends up being not only a meet and greet for teams and players entering the draft, but there's a lot of agents and teams talking about clients that the agents have that are currently in the NFL and are about to become free agents. Now, as far as the Zach Ertz piece, this is really simple.

And it actually plays into the overall of free agency. So the players that can't sign a deal right now with another team are players that are technically still under contract. As an example, Curtis Samuel, Antonio Gibson, Cameron Curl, they are still under contract with Washington until 4 p.m. on Wednesday or 3.59. and 59 seconds p.m. on Wednesday when the league calendar ends for 2023 and the official 2024 league calendar begins. So those players are approaching the expiration of their deal, but the deal is still in place. Zach Ertz did not have a deal. He was not under contract with any team. So a player that's not under contract with any team can sign a with a team at any point. That's why Zach Ertz was able to sign with Washington, is that he was not

under contract with any team. You know, free agency marks this period in which players who are on expiring contracts can now go out and sign with other teams. Now, if Curtis Samuel or Cameron Curl or Antonio Gibson as examples of Washington's players who are about to be free agents, but still today are under contract. If the teams wanted to negotiate a deal with their own players, that's allowed before free agency begins. That's allowed before the legal tampering period begins. So that's essentially why Zacherts can sign with Washington, because he is not under

contract to anybody and why a player like Kirk Cousins would not be able to sign with anybody other than his own team prior to free agency beginning. You knew I had to work Kirk Cousins into the show. By the way, trades also can't take place until the beginning of the league calendar, which is Wednesday, March 13th at 4 p.m. So everything begins, March 13th at 4 p.m. in terms of official contracts signed, and those contracts typically run for, you know, many years, but when they end, they end at the end of the league calendar, which is, you know, right as the new league calendar is beginning. I hope that is a decent explanation. Monday, 12 noon, legal tampering, Wednesday, 4 p.m., actual free agency.

We will certainly hear a lot of news beginning sometime Monday, that's for sure. All right, let's get to Nick Ackridge. We will talk free agency, we will talk draft, and we'll get to it right after these words from a few of our sponsors. If you get a moment, you don't mind, rate us and review us, especially on Apple and Spotify. Following us on Apple and Spotify is a huge deal as well. There's a big plus button in the upper right-hand corner on your podcast screen on your iPhone. It's down the left-hand side on Spotify. So give us a follow, subscribe to the podcast, all of those things help.

With me right now is Nick Ackridge. Nick is a senior data analyst with Pro Football Focus. We've had Nick on the show many times previously, in part because he's a great evaluator, but also he is a huge DC sports fan and a huge Washington fan. So he does his work for PFF, but he is paying attention intently to what Washington does. So Nick joins us right now. And I want to start with free agency and we'll get to your quarterback evaluations because I know you've done four of them at this point.

But what are you expecting for Washington this week when free agency begins? Yeah, I mean, I'm pretty much kind of looking at, you know, just solid kind of rotational depth pieces. I don't think they're going to really, you know, go too big and break the bank. I mean, I'm kind of looking at like a guy like, you know, Jonah Jackson, you can play left guard, just kind of these sort of guys that, you know, maybe a Jonah Williams could play left tackle or even right tackle. And so kind of something like that where you're just kind of, you know, banking on some veterans and nothing really to break the bank. There's a lot of need. There's a lot of depth that needs to be kind of filled out. So that's kind of what I would be looking for.

Is there a player next week that would excite you if they signed them? No, not really. I mean, I don't think they're really going to be in the market for some of these bigger guys. I think the biggest splash we could kind of see is maybe they go big for an edge rush. Or maybe go for the Neal Hunter or even a Bryce Hawk or something like that. I'd be kind of intrigued in either of those, but nothing that would really kind of, you know, wow me, I guess. What do you think they can get accomplished in free agency versus probably not available in the draft?

Yeah, I think, again, I think it's a lot of these, you know, sort of depth rotational pieces. I think you can look a lot for now in the safety market, specifically after we've seen, you know, the run of sky is getting cut. think you could really add a really solid safety and free agency. It's kind of a tougher position to find in the draft. It's pretty hit or miss. It's kind of tough to scout those guys because they don't really do much in college. And you're just kind of looking at a few plays there.

And again, with edge rush, if you kind of want to go big and that wants to be your big splash, there's, you know, a lot of guys out there that could come out, come in and, you know, be a solid starter right away. Yeah, I actually mentioned DeNeil Hunter as somebody who would excite me. I just think, I know he's 29, he's had injuries, but when he has been healthy, he's been a true menace, a true disruptor. I actually wonder what you think about sort of this body type that we've seen kind of emerge with edge rushers, the taller, lankier, long-armed guy versus, you know, just the quick twitch speed guy. I thought Montez had some of those qualities as well, you know, being more long-armed and taller.

But do you, is there a body type as an edge rusher that you prefer? Yeah, no, I was going to mention the long-arms, but I'm a huge fan of that. I just think it makes, you know, pass-rushing a lot easier when you can, you know, use your sort of your long-arms to keep offensive linemen away from kind of grabbing you getting a hold of you. Using that sort of long-arm stuff is really, as a really nice, you know, move. And Ryan Carrigan, who's kind of

on the staff was, you know, the best at using that kind of long-arm bowl rush where he would just kind of put his long arm right to your chest and just push you back in the quarterback. And, you know, I could sort of see them, you know, going in that route again and looking for someone who has that sort of wingspan that can, you know, just always keep an offensive linemen off you. It just makes everything 10 times easier if you can't let them get a hold of you. So that's definitely.

one that I kind of like. I actually think Andre Jones Jr., the player they drafted late last year, has that kind of body type. I don't know if he'll develop into that kind of pass rusher. But anyway, let's move on. Oh, one more on free agency. Why don't you think they'll be big spenders? You know, I just, I don't think it's, obviously we've seen in the past for the past 20, 30 years, that they've always been kind of big spenders in free agency. And I, you know, I just think that, this group is just going to be a little more smart with, you know, how they operate with their money. They obviously have, you know, the most cap in the NFL right now. But I think they know that they're not a year away from really competing and, you know, kind of going big right away is might not be the best move.

I could obviously be wrong. But I just kind of think that they're going to really look for more, you know, just kind of solid depth pieces and build that depth up. Because, again, we've been missing, you know, depth for a very, very long time. And, you know, when you deal with a lot of injuries, it shows up quickly. We saw it in the secondary this past year. We've seen it as a lineback position. We've seen it everywhere, especially on the offensive line. I think you just need to build that depth up and just kind of get a solid, you know,

a core group there and then kind of start swinging. Yeah, I mean, when you say build up the depth, it's not that you're not saying they have need for starters. You're just saying, you know, in the short term, they can find hopefully their long-term starters through the draft and some of the players that they actually sign in free agency may have to start, but eventually they're depth players. Yeah, essentially that's what I kind of am looking for. You know, I think they need to really emphasize this, you know, getting younger, and that obviously starts with a draft, and they, you know, they have a nice group of draft picks

or number of draft picks, I should say. And I think building through the draft is the best way to go. I think, like I said, we've seen the big splash for agent signings. and going heavy with free agency. It's kind of tough to really make that work. I think some of the best teams are really built through the draft, and I think that's where they should be looking for long-term success. Is there a position group where you think they actually don't need to look for players,

starters, or depth? Yeah, I think wide receiver. You know, I think they have a nice core. You know, I think bringing back Curtis Samuel should be a high priority. I think he would fit really well in a Cliff King's very often where, you know, you can use him in a lot of different positions like they have in the past. And I think wide receiver is, you know, pretty solid. I don't think you really need to go out and free agency and add one.

I can see them, you know, drafting one. But I think wide receiver is pretty solid with McClearn and Dotson. And if they bring Samuel back, I think that's, again, a nice trio. Do you think they'll target bringing Samuel back? Or, I mean, I think he's going to have a market, don't you? Yeah, I think he will. again, that is just what I would do. That's probably why I'm not a GM.

But again, I think he would be a nice seat. He would fit in pretty well with his king-versile offense, and that's someone I would kind of prioritize. All right. Let's get to the draft and talk about first what you think, not player-wise, but what do you think they'll do with number two overall? I think it's got to be quarterback I think you're in a very lucky and unique position right now

to really have your obviously not your possibly not your top choice with you know pick number two but you have you know a group of you have three guys really that have been seen as you know a lot of people have them as you know switched around as quarterback one so I think you're in a great spot

to really you know snag a quarterback of the future your franchise quarterback and I don't think you pass up on this sort of opportunity because, you know, a lot of times people say, oh, you can just kind of, you know, get back to the next couple of years, but it's tough to get to the number two pick. I mean, we see it all the time with teams that try to tank, but it's tough to really truly tank in the NFL, and it's tough to get to this number two pick. We thought with Washington almost fight back against the Jets, and that could have cost you the number two pick. So I think they're in a very, very great position right now to take that quarterback at number two.

It's something they've obviously been looking for decades now, and I just don't think he passed up on an opportunity like this. Yeah, you just reminded me. They were on the verge of Greg Zerline. Basically, you know, if he misses that kick, they're not in this position. And I still can't believe how many people in a season like they were having last year, knowing that it was going to be a complete teardown when the season ended, wanted them to win the game and really call themselves fans.

Look, I get it to a certain degree. You sit down on Sunday. You want your team to win. But, yeah, that was really ultimately the difference between two and I think maybe six or five maybe. Yeah, and you're just looking into how much is it going to cost you to trade up. And, you know, a team like Washington who's got a lot of hold, you can't really afford to trade up that much. Right. And we've seen that in the past where you've had to go up to number two, get someone at quarterback.

And if that doesn't work, you're screwed for a long time. So, again, you don't have to move anywhere. You can sit it too and take a top guy. So, yeah, I just think it should be the easy and obvious choice. Yeah, they were, that one win would have cost them. They would have been in a tie with the chargers for the fifth pick. I don't know who would have won that tiebreaker. but it would have been two to at least five, if not six, in that particular spot.

All right, so let's talk about the quarterbacks. You have analyzed the top three, I think, so far. Have you done more than the top three? Yeah, I'm done through the top three, and I just finished up J.J. McCarthy, and then I'm going to kind of get into that next year. I just was intrigued as to why McCarthy was kind of shooting aboard. So I've got those guys done. So if you're a GM, what does your board look like quarterback-wise?

Mine, it doesn't stray too far off of what the consensus is. I would kind of tier them as Caleb Williams and Drake May 1A and 1B. I would have Williams just slightly ahead. And then I would have Jane Daniels at 3. And if we're just kind of going off the 4, I've had McCarthy. And honestly, a close 4, a close one to Daniel. pretty impressed with him. All right, so let's talk about you've got Drake May close to Caleb Williams.

You've got him as a 1B. Yes. So if you had your choice of the two at number two, you would take Caleb Williams. But clearly that means at number two if Williams goes to Chicago, you're on board with Drake May. Why? Yeah, I think it's a home run pick. I think the traits he has are just, you know, something that you can really build.

build off and see him turn into a top five, top ten quarterback in the NFL. I think the tools are all there. He's got, you can't question his arm town. You can't question his athleticism, which I've seen a lot of people not really kind of talk about as much. Obviously, Jaden Daniels is a better athlete. It's tough to be a better athlete than Jaden. But he's a, you know, a very, very good athlete, and he's shown it.

I think what he did at UNC is, it's kind of tough to notice a lot from broadcast, but a lot of the things he did is some high-level NFL stuff where he is really attacking the middle of the field, really attacking tight windows and making good throws there. There's obviously a little concern. There's concern with all of them. There's some concern about that short accuracy,

and sometimes he gets a little lazy with his footwork, and that sort of stuff is something that I think is fixable. I think those kind of mechanics are something that a good coach can really fix, but a lot of the stuff that you can't really teach as easily is, you know, those middle of the field throws, those tight window throws, those anticipation throws, and I think he does it almost better than anyone. What concerns you about him? Yeah, the short-term accuracy is one, and he's definitely got a lot of, you know,

that chaotic energy. I kind of call it the Josh Allen energy where, you know, he takes off to run, and you have no idea if it's going to be the greatest play you've ever seen or the worst play you've ever seen. You know, I've seen a lot of played where we've all seen the one to the left-hand to throw against Pitt. He had in the red zone for a touchdown. But, you know, just with that,

I've also seen him throw the ball while being spun around for a stack and it turns into a pick. So there's a lot of chaotic energy there, and it's tough to kind of calm that down. But you just sort of live with it. Again, like I said, it's that Josh Allen energy. You sort of live with those kind of chaotic things because it turns into something great at times.

but those are kind of my two biggest concerns are, you know, the short actors and the chaotic energy. I love the chaotic energy description because I can just envision it and watching him play. Sometimes it turns out well, sometimes it doesn't, but he's competitive and he's trying to make the best out of it. But it's a perfect segue into Jaden Daniels, who I think there was nothing chaotic about him. He was almost too calm at times in the pocket or even on the move. So let's talk about what you think of Jaden Daniels. Go ahead. Yeah, I mean, obviously the easy first thing to mention is the athletic ability.

I think he's one of the best athletes to come out in terms of just a pure runner in a long time. I know some fans might not like it, but I see a lot of RG3 in the way he runs, that kind of crack-style run where I just kind of, I've seen a lot of his runs, and it just kind of always reminds me of the RG3 run against the Vikings down the sideline where he's running straight up tall and he's just no one can catch him. That's kind of a lot of what Jane Daniels can do in the running game. And that just kind of elevates the floor of any quarterback when you have that sort of ability to run. I think his arm is more than adequate. I don't think it's kind of top tier, tier, but it's more than enough.

He's got great deep ball accuracy, consistent accuracy all over the feet. field. There was enough in that LSU office where you kind of saw him get through full, full field reads, full progressions. My one kind of hang up with him is he didn't really play with enough consistent anticipation for me. Like there was a lot of... What did you say, sorry, I missed that. He didn't play with enough what? Consistent anticipation, kind of a mouthful. But there were a lot of plays that I saw that he could have made in tight windows, and he just kind of didn't trust it as much. Had a tendency to sort of see wide receivers open instead of anticipating a little bit.

There's kind of concern with, you know, some of his lack of middle of the field throws. And, you know, that is middle of the field throws is kind of a good sort of indicator to kind of how well you're going to translate in the NFL because those windows are so tight in the middle of the field. And obviously the windows are tighter in the NFL. So it kind of shows these guys are willing to kind of, you know, test those tight windows and try to fit the ball in there. So for me, Jane Daniels, I think, was just a little too conservative at times. But a lot of times when you see this with that guy, it's not that he can't do it. You know, I think he was just kind of being smarter with it and being a little safer with it. And he obviously knows that some of the skill players he had at LSU, he could kind of just trust them to get open instead of trying to anticipate it as much.

But that was just kind of my one holdup. And then, you know, the stack ratio. It dipped down a lot this past year, which is good to see. But pressure to stack is kind of a really, really stick. key stats that really translate from college to NFL. And we kind of saw it perfectly with Sam Powell this past year. So it's something that really translate. But he got it down from around 30% to 20% in one year.

So you'd like to see that obviously continue to go down, but it is definitely a concern. So perfect time to talk to somebody like you about the last two things you said, because I did something on the show earlier this week or maybe it was last week. Let me just disclose. I'm a massive Jaden Daniels fan going back to almost the beginning of the year, if not in 2022 towards the end when they beat Bama at the end in overtime. But those two numbers, which are two of the numbers that get thrown out a lot by you guys as indicators.

I get it. That they are indicators. They're sticky numbers that translate to the next level. But I want to tell you about just a little bit of the deep dive that I did on both numbers. Let's start with just the lack of middle of the field throws. Like one of the things that I noticed, because when these things came up, I said, man, I just don't remember him taking all of these sacks under pressure. I don't really remember him not being able to make middle of the field throws.

You know, one of the things with LSU is that they had the fewest third downs of any team in the country. Like it wasn't even close. like they were eight fewer than the next fewest in the country. And I think that that may explain part of why there weren't as many middle of the field throws. Third and four, third and six, third and seven, third and nine is when you see more of those intermediate middle of the field throws. And sometimes, by the way, under pressure as well. Does that get factored in? Do you guys consider that?

They were the number one third down conversion team in America, but faced the fewest third downs because they were just so explosive and productive on first and second down. Yeah, I mean, it's something that you can absolutely take into account and something that would definitely help explain that sort of stuff. You know, for me, I'm still a massive Jane Daniels fan. I think all three of these guys are honestly worthy of that number two pick. That's why I think it's such a great year to have that number two pick. The whole reason I kind of have May as it's here above is just because we've seen him do it more consistently. With Jane, you're kind of projecting a little bit. And we've seen in the past that, you know, these sort of quarterbacks that you don't see it as much in college and they can still do it in the NFL like a, you know, like a Justin Herbert.

We didn't see a lot at Oregon of, again, attacking that middle of the field just because of that Oregon offense didn't really ask much of that. But then he comes to the Chargers and, you know, he's just lighting the league up. Same with C.J. Stroud. I was a bit lower on C.J. Stroud last year because I didn't think he really had that sort of anticipation as much, again, over the middle of the field. But kind of speaks to what you were saying. Ohio State wasn't in a lot of situations where they had to attack the middle of the field. So, again, that kind of comes down to a lot of projecting. You're just kind of projecting that he can do it. And he showed enough that I think he can do it. I think a lot of the times he was just being a little safe. There's a lot of great anticipation plays where he doesn't have a choice but to anticipate the throw. There's one play against Ole Miss where there's a free rusher coming right in his face, and he just fires a theme ball in there with perfect anticipation because he didn't have any other option. And I was just kind of hoping for a little bit more of that, but I also understand why he didn't really need to do it as often.

Right. No, I understand how you feel, and I actually read through your write-up. I'm just curious from a PFF standpoint if some of these numbers, and I'm not debating or disputing, that they tend to be translators to the next level. And I think those kinds of things are really interesting to look at. But it takes me to pressure to sack percentage. It's another thing I went back. And I'm like, I just don't remember him not dealing with pressure very well. And one of the things that I noticed with both he and Drake May, because Drake May had a high pressure

to sack percentage number last year as well. His was like 19 point something percent and Daniels had dropped to 20 point something. Caleb Williams of the three had the highest I think last year. But what I made the point about, and I'm just curious as to your thoughts in the way you guys analyze this, is not all sacks are the same. And I went back and looked at like the average yards lost per sack because Daniels had the lowest. average yards loss per sack of any quarterback in the country where of, I'm sorry, any of the top four quarterbacks I included McCarthy. McCarthy was like eight yards plus. Daniels was at like 4.3. May was at like 4.4. And the reason being is there were a lot of sacks that are actually statistically

registered as sacks because they're dropbacks. But then all of a sudden, he's out of the pocket. He's creating. He's keeping a big play possibility available, but then at the last second, he runs out of bounds a yard short of the line of scrimmage. That's a sack. Now, it's not a sack if he rolls out and he runs out of bounds, but if he drops back and then other plays where he dropped in, he dropped back and then made enough room and kept his eyes down the field and ended up taking a one or a two-yard lost sack instead of one of those devastating eight or nine-yard loss sacks. And I I think, in correcting me if I'm wrong, that pressure to sack percentage doesn't include some of these sacks that really aren't sacks, if you know what I mean? Yeah, it does.

So essentially, obviously, it's tough to kind of separate those sort of ones like you're talking about the ones where he just kind of runs out about to take the one to two-yard sack. What that number basically does is, you know, if there's pressure on the play, does it turn into a sack? Again, it doesn't take all of the context into it, which obviously there's need for any of these sort of stats. And it's why in the past I was kind of a little hesitant with it. Because just basically, like you said, I didn't think it was something that, you know, was really taking all that sort of context into play. I mean, obviously there are some teams with better offensive lines.

So, you know, there's a lot of pressure and sometimes you just can't possibly get out of a potential factor and limiting it to maybe. three or four yards is better than obviously an eight-yard loss or something like that. But over the years, this number, as crazy as it is, just continues to be more and more stable. And it just kind of really, I don't, again, there's a lot of context that needs to be added, but it continues to kind of show that these guys that are still taking high numbers of stacks in college continue to do that into the NFL. And the good thing for Jane Daniels is, like you mentioned, this past,

year he brought it down to 20.2% is what we had. You know, that's down 10% from 30.8 in 2020. Right. So like he said, he is in that same sort of group with Caleb and Drake. They're all in that same sort of number. So it is definitely an encouraging sort of direction that he's going with that number. But, you know, over time, that number kind of, you know, stabled out a bit. So it's tough to kind of think that he's got it all fixed.

and it's just a pause basically it's just a little cause for concern there but it's definitely an encouraging direction that that number's going in yeah no i understand the encouragement of the direction i just i'm just wondering how much of that context around that and whether or not it makes it makes sense this is for you guys to decide but if like the idea that not all sacks are the same actually factors into that like sam howl in his two years of taking a bunch of sacks of Carolina much more in his final year, but he was like closer to six plus yards per sack lost. And, you know, May was much less than that and Daniels was much less than that. And I just, like to me, that's a number that makes sense about why it's translatable. We saw that so much with Hal, right? Because he didn't see it. He held on to it. And when there was pressure,

more often than not, it ended up in a sack. You don't want to see that. The idea, right, is that, those with much lower pressure to sack percentages means they're processing faster, they get it out quicker, they're able to find the checkdown quicker, and they don't take that back-breaking, drive-killing play. Yeah, yeah. And I think a good thing, and I get something in the future to kind of look towards it, is like you said, it's kind of pairing this pressure-to-sack ratio with, you know, the average depth of that stack.

Right. I think that's something we could definitely look into. If I had any ability to do that sort of math or computer programming, I would absolutely do it. Well, I'm not trying to tell you how to do your business. And in fact, when you take the average yards per sack, it's not factoring in those in which they were pressured. It's more of just a general overall sack total. But it was just, for me, it was like really his pressure to sack percentage? It never seemed like he had a difficult time dealing with pressure.

sure, but when you went back and looked at it, there were a lot of plays in which he got out of severe trouble and made it much less problematic with a much smaller yard sack in terms of negative yardage. And the same with Drake May, too, the two of them. Speaking of somebody that you didn't see enough, but it doesn't mean that he won't be good at it, what did you make of Jay-J McCarthy? Yeah, there was a lot of, you know, again, those high-level middle-of-the-field pros. I, again, was not really anticipating that sort of stuff. You know, you kind of hear all this stuff about J.J. McCarthy. They didn't trust him to do this, that, and whatever.

But he came out, and he was not shy in attacking the middle of the field, making some really good anticipation throws. You know, my biggest kind of hold up with him is that they didn't, again, they didn't ask him to do much. There was a lot of kind of just half-field stuff and, you know, one read. And if it's not there, we just kind of, you know, move on. But again, there's some stuff there where, you know, he gets drafted to a team like the Vikings or the dolphins or someone with, you know, that Shanahan style of offense where they're running a lot of crossing routes over the middle of the field. I think he could be a really, really great fit there. I think Minnesota would be a fantastic fit if he can get to, you know, fall to them. I think that's kind of what you're really looking for.

And his athleticism is pretty shocking as well. He's a very good athlete. They use him a lot in the run game. He's got surprisingly good pocket presence. There's a lot of plays where he is just kind of subtly moving in the pocket to open those lanes because he knows exactly where he wants to go with the ball. I think it's just like if the picture gets muddied a little bit post-snap, if they're kind of showing one thing and then switch to something else post-knap,

he kind of gets a little hesitant, little confused. And that's where you kind of see, you know, the misses of the open throws or, you know, just you have missing reads. And there's a little, there's an accuracy concern as well, especially when he's targeting the outside throws. There's a lot of easy throws that are missed. He just kind of has like a really weird sort of overstride kind of thing where his plant foot is or his lead foot is kind of overshiding a lot.

And he misses a lot of those kind of easy throws outside. But, yeah, I just think he would be a great fit. for one of those teams that just live on attacking the middle of the field. You haven't spent time with Pennix yet? No, I have not. I'm going to the Pac-12 next. I got Bonex and Pennix next on the list, and we'll kind of see where we get with those guys.

What do you think their plan should be, so let's both assume, I would assume the same thing, that they take quarterback at number two. What do you think the plan should be around that quarterback for next year on the roster. Who should the quarterbacks be in the quarterback room when we get to training camp? Yeah, I think keeping Sam Howell is a good option there. I don't think there's really any reason to trade him or get rid of him. I think he's shown enough flashes where he can come in and be effective at times. Obviously, we've seen that over a 17-game sample, that it's not a great

result. But I think bringing in somebody who's, you know, a veteran and it's familiar with Cliff's offense or, you know, it's just familiar with how that sort of offense work to be a great mentor to kind of bring in for whoever that number two pick is. So I think they're just kind of missing that veteran guy right now. Great job, as always. I always enjoy the conversation. Nick is thinking about our team as much as he is trying to do his work for PFF as a data analyst. It's always good to catch up. Hope you're well. Yep, appreciate it. Good stuff from Nick.

I will finish up the show with what happened 50 years ago tonight. We'll get to that right after these words from a few of our sponsors. Here we're going to see John Lucas, the great ball handling guard from University of Maryland. Come down, another pretty quick man. Mo Rivers tried to make a steal, but he made the foul. So far tonight, I think the real problems for NC State have been the matchup, particularly Moni-Tal on Mo Howard, where Mo Howard penetrates and uses the four. to five inches height advantage that he has over Monty Tal to score.

And the other one is the fact that Tommy Burleson guarding McNullen, we find McMillan taking him outside, which takes, in this case, Burleson away for the basket. They're making a switch right now. Burleson's going to go on Elmore. That was the voice of Billy Packer 50 years ago tonight in Greensboro, North Carolina, during the ACC tournament final between Maryland and NC State. It has been called one of the greatest, if not the greatest college basketball games ever played, and it was one of the most influential on what we now see during the month of March.

Yeah, Maryland, NC State, 103 to 100 in overtime. State prevailed. They went on to the NCAA tournament. They won the national championship as the number one team in the country. and Maryland, who lost that epic game 50 years ago tonight, didn't go anywhere. That was the final year that just one team per conference was eligible for the NCAA tournament. NC State was the number one team in the country going into that game that night. Maryland was the number four team in the country.

The night before they had beaten the number five team in the country, North Carolina, in the semifinals, by 20. and Maryland couldn't advance to the NCAA tournament. They fixed that, and the following year was the first year where the Maryland rule was put into place, allowing more than one team per league to qualify for the NCAA tournament via the at-large process. Ironically, the following year, Maryland was the first ACC-at-large team.

They won the ACC regular season, lost in the ACC tournament, but got the first at-large bid out of the ACC and ended up going to the Elite 8 in 1975 before losing to Louisville in the Elite 8. But the 1974 ACC final 50 years ago tonight was one of the greatest games ever played for many years considered to be the greatest game ever played. I think many would argue that the Duke Kentucky Elite 8 final

in Philadelphia back in 92, the Leitner shot, which was also a game that went to overtime is equal to the game that Maryland and NC State played in Greensboro that night. And there are other games that have come around here in recent years. That Gonzaga, UCLA's semi-final from a couple of years ago was epic. But Maryland and NC State and the pressure of having to win that game to get into the NCAA tournament, knowing that you were one of the best two or three teams in the country, It was an incredible night and an incredible game in which there were just two turnovers in the game. Maryland shot 61% from the floor.

NC State shot 55% from the floor. The score at halftime was 55 to 50, Maryland. They could score. State had the great David Thompson. He was a junior that year. and for my money he's the greatest player in the history of college basketball that I have ever watched during my lifetime. Now, I did not see Lou El Cinder, all right, I did not see Wilt at Kansas. I do remember Walton towards the end of his career, certainly, but David Thompson, for me, is the greatest college player that I ever watched, and he scored 29 in the game.

But the MVP was 7-foot-4-inch center Tom Burleson, who scored 38 for state. Carolyn had big leads in the first half, but eventually kind of ran out of gas. The game went to overtime. They had a chance at the end to win it, but Lucas ended up putting up sort of a desperation heave from the top of the key that missed. They went to overtime, and NC State ended up winning the game by three. There's been so much written this week, and I just started to catch up on some of this stuff, celebrating the 50-year anniversary.

and it comes just a couple of weeks after Lefty's passing. Lefty went into the NC State, actually went on to the NC State bus, and congratulated NC State after the game. You know, up and down the aisle of the bus, shaking hands and telling them what a great team they were and to go on and win the NCAA title, which they did. They beat UCLA in the Final Four, and they ended up beating Marquette. very easily in the NCAA championship game. Norm Sloan, the head coach of NC State, said after that game,

he said, quote, that was one of the greatest college games that has ever been played. I think we beat the second best team in the nation tonight. They had beaten Maryland in both regular season games. They had played on Super Bowl Sunday that year. they had also played, and that was at NC State and State won by two, and then they had played at Maryland later in the conference schedule and had won by six. I think the first game was 87 to 85. The second game was 86 to 80. So they played three epic games that year, but the final one was the best, and NC State prevailed. And it changed the way the NCAA tournament operated. You'll hear Billy Packer. I'm going to play the part of the interview with Billy from a few years ago where he talked about that night and being a part of that night and what his memories were of that night.

But that game was incredible. It's available to watch on YouTube up until about the final two to three minutes of regulation. And then it goes to kind of a film without any sound of the game right through the overtime. But the first 37 minutes or so of the game is available on YouTube just as it was broadcast that night with Jim Thacker and Billy Packer on the call. So this was Billy Packer, who was on with me a few years ago. I really enjoyed having him on the show. I had him on, I think, a couple of times. But this was probably about a year before he passed away. And this is what he said about that night.

A couple of things I remember, obviously the incredible competition between that same group of players. People forget this. They talk about Gonzaga being undefeated. People don't realize that NC State was undefeated the year before. Right. And never even got in the NCAA tournament because they were on probation. So when you take Maryland, NC State and UCLA were the three best teams in the country, that particular year.

It was the day of only one team from a given conference that would go into the NCAA tournament. Those teams had played against each other in epic games leading up to that game. When that night started, you knew only one of them would go into the NCAA tournament, which you didn't realize how unfair it was until that game was over. And then when the players that were on the court that night, not only from an ability, but from an experience standpoint. You know, basically was a senior-oriented floor that night, John Lucas, obviously, being one of the changes

and David only being a junior, but, you know, the front line for Maryland and Tommy Burleson being a senior, and so it was incredible, and you got two great coaches, a great environment, and then the guys played as well as they could play on both sides of the floor, And I remember with about four minutes to go, we went in a commercial break, and I said to Jim Thacker, I don't want this game to ever end. And he said, oh, it's a great game. I said, no, Jim.

I said, I don't want it to end because one of these two teams is not going to have a chance to experience a run for the national championship. And you can feel how tough that was. And I remember when the game ended, I went down to the Maryland locker room, and left he came out. and he said the boys decided, and I don't hope if the boys or him, not to play in the NIT. This is as far as they go in, and people might not remember this, but they would have easily won the NIT. And maybe, and maybe been in the final four about back in those days, they didn't even have regional setups where teams went out of their region in the NCAA tournament.

So they would have had to probably play if two teams could enter in the same region in the regional finals. So the reason the game, to me, is along with the UCLA game against Houston, which was the first game in a dome nationally televised for college basketball, they were the two most important games in the history of the college game because the Maryland NC State game was a game that two great people, Wayne Duke from the Big Ten and Willis Casey from NC State, who really had no great relation to each other. their love for the game, got together and said, this is not the right thing to do. And they're the two guys that had the power in the NCAA to go ahead and say, let's put multiple teams in the NCAA tournament whether you want a conference championship or not. People don't remember this, but John Wooden was very much against that.

He said nobody should play in the tournament that hasn't won their league championship. But when those two guys were able to get that legislated, that's what makes what we're seeing today, March Madness. That game is what instituted March Madness. So not only was it a great game with great players, great coaches, playing the best basketball you could ever want to see, going into overtime, but it also had a historic significance of what made college basketball what it is today.

That was Billy Packer with me from a few years ago talking about that legendary night, 50 years ago in Greensboro, which he sat court side and called the game for. NC State went on to win the national championship in 1974, and Maryland went home. But everything changed after that. The 1975 tournament expanded from 25 to 32 teams. There was the allowance for an additional team per league via the at-large process.

Maryland got the first at-large bid out of the ACC in 1975 because they didn't win the tournament, but they won the regular season. and I thought part of the Billy Packer cut that was interesting was Wooden's resistance to the allowance of a second team. Wooden not only didn't want a second team per league, he didn't want the expansion of the tournament. In part because the tournament was at 25 teams, which meant only a few teams got to buy. UCLA in 1973 when they won the tournament only had to win two games to get to the final four. And the other piece to that was prior to 75 when the tournament got expanded and they allowed for the at large second team in a league, all of the games played prior to the final four were played regionally. You didn't play teams if you were a West Coast team.

You didn't play teams from the Midwest or the East Coast before the Final Four. Wooden didn't want any part of that. It was very cozy and comfortable. Now, the first year of expansion to 32 teams to the allowance of an additional team per league and teams playing outside of their region, you know what John Wooden did with UCLA? They beat Michigan in a first round game. They beat Montana in a semi-final game in their region, beat Arizona State in the Elite 8, and went on to beat Louisville and Kentucky to win John Wooden's final NCAA tournament title. But he didn't want it. It was different from that point forward.

From that night 50 years ago, what happened starting in 75 was a completely different NCAA tournament. And it would, of course, grow from there. Anyway, all right, thought you Maryland fans in particular would find that to be interesting. That's it for the day back on Monday when legal tampering begins.