Aaron Rodgers and the NFL Offseason Nonsense Top 10
NFL Offseason - The Denver Broncos Russell Wilson/Sean Payton drama that's just starting to rev up promises to be many, many things. But at its core, it is not nonsense.
Payton is a very successful coach. Wilson was recently an outstanding quarterback. Both will be tied to the Broncos this year, so their coupling is not rumor-mill fanfic. The Broncos have a solid roster when healthy, so playoff dreams are realistic. And there's sure to be some real friction between the prickly coach and fame-addled quarterback, starting with the type of battle over Wilson's "performance team" that Bill Belichick can surely relate to.
Sure, there's a thick layer of nonsense forming on the roadbed, starting with a former Secretary of State near the top of the Broncos org chart who may be plotting a light recreational coup. (No one was shooting down any "surveillance balloons" over the continental United States before Condoleezza Rice became co-owner of the Broncos; think about it). But Grade-A, cask-aged NFL offseason nonsense is conjured almost entirely from pixie dust, not built upon the solid scaffolding of a compelling coach-quarterback marriage of diplomacy.
To crack the Walkthrough NFL Offseason Nonsense Top 10, a story must have a much higher speculative fiction-to-reality ratio than the Payton-Wilson story. That's a high bar. Fortunately, there's never a shortage of quarterback controversies, trade rumors, and state-of-the NFL fluff pieces to keep folks in my industry busy baking football-flavored empty-calorie all-frosting cupcakes throughout the dog days of the offseason.
So let's get to the list.
Honorable Mention: Derek Carr Nonsense
Like the Payton-Wilson story, there's too much substance to Carr's search for a new team to crack the Nonsense Top 10. The Carr story is also fast-freight news, with Carr already released by the Las Vegas Raiders on Tuesday and likely to settle in with his new team sometime in the next few weeks. Anejo-grade nonsense must still be potable when it's time to splatter some clickbait onto your screen and disappear down the shore for the weekend.
Honorable Mention: Draft Nonsense
This promises to be a low-nonsense draft, because the top prospects aren't that great or interesting. The most fragrant nonsense will likely revolve around Kentucky quarterback Will Levis, who was designed by Anonymous Scouts in a laboratory as a Trojan Horse to destroy the entire draft-content industry so they can re-seize power. But these are tales for different, mostly sensible articles, and draft nonsense, like fantasy nonsense, is practically its own cottage industry.
10. Ban-the-Push-Sneak Nonsense
Apparently, fans just love punts. Or maybe they just hate the Philadelphia Eagles. Or innovation. Because some fans just loathe the Eagles push sneak.
And by "fans" we mean salty retired defensive coordinators:
The push should be illegal
— Wade Phillips (@sonofbum) February 12, 2023
Sure, everyone respects ol' Son of Bum, but the only valid reason to ban the push sneak is if it causes injuries. And the push sneak was just about the only type of play on which we didn't see a quarterback injury in 2022. So stop griping and start scheming about how to stop it, Coach.
Push-sneak tactics aren't just mercy-killing the fourth-and-short punt. They could lead to a whole new cottage industry of short-yardage tactics. Imagine the Chiefs or Aaron Rodgers' next team signing Jacoby Brissett primarily to get used as a short-yardage battering ram. Taysom Hill could play until he's 40 as a designated sneaker! Cowboys jack-of-all-trades lineman Connor McGovern could add "push monster" to his job description.
And the defensive coordinator who designs a wrinkle to lower the push-sneak success rate to 70% or so—a stunt to disrupt the blocking in front of the offensive tackles and lurch the pile sideways, a cornerback streaking from the edge to attempt a peanut punch—will be hailed as a genius instead of just another angry Internet person.
9. Saquon Barkley and His Amazing Friends Nonsense
Giants fans honestly believe that Saquon Barkley was indispensable to their team's turnaround (slightly true, at best) and that he's got several more years like 2022 in him (history shows that he really has several more years like 2019-to-2021 in him).
Traditional fans feel the same way about free agent running backs such as Josh Jacobs and Miles Sanders that Giants fans feel about Barkley, while fantasy gamers cannot resist philosophizing about what running back X will do for team Y. (He'll gain incrementally more yardage than a fourth-round rookie would gain in the same role, folks).
At least Bills fans are immune to this nonsense: they have been mad at Devin Singletary for years because he never ripped the ball from Josh Allen's hands and plunged off tackle to prevent Allen from throwing 40-yard interceptions while protecting a 17-point lead. But Singletary slander will probably just leave Bills fans pining for Sanders or Jacobs.
So where will Barkley, Jacobs, Sanders, Singletary, and the rest end up? Probably right back with their original teams, in most cases, for far less money than they wanted. Supply far exceeds demand for franchise running backs, especially when a draft class that's deeper at running back than any other position is factored into the equation.
At least that means Giants fans will get Barkley back. Hooray! Just don't show them Barkley's numbers from Week 10 onward.
8. Washington Commanders Ownership Nonsense
Dan Snyder is a gelatinous ooze, and he has so befouled every surface in Commanders headquarters with his fetid slime trails that only another gelatinous ooze could find the environment anything but poisonous.
In other words, villainous wealthy cheesepeckers either protect their power and prestige at all costs or sell off to other villainous wealthy cheesepeckers. No benevolent philanthropist is waiting in the wings to purchase the Commanders, only the demons we have not met yet. That means following the machinations of the Commanders ownership saga is like following the path of rotten meat through a digestive track: the story ends one of two ways, both of which we will only want to flush.
Making matters worse is that the billionaire cheesepecker beat is utterly separate from the tuddies-and-transactions beat, so folks like me are just reading the Washington Post for news, same as you. So please, radio hosts: don't ask my opinion on this topic, because I don't have any insights, and none of your listeners actually care.
7. Teams Going All-In Nonsense
There's apparently some confusion about what going "all in" means.
I offered an objective, airtight definition of "all in" last week: a team must trade its future first-round pick, show an on-paper future cap deficit, and retain the services of an expensive veteran quarterback to officially be following in the footsteps of the 2021 Rams. Some folks disagree and equate going "all in" with, essentially, rolling out of bed in the morning and actually attempting to accomplish something. Hey, we have all had days since the pandemic where switching from pajamas to cargos felt like the ultimate GO BIG OR GO HOME decision. But … if the Detroit Lions drop $80 million on Jesse Bates, they aren't "going all in." They're doing this thing we all used to do prior to 2020 known as "trying."
All-in nonsense ranks this high because I know how many of my colleagues are game-planning the scouting combine. Ooh, all of those general managers will be speaking at podiums. What league-wide trend can I ask them about, which I can then turn into a reported enterprise feature?
Every executive who pokes his head into the Indiana Convention Center will be asked some rambly question about the wisdom of going all-in. Each will respond with some broad, noncommittal statement about remaining aggressive while not sacrificing the future. A dozen outlets will publish the same non-story, which will only be slightly more boring than the ones compiled from every coach's non-committal remarks about push sneaks.
Granted, some team may indeed overspend for a Carr-caliber quarterback, trade its first-round pick for Tee Higgins, and blow wads of future cap bucks in a desperate bid to win an awful division and get lucky in the playoffs. But I promised myself not to make fun of the Saints this early in the offseason.
6. Generalized Dallas Cowboys Nonsense
Ah, the reliably noisy and pointless Cowboys offseason! Jerry Jones emerges from the no-photography-allowed suite of his superyacht to deliver whiskey-soaked wisdom and directives to the media and his coaching staff, in that order. The Cowboys get linked to every major free-agent and trade rumor, not because they have been successful wheeler-dealers in many years, but because their name clicks. And of course there's the tidal push/pull of problematic Dak Prescott slander (Is Tayler Heinicke a better option? My podcast:) and extra-thirsty Prescott apologism (17 Reasons Why Pointing Out That Dak Led the NFL in Interception Percentage Will Get You Canceled).
Each year, free agency turns out to be a damp squib, the Cowboys upgrade in the draft by selecting the guy from a newsstand fantasy magazine cover (don't laugh; a lot of teams do less, and it takes real work to find a newsstand these days), and everyone struts into training camp pretending that Dak Prescott, Ezekiel Elliott and Amari CeeDee Lamb are the new Triplets. Cowboys offseason news is never about the destination, but the journey, and the journey is like riding in the back of grandpa's station wagon through a featureless landscape with the windows up and the air conditioner broken.
Adding a little flavor to the predictable recipe this year: Mike McCarthy apparently won a power struggle with offensive coordinator Kellen Moore, now with the Chargers. That's right: Mike McCarthy has ripped the cucumber slices from his eyes, toweled off from his mineral sauna and is ready to make POWER PLAYZ. And you know those POWER PLAYZ will be something special coming from the tactical genius who calls curls/flats more often than the Madden AI.
In other organizations, coach-versus-owner friction would be popcorn-worthy drama. In Dallas, it will end with an electric cattle prod to McCarthy's ribcage and a half-season of Brian Schottenheimer as interim head coach.
5. Brock Purdy/Trey Lance Nonsense
This ain't your daddy's quarterback controversy. It's a plucky white underdog who just wins against a black dual threat who is starting to look like an ultra-talented enigma. Wait: this is EXACTLY your daddy's quarterback controversy!
Only the 49ers could build a quarterback controversy out of Diet Mac Jones and the football equivalent of a cryptid yet barely crack the nonsense top five. That's because the rest of the 49ers are so good that either Spunky McWinnersauce or The Speculative Man will probably end up beating the Cowboys in a 2023 playoff game, spreading this offseason's nonsense across other years and teams like a whopping signing bonus.
Still, the 49ers quarterback drama will rank high on the malarky scale because anyone claiming to know if Purdy or Lance is any good is lying. Purdy threw flair passes to Pro Bowlers against teams whose coaches were benching quarterbacks for cost-cutting reasons or booking tramp-steamer passage to Bora Bora. Lance's scouting report is based on NDSU-versus-Nicholls State cutups from four years ago that draftniks skimmed three years ago. We might as well argue about how many angels Deebo Samuel could juke out on the head of a pin.
Oh, and if Lance, Purdy, and Stetson Bennett all get knocked out of games as the 49ers limp to the playoffs in 2023 while Kyle Shanahan orders backup tight ends to block Pro Bowl edge rushers, we'll all get to hear about how some other team got lucky.
4. Bears Draft/Justin Fields Nonsense
Some analytics types want the Bears to trade Fields and his woeful passing metrics so they can "reset the clock" with a fresh rookie quarterback contract. Some analytics types also think real life is a video game that allows you to respawn if you don't like your starting position, and they are more than happy to make suggestions with a high likelihood of getting someone who is not themselves fired.
Fields is an unprecedented player: uniquely terrible passing stats, uniquely awesome rushing stats, uniquely awful supporting cast. Trading him comes with a low return on investment and high catastrophic failure potential. The Bears probably know this, though former general manager Ryan Pace could have accidentally suffocated in a paper bag, and new GM Other Ryan Poles only appears slightly more resourceful.
The flip side of speculating about a Fields trade is theorizing about some Minnesota Fats-worthy 8-ball trick shot in which Poles trades down four times in the first round and amasses seven first-round picks or something. Howie Roseman could indeed turn a first-round pick into half a playoff-caliber starting lineup. Poles is more likely to turn it into five or six Chase Claypools.
3. Lamar Jackson Nonsense
There's the way we wish NFL contracts work, there's the way they actually work, and then there's Lamar Jackson, who has decided to plop down in the middle lane at rush hour just to see what happens.
Real logic states that Jackson holds precious little leverage and must proceed carefully if he doesn't want to cost himself millions of dollars. Dream logic states that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will give him $300 million guaranteed next Tuesday because PAY THE MAN was just too persuasive an argument for them to resist.
Jackson speculation is no fun unless you pretend that franchise tags, risk-benefit analysis, and (running a distant third, for once) implicit bias aren't real, just as superhero movies aren't as much fun when you start thinking about gravity. Turn off your brain and dream of Jackson triumphing over the odds, doubters, and economics if you like. Just don't pretend it's anything but fantasy. And "fantasy" is just well-crafted nonsense.
2. Aaron Rodgers Nonsense
We are only hours into the postseason and Rodgers has already locked himself inside a sensory deprivation tank in the hope of emerging with divine clarity and/or superpowers. There is nowhere to plunge except deeper into the man's rectum, folks. Rodgers is basically broadcasting that he bakes his toenail clippings into brownies, yet Raiders fans cannot wait for Mark Davis to pawn his molar fillings for him, and Jets fans are eager to see what would happen if they toss this chunk of pure sodium into the Big Apple pressure cooker.
We'll be lucky to come out of the upcoming weeks and months of Rodgers speculation with our sanity, especially since the second-largest source of offseason nonsense is inexorably tied to the largest.
1. Jets Wannabe Contender Nonsense
Jets fans are hyperstimulated and convinced that they are just one quarterback away from joining the Chiefs, Bills, and Bengals atop the AFC Super Bowl shortlist. It's adorably pathetic, like an infomercial for an animal rescue. We know their hopes are misguided and likely to end in misery, but only a heartless fiend can look the Jets faithful in the eye and say: your defense is going to regress, your offensive line is hot-glued together (the poor dears really believe Mekhi Becton will be healthy someday and have penciled in Alijah Vera-Tucker at three positions), and Garrett Wilson is a great young receiver, not a great receiving corps.
Misplaced Jets enthusiasm is an Aaron Rodgers Nonsense force multiplier, but it's so much more. Jets speculation will drive hot stove league chatter, as their pursuit of Rodgers will slowly cool into a quest for Derek Carr, then an entropic resignation to settle for someone such as Jimmy Garoppolo. Maybe we can get a second-round pick for Zach Wilson is a phrase that will be repeated in dead seriousness across one of earth's largest media markets until it sounds like something other than the sugar-fueled babbling of a four-year-old on the lap of a department-store Santa. The Jets will be preseason playoff sleeper darlings—they have the Offensive AND Defensive Rookies of the Year, after all!—and projections of wild-card berths, and maybe more, will blast forth from the New York media echo chamber into the atmosphere like smoke from a supervolcano.
We all know how the story ends, of course: a sweep at the hands of a mediocre Patriots team and 2024 rumors that Sauce Gardner suddenly doesn't quite fit the team culture for some reason. But for now, a Dream Team has been assembled, led by new offensive coaches Nathaniel Figurehead and Todd Downing, combining the passing-game brilliance of the 2022 Broncos and Titans into one precision-tuned system! And Joe Douglas is sure to nail the 2023 draft, just as he nailed one-third of the previous drafts!
It's all very, very silly. But over the next few months, we should just switch off our minds and indulge Jets pipedreams—and Rodgers, Jackson, Saquon, and other pipedreams—because that is what the offseason is all about.
Comments
179 comments, Last at 22 Feb 2023, 11:25pm
#36 by OmahaChiefs13 // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:41pm
I had kind of thought this was why they had Blake Bell.
We have him (when he's healthy) for traditional sneaks.
I get the sense Reid is trying to build a better mousetrap on the whole sneak meta rather than simply copying what demonstrably works.
It's mighty on-brand, but this might be a case where just copycatting while the copycatting is good might be the better approach.
#3 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 16, 2023 - 10:22am
He'll gain incrementally more yardage than a fourth-round rookie would gain in the same role, folks
Supply far exceeds demand for franchise running backs, especially when a draft class that's deeper at running back than any other position is factored into the equation.
It's interesting how these two statements say the same thing in completely different contexts.
The first says all RBs suck. The second says all RBs are good.
I think the real catch is that neither are true, but it's hard to suss out which is which until it's too late.
just as superhero movies aren't as much fun when you start thinking about gravity.
Gravity is usually fine. It's impulse-momentum that's the bitch.
2024 rumors that Sauce Gardner suddenly doesn't quite fit the team culture for some reason.
No one who is good fits the Jets team culture.
#39 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:49pm
The first says all RBs suck. The second says all RBs are good.
All old RBs suck, many young RBs are good. RBs have exactly the same aging curve as Leonardo DiCaprio's girlfriends. They're awesome until it's time for the second contract at which point let them go marry suckers like Tom Brady while you go get a new one.
#53 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:35pm
That's an argument with a ton of recency bias.
The 80s and 90s were rife with older, elite RBs. They haven't entirely vanished. Adrian Peterson led the league in rushing yards in year 9 of his career.
\Curtis Martin did in year 10.
#68 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 16, 2023 - 2:45pm
Doug Martin was 2nd in total yards in 2015 and beat Peterson out on Y/A (4.9 vs 4.5). Todd Gurley was 3rd in total yards (4.8 vs 4.5).
Martin cost 2.1M (1.5% of the cap), Gurley cost 2.5M (1.7%), Peterson cost 15M (10.3%).
That's a pretty big premium for an extra 80 yards over Martin.
2015 aside, a discussion whether RBs are worth premium contracts in 2023 is a pretty good time to have recency bias.
#102 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:22pm
The test of large rb value these days is whether the rb can force a defense to commit sufficient resources to stop him, allowing other parts of the field to be exploited much easier, because the opposing DC has real fear that a simple handoff might result in a td, from anywhere on the field, with merely average blocking.
2015 was certainly the last year that may have been true for Peterson. Don't know if anybody qualifies today.
#175 by ElJefeTejas // Feb 19, 2023 - 5:16pm
What those of us who are not in the locker room will never understand is how much a workhorse RB is valued by the team (and despised by the opponent).. They make everything easier. Both offense and defense. Adrian Peterson's intangibles were worth every penny he earned.
#177 by scraps // Feb 20, 2023 - 2:44am
If they make "everything easier", eventually the intangibles should be tangible.
When Peterson showed up in the tangible, he was great. When he has to be defended by "Peterson's intangibles were worth every penny he earned", you will have at least show how that manifested. For instance, everybody on the team got better when he was there. Etc.
#176 by ImNewAroundThe… // Feb 19, 2023 - 6:00pm
They did go from dead last in EPA/play in weeks 1-6, to 12th, in weeks 7-18. Whoops, that was actually the Panthers.
We'll see how well CMC holds up SF when his cap hit jumps up $11m+. Not that there can't been any exceptions. Are they for 27 year old RBs? Eh...
#4 by Lost Ti-Cats Fan // Feb 16, 2023 - 10:49am
We might as well argue about how many angels Deebo Samuel could juke out on the head of a pin.
Five, if he's being efficient: the defensive end, outside linebacker and corner to the near side of the pin field, followed by both safeties. Eight if he's being a showboat and instead of scoring then cuts back to deke out the other two DBs lined up to the wide side of the field and a plucky linebacker who's trying to hustle back into the play. But that's all, because if he heads all the way back to the line of scrimmage to try and deke out anybody else, someone's going to get called for blocking back towards their own end zone and the entire game will devolve into an ecclesiastical debate about why that's even a penalty.
#5 by Chuckc // Feb 16, 2023 - 10:59am
I don't understand why the push sneak is allowed. It looks suspiciously like assisting the runner to me. The next step is lining up in the I-formation with the RB in the FB position and a lineman behind him. Crash the whole mess into the line and see what happens.
But then I don't understand why defensive players are allowed to dive into an already obviously dead play either and that happens on 50% of plays without a call.
#32 by mrh // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:21pm
I hate the trend of the offense being allowed to push the ballcarrier forward. The push-sneak is the play du jour, but it happens in all sorts of other instances when the stoppage of forward progress should be called. While the push-sneak is a low injury-risk play, open field pushes are not. It may take Hurts or some other star QB being pushed forward in the open field when a DB comes in low and takes out his knee for the tactic to be banned.
I think most of us like it when the opposing team punts and hate when our team does. When watching a game with no dog in the fight, punts do kind of suck.
#41 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:00pm
It may take Hurts or some other star QB being pushed forward in the open field when a DB comes in low and takes out his knee for the tactic to be banned.
That doesn't make physical sense. You would never push a guy forward in the open field. Because he's in the open field. Pushes only occur when forward momentum is almost stopped by would be tackers. It's called "pushing the pile." Insert that phrase in YouTube or Twitter and you will find plenty of examples. A DB has no angles to go low in pile because he'd be hitting his own guys.
#55 by RickD // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:48pm
I take "open field" here to mean "not in the middle of the line of scrimmage." I see a lot of plays where a RB, WR, or TE is stopped downfield and a teammate shows up to push him forward. The trend is leading to a situation where every single tackle could be a rugby-style scrum.
#105 by BJR // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:35pm
Pro Rugby is going through this debate right now w.r.t the rolling maul; a long established tactic, but one that is now becoming orchestrated and executed to a degree where it is essentially 'overpowered'. An under-sized/under-manned defense is basically powerless to stop the tactic unless they deliberately fall to the ground and collapse the pile, which is obviously dangerous and hence illegal. It can be interesting to see a rolling maul now and again, but not all the time and not at the expense of any attempt to play open, running rugby (*cough* England *cough*).
Similarly, if pro-football reaches the point where gaining 1/2 yards with a 'push sneak' is more or less a certainty, it may require some rules intervention.
#57 by mrh // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:54pm
I probably should have said "downfield" - surely you've seen plays where a runner downfield has the ball, gets stacked up by a couple of tacklers who can't bring him down, and an offensive player comes running in to push him forward. I can't find it now, but I think it happened in the SB on a Chiefs run or catch and I was bitching to my wife that they ruled forward progress stopped before the pushing added a couple of yards but didn't do the same on a push-sneak by Hurts. In those situations, a defender could come in and try to take the runner's legs out to bring him down and hurt him unintentionally, but severely.
edited to add: if I'd seen RickD's response before posting mine, I'd just have written "What he said."
#6 by dmb // Feb 16, 2023 - 11:00am
Important preface to this potentially-unpopular opinion: I don't particularly want to see the push-sneak banned.
That said... is it actually that much more interesting to watch the Eagles run their push sneak than it is to watch a punt?
To me, punts are boring mostly because of their predictability: they almost always travel 35-to-55 yards, result in a lot of fair catches, short returns, and touchbacks. However, on vanishingly-rare occasions they produce interesting results, either in the form of an interesting return, or an impressive play to pin the opposition deep. (Personal bias: one of my favorite things to see in football is a player leaping over the goalline to knock the ball to a teammate to down a punt.)
The Eagles' push sneak seems to have even more predictability in outcomes, though: it leads to a first down over 80% of the time, but never (to my knowledge) results in a chunk play, turnover, or highlight-worthy display of athleticism. It's almost like watching a slightly-more-aesthetically-pleasing extra point, in that the possible outcomes are very constrained and one particular outcome is by far the most probable.
I guess one could argue that the Eagles' sneak is more interesting by virtue of (generally) resulting in better field position for the team possessing the ball than a punt would. However, I think the reliability of the sneak may also push the Eagles' toward playing for "fourth and manageable" in a somewhat-similar fashion to the way that terribly-boring teams play for "third and manageable," rather than trying to get past the sticks as often as possible.
Again, this is in no way an argument to ban the sneak. I just want to posit that "fewer punts" only improves the entertainment of a game when those punts are replaced by something more interesting, and I'm not convinced that's the case here.
#15 by halfjumpsuit // Feb 16, 2023 - 11:22am
The Eagles push works so well because the QB can squat two LBs. Other QBs will not have the same success rate, thought it should still be pretty high.
Fewer punts gives us more scoring, which is considered to be more entertaining.
#49 by joe football // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:23pm
The Steelers were really successful with it this year with a pretty unremarkable offense. I think the only thing you need to be successful is a willingness to put the QB in that kind of play a lot. Which to me is a point in it's favor; it's a disadvantage for the old man QB teams
#100 by BJR // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:18pm
Tom Brady has always been a wildly successful QB sneaker. He'd often hurry up to the line and do it whilst catching the defense off guard, but whatever, it almost always worked. I don't think it really requires any attributes other coordination/understanding between the QB and his blockers.
#90 by halfjumpsuit // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:00pm
Seriously though you are correct. You don't need it to be a QB. But the first coach to get burned because a non-QB fumbles the snap will never run it again without their QB, and most if not all coaches will follow that lead.
#16 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 16, 2023 - 11:28am
The Eagles' push sneak seems to have even more predictability in outcomes, though: it leads to a first down over 80% of the time, but never (to my knowledge) results in a chunk play, turnover, or highlight-worthy display of athleticism...However, I think the reliability of the sneak may also push the Eagles' toward playing for "fourth and manageable" in a somewhat-similar fashion to the way that terribly-boring teams play for "third and manageable," rather than trying to get past the sticks as often as possible.
The Eagles attempt those shot plays on 2nd or 3rd down, knowing they can convert 4th-short.
If there were not that opportunity, they would be less likely to take shot plays on those downs, and they would look like the Titans.
#24 by JonesJon // Feb 16, 2023 - 11:43am
I hate the Eagles push sneak because it is so effective it is boring. It reminds me of how baseball and basketball are currently struggling through analytics "perfecting" the gameplay too much and making the entertainment product boring. This isn't an analytical problem, but like you said it is basically unstoppable. It is making what are usually tense exciting plays mere formalities. No one wants more punts but I don't think many people want to watch every team run the same play in short yardage situations for a free 1st down or TD every time either.
#45 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:08pm
I hate the Eagles push sneak because it is so effective it is boring.
Excuse me? The Eagles lost the Super Bowl in large part because of failed QB sneak. Seumalo's false start on a would be sneak preceded Hurts' fumble-6.
The effectiveness is what makes it so exciting when it fails. Ask Bengals or Ravens fans how they feel about the QB sneak.
"every team run the same play in short yardage situations" - The Eagles have at least 6 or 7 flavors of QB sneaks.
"free 1st down or TD" That shit ain't free. You couldn't pay me enough to carry Chris Jones on my back.
#31 by dmb // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:17pm
That's the thing, though -- it doesn't feel like like the outcomes are "first down vs. failed 4th down conversion"; it's close enough to automatic that it's almost like "first down at the sticks vs. first down two yards beyond the sticks." Which, to me, isn't much more interesting than giving the other team a first down instead, with at least some potential for chaos in the process.
That said, halfjumpsuit makes a good point about the reliability quite likely being unique to the Eagles' personnel, in which case the tactic itself wouldn't be so prone to becoming boring outside of Philadelphia.
#117 by KnotMe // Feb 16, 2023 - 6:44pm
Agree. The Eagles basicly have a unique combo of great line, and a shorter but very strong QB. Honestly, I think they could sneak pretty succesfully wo the push(Like people mentioned Brady being known for sneaking and he just executed it well wo the push)
#35 by rh1no // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:38pm
However, I think the reliability of the sneak may also push the Eagles' toward playing for "fourth and manageable" in a somewhat-similar fashion to the way that terribly-boring teams play for "third and manageable," rather than trying to get past the sticks as often as possible.
Attempting to convert on fourth-and-short usually increases a team's chance of winning. That's a good thing!
Calling plays on first, second, and third down with a strategy in mind for a fourth-down conversion -- if necessary -- leads to more successful fourth-down conversions. That's a good thing, too!
Calling plays on first, second and third downs in a deliberate attempt to put your team in a manageable fourth down limits your downfield shots while unnecessarily providing your opponent with more high-leverage opportunities to take away possession. That's a very bad thing!!!
The best football teams are able to gain yards in chunks, avoiding third-and-long and fourth down scenarios as much as possible. This will continue to be true as long as NFL rules protect quarterbacks and receivers. "Three yards and a cloud of dust" is sub-optimal when you can put a deep ball up to a big receiver like Ja'Marr Chase or toss a crossing route to a YAC machine like Travis Kelce for a big gain or a PI penalty.
#44 by Pat // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:03pm
Calling plays on first, second and third downs in a deliberate attempt to put your team in a manageable fourth down limits your downfield shots
I think I know what you're saying here, but it's not quite worded right. I think you mean calling plays in an attempt to put your team in a manageable fourth down and nothing else.
A team calling a shot play on 2nd and 1 is a deliberate attempt to put your team in 3rd and 1. Shot plays fail more often than they succeed. A team with an extremely high short yardage conversion rate should take more downfield shots, not fewer.
#61 by rh1no // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:59pm
Pat, don't be silly.
A team calling a shot play on second-and-one is 100% not a deliberate attempt to put the team in third-and-one; it's a deliberate attempt to pick up a big gain, knowing that a failure to do so still leaves the team in good position to convert a fourth down on the next play (or two).
Explosive plays are essential to a successful drive. Precisely because explosive plays have a lower chance of success compared to low-yardage plays, it is strategically valuable to attempt an explosive play when the risk of failing is mitigated by the down and distance.
So yes, when a team has an extremely successful short-yardage conversion rate they should attempt more shot plays. But OP was literally arguing the opposite: that Philadelphia's high short-yardage conversion rate would lead them to do the opposite in deliberately playing for fourth down.
Playing for fourth down is dumb. Playing with fourth down in mind is smart.
#72 by Pat // Feb 16, 2023 - 2:55pm
But OP was literally arguing the opposite: that Philadelphia's high short-yardage conversion rate would lead them to do the opposite in deliberately playing for fourth down.
Except you can't do that. You don't tell your running back "hey, get to a yard before the 1st down marker and fall down." You run a play on 2nd and 7 that targets more the short field (which against many defenses is often called a 'no cover' zone - where they'll let you complete), because worst case, it's 3rd and 4 and you can do it again and get to 4th and short. And best case, it's 3rd and short, and you can take the shot play because the 4th down is free success.
The OP specifically was talking about teams that play for "third and manageable" being terribly boring - with probably the prime candidate being Joe Lombardi's offense. But the idea of throwing short of the sticks often when you know you can get across with an extra play isn't a bad idea unless you're an idiot like Lombardi and don't take shots when you get lucky.
Focusing on the short field doesn't limit explosive plays, it creates them.
#10 by rh1no // Feb 16, 2023 - 11:09am
Dan Snyder is a gelatinous ooze, and he has so befouled every surface in Commanders headquarters with his fetid slime trails that only another gelatinous ooze could find the environment anything but poisonous.
What, exactly, did gelatinous ooze ever do to deserve such a terrible comparison?
#141 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 17, 2023 - 9:07am
The Thing from the book (Who Goes There?, 1938) is also functionally a shape-shifting blob monster. The 1951 film went with the Space Carrot, but The Thing is probably the first film adaptation of a blob monster story.
#14 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 11:18am
Big $ football coaching is among the world's most forgiving lucrative professions. How could anybody watch the Broncos this year, and think "Nathaniel Hackett is the best fit for being the OC for the Jets"? I've kind of thought that Saleh might be a reasonably good HC until now. If this is all part of a Master Plan to get Yogi Aaron into a different shade of green next season, that's even dumber.
#26 by FanZed // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:09pm
Hackett was clearly overwhelmed and unprepared as a head coach, but much of his play calling was ok. There's no shortage of YouTube and Twitter content showing how Russell Wilson just wouldn't/couldn't execute a play to identify and target the open receiver.
If you gave me +500 odds of Hackett turning in a league average performance by EPA/play, give or take 5%, I might put some money down on that. Depending of course on who the Jets find to replace Zach Wilson.
#17 by dmb // Feb 16, 2023 - 11:28am
Washington Commanders Ownership Nonsense
As one of the nineteen extant Washington fans, I agree that it seems like the other eighteen are making too many assumptions about the peachiness of a new owner. And I share the author's view that, should a sale occur, the new owner will also inevitably be a cheesepecker. That said, because Snyder is odious in basically every possible way, it's hard not to believe that a new owner would at least be an incremental improvement.
To wit: for most of his tenure, Snyder has had one -- and only one -- thing going for him: a willingness to spend in order to win, even if the target of that spending is nearly always misguided. However, even that may no longer be in play, as The Athletic has been suggesting that Snyder is no longer sufficiently liquid to be making big roster splurges without a second thought.
So short of selling to, say, Vladimir Putin, a majority sale would probably be good news for the nineteen of us who would like to see something to cheer for in Washington.
#33 by dmb // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:25pm
I don't find that to be cruel at all; if a Putin purchase would magically guarantee that he end the war (and abstain from instigating future ones), I would happily cheer on the sacrifice of my favorite team for the cause. I'm guessing at least eight of the other eighteen fans feel similarly.
#48 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:23pm
Putin's a moron in some significant ways, but he's probably not dumb enough to fire Marty Schottenheimer, after dragging his disaster of a franchise to 8-8. Now, if Putin and Spanos could be convinced to swap their stations in life, the world might be immeasurably improved.
#30 by mrh // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:15pm
My wife and I moved to DC area in 1999. We are Chiefs fans, but figured on rooting for the "Wheat Thins" as the local, NFC team except when they played the Chiefs every four years.
Daniel Snyder quickly ended those plans - and this was 20 years before his worst behavior came out. A secondary cause was the local media treating every early-season win as a chance to say "We're going to the Super Bowl." The latter has diminished but not gone away as actual Wheat Thin SB appearances have further receded in time. Snyder has only gotten worse as an owner.
Now, for us, a perfect football weekend is a Chiefs' win and losses by the Chargers, Raiders, Broncos, and Wheat Thins.
#40 by dmb // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:56pm
I imagine Washington is probably the least-common choice of a "second team" out there these days; there's just absolutely no good reason to cheer for them if you don't have roots in the area.
Of course, I'm a "fan" of theirs without having any such background, but I started rooting for them when I was five, on grounds that are commensurate with a five-year-old's knowledge of the world and ability to reason. (And to be fair, the nearest NFL stadium was just shy of 700 miles away, so there was nothing remotely resembling a truly "local" team that might serve as an obvious alternative.)
I've only stuck with them because of a heavy upfront emotional investment and a misplaced sense of loyalty; to me, "rooting" for them now resembles the way a parent might "root for" a wayward adult offspring: mostly I just hope for them to outgrow their most damaging flaws (hooray for the name change! Hoping for ownership to be next), while trying to avoid enablement (no merch for me, thnx). I do enjoy the rare occasions where they play well, but I care much less about game-to-game on-field results than I used to.
#52 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:28pm
This Viking fan since age 5 adopted the D.C. team as 2nd choice in the 80s, because I loved the Gibbs approach to winning games; dominate the line of scrimmage, allow the qb to be comfortable in the pocket, go vertical when defenses had to overcommit to the box. When Gibbs retired for the 1st time, that loyalty ended.
#38 by OmahaChiefs13 // Feb 16, 2023 - 12:46pm
That the Eagle Push is frustrating in the moment (it is!) because it feels completely inevitable and unstoppable isn't a reason to ban it.
I think a couple weeks of blood-cooling after such a dominant exhibition of its use will get most folks back to that point.
#42 by Pat // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:00pm
Some folks disagree and equate going "all in" with, essentially, rolling out of bed in the morning and actually attempting to accomplish something.
Yeah. No.
I don't have a problem with "you have to trade your first round pick." That's just a difference of opinion, although I'll explain why in a moment.
What I have a problem with is the "on-paper cap deficit." There is no such thing as an "on-paper cap deficit." You might say "well, just use OTC!" but OTC has a bunch of flaws which make it really, really difficult to figure out whether or not a team is in real cap trouble or not.
Both the Browns and the Saints showed an "on-paper cap deficit" of $40+M for '23 last year. Except the Browns held nearly a $30M surplus in '22 because of Watson, which they were always planning on rolling into this year: OTC uses next year's projected NFL cap not next year's projected team cap. And the Browns can generate thunderously more space than, for instance, the Eagles can: again, Watson's contract is structured this way on purpose.
A much, much better measure for how "all in" a team is in terms of the cap is to look at how many players are fully leveraged. Or, alternatively, how much cap space a team can generate by restructuring contracts. If a team's contracts aren't fully leveraged already, they're not going all in. They've got plenty of flexibility.
For instance, the Browns have a -$11M deficit right now, but can generate almost $100M of space in restructures. They have tons of flexibility. The Eagles have $7M cap space right now, but can only generate $25M of space in restructures. They have very little flexibility: Jason at OTC says the Eagles have the least flexibility in cap of any team in the league next year. And that includes the Saints. The Saints and Browns have to do something, but there are plenty of things they can do. The Eagles have extremely little that they can do.
Similarly, the Rams have a paper deficit next year (gee, I wonder why you picked those criteria): -14M. But again, they can generate nearly $75M in restructures. They have more flexibility than Philly does. As an alternative, you could also look at cap space that a team can generate by cutting players, but you basically get similar results there because the mechanics are the same.
The only issue I have with "you have to trade your first round pick" is that draft picks are pretty cheap in terms of cap space, because most draft picks don't work out. I would rather have $50M in cap space than $5M in cap space and an extra 1st round pick. (edit: to be clear, another problem with 'paper cap deficit' is that you really want to look at multi-year periods since cap borrowing/pushing happens all the time now).
Fundamentally it's a question of degree. All teams that are trying to win borrow from the future. Philly borrowed a lot in 2022. There's absolutely zero question there. Did they borrow as much as the Rams did? Not in draft picks, but more in cap flexibility.
#47 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:19pm
Philly did not borrow a lot in 2022. They had 65M in dead money - most of that was from borrowing in previous years. They paid almost That was 4th most in the league and almost 30% of the overall cap! They're on track for about the same in 2023, while also clearing a fair number of contracts that had been hanging around from prior years. Carrying that much dead money didn't affect them too much this year. It's unlikely to hugely effect them next year, not on offense certainly. They will not be able to resign all of their FAs on defense - but it's not like that defense won them the Super Bowl.
They're going to do a bit of the same in 2023 as they did this year. Howie structures contracts for veterans with the June 1st cut in mind. So he'll be pushing Cox's and Kelce's dead cap hits over two years. But honestly they're in good shape. They have the core of the offense locked up and they're going to be in much better shape in 2024 (sacrificing a bit flexibility now for flexibility in the future - Saints are doing the opposite). It won't be an issue to sign Hurts to contract given that.
#60 by Pat // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:59pm
Philly did not borrow a lot in 2022. They had 65M in dead money
The following players are still technically on the Eagles roster, because they have either void or poison-pill contracts.
- Kelce: $11.425M
- Hargrave: $11.2M
- Graham: $18.31M
- Seumalo: $7.53M
- Bradberry: $4.97M
- Cox: $10M
- White: $1.172M
This is $64M that was just straight borrowed. In several cases - Kelce, Cox, Bradberry - it was specifically borrowed in '22. Straight up. Kelce was signed for $14M, they paid $3.696M in '22 and the rest hits in the future. Bradberry was signed for $7.25M, they paid $2.278, rest hits in the future. They signed Cox for $14M, paid $4M in '22, rest hits in the future. That's $25M, right there.
Carrying that much dead money didn't affect them too much this year.
Of course it didn't. Because they still have Hurts under a cost-controlled contract for '23 and could borrow from it freely. I never said it was a bad idea for them to borrow money for '22.
You know who's not under contract for '24?
#111 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 16, 2023 - 5:12pm
I guess what I mean is that 64M "borrowed" in 2022 is pretty much a continuation of past practices. This year, they spent 65M on contracts from 2021 and earlier. Here's the thing: 64M in 2022 is worth more than 64M in 2023. It makes sense to borrow when the cap is always increasing. Side note: I think they're carrying a bit more dead money than they would like to because the cap dropped in 2021 due to COVID - which is why 2022 and 2023 are likely to be relative peaks in dead money. They're looking to be in better shape come 2024 even with spreading some of 2022's money to then.
Howie spams the June 1 designation to spread things out over 2 years. All the "poison pills" are setup with June 1st in mind. E.g. Cox's salary in 2021 was borrowed from 2022/2023. Kelce's is similar. Those contracts are contracts Howie expects to terminate. Void years (I think) tend to accelerate all in one year. But they're still pretty valuable. For example Hargrave's cap hit in 2021 was 5.8M which was 2.8% of the cap, but the 11.9M in dead money in 2023 is only 5.1% of the cap.
Not under contract for '24:
Hurts, Slay, Kelce, Graham, Barnett (That's pretty much it of note beyond the 2023 FA). Hurts will be signed to a big contract - but one which doesn't start to toll really until 2025 and beyond. The rest of these guys could be done.
2022's dead money was as follows. Italics are for June-1 guys who had the money spread out over two years.
- Fletcher Cox: 12.8M (2021)
- Malik Jackson: 9M (2020)
- Derek Barnett: 7.2M (2020)
- Brandon Brooks: 5.9M (2021)
- Alshon Jeffery: 5.4M (2020)
- Zach Ertz: 3.5M
- Anthony Harris: 3.4M (2020 + 2021)
- Rodney McLeod: 2.1M
- Joe Flacco: 1.9M
- Jalen Reagor: 1.8M (2021)
- Eric Wilson: 1.4M
- Steven Nelson: 1.2M
- Ryan Kerrigan 1.1M
- A bunch of other <1M guys
2023 dead money:
- Fletcher Cox: 15.4M (from 2021) + 2.5M (from 2022 - June 1, clears 1.5M)
- Brandon Brooks: 9.8M (from 2021)
- Jalen Reagor: 1.8M (from 2021)
- Anthony Harris: 1M
- Jason Kelce: 9.9M (from 2022, June 1, clears 1.5M). - They will June 1, but maybe sign him to a new 1-year deal like Cox last year.
- Hargave (Void): 11.9M (from 2022, all hits in 2023)
- Graham: 8.1M (from 2022, June 1)
- Bradberry 4.9M
- White 1.1M
2024 dead money:
- Cox 7.5M (assuming he retires)
- Kelce 11.4M (assuming he retires)
- Graham 10M (assuming he retires)
- Slay 14M (void years, unless they restructure)
- Barnett 7.2M (void years)
I'm thinking Seumalo probably resigns. Kelce maybe too, but he'll just get another 1-year June-1 designed contract. They'll get 3M from June-1ing Kelce and Cox. And can get another 20M or so from restructuring (mostly Slay and Johnson - though I think they'd be better off not restructuring Slay). They can use that to sign their rookies and maybe give Seumalo, CJGJ, Edwards, Epps and Pascal new contracts.
I'm not sure I'm ready emotionally for Cox, Kelce and Graham to all retire in the same year. But at the same time, it's now the Hurts era and these guys are almost from a different age. I'd rather these guys go out on-top (of the NFC at least) then have a miserable and expensive final year.
#119 by KnotMe // Feb 16, 2023 - 6:49pm
I wonder if we can just say there are degrees of "trying...i.e. hurting the future to help the present" and Eagles did some of that, but not to the same extent as the Rams last year. And you pick some place on that spectrum and all everything to the right "all in".
#164 by Pat // Feb 17, 2023 - 3:38pm
The problem is that there are a bunch of mitigating factors there. How do you weight draft picks vs salary, for instance, and how do you take into account Stafford's age? Fundamentally, draft picks aren't actually that valuable - a late first-rounder averages to something like $5M or so. We only think of them as valuable because of the times when they really, really work.
There's definitely a point of view that the Eagles can't be going "all in" because having a young QB makes you automatically competitive for like, a decade. I don't really agree there, given Wentz (no guarantee the QB continues to develop), Herbert (no guarantee the team's coaches are actually good), and Luck (no guarantee the QB stays healthy).
I mean, obviously I agree the Eagles didn't do as much as the Rams in '21, but, for instance, you could easily argue that given Stafford and Donald's age, the draft picks for the Rams are way less valuable than they are for the Eagles with Hurts, Brown, Goedert, and Smith. So if you think about long term stuff, the Eagles borrowing hard in '21 and '22 could be considered worse than the Rams - since the Rams were never going to be competitive for, say, 5+ years anyway.
As I've said elsewhere, I view it as the Eagles going all in for Kelce, Cox, Graham, and Johnson since they're all near the end of their careers, they've all been Eagles for life, and they're all honestly near-Hall talent or above (note talent not production). If it ends up hurting the team a bit, whatever. They deserved it.
#171 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 17, 2023 - 6:38pm
I don't even think they did it to go all-in. Like at all. It's a choice Howie made to be competitive while rebuilding. And it worked fantastically. He had to navigate the Carson Wentz trade and the retirements of the 2017 squad (Alshon, Brooks) as well as the retirement of the ill-advised signing of Malik Jackson in the context of the cap reduction in 2020. Yet despite those limitations which greatly reduced flexibility in 2021 and 2022 they went to the playoffs and then the Super Bowl.
Fundamentally, draft picks aren't actually that valuable - a late first-rounder averages to something like $5M or so.
Draft picks are cost controlled contracts for unknown talent that could potentially be really good. Free agents are expensive contracts based previous performance. There's generally a bit more certainty - but there are probably just as many free agent "busts" as their are draft pick busts. Guys get old or injured. It's different kind of bet, but it's still a bet. You need both to stay competitive. Howie has had his fair share of busts in both categories (e.g. Reagor, JJAW for the draft picks and Malik Jackson for a FA example), but he's also had a good number of hits. I think there are more signs this time around that's he's not overcommitted to old guys (Alshon Jeffery, DeSean Jackson). If he (wisely) lets Hargrave walk, that'll be a good sign. I think it's time for Cox and Graham too.
#160 by Pat // Feb 17, 2023 - 1:28pm
I guess what I mean is that 64M "borrowed" in 2022 is pretty much a continuation of past practices
Yes! Which they can't keep doing, because their cheap years run out after next year. They already borrowed from 23 (and will have to borrow quite a bit from 24, as you noted!), so they either have to stop, or they put themselves way behind the 8-ball, and Howie's not that bad.
Hurts will be signed to a big contract - but one which doesn't start to toll really until 2025 and beyond.
Uh. No. This is not how QB contracts work. It would be how it worked if Hurts had a 5th year option, like Allen, or Murray, or Mahomes. Which might be what you're basing things on. He does not. His contract ends in '23. Period. The end. If they sign him to a 5-year, 250M new-money contract, that $50M/yr average starts hitting in '24, not '25.
Yes, obviously, they can borrow from '25 to pull down the hit in '24, and rinse and repeat to pull things down a little. But Hurts is not going to have a small nominal cap hit in '24. It's going to be $35-40M minimum.
I don't know why it seems so sacrilege among some Eagles fans to suggest that they won't be able to be as active in free agency next year and are going to have to make hard decisions. Hurts hits FA in '24, Smith in '25, and (functionally) Brown in '26 (that last year's fake).
- Jason Kelce: 9.9M (from 2022, June 1, clears 1.5M). - They will June 1, but maybe sign him to a new 1-year deal like Cox last year.
God, I wish OTC was better...
Jason's contract doesn't work that way. It's not the same as Graham and Cox, who will be designated post-June 1 releases. You only get 2 of those, so Kelce can't be one of them. That's why his contract has a June 2 poison pill, rather than Cox and Graham who have a "second day of free agency" poison pill.
With Jason you don't "post-June 1 release and sign to a new contract." You just rip up '23 year and redo it. Post-June 1 releasing wouldn't make sense because you'd have to do it in June. And Kelce's not going to "good faith" go through training camp on a 1.5M salary. If he gets injured, he'd be SOL.
So, for instance, you'd just replace the 1.5M salary with, say, a $14M salary, and immediately restructure it, raising his cap hit to 11.525M, and functionally borrowing $10M from '24. Which you'd post-June 1 spread as a 2.5M hit in '24 and 7.5M hit in '25. It actually works out exactly the same. The only reason they did it with Cox previously is to allow him to talk to other teams.
That being said, '23 and '24 are already constrained enough that if Jason wants that much money to come back, the team will probably just tell him he should probably just retire.
I'm thinking Seumalo probably resigns.
I have no idea why you brought up Seumalo and not Hargrave. Hargrave's way more valuable than Seumalo. They don't really have an easy way to replace Hargrave, whereas they've already signed Opeta to a futures contract and while he'd be, uh, just a bit of a step down, it's easy enough to backstop him with a 3rd/4th round pick.
Hargrave's more likely to resign in Philly, I think. If you're going to make hard choices, rely on Stoutland rather than whoever ends up handling the DL next year.
#166 by Pat // Feb 17, 2023 - 5:23pm
Just to clarify the QB contract part with examples:
Kyler Murray signed an extension in '22. His rookie contract went from '19 to '23. Cap hit in '24 is $51M.
Mahomes signed an extension in '20. His rookie contract went from '17 to '21. Cap hit in '22 was $36M.
Allen signed an extension in '21. His rookie contract went from '18 to '22. Cap hit in '23 is $39M.
Those are all guys with 5th year options. The only QB without a 5th year option who was signed to a large contract is Dak Prescott. Prescott was franchised in '20, and extended in '21. His rookie contract went from '16 to '19. Cap hit in '20 was $31.4M.
Yes, Prescott's cap hit dropped in '21 and '22, but that was due to the Cowboys restructuring (borrowing) to pull down his cap value, which is why they already have $22M borrowed from '25 for Prescott.
Hurts's contract extension affects the cap in '24. You can't ignore it. Borrowing from '22 and '23 was fine. Borrowing from '24+ will hurt a lot more.
#168 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 17, 2023 - 6:10pm
Yes! Which they can't keep doing, because their cheap years run out after next year. They already borrowed from 23 (and will have to borrow quite a bit from 24, as you noted!), so they either have to stop, or they put themselves way behind the 8-ball, and Howie's not that bad.
They do not need to stop. You can keep borrowing 64M from the future in perpetuity. And it makes sense to do it to a certain extent. Once you start the process, you might as well keep it going to an extent. You just don't want to let it snowball three-four years down the line (e.g. the Saints). I think Howie will probably get it so their revolving dead money hit is more like 10-15% of the cap rather than the current 30%. But he did a pretty good job of navigating the COVID cap drop and Carson Wentz's dead money hit. They went to the playoffs and the SB in back-to-back seasons with 60M+ dead cap hits.
Uh. No. This is not how QB contracts work. It would be how it worked if Hurts had a 5th year option, like Allen, or Murray, or Mahomes. Which might be what you're basing things on. He does not. His contract ends in '23. Period. The end. If they sign him to a 5-year, 250M new-money contract, that $50M/yr average starts hitting in '24, not '25.
Yeah, the APY starts in hitting '24 but not the cap hit. Sign him to a 6-year contract 45M APY contract. Give him a 70M signing bonus, with a low-ish base salary in '24 (like 2.5M), prorate that signing bonus over 5-years or more. That makes the cap hit '24 a perfectly reasonable 16.5M. Look at Dak Prescott's contract for a reference. His 4-year 160M contract had cap hits of under 20M in the first 2 years. Staffords is similar. Hurts contract absolutely does not have to be 35M in '24.
As for Kelce, bit a moot point. See here. But while you only get two June-1 cuts, that doesn't apply to retirements. But yeah, looks like Kelce could be coming back. They just cleared 2.4M in cap by giving him his 2023 roster bonus today. Guys don't get their base salary until the season anyway, so I have no idea what you're talking about with this "he won't go through training camp for 1.5M". Per OTC, if he decides to re-sign it'll be another 1 year deal, costing about 11M against the cap (so basically just taking up the space cleared - but otherwise not affecting the cap picture in 2023), but if he decides to resign (see what I did there?) it'll be 7.5M in 2023 and 13.8M in 2024.
I have no idea why you brought up Seumalo and not Hargrave. Hargrave's way more valuable than Seumalo.
Hargrave will be 30 next year. Cox was 32 this year and did pretty good with a deeper rotation. But Cox looked cook in his age 31 year when he had to play more snaps. JJ Watt retired at 33, but his last good year was his age 31 season. Ndamukong Suh and Linval Joseph were consider washed old dudes when the Eagles signed them this year. They were 34. Let somebody else sign 30 year-old Hargrave to a huge contract. The Eagles can roll with Davis, Tuipulotu, Williams and draft another DT. Sometimes you gotta just let the old dogs go and give the young guys a chance to grow. Maybe you let Seumalo walk by the same logic, he'll be 29 next year (30 in October) and yeah, Stoutland can make an All Pro out of the Hamburglar. I just have soft spot for former Beavers.
#173 by DisplacedPackerFan // Feb 18, 2023 - 10:31am
I don't dig into the cap as much so I'm genuinely curious if this page on OTC doesn't show what you are trying to get at.
https://overthecap.com/restructure
It's been my go to for trying to determine what kind of cap issues GB might have since Thompson left and Gutey started to do a lot of kick the can down the road and using a lot of void years and such that the team didn't do before.It may have still been Russ Ball doing the heavy lifting but the contracts look very different.
But that clearly shows how little flex the Eagles have and seems to try and factor in restructures (of multiple kinds). It feels a bit like their "simple restructures" mark is a pretty good idea of "true cap" levels and that puts PHI closer to TB and NO territory and the Rams as one of the better off teams.
I'm sure they still have issues with the data there, but it feels like a pretty solid way to get a good feel for the cap without having to do the math yourself.
#155 by scraps // Feb 17, 2023 - 11:48am
My dislike of the Jets is mostly because when something good happens to the Jets -- minor things, usually, because it's the Jets -- everybody in the football world gets to know about it in exquisite detail, because it's New York, and the media just assumes that everybody's interested in New York things. So in the lead-up to next season there will be dozens of features that the Jets are going to "surprise" people. Which might be true if they turn in their usual disappointment season, leading to some management person(s) getting fired.
#170 by mehllageman56 // Feb 17, 2023 - 6:24pm
Completely understandable. My dislike of the Jets situation is that I grew up a fan, but the New York media exploit all the negative things as well, but do not pick on the Giants as much. It's as if the mass media has a bias or something.
#50 by halfjumpsuit // Feb 16, 2023 - 1:25pm
Tanier's hatred of Levis and the Levis hype is a funny recurring bit.
Levis checks all the physical boxes (6'3", good arm strength, good mobility). He was productive at Kentucky without the benefit of an elite talent around him to inflate him like say, Mac Jones had. And he did did so running in vogue NFL offenses: his OC in 2021 was the Rams WR coach in 2020 and the Rams OC in 2022; his OC in 2022 was the 49ers QB coach in 2021. He's not perfect-decision making and accuracy are his knocks-but he's a legit 1st round prospect.
#62 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 2:06pm
I prefer "obviously illegal cartel, under any intellectually honest interpretation of antitrust law, which has organized football competition, primarily to auction tv rights for billions, while colluding to limit compensation to very young adults, who are exposed to considerable health risks".
Yes, quite wordy, but it has the virtue of capturing the ethical bankruptcy of the situation.
#109 by IlluminatusUIUC // Feb 16, 2023 - 5:05pm
I prefer "obviously illegal cartel, under any intellectually honest interpretation of antitrust law, which has organized football competition, primarily to auction tv rights for billions, while colluding to limit compensation to very young adults, who are exposed to considerable health risks".
I'm no fan of his, but Brett Kavanaugh said almost the exact same thing in a concurrence. If the right case landed in front of the court, they might have nuked the entire thing.
#127 by mehllageman56 // Feb 16, 2023 - 7:51pm
"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different.
"The NCAA is not above the law."
You beat me to it, but I figured I'd post the relevant quote.
#77 by Pat // Feb 16, 2023 - 3:19pm
Their employers certainly aren't paying them.
Yes, they are. There's a very significant amount of money being paid for housing/food stipend + liability insurance. You might quibble with the overall amount not being enough, but they're absolutely being directly compensated. Not the only job where the benefits essentially turn the direct cash to the worker to near-zero.
#84 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 3:47pm
What makes a slave a slave is the owner visiting violence on the slave, if the slave does not perform labor, or tries to leave.
The interlocking cartels of the NCAA and conferences engage in quite obviously illegal collusion, designed to limit compensation, under any intellectually honest interpretation of antitrust law, but it isn't slavey. Every awful thing is not the most awful thing.
#88 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 3:53pm
They can freely transfer to other schools that are also participating in an illegal cartel, under any intellectually honest view of antitrust law, which is attempting to limit compensation to athletes, whose performances form the basis of tv rights auctions that collect billions of dollars.
An accurate description of behavior is not condescension.
#110 by IlluminatusUIUC // Feb 16, 2023 - 5:09pm
Yes the schools should pay the players directly
That would trigger additional problems that would almost certainly bring down the whole college sports system. Should the system be torn down? Sure, I could get behind that. But the schools paying athletes directly is untenable.
#124 by BigRichie // Feb 16, 2023 - 7:45pm
You guys are all so cute when you're THIS! naive.
Some decades back now, a Pitt defensive end was drafted in the 1st Round. The press asked him what he'd now do with all that money, the guy smiled and said "I'll have to check with my accountant, but I think I'm taking a pay cut".
#126 by BigRichie // Feb 16, 2023 - 7:49pm
Hasn't for the last 60 years. (UCLA boosters were already paying the best basketball recruits to go there) Probably goes back farther than that. Soon as abominably rich people started taking pride in their alma mater's football team beating their country club rival's alma mater football team.
#134 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 10:10pm
If it was regularly substantial sums of money, to large numbers of players, we would have seen the IRS going after players much more frequently, it's not as if 18 year olds are skilled at staying below the radar. Hell, some NBA referees got seriously jammed up (as in criminally prosecuted) with the IRS, for swapping 1st class airline tickets for coach, collecting the $ difference in refunds, and not declaring the $ as income on their 1040s. Yeah, some guys like Reggie Bush or Chris Webber had some relatively minor IRS jackpots, but if paying large sums of $ to a large number of players was a real thing, we'd have seen guys going to low security federal lockups several times by now.
#79 by Pat // Feb 16, 2023 - 3:33pm
where several dozen head coaches make more than 4 million dollars a year
Why does that change whether it's amateur football or not? Does an employee getting paid millions a year make something not a non-profit? Amateur means they do it without pay: if I volunteer for a non-profit that rakes in $115M/yr, is it really that surprising if the guy in charge makes $5M/yr?
I mean, it seems a bit high, but not crazy high.
#91 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:00pm
No economic entity pays a manager of a couple hundred amateurs 4 million a year. If those people aren't getting compensated, it's because trade is being restrained, not because the people have freely decided that not getting compensated is fine.
#103 by Pat // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:23pm
No economic entity pays a manager of a couple hundred amateurs 4 million a year.
Not far off. Campaign managers make well north of $100k and money-wise they're not close, and fundamentally they're managing a fleet of non-paid employees. Scale-wise it's pretty close: campaigns are usually ~$1-5M total/yr, so this is around 20-100x more.
not because the people have freely decided that not getting compensated is fine.
The furor over paying athletes dying down suggests otherwise. You volunteer for campaigns because it raises your profile politically (or you like doing it). You 'volunteer' for college athletics because it raises your NIL profile (or you like doing it).
#106 by Will Allen // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:38pm
No campaign manager earning 4 million or more is managing a mere 100 or so unpaid volunteers. NIL has temporarily reduced the conversation about the illegal behavior, but these cartels are fighting a losing game and are merely trying to avoid standing before the Supreme Court again, where they know that getting 5 votes ever again is very slim odds. Some 2nd string guard, who never made any significant money, and was discouraged from taking classes that would benefit him most long term, and ended up with significant injury, is going to get good lawyers, and a reckoning will be had.
#108 by Pat // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:59pm
No campaign manager earning 4 million or more is managing a mere 100 or so unpaid volunteers.
I don't agree that the pay should scale with the number of employees managed. That doesn't really make economic sense. It should scale with money, not with people.
#63 by Jetspete // Feb 16, 2023 - 2:10pm
When the Jets played the Jaguars in December, it was the first time since the Buttfumble that Al Michaels had called one of their games (a full decade without a national NBC primetime game). Winning would be nice, but at this point Jets fans just want some relevance. They've been reduced to the bowels of 1/405 et Hell for over three seasons. Their last 425 doubleheader game was against Dallas in week 6 of 2019! They've had one Monday night game in the past three seasons. Rodgers ends all that probably by week 1.
that said your number 1 is only dependent on number 2. Jets fans are by nature delusional, but none of us are going to be excited about Carr or Tannehill or whatever off the street bum they sign that isn't Aaron Rodgers.
#128 by mehllageman56 // Feb 16, 2023 - 8:04pm
They'd be better off with Carr, or rather, have a better chance at relevancy with Carr than Rodgers, who will only be playing a year or two, and then destroy the Jets budget so Sauce Gardner will be playing somewhere else. Carr would give them a longer window, although it may just be a Cousins window (rather lengthy, but really made of cellophane and not actual glass).
What the Jets need is to hit on a QB like Hurts, or Lawrence who they barely missed out on. But if they get Carr, Rodgers or Jackson, I expect them to be a playoff pretender next season at the very least. The only team in the division that will possibly improve is New England (they have cap space, and perhaps they will have inoffensive offensive coaching). Buffalo and Miami are over the cap right now, more than the Jets are (and the Jets have simple cuts or extensions to get themselves a decent amount of room). The Dolphins are also missing draft picks, and no one in the division has a ton of extra picks this year. The main reason to doubt the Jets are the two imbecilic coaching hires they just made.
#66 by Ryan // Feb 16, 2023 - 2:25pm
The rugby push sucks. It's not fun to watch. And Mike et al present a false dichotomy. The options are not ONLY "fourth and short punt" and "fourth and short rugby push." You can run any play you want on fourth and short! Indeed, that framing reflects the competitive imbalance inherent in the play, given Mike is already assuming it as a default choice (and a guaranteed first down). I just think any play that has a 90% or whatever it is success rate, with no comparative response option from the defense, sucks. Skews things. Does anyone really want to watch the rugby play 10 times a game?
"a stunt to disrupt the blocking in front of the offensive tackles and lurch the pile sideways, a cornerback streaking from the edge to attempt a peanut punch"
A CB punching the ball out of the rugby scrum? Seriously? I mean, in what world is this a plausible response? I'd also argue that 70% is still a ridiculous competitive imbalance, and these suggestions do not sound like viable alternatives.
If the Eagles weren't the progenitor of this strategy, I suspect Mike would have a different opinion.
#74 by OmahaChiefs13 // Feb 16, 2023 - 3:03pm
I just think any play that has a 90% or whatever it is success rate, with no comparative response option from the defense, sucks. Skews things.
Just checking, not necessarily arguing. Can we assume that you're also in favor of getting rid of the kicked PAT?
#107 by OmahaChiefs13 // Feb 16, 2023 - 4:58pm
Get back to me when the PAT is not a standalone play.
Adding conditions post-facto does change the argument a little bit, yes.
Curious, though: what's your standard or definition for "standalone play"?
In its current incarnation, the Eagle Push isn't a standalone play either...its only ever used on late downs and short yardage, needing precursor plays to set up the conditions where running it makes sense.
Sure, one could run it on any down or distance they wanted....but we're rather clearly not trying to legislate a team out of running it on 1st down. We're still mocking the team that ran a sneak on 3rd and 9 inside their own 10 2 years ago.
Also, you're kinda proving my point here--they nerfed it because the success rate was too high
"Nerf" != "legislate out of existence"
#120 by Ryan // Feb 16, 2023 - 6:52pm
By standalone play I mean it is in a vacuum. Regardless of the result of the play, there is always a kickoff afterward. It doesn’t impact field position or possession.
Re: the nerf/“legislate out of existence” thing: no one is calling for the NFL to ban 4th down attempts or qb sneaks