They are who we thought they were.
The NFLPA polled 1300 players for their thoughts on their teams’ facilities and player support. The results are super interesting.
What jumps out immediately to me are the sad states of the Cardinals, Chiefs, and Commanders, and how supported the Raiders and Cowboys feel. While a new facility for the Raiders explains a lot for sure, the team seems to have gone beyond expectations even for a new space.
Also: generally, players league-wide seem very happy with strength coaches and team trainers. This is very encouraging, as the NFL is always talking about caring about players’ physical well-being, but here at the player level it seems the teams take it seriously too. Nice.
You can click on the category headers to sort each column (I did and found it interesting) and you can click on a team name to read a summary of the team’s ratings. I didn’t look at all, but I looked at a few and enjoyed the glimpse at players’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their teams.
(Note: I originally posted this in the “2023 NFL Playoff” thread, since we started discussing this topic there. But I decided this is a better place for the post.)
Don what do you think of these comments from Mike McCarthy?
It fits with my read of his the firing of Moore and hiring of Schotty, and if I were a Cowboy fan these comments would make me really happy.
At the risk of being too overconfident about my football knowledge, I think Graziano (and Orlofsky–and I suspect Kellen Moore) don’t have a deep enough understanding of football. Specifically, I think they–and a lot of the analytics advocates–don’t fully appreciate the importance of ball control–that is, not only protecting the football, but being able to hold on to the ball for a long time (via possessions with a lot of plays and clock consumption). Being able to control the ball, when it’s needed–usually when the defenses knows you want to control the ball–is also important (and underappreciated). The 4-minute drill would be an example of this. A great offense is an offense that can score and control the ball.
I don’t think guys like Graziano and Orlofsky appreciate this.
To be clear, this doesn’t mean an offense should be super conservative. What it does mean is that the offense has to be good at running and passing. Broadly speaking, passing is crucial for scoring and running is crucial for ball control. Orlofsky seems to get this when he advocates “passing to score and running to win.” But in order to be able to execute this, an OC can’t just be fixated on scoring. Being able to run the ball well, especially in run predictable situations, has to be emphasized as well.
I never got the sense that Kellen Moore understood this. (I don’t get the sense that Shane Waldron, the Seahawks OC, really gets this either.) Based on the McCarthy’s comments, and the moves they made, it seems like McCarthy gets this. I’m curious to see if they can execute it successfully.
I’ve heard the McCarthy’s comments before or something very similar. My first thoughts were, “Well what else is he supposed to say when getting rid of a successful OC (at least in terms of numbers).” I honestly don’t feel like the offense will be a lot different under McCarthy, especially when you look at Moore’s offense this past year. Dallas had a good and somewhat healthy o-line this year and they were a good running team. They ran the ball 50% of the time and Moore runs a very good ball control offense overall. If there is a criticism from me about the Cowboy offense, is Dak didn’t throw down field enough.
I agree with the premise that Moore is a pass first guy, and if McCarthy changes more to a run first guy, I would like that. That being said though, I liked the amount Moore passed versus ran on first and second downs this year. What I would like to see more of from the offense is being better on third and long. All teams or maybe I should say most teams are not good on third and long, but Dallas has to be in the bottom ten. If a team has their franchise QB, they shouldn’t be in the bottom ten. Note: I’m just guessing on them being in the bottom ten. The other thing is the numerous miscommunications between Dak and his receivers. That could be on the players, but I don’t feel like I see that as often with McVay or Shanahan run offenses. And lastly (well not the last thing, but the last thing I’ll mention), I would like to see better production from the second and third receivers. Again, this could be based on the players on the field, but I feel like Dallas has always been lacking in this area under Moore (This could be on Dak, though.) I feel like Moore does a great job with his TEs and running “stuffs” to get them open, I just don’t see the same from his second and third receivers. These three things sort of go hand-in-hand, but if McCarthy improves in these three areas next year, I think his offense could be a lot better. I’m not super confident in that happening though.
I will agree with the premise of your post that offense isn’t about scoring a lot of points. Where I wouldn’t agree, is that Moore doesn’t have that mindset at least in terms of how Dallas performs. You could be right if Cowboys had more “horses”, Moore may try to run a high-flying offense, but that’s definitely not how the Cowboys play on the field with the players they got.
They ran the ball 50% of the time and Moore runs a very good ball control offense overall.
Are you including the game with Cooper Rush at QB? Didn’t they change their style when Dak wasn’t playing?
It’s interesting that you mention the problems involving the passing game (and I would include effectiveness on third and long). To me, besides a balanced attack, Prescott’s turnovers seemed like a huge problem. To me, if they Cowboys have a more balanced attack, I suspect Prescott’s turnovers will decrease. Both should improve ball control and the defense might even be better. Additionally, I would think that a better balanced attack should reduce the amount of long yardage situations.
How are you guys liking the free agency moves for your teams so far?
The Raiders getting Jimmy G is a solid move to me. I don’t think he’s the answer, but he’s a good stop-gap. I’m ambivalent about losing Darren Waller. He’s good when he’s playing, but I’m not sure about his durability. (I think he had a fairly large contract as well.) I’m also ambivalent about Jakobi Myers signing.
Their defensive roster is the bigger concern to me.
With the Seahawks, the acquisition of DreMont Jones seems solid. I’m not a big fan of Jarran Reed, but getting him reassures me, especially since they’re moving on from Quinton Jefferson and Shelby Harris.
They have a big hole at center now. And they’re going to need some LBs, and more D-linemen.
I don’t think Garoppolo is an upgrade, but he seems to gel with McDaniels, so maybe things will work out better. A coach with a system who can find his people is a good thing, although I guess I prefer a coach who builds his system around his personnel.
I saw a cute graphic reminding people of the last time a QB named Jim came to the Raiders from the Niners.
I also don’t think losing Waller is a big deal. The guy hardly played, and when he did this year he wasn’t productive. On the other hand, I think he may do really well with the Giants.
Rashaad Penny going to the Eagles seems good for both parties as well, although what is it with the Eagles and RBs who miss a lot of games? Although I have always liked Miles Sanders, he clearly wasn’t part of the plan anymore at the end of last season. I don’t think Carolina’s a good spot for him — or anyone — but I’ll be rooting for him.
In case you missed it, the Jets have the offensive AND defensive rookies of the year, so Aaron Rodgers joining them with Alan Lazard is going to be very interesting, if the teams can work it out. I heard Rodgers also wants to them to pick up Randall Cobb which I would normally consider meaningless, but if the QB has his security blankets maybe it’s good for him. I just looked it up and did you know Cobb is only 31? That’s not super old for a WR.
Derek Carr to New Orleans? I’m fine with it. It’s nice to see a QB like that get a fresh start while he’s still not past his prime. My sense from Reddit is that Raiders fans wish him all the best but it was time to part ways.
I don’t think Garoppolo is an upgrade, but he seems to gel with McDaniels, so maybe things will work out better.
I was satisfied with this pickup, as I think Garoppolo will be a solid stopgap QB, but ultimately I agree–I don’t think JG is an upgrade. On the other hand, I’m hoping being with McDaniel will lead to improved play.
Rashaad Penny going to the Eagles seems good for both parties as well,…
The Eagles OL and Hurt’s running threat are positive for Penny, but I feel like he would be more effective in an offense with the QB under center. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if he does well. The key will be his ability to stay healthy.
I just looked it up and did you know Cobb is only 31? That’s not super old for a WR.
Wow, his age is surprising. I always thought he was several years older. However, 31 isn’t a great age for a WR. I think a lot of receivers significantly decline after 30.
In any event, I would expect the Jets to be very competitive if Rodgers goes there. One potential problem, though, is Rodgers’s attitude towards passing. If he’s at the point where he doesn’t mind handing off the ball a lot, I think the Jets will be contenders. Somehow I don’t get the sense he’s there, as his abilities doesn’t seem to have declined enough. If he wants to pass a lot, I think that may cause problems with Saleh.
Derek Carr to New Orleans?
I guess this is a decent fit for him. I wouldn’t be really thrilled if I were a Saints fan, though.
Re: Lamar Jackson
Have you guys heard of the non-exclusive franchise tag before? Has there ever been another player under this tag? It really seems like a weird situation. So, my understand how it works is the 31 teams other than the Ravens can offer Jackson a contract, and the Ravens will have 5 days to match the offer or receive two first round picks if they don’t match the contract. Oops forgot to mention that not all 31 teams can offer a contract right now since Miami and some other team don’t have a first round pick this year, so unless they trade for a first-round pick, they cannot offer a contract to Lamar.
Any team that needs a QB will have a high draft pick. For example, if the Texans wanted Lamar, they would have to pay him $40 million a year and give up their second pick this year and their first round pick next year. Whereas, their other option is just pick a new “cheap” QB with their second pick. No wonder no teams are offering Lamar anything.
Detroit who has the 18th pick in this year’s draft should just offer Lamar $30 million a year. The downside would be that now the Ravens can keep Lamar for $30 million. But if you are Detroit and play in the NFC, you wouldn’t care that much if the Ravens can keep him for $30 million. And if Detroit does make that offer, do the Steelers now have to offer Lamar closer to $40 million just to keep the Ravens from getting Lamar at $30 million? This non-exclusive franchise tag seems like something I would make up as the Commissioner of our fantasy league. I wish Dallas placed this tag on Dak last year.
This is my understanding as well, and I like it. Although I don’t remember hearing about it before, as soon as I read the phrase “non-exclusive franchise tag,” I knew the gist of it, so I must have known something.
It definitely discourages teams like Texas, but teams like Detroit should be interested. If you think you’re basically a QB and one or two other pieces away from serious contention, $40M for a 26-year-old former MVP is a tempting move. You can’t be sure you’re getting that kind of talent from the draft, as we all know.
Unless the Ravens really don’t want to pay Jackson, which they clearly don’t, this isn’t a great move for them. It’s only delaying making a decisive move, because it puts them right back in the same position next season unless they want to franchise him again, which is even more expensive, as we saw with Kirk Cousins a few seasons ago.
Yeah, I wondered about how rival bids would work. If Detroit offers $30M can Baltimore immediately match it or is there a waiting period during which other teams may bid higher?
Without looking at who has qualifying compensation first-round draft picks or cap space, I’d say Detroit, Indianapolis, Tennessee, Tampa Bay, and Las Vegas should be seriously thinking about it, although the Raiders would have to find something to do with Jimmy Garoppolo.
I never heard of the non-exclusive franchise tag, and I didn’t know how it works.
Generally, I wouldn’t be interested in Lamar, but what if the Eagles or Bears made a really low bid for him? This would probably cause a lot of problems, especially for the Eagles, but these are two teams where Lamar’s skillset would make a good fit. Also, with the Eagles you have Hurts in there. If you go to a two-man QB platoon thing, you could maybe preserve both QBs. (I doubt either QB would like this, though.)
Someone can make a low bid on him, but he’s set to earn $32M this year, so it would have to be a low bid that otherwise appeals to him — on the other hand, the Ravens have a right to match any deal Jackson agrees to with another team.
The Ravens have until July 17 to agree to a new deal with Jackson, after which the one-year $32M is set for the season, after which he’s a free agent.
I want to comment on something Mitchell said–mainly because I’ve heard the same thing from two other pundits–and they were more emphatic and perplexed that teams like the Falcons or Colts aren’t showing more interest in Lamar.
If you think you’re basically a QB and one or two other pieces away from serious contention, $40M for a 26-year-old former MVP is a tempting move. You can’t be sure you’re getting that kind of talent from the draft, as we all know.
If there really is tepid interest, I understand–and it has less to do with the amount of guaranteed money. Two things: 1) I would think a team would have to tailor their offense around Lamar–i.e., incorporate his running ability to a large degree; 2) If Lamar slows down, due to age or injury, will he be an elite QB? I have serious doubts he will; he’s had injuries and it’s not going to be surprising if he sustains a serious one in the next year or two; 3) I still believe a QB has to be able to win from the pocket, at least at some point, in order to win a Super Bowl. I have serious doubts Lamar can perform in the pocket, when it counts.
I’m a little surprised the pundits I’ve heard are confused and even exasperated by the seeming lack of interest.
In terms of tailoring an offense towards Lamar, yes teams will have to, but not drastically. Unlike when Lamar first started, many NFL teams are running an offense in which relies on the QB running, such as the Eagles, Bills, and Giants. Their offenses don’t look drastically different from other NFL teams, with the exception of a lot more RPOs.
In terms of being a great QB in the pocket, I think Lamar is good in the pocket if not approaching great. He’s better than Daniel Jones and Jalen Hurts by a lot, in my opinion. Lamar is accurate and he has a decent arm. For me it’s his decisions at times, but I would think if he had receiving weapons and with the ways teams have to rush him, he would be a top tier QB pocket passer.
Unlike when Lamar first started, many NFL teams are running an offense in which relies on the QB running, such as the Eagles, Bills, and Giants.
The Eagles is a fair comparison or at least closer to what the Ravens have done; the Giants a little less so. But the Bills are really different in my view. The option-running is not a big part of their offense–or was it this past year?
He’s better than Daniel Jones and Jalen Hurts by a lot, in my opinion. Lamar is accurate and he has a decent arm. For me it’s his decisions at times, but I would think if he had receiving weapons and with the ways teams have to rush him, he would be a top tier QB pocket passer.
Daniel Jones doesn’t look that good, but you could use the same argument about poor receivers. I have doubts about Hurts, but there were one or two throws, in big moments, that were really good. How will Hurts look without a strong supporting cast, though? I have my doubts.
Bottom line: I wouldn’t feel comfortable with those guys as my QB, either. With Hurts, I would be nervous about paying him like a top QB–not with a lot of guaranteed money, anyway.
Here are two sides of the non-exclusive franchise tag for Lamar. One, some pundits were saying that the Ravens really wanted to keep Lamar but didn’t want to “reset the QB market” and make him the highest paid QB in the league. Using the tag, would be a way to show Lamar what he’s worth, and match that offer. This seems less and less likely, since there really seems to be some animosity from Lamar’s side at this point. The second side is the owners were really upset with the way Cleveland reset the market with Deshaun Watson, especially in terms of guaranteed money. Pundits are now saying there might be come collusion between the owners by not making offers to Lamar to push the reset of the QB market backwards to include less guaranteed money.
One, some pundits were saying that the Ravens really wanted to keep Lamar but didn’t want to “reset the QB market” and make him the highest paid QB in the league.
Which ultimately means they have doubts about him, in my view. And maybe the doubts are just about his durability.
Using the tag, would be a way to show Lamar what he’s worth, and match that offer.
The Seahawks really avoid using the tag, and I like that approach. To me, it feels like coercing the player to play for you. Offer a deal you think the player is worth, and if they don’t like it, they are free to test the market. The player can still be mad, but there’s less chance of this, and it seems more respectful to the player.
Pundits are now saying there might be come collusion between the owners by not making offers to Lamar to push the reset of the QB market backwards to include less guaranteed money.
Are you talking about making Lamar the highest paid QB, or giving him a fully guaranteed contract? I would guess the owners want to avoid the latter–especially if it’s also higher than Watson’s contract.
Seattle never (or hardly ever) uses their franchise tag? That’s interesting. I guess I just assume all teams use it if they need to. I agree the franchise tag is not good for the player. It really puts them in a place where they don’t have much room to negotiate other than sit out. But that’s why teams only get one, and that’s why you can only do it twice to the same player. I don’t think it really hurts a team not to use the franchise tag, because you rarely see the best players getting franchise tagged. It’s because if you know you want to keep a player you will try negotiate a long-term contract with that player. The tag is mostly used for guys you not 100% sure about either due to age or talent.
I heard the owners were really upset with the guaranteed money part of the Watson’s contract much less so than the amount. There were reports that during the owner’s meeting (This off-season, I believe.) the other owners were complaining to Jimmy Haslam, Cleveland owner about the Watson contract. There have also been many criticisms of Haslam by other owners in the media about guaranteed money, most recently from Jimmy Irsay.
Yeah, I think the Carroll and Schneider only used it on Olindo Mare in their first year. They might have used it on Frank Clark, but my understanding was that this something Clark wanted or was amenable to.
Carroll’s approach is to put the player first–working to help the player achieve their potential and help them achieve their goals. If he’s genuine (and I tend to think he is), it’s a caring approach.
Using the franchise tag is inconsistent with this. A team is almost forcing the player to stay against their will. Carroll and Schneider’s MO seems to be to offer a contract they think is reasonable, and if the player doesn’t like it, they can go test the market.
To me, this is consistent with the caring approach.
I heard the owners were really upset with the guaranteed money part of the Watson’s contract much less so than the amount.
This makes sense.
A great rookie QB give a team too much of an advantage
I’m not sure if we talked about this, but the advantage a team gets from a great QB, on a rookie contract, seems to be unreasonably large. And this advantage can last for multiple seasons. Or do you guys disagree?
Landing such a QB seem more like a matter of good fortune than skill–actually, one could getting such a QB depends on a lack of skill–i.e., fielding a bad team. There’s something wrong about this.
I guess we could argue that this is a way to quickly change the fortunes of a bad team–which may be worthwhile goal for the league. But what if a good team lands such a QB?
Anyway, I want to jump to some solution. Here is here one off the top of my head: My understanding is that the NFL has limits the amount rookies get paid in order to not put teams in a bind if the high-draft pick is a bust. So what if rookies are on one or two year contracts–that is, at a limited salary only for one or two seasons? Maybe you could do this for only the better players. One problem is determining which players are the better ones.
I feel like something is wrong with this approach, but nothing is coming to my mind right now.
Making the end of the season meaningful for poor and middling teams
I talked about this before, but I feel like there should be some incentives in place for teams not to tank. Also, there should be some reward for teams that are good for a few years, but never really serious super bowl contenders.
Let me take the tanking issue first. What if the #1 pick goes to the team with the 2nd worst record? The idea here is that you don’t want to create an incentive to not be the worst team. This might give an incentive for the worst teams to try to win at the end of the season.
On the other hand, this might create an incentive to be the second worst team. To solve this, I’d like to see some way that the teams with the worst records compete among each other for the #1 pick….or even the first four picks.
I’m not sure how this could be done–and the vague notion that comes to mind seems to complicated. What if, at the end of the regular season, you had a playoffs with the four worst teams? They team that wins the two games in a row gets the first pick. Then again, if you’re the 5th or 6th team, this creates an incentive to lose games to get into the “final four.”
What if you create a loser’s playoff for all the teams that don’t get into the playoffs? (I’m not sure how many teams don’t get in.)
If my favorite team wasn’t very good, this would make the end of the season exciting and entertaining.
With regard to rewarding teams that are good for a few seasons, but aren’t good enough to win the Super Bowl, what about giving them an extra pick at the back end of the first two rounds–give them the picks that would have gone to the teams that make the conference finals. This could reward the teams for playing well and give the way a way to get over the hump.
By the way, there are some teams that come to mind here–the Vikings and the Seahawks, especially since they were both paying a franchise QB. The Lions were like this, too, when they Jim Caldwell was there.
How about this: If a team is paying a franchise QB and they have three winning seasons in a row, they get two of these extra picks?
I’m not sure how you guys feel, but of the four college QBs that seem to get the most attention–Bryce Young, CJ Stroud, Will Levis, and Anthony Richardson–all of them sound like big risks–and I wouldn’t want to draft anyone of them in the top of the first round.
Young seems to have it all, intangibles and arm talent/accuracy–but the height and size. The comments about him make me think of Russell Wilson, but while Russ lacked the height, he has proven to be really durable. If Young’s frame/weight is an issue, that’s no small thing. Who cares if he’s as good as Russ in his prime, if he can’t stay healthy?
The other QBs seem to have big enough red flags that I wouldn’t want to draft them in the top 10.
On another note, based on what I’ve heard, I don’t think Jalen Carter is a good top 10 pick, either. The Seahawks might have a chance to draft him, and they desperately need a DL playmaker. Because of that, and Carter’s talent, I actually feel a some temptation to take him. But unless they have high confidence that Carter’s commitment and other off-field issues are cleared, I’d stay away.
Here’s a related question about picking in the top 10. Would you pick a high-risk, high-reward player in the top 10? In my opinion, you shouldn’t. Generally, I think a team should take either low-risk, moderate-to-high reward type of player. In other words, you want high confidence you’re getting a very-good-to-great player.
If you can’t get that player, trade down to get more picks.
The high-risk, high-reward players should be drafted at the end of the first round or later–although I guess it also depends on the team’s roster. If the roster is really good, drafting these players earlier might be sound. But if you have a bad roster–if you need a lot of good players–taking these players at the top of the first, or even in the first round, doesn’t seem like a wise move.
I disagree and think like most NFL teams, that a QB is worth the risk with a high first round pick regardless of their red flags. All other positions are really just “nice to have pieces” and rarely would those other position players turn a team around by themselves. I think most pundits would have Allen, Mahomes, Burrow, Herbert, Lawrence, and Hurts as the league top QBs, especially when you eliminate anyone over 30. These QBs with the exception of maybe Lawrence had huge red flags prior to their draft.
Teams with no QB have to take a QB high in the draft, and I would say the main reason they would is because if they don’t, another team will. The Chiefs got Mahomes at 10 in 2017. But I feel since that time, QBs have been going higher in the draft with the exception of last year in which Kenny Pickett was the first QB off the board at number 20. Since 2017, guys like Sam Darnold, Baker Mayfield, Zach Wilson, Trey Lance, Kyler Murray, and Daniel Jones support your don’t pick QBs high in a draft argument, but also support why if you need a QB, you have to pick one in the top ten and preferably in the top five to get one. Bottomline if you want/need a QB, you will need to overpay for him in draft capital in this market.
I feel like for the most part teams go for high reward low risk players in the top of the first round don’t you think? Well if you exclude QBs. Sometimes I think the Raiders pick high risk players early, but what other teams do you think pick high risk players in the first ten or so picks?
QBs are very important, and QB-needy team likely needs to use a top 10 pick to secure a franchise QB. But what I’m talking about is using a top 10 pick on QB with significant red flags versus a significantly talented non-QB (or trading down for more picks).
A big part of my perspective is colored by the last ten years of the Seahawks. They consistently drafted in the back end of the first (or didn’t have a first) and they could never replace players like Okung, Unger, Avril, or Bennett. (Exception: They gave up a 2nd to get Duane Brown.) Their OL or DL has been bottom 3rd in the league from 2015 and 2022.
In light of this, if the Hawks had a choice between a talented QB with red flags or a talented D-linemen with little or no red flags, I would prefer they use the top 10 pick on the latter. (And if the latter isn’t talented enough–trade down.)
Whatever happens with their first pick, if, overall, the Hawks have a strong draft–and Geno plays solid–there’s a good chance they go back to picking in the back end of the rounds again. If they don’t get a difference maker in the DL, it might be a long time before they do, and they may have to play with a so-so line at best.
I feel like for the most part teams go for high reward low risk players in the top of the first round don’t you think?
This sounds right–with the exception of QB. I think teams are willing to gamble or make questionable decisions out of desperation.
By the way, here’s the type of scenario I want to avoid. Whatever you think about Bryce Young, there’s no dispute that he lacks height and frame, heft. Whether this is a significant hindrance is not entirely known. But if Young’s body seems to break down from hits, no one will be surprised (or they shouldn’t be). That was an obvious risk going in.
Now, take a QB without many red flags. Let’s say they don’t have any durability issues. Let’s say you have high confidence in their accuracy, poise, and ability to read defenses. It’s possible they sustain a serious injury or maybe don’t really pan out because they weren’t as accurate, poised or quick-processing as you thought. That can happen–there’s risk for these things–but I can live with this. I’d have a harder time living with picking someone like Young and his size becomes a problem.
On the flip side, say you forgo a player like Levis or Richardson because you’re confident they have accuracy issues. But suppose they actually significantly improve their accuracy in the NFL (See Josh Allen.). I think I could live with this decision.
Most mocks have three of the top four picks being a QB. So, if one of those teams, like the Colts get Lamar, one of those three QBs will be available for the Hawks unless said team can trade out of the top five. You wouldn’t want the Hawks to pick one of those three QBs? You have already said you are not a big fan of Geno. Seattle may not get a chance to pick this high in the draft for a while. And, I’ll add to that the post you had about the unfair advantage of a rookie QB. All that being said, the Hawks will not pick a QB, with the contract they gave Geno I would think.
You wouldn’t want the Hawks to pick one of those three QBs?
I would be disappointed if they used the 5th pick on one of those QBs.
You have already said you are not a big fan of Geno. Seattle may not get a chance to pick this high in the draft for a while.
I’m not entirely sold on Geno being a QB that can win a Super Bowl, but I’m fairly confident he’s in a similar ballpark to QBs like Jimmy G, Cousins, Tannehill, Prescott….and this is not to imply all of them are equal. Geno could be on the higher or lower part of this spectrum
With a really strong supporting cast–especially if the Hawks really upgrade their OL–I could see him doing really well. (Think of Andy Dalton and Carson Palmer in 2015.) Then again, he could do really well in the regular season, and not be able to make the plays and protect the ball in the post-season.
Still, while they need a QB, they need good D-linemen (and they could sure use iO-linemen)–and picking at the end of the rounds has made it really difficult to secure these players. If they’re going to use the #5 pick on a QB, they better be really confident in that player.
The talk now is that the Seahawks may get Will Levis with their second first round pick (20?), because he is falling in the draft. I think until recently (prior to the last 2-4 weeks), Levis was by a lot of mocks, the fourth QB to go in the top ten picks.
The other big talk is the Texans might not pick a QB with their second pick overall, which could mean only two of the top four picks being a QB.
However, most mocks have the Hawks going defensive linemen with their first pick, with most having Tyree Wilson, Edge out of Texas Tech being that pick. The consensus number one Edge is Will Anderson out of Alabama, but most have him gone by pick 5. Jalen Carter is another possible pick for the Hawks.
For the Cowboys I believe that if any of these three players fall to them, that they will be their first pick: Jaxon Smith-Njigba, WR Ohio St (a lot of mocks have him top ten though), Bijan Robinson, RB Texas (everyone’s number one RB, but he’s a RB, so he could fall), and Brian Branch, S Alabama (Most mocks have him going right around where Dallas will pick. The talk is Dallas might want to move him to corner.). Oh, I will add Darnell Wright, offensive lineman out of Tennessee. My guess is this is Dallas number one guy that they could get realistically, but most mocks don’t have him falling to Dallas.
If all of those guys mentioned above is gone, most have Steve Avilla, offensive linemen TCU as the guy mostly likely to go to the Cowboys. I’ve heard Dallas insiders also mention Jack Campbell, LB Iowa. I think a lot of pundits have both these guys with second round grades, so if Dallas can trade back and still get one of these guys they would. But that’s probably easier said then done.
The talk now is that the Seahawks may get Will Levis with their second first round pick (20?)
I haven’t seen him play, but the comments about him are not encouraging. Of course, if Schneider and Carroll really believe he’s the guy, well then go for it. To me, one way to look at this is to compare him (or any QB they consider drafting) to Drew Lock. In terms of arm talent and athleticism, Lock is up there. My impression is that Levis is enticing because of similar attributes. Does Levis have a significantly greater chance of developing than Lock? That’s the question. (To me, the chances that Lock will develop into a great QB is really low–but that doesn’t mean I’d want Levis.)
The other big talk is the Texans might not pick a QB with their second pick overall, which could mean only two of the top four picks being a QB.
I’ve heard that too. I would prefer the QBs get picked early.
However, most mocks have the Hawks going defensive linemen with their first pick, with most having Tyree Wilson…
They desperately need a playmaker on the DL, especially since they may not get another crack at a good one for a long time. Still none of these three (add Anderson and Carter) make me feel good about picking them. I admit Carter is tempting, but unless Schneider and Carroll that they’re confident the commitment and off field issues are fine, I wouldn’t feel good about picking him. (But man, a difference maker at interior could make a huge impact.)
For the Cowboys I believe that if any of these three players fall to them, that they will be their first pick: Jaxon Smith-Njigba, WR Ohio St (a lot of mocks have him top ten though), Bijan Robinson, RB Texas (everyone’s number one RB, but he’s a RB, so he could fall), and Brian Branch, S Alabama (Most mocks have him going right around where Dallas will pick. The talk is Dallas might want to move him to corner.). Oh, I will add Darnell Wright,…
Louis Riddick raved about Wright. To me, you can’t go wrong with a great O-linemen. I’ve heard good things about Bijan. The comments make me think he’s a safe pick–i.e,, he’ll likely be really good. If McCarthy is going to build the offense around the run game–or at least do more to feature it–then Bijan would be a good pick. (I’m not sure he’s going to last that long, though. If Vrabel wants to continue to have a run-first offense, I’d consider picking him. I think they really need help on the OL, though.)
Speaking of OL, I really wish the Hawks would commit to building a great OL. Since Carroll has been there, it’s like they’re satisfied with a merely competent OL. They’ve got two good tackles now. They add a good-to-great center and guard and they could potentially have one of the best OLs in the league. And this is not necessarily a luxury–not if they want to win the NFC West, as the 49ers may arguably have the best front seven in the league.
I listened to Brian Schottenheimer’s recent press conference, as I was curious as to what the offense would be like. Physicality and fundamentals–that’s the two things I took away from it. Consistent with the emphasis on fundamentals, Schotty mentioned wanting the players to play fast. To me, this implies less plays or more simplicity in the plays. The idea here is to emphasize not only sound fundamentals, but also execution. What I would expect is hard-nosed running–with the goal being to pound defenses and wear them out.
I don’t think Schotty is a really good OC, but I think his strength is installing a physical run game. I don’t get the sense Shane Waldron is really good or committed to this, and I wish he was.
The Ravens new OC
On another note, I recently learned that Todd Monken is the OC for the Ravens. I believe he was the OC with the Bucs several years ago, and maybe with the Steelers. I feel like when he was with the Bucs, I recall feeling like the offense looked like the run-and-shoot (3-4 WRs running vertical routes). I wonder if the Ravens are going to make a dramatic change, or just mix in these spread passing sets with the option running. (It makes me think of Jim Harbaugh’s last year with the Niners when they made Kaepernick play in more spread formations. My understanding is that they were trying to develop him more as a passer.)
But Schotty’s weakeness is in the passing game, play calling–maybe in making adjustments. But McCarthy’s going to take over the play calling, and while I never thought highly of his play calling, I think he will be better than Schotty. Also, Aaron Rodgers may have been a big reason I didn’t like the play calling in GB. I’m curious to see how this all plays out.
By the way, Schotty’s formula would have been really good with the 2014-2016 OL, and it would have been great with the current defense.
Do you guys think Matt Ryan belongs in the Hall of Fame? I don’t think so. But if this is the case, then I would say Phillips Rivers, Tony Romo, Cam Newton don’t belong in there, too. I prefer Rivers over Ryan (maybe Romo over Ryan, too), but they seem kinda close in overall quality. And if these guys don’t get in Eli Manning shouldn’t get in as well. The fact that the Giants won two Super Bowls with him is not enough. What’s more important is how he played and how he played overall.
For some reason, I was thinking about this too, fairly recently. I could go either way on him, and if I were a voter it would depend each year on the maximum number of votes I had and who was up for voting.
Pro Football Reference says that stats-wise, Ryan’s first 10 years makes him very similar to Dan Marino*, Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Frank Tarkenton*, Brett Favre*, Peyton Manning*, Drew Brees, Jim Kelly*, Tom Brady, and Philip Rivers, so your citing Cam and Rivers is a good call. * means already in the Hall.
PFR says that across 15 years, he’s in the company of Tarkenton, Marino, Favre, Elway, Brees, Rivers, Brady, Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers. And for his career, he compares to Marino, Elway, Rivers, Tarkenton, Rodgers, Favre, Joe Montana, Eli Manning, Wilson, and Ken Anderson.
I think Anderson belongs, and I while I understand people’s hesitation on Roethlisberger, I find it much more difficult to vote no on him than to vote yes. So if (say) I’m allowed 10 votes a year, and I see only 9 others who for sure belong ahead of him, I’m voting for him. Ditto Eli.
Oh, I forgot that PFR has a Hall of Fame Monitor, which calculates a player’s chances, not his worthiness, based on Pro Bowls, All-Pros, championships, and various stats milestones. I’ll look later at how it calculates it specifically, but PFR’s Hall of Fame Monitor score for Ryan is 106.05, making him 12th all time, behind (in order) Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, Favre, Unitas, Montana, Brees, Elway, Marino, Tarkenton, and Steve Young.
The average score among current Hall of Famers is 103.58, although another chart on the website says it’s 108, and Ryan is the highest scorer beneath 108, putting him ahead of Roethlisberger, Rivers, Bart Starr*, Terry Bradshaw*, Roger Staubach*, Dan Fouts*, and Kurt Warner* (in order). I don’t see any egregious names in that list for the Hall, so it looks like he’s solidly in that company.
Granted, I’ve always been overly enthused about Ryan, calling him a poor man’s Peyton. But you’ve been underly enthused to the point of near dismissal at times. He’s been a top QB his whole career minus last year.
My first reaction was “no”, but that MVP that he garnered changed my mind. I’ll say “yes”.
Romo isn’t getting in as a player, I don’t think.
Two Super Bowls alone shouldn’t put him in the HOF, being a huge contributor in those two post-season, should. For example, Eli isn’t Elway, but Eli had a bigger part in his two Super Bowl wins than Elway did. Add to that Eli is in the top ten in almost every statistical category. This guy has stats, granted some in bad categories too.
Pro Football Reference says that stats-wise, Ryan’s first 10 years makes him very similar to Dan Marino*, …
I feel like this is misleading, though, and not really fair–particularly if you’re basing this on stats. The stats of the QBs playing in the past twenty years will look so much better than the previous QBs, especially those from prior to the 90s.
I think Anderson belongs,…
I really like Kenny Anderson, but I’m not sure he should make it. He’s a tough call, partly because I don’t think I remember enough to have a good sense if he’s deserving.
…and I while I understand people’s hesitation on Roethlisberger, I find it much more difficult to vote no on him than to vote yes.
I know what you mean. For some reason I move from uncertainty to feeling he should definitely get in. I think the biggest issue might be his ball security for me.
Romo isn’t getting in as a player, I don’t think.
But do you think he deserves to be in there?
For example, Eli isn’t Elway, but Eli had a bigger part in his two Super Bowl wins than Elway did.
And if Elway had a career like Eli’s he wouldn’t deserve to be in there in my opinion. But Elway is way better than Eli. Even if he didn’t win a Super Bowl, like Marino, I would put him in the Hall of Fame.
Add to that Eli is in the top ten in almost every statistical category.
See my comment about stats above. To me, it’s more appropriate to compare the QBs of the same era. How would he compare? To me, I prefer Rivers, Romo, Ryan, and, definitely, Roethlisberger, over Eli. Or–if people disagree–I don’t think they’re that far a part. You let Eli in, you should let those other QBs in. Too much is put on winning Super Bowls. (How you play in a Super Bowl–that does matter. But if a QB never wins or gets to the Super Bowl because they play on a bad team, it’s hard to blame that QB.)
To me, Eli is like Ken O’Brien, Brian Sipe, Boomer Esiason, Neil Lomax, Steve Bartkowski, Phil Simms of his era. These QBs weren’t great, but they were solid or more than that. I might choose someone like Simms ahead of Eli.
So, if Eli went to five Super Bowls and won two, which is what Elway did, you still say no to him? Rings is not everything, but they have to matter when you are talking about QBs. Aikman without rings, is not a HOFer. Also let’s not limit Eli’s success to just the two Super Bowl games. He played well in those playoffs leading up to those Super Bowls as well. I agree there are a lot of QBs that can win a big game, but Eli won a few when you count the entire playoff runs. And he was head and shoulders above what Elway did in his Super Bowl runs if I remember correctly.
If building a team, I would take all the QBs mentioned (Rivers, Romos, Ben, etc) over Eli (Ryan would be close for me. I don’t think I’m as high on Ryan as Reid is.). So, by the eye test, it’s hard to choose Eli, but based on what he did in his career (playoff/Super Bowl wins plus career stats), he deserves to be in. I will add, he wasn’t surrounded by HOFers on offense either.
Forgot the Romo question. I think Romo is one of the better QBs of his time. I would take him over Rivers and Big Ben, but his injuries really cost him a lot, even his starting job. That being said, he doesn’t have any playoff success and doesn’t have great career numbers (just not long enough). Rivers, Eli, and Ben’s career numbers dwarfs Romo’s. So he doesn’t belong in the HOF. He will get in though, even if his broadcasting career ended today, because they will take into account his playing career (even if they probably not supposed to).
Aikman without rings, is not a HOFer
Maybe, but I think Aikman’s a better QB than Eli. You would agree with that right? (In my view, Aikman is hurt by the offense he played in. Maybe you could make the same case for Phil Simms.)
And he was head and shoulders above what Elway did in his Super Bowl runs if I remember correctly.
Yes–Elway’s performance in the Super Bowls he won were lackluster. But I don’t think Eli’s was exceptional–not his first trip, anyway–but wouldn’t you agree that Elway was way better than Eli overall. Elway is one of the best QBs I’ve seen. Or let’s take Marino. Marino didn’t win one Super Bowl, but he played way better than Eli, overall, and is a way better QB. What I’m arguing is that outside of those Super Bowl victories, Eli wasn’t an exceptional QB–not even close to the level of Elway and Marino.
So, by the eye test, it’s hard to choose Eli, but based on what he did in his career (playoff/Super Bowl wins plus career stats), he deserves to be in. I will add, he wasn’t surrounded by HOFers on offense either.
No, but he played on a team with a lot of good-to-very-good players–almost at every position group. And in the first Super Bowl win, they had a really good DL (including their depth), and the defense was a big reason they won the game.
If a current NFL team had similar talent as these Giant teams, I think they would be among the most talented in the league, and with a good QB, they would be Super Bowl contenders.
(Ryan would be close for me. I don’t think I’m as high on Ryan as Reid is.).
When Ryan was at his best he better than Eli’s best season–that’s my impression anyway. I wasn’t a big fan of Ryan earlier in his career. I thought he was overrated, and I didn’t think his ball security was good enough. He got a lot better overall, though (although he had better weapons than Eli).
He will get in though, even if his broadcasting career ended today, because they will take into account his playing career (even if they probably not supposed to).
This isn’t clear to me. What do you mean by “taking into account his player career?” And why shouldn’t you take that into account?
I thought it was clear, but I’ll say it again, Eli is not better then the QBs mentioned. He’s not better than Elway or even close. He’s not better than Aikman. He’s not better than Rivers or Big Ben. He’s not even better than Cam, unless you look at their entire careers. However, his production is as good or better than any of those guys in terms of Super Bowl wins and stats. You mentioned he should be compared to his contemporaries. Everyone on the all time stats list is Eli’s contemporaries with the exception of Marino, and Eli is up there with all of them, and add to that the two Super Bowl runs. He had a HOF career, despite him being nonchalant and careless for most of his career.
Can Romo go in as a broadcaster/player? I wasn’t sure about that. Isn’t Madden in just as a coach? I just assume Romo would just go in as a broadcaster if anything.
However, his production is as good or better than any of those guys in terms of Super Bowl wins and stats.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare Eli’s stats with Elway or Marino, because they come from different eras.
But it’s fair game to compare his stats to Roethlisberger, Rivers, Romo, and Ryan. Are all of their stats similar? Is the main difference, in terms of numbers, the two Super Bowl victories (besides Roethlisberger)?
If so, then we have to seriously consider putting in Rivers, Romo, Roethlisberger and Ryan in the HoF or we have to view their numbers as inflated, because of the era they played in.
To me Manning winning two Super Bowls is not enough to elevate him above Rivers, Ryan, and Romo.
By the way, who’s the best of their era? I would say Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers. (I’d put Russ in there, but I think the next several seasons will have an impact.) I really like Rivers, but he’s below those guys. Same with Romo and Ryan. Roethlisberger is close to Romo, Rivers, Ryan, in terms of quality–but I’d guess I’d be OK with him going in there.
I just assume Romo would just go in as a broadcaster if anything.
OK, got it.
You can be skeptical of stats if you like, but what if the comparisons are drawn based on stats compared to other players of the same era? Like maybe he compares to Marino because he and Marino both placed in the top 3 for yardage and completion percentage for their eras? Without knowing the methodology, you can’t just dismiss it.
You can be skeptical of stats if you like, but what if the comparisons are drawn based on stats compared to other players of the same era?
That’s valid. What I objected to was using stats to compare QBs from different eras.
Like maybe he compares to Marino because he and Marino both placed in the top 3 for yardage and completion percentage for their eras?
Wait, now you’re comparing QBs from different eras. ?
What methodology would make the comparison above a fair comparison? For a long time Kenny Anderson had the highest completion perception–62% or something like that. In today’s NFL that’s really low. That percentage (and the total air yards) are functions of the era in my view.
I brought this up before last season, but I don’t think you guys responded to this (or I forgot what you guys said)–namely, you don’t think it’s a big deal if a defensive head coach who favored one style of defense (3-4 or 4-3) switches to the other style? (I would include a DC switching defenses as well.) I think this is a big deal–and a potentially big problem. Can you think of any examples of this, successful or unsuccessful? Two that come to mind, but may not apply: Mike Zimmer (a 4-3 guy) coaching a 3-4 defense as the Cowboys DC under Parcells. The second example might be Belichick moving to a more 4-3 defense. (Maybe not recently but there was a stretch where his decent looked more like a 4-3, but I could be wrong about that.)
Pete Carroll decided to do this last year, hiring his DL coach to install a 3-4 defense in the Fangio mold. (The DC, Clint Hurtt, had a stint under Fangio.) Their defense–especially their run defense was horrid. (I stopped watching games at one point.) I haven’t heard reporters, sports talk shows or fans on social media bring this up as a factor, but I feel like it is a factor.
I have no idea about successful teams switching defensive styles in history. I do think though, if there is a switch there has to be growing pains, since ideal personnel for both defenses can be drastically different.
I think no defense was good against the run in the past few years. I will say San Fran maybe? Commanders seem like they should be good, but they aren’t dominate by any means.
Wait, to be clear, I’m talking about coaches who favor one style of defense switching to another style, not teams. Maybe that’s what you meant–I’m not sure–but I just want to make sure we’re on the same page. Teams switch defenses all the time. And I agree that switching requires time. But this transition occurs by bringing in a DC (or HC) who runs the new type of defense. Someone who coaches a 3-4 doesn’t switch to a 4-3.
My conclusion: We don’t see this because it’s a bad idea. Coaches can’t switch over–not to the point where they can successfully run the new defense. I have no idea if this is true, but that’s my assumption based on the fact that it basically never happens.
Having said that, I do think the modern NFL defenses are blending 4-3 and 3-4 (similar to the way modern NFL defenses blend spread offenses with pro-style offenses and some even blend in option style offenses). So maybe what Carroll is doing is more viable. That’s my hope, anyway. In any event, I think pundits should be talking about this a lot more.
So because Carroll is a defensive minded head coach his switching styles would be much more concerning than say McCarthy switching DCs and switching between 4-3 and 3-4? I would say I guess that’s true, but not sure how many coaches historically we can look at that fell into that scenario.
So because Carroll is a defensive minded head coach his switching styles would be much more concerning than say McCarthy switching DCs and switching between 4-3 and 3-4?
Exactly. No matter who Carroll had as DC, I always thought of it as his defense. In similar fashion, I think the Chiefs offense is an Andy Reid offense and the Saints, under Payton, was a Sean Payton offense. (I don’t remember the Saints OCs.)
I would say I guess that’s true, but not sure how many coaches historically we can look at that fell into that scenario.
But is that because no coach has ever attempted this–because it’s a bad idea. This applies to DCs as well. They don’t switch. Zimmer is the only example–and I remember this because I thought it was so unusual. (But in that case, at least the HC, Parcells, was a 3-4 guy.)
Suppose Dan Quinn became the Cowboys HC, and then decided to switch to a 3-4–hiring a 3-4 DC. Wouldn’t that concern you?
I forgot to respond to this comment by Don:
I think no defense was good against the run in the past few years. I will say San Fran maybe? Commanders seem like they should be good, but they aren’t dominate by any means.
This is a good point, and I agree. I haven’t seen a dominant run defense in a long time (although I haven’t watched a lot of NFL games in the past two seasons.) The last dominant run defense I recall (and there could have been others after this defense) was the Lions defense when Suh was there. They also had two good run defending LBs–Stephen Tulloch and DeAndre Levy, if I recall correctly. Opposing RBs seemed to struggled to get past the LOS, and often didn’t. When this keeps happening, it creates the impression that the offense has no chance of running the ball. That, to me, is a dominant run defense.
I haven’t noticed a run defense like this in a long time, but a run defense can be good without meeting this standard. The 2013-2014 run defense was sort of like this. They would not allow RBs to get past the LOS, and sometimes they would allow 5-7 yard type runs, but runs that were 15 yard or longer were rarer. And they would adjust and limit the 3+ yardage runs enough to contain the run game.
My sense is that that’s the best you’ll see now. Here’s my hypothesis on why that is. Offenses are spreading the field, horizontally and vertically–and they have a lot of speed. Defenses need a lot of speed and good tackling at the LB and DB position groups. Offenses are going to complete passes or get some running yards, but the defense just has to limit explosive plays.
But these faster LBs are not necessarily good run defenders–not the type that can shed blocks. If the DL doesn’t keep these LBs clean, these LBs might struggle to stop the run. (That’s generally true of all LBs, but some beefier, stronger LBs can be effective at run defense even if they’re not totally clean.)
So the goal might be to get DL that can occupy the OL, and then the faster, lighter LBs can be effective on run defense. That might be the theory, anyway.
The problem with this is that the defensive may also need speed on the DL, including in the interior DL. But, again, these iDL may not have the bulk and power to be great run stuffers.
That might be OK if the defense can get in the right position–i.e., make sure the run fits are sound. To me, if a defense can do the latter, they can be a solid run defense (but not necessarily a dominant one).
I think it’s a big deal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a good, experienced DC who favors one isn’t able to coordinate the other without too much stumbling. Yes, there’s the personnel issue on the field, which he’d have to figure out. But by the time someone is a DC, he’s worked with so many other people he knows who he wants for the DL, LB, and secondary coaches, which I point out to say on-field personnel issues aside, sideline personnel can make a meaningful difference. A good coordinator is a good manager, and a good manager doesn’t have to be married to a favored practice.
I think it’s a big deal, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a good, experienced DC who favors one isn’t able to coordinate the other without too much stumbling.
But why do you think it’s a big deal? (Most of your post makes it sound like switching defenses is not a big deal.)
My sense is that defensive coaches can install either a 3-4 or 4-3. (Offensive coaches can install offenses that they don’t favor, too.) But coaches don’t switch because what’s really critical is deep knowledge and expertise of a defense (or offense). This allows a coach the knowledge to know an offense will attack the defense and how the defense should adjust. And it can be more intricate than that. This is my hypothesis anyway.
If this is true, then Pete Carroll would be relying heavily on Clint Hurtt (the DC) knowledge and expertise way more than if the Hawks ran a 4-3. Also, if Carroll doesn’t give Hurtt enough autonomy, he could hinder Hurtt’s ability to coach. (Carroll be more tempted to interfere because he’s confident in his knowledge about defenses–even though he may not be as confident about 3-4 defenses.)
Cardinals cut DeAndre Hopkins because they couldn’t find a trade partner. Hello, Jets? There are going to be a lot of teams calling.
I feel like the Jets already have a lot of WRs.
I really hope he doesn’t go to the Chiefs.
Who would be a good fit for him? Also, Hopkins is 31. I believe a lot of WRs decline significantly after 30.
2023 NFL HoF inductees
What do you guys think about them? Deserving or not?
Don Coryell (coach/contributor)
Chuck Howley (senior)
Joe Klecko (senior)
Ken Riley (senior)
Was Ronde Barber that good? My perception is that someone like Revis was way better than Barber. I’m iffy on Ware and Zach Thomas as well. Both are very good, but Hall of Fame good? (I believe Sam Mills got in, too, and even though he’s one of my all-time favorite players, I’m a little iffy on him, too. I was iffy on Urlacher as well.)
I’m at the point where I think there are should be fewer people in the Hall of Fame. For example, for a DE, if you’re not in the same class as Bruce Smith or Reggie White, then maybe you shouldn’t get in. That would definitely decrease the number of players, but would that be bad.
I think Deion said something like there should be two categories of Hall of Famers, because not everyone that has a gold jacket is equal, or something to that effect. I think there’s truth to that, and I feel like it shouldn’t be like that.
Cowboys trade a 4th round pick to the Niners for Trey Lance. Don, how do you like this move?
I must say that I’m annoyed by it–annoyed because I feel like the Cowboys let the Niners off the hook. I haven’t seen Lance recently, but he looked really bad when I watched him in the past. The cap hit/guaranteed money the Niners have to pay wasn’t nominal, either (and I think the Cowboys are picking up a lot of it!).
Yeah, it was a bit of a head-scratcher. Based on what the Cowboy Insiders are saying, right now Trey would be a third stringer and pretty far below Cooper Rush. He isn’t costing the Cowboys much in terms of salary cap this year, but as you were alluding to, he could be costly next year. I think if they cut him at some point prior to some deadline, I’m sure the cap hit wouldn’t be as large, but I’m not 100% sure how it all works. But yeah, I hope they turn it around for him so he’s worth something.
I was listening to Michael Lombardi talk about this. (I still don’t know why I listen to this guy.) Surprisingly, he seemed to think the move was fine. His argument was that the Cowboys gave Lance a second round grade, which means Lance could be a starter. And this is like a relatively low-cost gamble.
But oddly, he argued with the co-host that the Niners had enough information to know that Lance wasn’t very good (or at least they were ready to move on)–in spite of the fact that Lance hasn’t played many games. Of course the Cowboys may believe they can unlock Lance’s potential.
In any event, I thought the Niners were in a bit of bind, and I’m annoyed that they got out of it.
The other thing I read said that the Joneses (probably Stephen) didn’t consult McCarthy (or Dak) on picking up Trey. And since Dak is on his last year of his contract, that could be part of the reason why. Are they trying to “motivate” Dak or would they be willing to move on from him, who knows?
I heard the same thing, although I would guess Jerry Jones made the decision.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *