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.
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?
The NFLPA polled 1300 players for their thoughts on their teams’ facilities and player support. The results are super interesting.
https://nflpa.com/nfl-player-team-report-cards
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
Which ultimately means they have doubts about him, in my view. And maybe the doubts are just about his durability.
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.
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.
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?