Is Joe Burrow the Next Tom Brady?
NFL Super Bowl - PHOENIX - Brace yourself for a Joe Burrow-Tom Brady comparison.
Are you sitting down? Happy place envisioned? Gag reflex suppressed? Good. Now, rest assured that this one comes from a knowledgeable source: Chiefs defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, who faced both Burrow and Brady in a meaningful game or three over the years.
“I see a young Tom Brady,” Spagnuolo said with a wide smile when asked about Burrow earlier in the week.
“Not just his talent. I love his killer instinct. He’s a killer. And when your quarterback is like that, the other 10 around him are like that and it makes the whole offense that much better.”
What does Spagnuolo see in Burrow that is so Brady-like? “Whether it’s the gleam in his eye or the things he says … We’re always looking at the broadcast games, with the cameras down where they can zoom in. You see him pre-snap, what he’s looking at, and even after a play: nothing bothers him, he never gets rattled.”
Feel free to roll your eyes, Patriots fans. But Spagnuolo is coaching in his fourth Super Bowl, having battled Brady’s teams to a 1-1 draw in championships as a defensive coordinator before engaging in annual AFC title duels with Burrow’s Bengals. This isn’t some hottakesman bloviating into the void.
What’s interesting to Walkthrough about Spagnuolo’s remarks is the fact that he watches television tape of opponents. Isn’t coaches’ film the only proper way to attain deep football wisdom? Apparently not. Spagnuolo certainly watches tons and tons of coaches’ film too, but there is more than one way for an experienced observer to ingest football and come away with meaningful observations.
Walkthrough is not a huge fan of gleam-in-the-eye analysis, but Coach Spags has looked deeper into more great quarterbacks’ eyes than we have. And we got to look into the coach’s eyes when he was gushing about Burrow: this wasn’t merely a media-savvy coach telling reporters what we wanted to hear so we would go away satisfied.
“I was a high school quarterback, so I’m always partial to quarterbacks,” Spagnuolo said. “I just think the way [Burrow] operates, and the way he plays a game, he’s gonna be around a long time.
"We’re gonna have a lot of battles with him. He’s gonna win a lot of games. And I look forward to watching him later on as a fan.”
Same here, Coach. Same here.
Are the Eagles an All-In Team?
A colleague, interviewing Cowboys Hall of Fame head coach Jimmy Johnson at the FoxSports press availability, asked a question along the lines of: The trend right now is for teams like the Rams and Eagles to go all-in for the Super Bowl? Will we see more of that philosophy in the years to come?
Wait. Timeout. Since when are the Eagles an all-in team?
Jalen Hurts is still on his rookie contract. The Eagles have two first-round picks in the 2023 draft. They are also showing a $4-million paper cap surplus for 2023: not much, but nothing like what the Rams (or, lol, Vikings) face in the years to come.
Yes, the Eagles traded aggressively for A.J. Brown and signed veterans such as James Bradberry. Yes, Fletcher Cox and others (like Bradberry) are gone next year, and Jason Kelce will retire. But the Eagles have already drafted replacements for some of their departing/retiring veterans, and they have the resources to add quality reinforcements. Making a few bold trades to help win a Super Bowl isn’t going “all in.” It’s “trying.”
Johnson responded diplomatically and with broad accuracy, noting that what the Rams did was different, and that fans should be excited when the hometown team makes daring moves. It’s the very concept of the Eagles as an “all-in” team which stunned Walkthrough. Are the Bengals an “all-in” team just because they upgraded their offensive line in 2022? The 49ers because of the Christian McCaffrey trade? Is any team not on the endless rebuilding treadmill suddenly perceived as tossing grandpa's pocket watch into the pot like a drunk in a Wild West saloon?
Establishing benchmarks is one of the things Walkthrough does. So let’s establish some benchmarks for what constitutes an “All-In Team.” An All-In Team must:
- Have a quarterback over age 30 with a contract among the ten largest in the NFL.
- Possess no first-round pick in the following year’s draft; and
- Show a paper cap deficit for the following year.
Simple, tangible and easily-attainable thresholds, right? An All-In team is paying heavily for their veteran quarterback, mortgaged some future draft capital (trading away a top pick but later getting one back is hedging a bet, which is the exact opposite of going “all-in”) and is financially leveraging itself for short-term gains at the expense of long-term consequences.
The Rams did all of those things. The Eagles did not. And team-building philosophies are not easily lumped like political parties into only two categories.
Around the League
Sean Payton indicates that Russell Wilson’s performance team will not be welcome in the Broncos facility.
Broncos co-owner Condoleezza Rice’s performance team will be completely welcome, especially because her performance team is an M1A1 Abrams tank.
Tom Brady doesn’t plan to join the Fox announcing team until 2024.
Dude’s been retired one week and is already posting underwear pictures of himself. No one wants to learn what one year of downtime will bring. He’s gonna be like Ben Wyatt from Parks and Recreation creating Requiem for a Tuesday.
49ers hire Steve Wilks as defensive coordinator
Wilks will spend a year polishing his resume with a playoff team in 2023 and emerge as the frontrunner in the still-ongoing Colts head coaching search.
A.J. Green retires.
Last one out of Arizona please shut off Kyler Murray’s PS5.
Derek Carr visits Saints.
Mickey Loomis throws collection warnings into the fire pit, heads off to the Used Cabin Cruiser Expo.
Aaron Rodgers to determine his future during a “darkness retreat.”
Rodgers must enter a sensory deprivation tank to think thoughts our puny brains cannot imagine, feel feelings none of us will ever be actualized enough to experience and sniff farts none of us are sublime enough to realize smell like the lavender meadows of heaven.
Chiefs Gamer Cornerbacks
Earlier in the week, Walkthrough wrote about Chiefs rookie cornerbacks Trent McDuffie, Jaylen Watson and Joshua Williams. Left on the cutting room floor of that feature: the lads like to hang out and play video games.
“They can’t really touch me on Madden, so they always wanna play something like Call of Duty, because they don’t wanna get thumped too bad,” Williams said of the gaming sessions.
Apparently, McDuffie isn’t always invited. “I heard he’s good at Madden,” he said. “I heard J-Wat’s good at (NBA) 2K. I can’t say anything, because I haven’t played them yet. But when I do, I’ll let you know.”
So Williams is (probably) good at Madden. But who is his team? “I’m loyal to Kansas City when the cameras are on,” he said. “When the camera’s off, I switch it up because I like to be versatile.”
Walkthrough is 99% certain we would whup all of their asses in Civilization VI.
Tomorrow: Jimmy Johnson shares a Super Bowl story, Mike Periera discusses the legality of the tush-push sneak, and more from Phoenix!
Comments
110 comments, Last at 14 Feb 2023, 11:46pm
#7 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 08, 2023 - 2:50pm
I think he's always been popular with the media. Give Trevor Lawrence a year, though, to dig himself from the Urban Mire.
I don't see Burrow as aspiring to be Brady. I see him as aspiring to be Montana.
\No OSU vet wants to be Brady anyway
#9 by IlluminatusUIUC // Feb 08, 2023 - 3:14pm
As a Bills fan, I'd say so. The worst you can say about him is that he takes more sacks than he should (but so does Allen), and that he's had a loaded offense around him ever since LSU (but that shouldn't be held against a QB).
He's elite.
#11 by theslothook // Feb 08, 2023 - 3:54pm
I guess elite is a term that means different things to different people. Elite to me is someone who is a perennial MVP candidate. That restricts the list of "elite" Qbs that I have seen to 5 names: Manning the elder, Brady, Brees, Rodgers, and Mahomes.
Its a lot of fun to debate who slots where and in what order. I think personally, that gets into matters of taste and frankly, roster construction starts to dictate the difference in outcomes far more than their individual abilities. Once you are in that tier, its rarefied air regardless.
Burrow and Allen are not in that tier; yet. And they may never be. Its not a sleight; that's just how hard and rare it is to be one of those guys. That's five names out of hundreds of QBs. I have controversially said this before - an elite QB might be even more valuable than a Superstar NBA player. Of course, the NBA superstar impacts both sides of the ball, but consider just how many NBA superstars there are and how Sports is inevitably about how good you are relative to your competition. At a minimum, I can name about 7 superstars in the nba and that probably can be expanded to 10 if we want to be a bit more generous. 7-10. Currently there is just 1 NFL Elite QB. Perhaps, as ridiculous as it is to say; Mahomes is more valuable to Kansas City's championship equity than Luka Doncic is to the Mavs.
#110 by herewegobrowni… // Feb 14, 2023 - 11:46pm
"Mahomes is more valuable to Kansas City's championship equity than Luka Doncic is to the Mavs."
I get the argument, but LeBron was upon leaving both times literally the difference between the Cavs being nearly the best and nearly the worst team in the league, whereas the Chiefs could probably hover around .500 if not higher with a replacement-level QB.
#62 by Mike B. In Va // Feb 09, 2023 - 9:06am
They're good at different things. Burrow finds the right guy, and can improvise when needed. Allen can find the right guy, but when improvising will do something that will leave you totally speechless, one way or another.
I look forward to seeing the top three in the AFC dueling for a long time.
#2 by DavidL // Feb 08, 2023 - 2:40pm
If the Eagles can be considered an "all-in" team, it's not because they mortgaged their future but because they're making a run right before the roster reaches a natural turning point. Between potential retirements (Kelce, Johnson), expiring contracts for players likely to hit a free-agency payday (CJGJ, Bradberry, Sanders), one-year rentals (Suh, Joseph) and the looming Jalen Hurts extension, they don't really have the option to just run it back next season.
#8 by Pat // Feb 08, 2023 - 2:58pm
Yeah, and the reason I keep calling Philly an all-in team is that they chose this turning point. They brought Kelce, Cox, and Graham back this year. They brought Bradberry in on a 1-year contract and traded for CJGJ without extending him. And they burned the money for Suh and Joseph.
They didn't have to do any of those things. They didn't do anything like that back in '20 when the offensive line fell the *#$!( apart, because it would be pointless. And there's absolutely a cost to all of that, because none of it is paid for in '22 cap.
Also please stop mentioning Johnson retiring, Philly desperately needs Johnson to play like 3-ish years. I'm trying to will that into existence myself. If they can get a few years out of Johnson and go CB/DT/CB in '23 they should be able to thread the needle with only a slight dip in '23 (unless their health is like, perfect).
I also think saying "man, the Rams just fell apart in '22 because they sold themselves out" is naive, too. The Rams had crap injury luck this year. They might've been able to make a decent run in '22 with solid health. That's what going "all in" does - it takes away your margin for error. And Philly also doesn't have margin for error next year. If they crap out on their picks, they're not in good shape in the secondary, and even with solid hits there it's unlikely they'll be as good next year.
Yes, Philly has an advantage over the Rams in that they didn't throw their picks away, and they still have them. You're still talking about a team that drafted JJ Arcega-Whiteside, Jalen Reagor, and Derek Barnett early in the draft. If they bork the '23 draft, they're in trouble.
#10 by rh1no // Feb 08, 2023 - 3:20pm
Sure, the Rams had terrible injury luck this year, but they also had an aging roster that wasn't exactly firing on all cylinders before the injury bug started biting. So I think it isn't necessarily naive to say that the Rams sold out for last year's Superbowl; people were saying it during their postseason run, after all. It's just shorthand for ...
DEEP BREATH
"Trading away your draft capital for a mid-30s quarterback who suffered a broken back two years ago and has a long history of taking big shots and playing through injuries, and then trading away even more draft capital for three months of play from a Hall of Fame linebacker who might very well leave in free agency will severely limit your ability to build depth through inexpensive rookie contracts while significantly narrowing your margin of error, leaving you vulnerable to injuries from your aging stars without any viable replacements left on your roster."
#28 by Pat // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:25pm
The other point here is that I don't think you can include the Stafford trade as going all in. That wasnt a risk. It was the price of admission: they needed to upgrade at QB in their mind, and this was the only way to do it.
Going after Miller or signing OBJ was going all in. Those were luxuries.
#30 by theslothook // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:32pm
That wasnt a risk. It was the price of admission: they needed to upgrade at QB in their mind, and this was the only way to do it.
Is it clear that Stafford is an upgrade over Goff? A year ago, Goff was 20th in DVOA while Stafford was 9th. This year, Goff was 3rd in DVOA and Stafford was 24th. A look over their careers: Stafford has had exactly 1 season in the top 5 in DVOA; Goff now has 3 top 5 DVOA seasons. Jared Goff has been worse than Stafford more often; thats true, but Stafford has also had seasons just like this one besides his rookie year.
If we think about supporting casts, last year Stafford had triple Crown winner Cooper Kupp, Woods/Beckham and Sean McVay as his coach. Jared Gofff had jags. This year, Stafford had a more injured lineup of receivers. Jared Goff had Amon St Brown; a probowler but hardly an offensive player of the year. This year should have erased the narrative that Sean McVay was solely responsible for any and all success Goff may have had.
All that to say, I don't think the world of either player. I never have. I just think the difference in perception is fascinating and largely explained by the fact that Stafford won the SB; and thus the expected utility explosion that followed warped everyone's mind and turned logic into pretzels.
#52 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 7:42am
*I* don't think so. But the Rams did, which is what mattered, and what I was trying to say.
In their mind, it wasn't trading away future years' chances of success for current years, because in their mind, those chances were zero.
#58 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 09, 2023 - 8:58am
Is it clear that Stafford is an upgrade over Goff?
Stafford offered McVay and the Rams a skill-set that they needed -- the ability to make a play work even if the structure or circumstances break down. Stafford can do that and Goff cannot.
Stafford also has arm talent, even when gimpy. Goff, as 2021 pointed out, does not.
Goff does not lead the winning drive in the SB. Stafford was brought in basically to have in circumstances like that, and I suspect the Rams regret nothing. Goff wasn't going to make the 2022 Rams work, either.
#69 by theslothook // Feb 09, 2023 - 9:53am
If the 49ers don't drop a lame duck int in the NFC championship, are we even having this conversation?
I think the narratives around just why Stafford was an upgrade over Goff becomes a thing to invent when we see an event like a SB win. Suddenly, the QB figured out how to win, the team got over the hump, etc etc.
#70 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 09, 2023 - 10:10am
Except McVay talked about why he wanted Stafford, and it was for the things Stafford ended up being able to do to save their season.
Goff had a great season in Detroit. He's really good when the line is healthy, and they have St. Brown and Swift active. If any of those things are missing, he becomes Bad Goff.
Goff in the right situation is spectacular. Goff with adversity is a disaster. He's a barometer for the rest of your team.
#71 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 10:35am
I think the narratives around just why Stafford was an upgrade over Goff becomes a thing to invent when we see an event
It's not about what we see. It's about what the Rams saw. I totally agree with you that from my perspective, at least, the Goff trade looked just absolutely terrible. I think at the time I called it the worst trade I can ever remember.
But the scuttlebutt on the Rams by the end of the '20 season was that McVay had completely soured on Goff as a player, and as much I (and you apparently) think they're wasn't much of a difference between the two, the coach has a lot more info than we do.
#72 by theslothook // Feb 09, 2023 - 10:47am
I don't how much I trust McVay the player scout and evaluator. After all, he knew (or should have known) all about Goff the player. His apparent weaknesses didn't stop him from endorsing Goff publicly nor letting the Gm offer a huge contract extension.
I think if Stafford had thrown that int and played exactly the same this year, McVay might have actually retired
#88 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 12:21pm
Oh, I completely agree. McVay got massively schooled by Belichick in the Super Bowl and I think McVay put all the blame on Goff because he couldn't look in the mirror.
I think people sometimes put way too much weight on how coaches handle elite players and not how they handle limited players. (Honestly, I should've been taking my own advice with regard to Pete Carroll on that).
#105 by LDVfootball // Feb 09, 2023 - 8:22pm
It's not clear at all that Stafford was or is an upgrade over Goff...
Stafford walked into a perfect storm - that kept getting even better after he arrived with the addition of OBJ and Von Miller. The Rams did more in one year to support Stafford than they ever did to support Goff from 2019 to 2020.
... Stafford's ability to work outside of the structure of the offense is overrated. If that "skill-set" existed, he would have found a way to overcome the poor pass pro in 2022 and McVay's stale scheme. Instead, Stafford could not avoid a sack to save his own health and the Rams season.
... Since entering the league, Goff has more passes over 60 air yards than Stafford. See NextGen Stats for the numbers.
... For much of the season, the Lions pass pro was on the same terrible level as that of the Rams OL. At the end of the season, this is how the two lines ranked. By pass block win rate (ESPN Analytics), LA 61% of pass snaps and Lions 60%. By PFF Grade, Lions 63.4 and Rams 62.0. Not much difference at all except for the ability of one QB (Goff) to avoid sacks and thus injury on the way to earning the 3rd best EPA per PASS play for the season (500 minimum snaps).
And, it's not like Goff got much support from the Lions run game. For the season, both the Lions and Rams run game had a negative EPA: Lions -0.070 and Rams -0.062. From Weeks 9 to 18, the Lions rush efficiency was even worse (-0.102). Over that same span, Goff was the #1 QB by Total EPA, and EPA per Pass play. Add bad run game to the things that Stafford could NOT overcome in 2022.
... The game-winning drive in the SB did not consist of a spectacular long pass or off-schedule throw by Stafford. Indeed, before the game-winning drive, there were 3 consecutive drives of "that" and all 3 drives went nowhere, 3-and-out. So, what did McVay do? He had Stafford play the way that Goff was forced to play in 2020. The game-wining drive was a 15-play drive, consisting mainly of short passes. That's all McVay had the "genius" to do in 2020 because the Rams pass pro was vulnerable to the blitz and the GM did not nothing to replace Cooks (the only deep threat on the team). So, yeah, Goff could have led that game winning-drive. And, the result probably would have been the same since the opponent in the SB this time was not a resourceful Patriots D that prepared for both the long and short game, but an overmatched Bengals D that had kept the game close by playing a two-deep shell coverage and kept playing that way even after McVay began throwing under the shell.
That two-deep shell, Fangio-style pass D is the same one that has bedeviled McVay since the Detroit and Chicago games in 2018. In 2022, therefore, it was a revelation to see Goff carve up that soft zone D with short passes, option routes to the backside of the play, blitz adjustments, and deep shots. With McVay and the Rams, it was always (and still is) an either-or proposition --- either the short game or the long game. It's that way because McVay lacks the aptitude to run an offense like Sean Payton or now Ben Johnson. In Detroit, thanks to better coaching, it is becoming clear that Goff was a definite upgrade over Stafford.
#53 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 7:49am
It's because it wasn't really a choice. They felt they had to upgrade at QB, and this was the only option. Trading future success for current success doesn't matter if future success is zero.
Note that I don't *agree* they needed to trade for Stafford, but given the way they treated Goff, it's obvious what their opinion was.
Signing OBJ is a minor effect, of course, just like signing Suh and Joseph was. But it wasn't something they needed to do: they were already contenders.
Put another way, trading for Stafford was like Denver trading for Wilson. The trade automatically puts Denver behind the curve, but I don't think of it as "all in" because it's just the price of admission. It's their penalty for whiffing on Lock (and Lynch), just like it was the Rams' for whiffing on Goff (in their mind).
#18 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 08, 2023 - 4:27pm
The Buffalo Bills were favored over the Cincinatti Bengals primarily because they were starting 3 backup offensive lineman in the divisional round. You can do a lot with backup offensive lineman as long as your QB isn't Carson Wentz.
#23 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:11pm
The Bills played maybe the worst tactical game in playoff history. KC then wrecked Cincinnati's game plan because they kept closing the Cincinnati pocket like a trap.
Even the Rams won some games.
Cincinnati, oddly, has the advantage that there's not a big drop-off to their second string because their starters kind of suck, too.
#79 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:34am
Once again. No. No they did not. If you're talking about 2020, the Eagles offensive line was perfectly adequate even with injuries. They were slightly below average. They were not atrocious. They were not the worst offensive line in the league. They weren't even bottom 10. In order of descending importance for the horrid 2020 offense the culpable factors are: 1. Carson Wentz, 2. Receivers, 3. Offensive Line. But if I had to put weights on those it'd be like 60/20/20.
#84 by theslothook // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:46am
There is a philly fan I follow on Twitter who does deep dives and posts cut ups. He basically concluded by mid season that Carson Wentz himself was playing like the worst QB in football. I pretty much put all the blame on him.
#86 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 12:12pm
The Eagles weren't capable of running the kind of plays that Wentz works well with (which... aren't really plays, they're sandlot-y type stuff).
Was Wentz playing like the worst QB in football? Yes! Of course! But does it make it all "his fault"? No, of course not. It's a football game. If you take a fullback and ask them to run post and fly routes, they'll be amazingly bad. Does it make it his fault? No, it's what you asked him to do.
The entire reason the Eagles got rid of Wentz is that he's super-limited. He's an absolutely great passer on the run, and is a great out of structure QB - meaning, play breaks down, he moves out of the pocket and watches for guys opening up downfield while forcing defenders to keep him accountable. But he's almost robotic in doing so. I feel like he makes the decision to take off before the play happens. So if guys aren't where he expects, the whole thing blows up.
You see this whole "OK QB", "worst QB in football," then "back to OK QB" all the time. Michael Vick. Nick Foles. Jeff Garcia. It's the same thing every time: a limited QB with certain great abilities who goes back and forth between a team that hides his liabilities to one that emphasizes them.
I'm not "forgiving" Wentz at all. I'm saying it was never Wentz in the first place.
#102 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 09, 2023 - 5:39pm
It was 100% absolutely Wentz's fault.
Football is a game of adjustments. Defenses adapt to the latest offensive trends. Offenses respond. Within games, coaches will tweak their scheme to counter their opponent's choices. Patrick Mahomes went from being a gun-slinging YOLO highlight factory to methodically targeting the underneath areas. Josh Allen spent an offseason retraining his mechanics. Joe Burrow adapted his play style to take fewer sacks and throw quicker. Jalen Hurts earns rent every single day.
Carson Wentz refused to adapt. Carson Wentz continues to refuse to adapt. Carson Wentz is not super-limited physically. His limits are mental. He continues to play hero ball on every play. He continues to make the dumb decisions in critical moments over and over and over and over.
It was always Wentz.
#107 by Pat // Feb 10, 2023 - 12:23pm
You're not understanding what I meant by that last point. I'm saying Wentz was never a great QB to begin with. The collapse at OL just turned him into the worst version of himself, the version you never saw before because they were never that limited at OL. Wentz is an off-schedule version of Foles.
You're welcome to disagree that the OL collapsed. Have a blast. You don't need to keep pointing out you disagree. I watched it, you watched it, we saw different things. Whatever.
His limits are mental. He continues to play hero ball on every play.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, but it's worse than that. Mahomes plays hero ball when things break down, but he understands the way the offense works. He knows where a problem's going to come from, and avoids it. That's what makes him great.
The reason Wentz just fooled me (and lots of others) for so long is that he did a lot of that stuff too, but later it became obvious he didn't actually understand any of it. It was just dumb luck. He was making the wrong choices, and it worked. And then in '20, when the rest of the offense was falling apart, it just showcased Wentz's lack of knowledge. Wentz doesn't play "hero ball." He plays "stupid ball."
It's crazy if you go back and watch Wentz's highlights with Philly with that in mind. Sure, you've got the easy reads, or arm strength ones. That's fine. But then you see these off-schedule plays where, like, the entire pocket collapses and Wentz pops out and runs. Except, uh, dude was wide open over to the right. Or a rollout after like five seconds in the pocket and a scramble with a receiver wide open downfield.
The infamous Colts pick-6 shows that off. It's a failed tight end screen and the backside dumpoff gets blown up by the center. It's a screen. Wentz has literally no reason to think or wait. There's nothing for him to do there. There's no hero play he can make in the pocket - it's a sceen, linemen are already downfield. And he's still back there bouncing, being like "what do I do." It's just a total lack of understanding the offense.
Wentz is so weird because he seems like he should be a QB who can lift the rest of a team, because he can dodge a sack, throw on the run, etc. But he can't, because he sucks at anticipating where problems can come from and reading out the play quickly in the first place. So when everything breaks down, he breaks down too.
#85 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 12:02pm
If you're talking about 2020, the Eagles offensive line was perfectly adequate even with injuries.
Yeah, we'll have to disagree on that. I watched the 2020 Eagles. Jason Kelce was talking to the other linemen practically every play. It was a special kind of disaster. They looked nothing like they had in '19 or '21. I think Kelce's been on record saying that he nearly retired after '20 because of how exhausting it was.
Part of the reason they graded okay is because Stoutland's not a dope - you don't ask guys to do what they can't do. But this is like saying "Brock Purdy wasn't terrible when he came back in!" this year. I mean, Brock Purdy had a 100% completion percentage after he came back in! For 4 yards, but hey. Philly's offense in '20 was nothing like '19 or '21 - way less dynamic run game. Much more vanilla. Way more players held in to protect.
That's what good coaches do. They take a bad situation and give it a floor. But they can't give back the ceiling. That's the players, not the coach. Same thing Reid does with QBs. That's why grading is so hard. You only see what the coaches think the players can do, not what the coaches know the players cannot.
Wentz was absolutely a problem, but he was a problem because he couldn't adapt to the situation changing around him. He was always a freelancing, out of structure QB, but he had terrible pocket presence, and now he had an offensive line that wasn't predictable, which is just doom.
Football's not a game that you can "parcel up" blame like that. If someone asked me to "put weights" like you did, I'd look at them like they're crazy. It's not linear. Philly's OL that year was terrible for Carson Wentz. It's exactly the same reason why Nick Foles had success with Philly and none elsewhere. Foles is totally different than Wentz in that he is a structure QB, but he's similar in that he also has totally trash pocket presence. So long as the offensive line was stable and predictable, he's fine.
#104 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 09, 2023 - 6:13pm
If your quarterback's range goes from "fine" behind the number 1 offensive line in the league to taking a sack or throwing an interception on 1 out of every 8 plays behind a below average offensive line, then - guess what - your problem is not the offensive line.
Here's the thing about your spiel on coaching. Those players responded to coaching. When Stoutland says "I only want you to do this." They did it, and only it. Multiple teams asked Wentz to simply check it down. Just throw the ball to the running back. He's the little guy 3 yards in front of you. He's not that hard to find. Instead Carson Wentz chucks the ball into double coverage 40 yards down the field. Or runs around trying to make something out of nothing and gets sacked and fumbles. You can absolutely, 100% assign blame in those cases. Because it was Carson Wentz job to make the right decision.
What was Washington's offensive line like this year? Is it their fault that Carson Wentz threw 56% of the teams' interceptions and took 54% of the teams' sacks on only 42% of the snaps at QB?
#108 by Pat // Feb 10, 2023 - 12:38pm
then - guess what - your problem is not the offensive line.
No, it's both. A better QB wouldn't have collapsed like Wentz did, but they still weren't going anywhere. Again. I don't try to parcel up blame. It doesn't make sense. It's a team game.
Wentz with the '17 OL would've had a ton more success in '20. And a typical NFL QB - say, I dunno, Derek Carr or something - would've been better than Wentz in '20, but not a ton. Not a playoff team, by any stretch.
Saying "it's 60% Wentz, 20% OL" doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand that at all. Wentz is a limited QB. The OL struggles forced him into situations that he's really, really bad at. Saying "Wentz has to adapt!" again, doesn't make sense to me - why doesn't the OL have to adapt? They play the game too!
Again - I'm not defending Wentz. I don't know why that isn't obvious. I'm saying that the OL struggles in '20 exposed him as a limited QB and the Eagles did the right thing in getting rid of him. I don't understand why that's controversial.
What was Washington's offensive line like this year? Is it their fault that Carson Wentz threw 56% of the teams' interceptions and took 54% of the teams' sacks on only 42% of the snaps at QB?
You're missing my criticisms here. I'm not saying Wentz needs a perfect OL. I'm saying Wentz needs an offense for him. Philly had an offense (and team) for him early on, and when that all fell apart in '20, it became (flamingly) obvious Wentz wasn't anything more than Brett Favre at his worst.
#109 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 10, 2023 - 7:20pm
Your viewpoint is non-sensical. Of course it's a team game. Of course you can't win with one player. You need all 53. But it's absolutely ridiculous to claim you can't weight some players as more important to team success than others. How do I know? Because the entire economy of NFL roster management is built around this fact.
Some positions are simply more valuable than others. There's a reason why you don't see anyone outside of David Gettleman drafting running backs in the top-5. There's a reason a team in need of a QB will trade a lot of capital to move up to the top-5 in the draft. There's a reason left-tackles are paid more on average than right guards. That fact is so well-known and obvious that it's built in the CBA. The franchise tag is explicitly tied to a players position!
There's a reason why Tom Moore once explained why the backup QB didn't get snaps by saying "If 18 goes down we're fucked, and we don't practice fucked."
The number one competitive advantage in the NFL is a good to very good QB on a rookie contract. The number two competitive advantage in the NFL is an established franchise QB. Even if he takes up 15% of the cap - if you found your guy it makes up for so many deficiencies and warts elsewhere. It's possible to build a winner with an average to merely very good QB (Stafford's Ram, Howie's 2017 Eagles and maybe 2022 Eagles - but I think Hurts is the real deal), but that's not sustainable. The only thing sustainable is a good coach, an elite QB and a smart front office. Not many teams have that. I think it might be just the Chiefs at this point (I'm assuming Aaron Rodgers is basically done). Maybe the Bengals, maybe the Eagles. Some might argue the Bills, but for me Josh Allen still has the tendency to collapse into his Jameis Winston impression when things go too wrong. The Ravens and Lamar Jackson have shit to work out.
So you can absolutely say it was 60% Wentz and 20% offensive line and 20% receivers. Just like you can probably blame a huge portion of the Broncos this year squarely on Russell Wilson. Obviously some of this is filtered through coaching. The right coach might be able to better manage a diva QB who isn't as good as he thinks he is (see further: Carroll, Pete). But if your QB just goes completely off the reservation, there is almost nothing you can do even with an elite offensive line and weapons galore. And that's what Wentz did in 2020. He flat-out imploded. Not even Kyle Shanahan could've made him look good. Wentz was not the same player in 2020 he was in 2017 - although I agree the disaster artist was lurking in plain sight. Wentz in 2020 was making 8.4% of the cap compared to the 3.4% he was making in 2017. He was also someone whose success turned irrational confidence turned into insufferable arrogance. He got Pederson fired because his feelings were hurt. He wanted the Eagles to trade Hurts. He wanted Howie fired too. He was in short, a complete narcissist who took no responsibility or coaching and who also happened to play like utter dog shit week in and week out. He was paid - handsomely - to be a leader. That was his job. It was not on Doug Pederson to bend over backward to contort his offense and playcalling to appease a 33 million dollar toddler.
"Saying "Wentz has to adapt!" again, doesn't make sense to me - why doesn't the OL have to adapt? They play the game too!"
If you need an elaborately constructed offense to prop your QB up, then you need a new QB. If you think the OL somehow bear equal responsibility for "not adapting" when Wentz refused any responsibility, then, my friend, you might want to seek a therapist. That's the logic of somebody suffering from long-term domestic abuse. Plenty of people were fooled by Wentz even through 2019, but you don't have to keep making excuses for the bad man in 2023.
#16 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 08, 2023 - 4:25pm
Oh look it's Pat again, once again claiming the Eagles 2020 season was so bad because the offensive line was injured. No, Pat, that's not an excuse. I'm not saying their weren't horrible injuries, but what I am saying is that even after all the injuries the offensive line was probably like 18th or 20th best in the league. It's a big drop from #1 to #20, but they didn't drop from #1 to #32. There were at least 10 teams with worse offensive lines.
The Eagles aren't all in. They made a series of prudent, but otherwise cheap moves. Ain't nothing wrong with cheap rentals. When they walk, it's okay. Don't cry because they're gone, smile cause they got you to the Super Bowl. Bradberry is hella cheap for a 1-year rental and way out performing his . I think Howie is going to prioritize resigning CJGJ, but even if not, he cost a few late-round picks (2023 5th, 2024 6th, and 2025 7th). If he does sign a huge contract elsewhere, there's the upside of potential compensatory pick. Suh and Johnson together cost something 4 millions dollars. That's less than 2% of next years cap that you don't get to rollover. Boo hoo. Kyzir White is another cheap one and done who's costing 1% of the 2023 cap.
Those are all the short-term deals that Howie hit on. He also made some bets that didn't pay off. Robert Quinn cost a 4th, but otherwise he cost the Eagles nothing in terms of money. He resigned Derek Barnett to an entirely reasonable contract for a replacement level pass-rusher. He spent a 2024 6th round pick on Josiah Scott.
"And Philly also doesn't have margin for error next year... You're still talking about a team that drafted JJ Arcega-Whiteside, Jalen Reagor, and Derek Barnett early in the draft. If they bork the '23 draft, they're in trouble."
They have plenty of room for error. They have everything you could ever want for a football team: a franchise QB and stability in coaching and the front office. I think only the Chiefs rival them in terms of having a sustainable outlook. Most importantly they understand that roster management (drafting AND free agency) is more about luck and volume than it is about skill. JJAW and Barnett were perfectly reasonable picks at the time. So was Dillard. Reagor was a reach, sure. But in the history of dumb picks, it barely registers. Reagor wasn't even bottom-5 worst picks in the 1st round of that draft - the Raiders alone made 2 picks that were worse! Some moves just don't work out. Other long-shot bets do work out (see further: Mailata, Jordan and Hurts, Jalen).
As far as retirements and replacing guys walking in free agency. Howie will keep bringing Kelce back as long as he wants to play. But they have a replacement already. If not Jurgens might go in place of Seumalo, if Seumalo walks. Cox is done, but the Eagles did right by him and he did right by the Eagles. He's got a great year to go out on - because depth allowed him to stay fresh. They're going to lose Bradberry probably. So that's a CB they'll need (probably 2 with Slay getting old). They might lose either CJGJ or Epps, they've got Blankenship. At DT, they'll probably also lost Hargrave. They'll have Davis, Williams and Tuipulotu. At LB they'll lose either White or Edwards maybe both. They've got Nakobe Dean waiting in the wings. Miles Sanders isn't even worth a mention. Running backs are fungible. Either he comes back cheap or we see more of Gainwell and some late-round rookie.
Like they don't even need to hit on draft picks. There's this thing called "development", it's where your coaching staff works with a guy who has the physical tools, but not the skills. Andre Dillard isn't our backup LT because he sucks, it's because Jordan Mailata got really good. Gannon was DB coach. They've got a stable of young CBs which might produce a breakout candidate.
But between draft picks and development, they don't need a lot. They don't NEED anyone on the offensive line. Even if they lose Johnson to injury or retirement, they'll be fine. With a backup they'll go from #1 offensive line to no lower than #10 thanks to having Mailata, Dickerson and Kelce and most importantly Stoutland. They don't need a QB. They don't need a WR, though picking up a good #3 will be a nice luxury. They don't need a TE. They don't need a RB with that line.
On defense, sure there is more work to do and they might not come back in 2023 as absolutely stacked as this year. But they've got three replacement level or above edge rushers and three DTs. They have a slot CB and one CB and one safety. They've got a solid core.
Injuries happen to every team. The Eagles got extremely lucky this year - even then they had injuries that prompted some of the short term deals (Quinn was brought in as a depth replacement for Barnett, Joseph and Suh signed after Davis got injured). Everybody else in the championship games had terrible injuries somewhere. The Eagles can absolutely get back to the Super Bowl even if they lose most of their free agency and some guys to injury. Especially if other teams keep letting Howie get away with murder by getting great players on cheap deals. 30 other teams could've signed Bradberry.
#81 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:40am
I don't think I put Baltimore in that category, yet. There is a bit more uncertainty in terms of whether they have a franchise QB until Lamar signs a contract.
Buffalo and Cincinnati, sure. I think each of those teams have a little bit more work for the front office than Howie does. But they both have stability at QB and coaching. Baltimore and Pittsburg have coaching and front office, but not necessarily QB.
#17 by Vincent Verhei // Feb 08, 2023 - 4:27pm
The Rams were better in weighted DVOA (-7.8%) than in overall DVOA (-11.0%), which means if anything they were playing better down the stretch after the injuries hit. Obviously that's skewed by the Christmas Day slaughter of Denver (90.7%), but they only had five games with a positive DVOA all season, and three of them came in Week 14 or later. There was no point this season where you could say they had a good roster, and there is no way they were capable of making a decent run.
#26 by Pat // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:21pm
Wait, when were they healthy? They've been losing players all year.
To be fair, this is in comparison to Philly and 21 Rams, who were insanely healthy. I mean, the only player Philly lost this year for the season was Derek Barnett, and that just made them *better*.
#33 by Vincent Verhei // Feb 08, 2023 - 6:28pm
Week 1? Here's their final injury report. Van Jefferson (out) is the only player listed.
The Bills (stiff competition, I grant you) beat them by 21 points.
#37 by Pat // Feb 08, 2023 - 7:18pm
They had already lost at least a rookie for the season at that point. Not sure who else.
Not saying a backup OL would've made the difference in week 1, but it was a pretty steady deterioration through the season. They weren't going to be a Super Bowl contender or anything, but they weren't going to be *this* bad.
#54 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 7:57am
Injury-wise, I mean.
And just because they got better *with* injuries doesn't mean they wouldn't have gotten even better without them. Plenty of teams improve dramatically over a season. Packers, Patriots in that year with the kiddie squad at WR, etc.
All I'm saying is that we look at the Rams and say "they were doomed" but really, they had no margin for error, and they got bit. Philly next year is no different: Kelce retires, Johnson ages, Jurgens struggles, Bradberry/CJ leave and the draft picks replacements struggle, Barnett comes back healthy, and the whole enchilada collapses bad.
Philly's got way more margin than the Rams did, but that's because they traded for Stafford. And it's really hard to criticize how a team gets a QB: it's not like they're available at Wal-Mart.
#6 by Pat // Feb 08, 2023 - 2:49pm
Simple, tangible and easily-attainable thresholds, right? An All-In team is paying heavily for their veteran quarterback, mortgaged some future draft capital (trading away a top pick but later getting one back is hedging a bet, which is the exact opposite of going “all-in”) and is financially leveraging itself for short-term gains at the expense of long-term consequences.
I seriously disagree with this representation of "all in."
Totally agree that the Rams and Saints went very all-in, with extremely little margin for error. But, for instance, the "paper deficit" requirement is just totally wrong. The Browns show a paper cap deficit for next year, but it's totally fake - it's just because they haven't spread Watson's contract, which they will.
As I've said elsewhere, it's much smarter to spread cap forward if you can, because you don't have to use the space, and it'll just cancel the hit you pushed forward.
Philly has the least salary cap flexibility of any team in the league for '23. Period. There are no magic tricks Roseman can do to avoid that. He used all of them in the past few years, definitely in '22. The only 2 non-fully leveraged significant players on Philly's roster are Slay and Johnson.
And Philly does not have the kind of rookie QB that the Cardinals or Bengals do. They don't have a 5th year option on Hurts. It's like Prescott - they have to do something this offseason, otherwise they're fighting the franchise tag, and it's only 2024 that'll stay relatively low.
So how did Philly go all in? Because Fletcher Cox, Brandon Graham, Jason Kelce, James Bradberry, and CJ Gardner-Johnson are all on 1-year contracts, and they're all fully leveraged. Philly literally borrowed approximately $50M from '23-'24 for 2022.
So no, they didn't pull a Rams case and go crazy, and having Hurts and Brown young helps a ton. But without a doubt what they did to build this '22 team will hurt them in '23. No question. I don't understand why this is even controversial. They took a huge risk, and it paid off.
#13 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 08, 2023 - 3:56pm
And Philly does not have the kind of rookie QB that the Cardinals or Bengals do. They don't have a 5th year option on Hurts.
But Hurts didn't lose a year of his rookie contract to injury, like Burrow and Murray did.
#19 by Oncorhynchus // Feb 08, 2023 - 4:36pm
So how did Philly go all in? Because Fletcher Cox, Brandon Graham, Jason Kelce, James Bradberry, and CJ Gardner-Johnson are all on 1-year contracts, and they're all fully leveraged. Philly literally borrowed approximately $50M from '23-'24 for 2022.
My dude, the Eagles paid 64 million dollars in dead money this year! That was 4th highest in the league. They're currently on tap for a measly 27 million in dead money next year.
"But without a doubt what they did to build this '22 team will hurt them in '23. No question. I don't understand why this is even controversial."
It's not controversial. It's dumb. They're in better shape next year from a cap perspective then they were this year.
#22 by Pat // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:08pm
Just regarding cap issues:
This is not correct. You're ignoring the dead money that hits due to void contracts, and a ton of players are in that situation. And Graham, Cox, and Kelce's contracts all expire because they have poison pills: that's how you spread contracts 2 years out affordably.
OTC lists those contracts as active, but they're dead money. Barring resigned players, they'll have 70M dead next year.
edit: for reference, this isn't me spouting. Jason at OTC has listed Philly as the team with the least flexibility in the league next year. Which, like I've been saying all year, is not controversial, and given that they're in the Super Bowl, it wasn't a bad decision.
edit edit: To quantify this, executing poison pill cuts and void years, Philly will have 48 players under contract, $3.5M cap space (going up to $8M around June 1st), and $69.63M dead money in '23 and $29M dead (already) in '24. As a team, their only serious options to increase cap space are to restructure Slay and Johnson which gets them to $31M. This is absolutely not a better cap position than last year, considering they added nearly $27M in free agency last year, around $5M in the draft, and still ended up with $5M+ space. 27+5+5 is greater than 31.
Out of their control, they could conceivably "resign" Hargrave and Seumalo to free up a bit of cap space (because then the $12M/$7M dead won't hit all in '23) - but obviously that depends entirely on whether they can get Hargrave/Seumalo to "resign" to a deal they can afford before they hit free agency. The "resign" is in quotes here because it's not really a resign, it's technically a renegotiation. Can't do that with Bradberry though: his contract is untouchable until it voids.
#14 by rh1no // Feb 08, 2023 - 4:22pm
THIS is the click bait I'm here for!
In his appearance on Brady's Let's Go! podcast, Belichick praised his former signal-caller's ability to see "everything" happening on the field and to find ways to make his receivers better. I think Burrow is similar in both regards.
Burrow improved his time from snap to release this year in order to compensate for the often-shaky play of his offensive line, requiring him to diagnose coverages and make quick decisions. His 2.55-second release ranked behind only Tom Brady. Yet even with this lightning-fast release, he was still accurate enough to claim the NFL record for career completion percentage, bumping future Hall of Famer Drew Brees into second place. That's genuinely insane.
We can't put him in Brady's company when it comes to elevating his receivers yet, as Burrow has been blessed to throw to AJ Green, Tyler Boyd, Tee Higgins, and the absolutely sublime Ja'Marr Chase. But when Chase went down with a hip injury this year and with Joe Mixon lost to a concussion, Burrow set a Bengals record by tossing three TDs in one game to running back Samaji Perine while making defenses respect Trenton Irwin.
Now consider that Burrow lost the last five games of his first season to injury and suffered a ruptured appendix during this past offseason, clearly hampering his throwing ability. This dude is arguably the fastest, most accurate QB in NFL history through his first three years, yet he hasn't even gotten to spend a full offseason healthy and practicing with his team.
He's. Going. To. Get. Better.
#24 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:17pm
he was still accurate enough to claim the NFL record for career completion percentage, bumping future Hall of Famer Drew Brees into second place. That's genuinely insane.
What's insane is that the record had been held by a guy whose career began in 2001.
That might as well be the medieval era by QB completion percentage progression.
#57 by HitchikersPie // Feb 09, 2023 - 8:36am
Yeah, the career cmp%+ leaderboard is more interesting, though may need to be restricted to post merger QBs as though Baugh's accurate I'm not sure it's an equal comparison given the standard of QBs around him at the time.
#93 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 09, 2023 - 2:12pm
I meant mostly from the standpoint that I don't think you can compare stats or have a GOAT discussion across the barrier in a reasonable manner.
Like, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning have gaudy numbers, but Sammy Baugh was also the best DB in the league in some years. Jason Kelce is an amazing center. Is he better than Chuck Bednarick?
We make fun of Lynn Swann, but he played in the deadball era. It was a different game.
#40 by rh1no // Feb 08, 2023 - 8:24pm
No.
In 2021, Burrow led the league in accuracy, yards per attempt, and deep touchdown passes. He was second -- by 0.1% -- in aggressiveness, fitting the ball into tight windows.
In 2022, his yards per attempt dipped from 8.9 to 7.4 but his accuracy dipped, too, as he increased his throwaways to avoid sacks. He fell all the way to 14th in aggressiveness.
These numbers arent flukes, either. He was insanely accurate in college, posting a 76.3% completion rate in 2019, second-best in the history of the NCAA and only the second time any quarterback eclipsed 75%. His game is translating to the pros. He's capable of making scary things happen if Cincinnati ever gets him an offensive line capable of protecting him long enough for plays to develop.
#60 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 09, 2023 - 9:02am
In 2021, Burrow led the league in accuracy, yards per attempt, and deep touchdown passes. He was second -- by 0.1% -- in aggressiveness, fitting the ball into tight windows.
And he took a million sacks.
It's not like we've never seen this before. If you give a QB a bunch of great receivers and make him take all the sacks, he'll generate video game numbers and a ton of highlights, and keep every orthopedic surgeon in the metroplex in new Porsches.
#74 by rh1no // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:10am
Yeah, in 2021, he held onto the ball longer, resulting in one of three outcomes:
- His receivers came open and he was able to connect for a big gain (either long bomb or a short route with lots of YAC against coverage breakdowns)
- He scrambled
- He took a sack
In 2022, he has been much more willing to give up on plays, realizing that the potential gain from outcome #1 or #2 doesn't outweigh the risk of outcome #3, especially given the potential for injury. I touched on that in my comment above, but my main point to refute the ideas that a quick release leads to a higher completion percentage and holding onto the ball leads to more throwaways; neither is true for Burrow over the past two seasons.
#21 by MJK // Feb 08, 2023 - 4:59pm
"We can't put him in Brady's company when it comes to elevating his receivers yet, as Burrow has been blessed to throw to AJ Green, Tyler Boyd, Tee Higgins, and the absolutely sublime Ja'Marr Chase."
Very important point. Being "the next Tom Brady" involves dragging your team to an *almost* AFC Championship while Reche Caldwell is the best WR on your team.
#25 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:20pm
Being "the next Tom Brady" involves dragging your team to an *almost* AFC Championship while Reche Caldwell is the best WR on your team.
Donovan McNabb took Philly to three consecutive NFCCGs with James Thrash and Todd Pinkston as his leading receivers. His next best receiver was Freddie Mitchell, who inspiringly became an NFL WR despite being born without arms.
#27 by theslothook // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:25pm
That's why I continue to shake my head at people who relegate McNabb to Alex Smith. I've already heard at various times: Wentz was better than McNabb ever was. Nick Foles was better and certainly more clutch than McNabb ever was. And now Hurts is ALREADY better than McNabb ever was.
I know this is the NFL which pretends like everyone without a ring but Dan Marino belongs in one group - every qb from Mitch Trubisky to Donovan McNabb apparently are all lumped into one. I know Tanier practically spend a decade homeless and alone on this hill; but I applaud the good fight. For whatever reason; McNabb continues to remain a criminally underrated and undercelebrated figure. I know the Eagles won 0 championships during his era; but they ruled the NFC.
EDIT
He also took the Eagles to the SB without Terrell Owens. Yet another feat thats remarkably absent in everyone's mind.
#32 by serutan // Feb 08, 2023 - 5:44pm
I know this is the NFL which pretends like everyone without a ring but Dan Marino belongs in one group -
Of course. Everyone knows that all other positions are irrelevant and that only the QB is the difference between winning and losing the SB.
I think the only reason Marino gets a pass is the grudging acknowledgement that he put up his numbers before the rules tipped so heavily in favor of offense.
#73 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 10:52am
He also took the Eagles to the SB without Terrell Owens. Yet another feat
Did you forget what the NFC was in 2004?
Philly (23.6% DVOA) beat Minnesota (-4.1% DVOA) and Atlanta (-1.7% DVOA) to get to the Super Bowl. It's the exact same situation people are talking about with Philly's road this year. Getting there isn't exactly some incredible feat.
I also have no idea what you mean by "ruled the NFC." In the early 2000s, the Eagles were one of the better teams in the NFC due to their defense, not their offense. And by the latter half of the 2000s, the Giants were just as much or more of a perennial playoff contender than the Eagles were. Yes, Philly went to a bunch of NFC championship games. '01 and '02, the defense was better than the offense. '03 and '04 he can get credit for, sure (although see above). And '08 again was defense, not offense, which is why the whole "OMG they lost to Arizona" thing wasn't really surprising when you consider the DC was, well, dying.
#75 by theslothook // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:15am
They were the only team in the NFC that made the playoffs that many times. Not even the Packers first with Favre and then with Rodgers did so. They also went to more title games than any team period during the 2000 other than the dynasty Patriots.
You can say it was powered by defense, but plenty of defense first, offense bad teams enjoyed one sugar rush season before disappearing into the morass. You can even say it was due to a pathetic schedule of opponents, but you still need to execute to get there. And the Giants had one season, exactly one, where they were a top 2 seed. The story of the Giants and why they are so memorable with Eli is precisely because they were a middling team in both seasons they won the super Bowl. If anything, it's rather sad that the eagles who were so good for so long did not win the title while the Giants did.
McNabb brought a floor performance to an offense that was basically bereft of skill talent.
Really im marveling at the cognitive dissonance people have with him. I'm not saying he's an all timer, but the way the narratives have spun since his career ended basically paint the story of a game manager who Andy Reid had to navigate with training wheels.
#80 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:37am
They were the only team in the NFC that made the playoffs that many times.
That's because that Philly team crossed eras. The Giants swapped from Collins to Manning, the Cowboys from Aikman to Romo, and Washington... well, who knows what Washington was doing. Plus if we cover the entire NFC we get Favre to Rodgers as well.
McNabb wasn't better than Collins, Aikman, or Favre and wasn't better than Manning, Romo, or Rodgers. He was just better than the trash that those teams threw out there in the middle (or in the case of Green Bay, whatever was going on with Favre in the mid 2000s).
the narratives have spun since his career ended basically paint the story of a game manager who Andy Reid had to navigate with training wheels.
I don't understand why you're confused about this. Calling McNabb "a bit better than Alex Smith" isn't an insult. Smith and Reid went to the playoffs 4/5 years he was there. Yes, McNabb got farther, which is why I said "a bit better." Smith was an above-average QB.
The other thing to note is that McNabb was not a healthy QB. Obviously both the 2005 and 2006 season, but you can't even give McNabb credit for the 2002 season because Philly had a better record without him. AJ Feeley's DVOA in '02 was nearly identical to McNabb's, and Koy Detmer's (!!) was phenomenally better.
Let me be clear on that: in 2002, McNabb played 10 games, and racked up 267 DYAR. Detmer and Feeley played 6, and racked up 205. So why would you give McNabb credit for that year? His backups were better than he was! Which, by the way, almost happened again in 2006.
So why do I say that McNabb's not that great of a QB? Because in 2 years, he was injured and replaced with replacement-level guys, and the replacement-level guys were roughly the same. The only guy McNabb proved he was dramatically better than was friggin' Mike McMahon.
#95 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 09, 2023 - 2:19pm
McNabb was absolutely better than Collins.
As for Aikman, I have a hard time evaluating Aikman. He was absolutely wretched before the Cowboys got All the Players. And once they did, I'm not sure it mattered who the QB was. They had a HoF WR and TE. And they had a HoF RB. They had a HoF O-line. They had a HoVG FB. They had a HoF defense. They had a HoF HC. It's like trying to assess Otto Graham in a vacuum. (he suffocates)
I'm not sure Aikman isn't just Jared Goff, Sr.
#97 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 3:11pm
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that McNabb was worse than Collins over his career. I'm saying early on McNabb wasn't really a better QB than Collins was in New York. Obviously the Giants fell apart and ditched Collins and then were garbage until Manning came along, but that's my point - a ton of the NFC in the mid-2000s were transitioning between QBs, or their QBs fell apart and they transitioned to "bleargh" (lookin' at you, Minnesota, St. Louis, and San Francisco).
I'm probably not giving enough credit to McNabb's rushing ability early on, but I don't think it makes him "absolutely better" over that period.
#101 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 4:34pm
I actually think they were pretty close to equal talent-wise from '05-'09 on average, but Manning was healthier. McNabb was a better QB play-by-play in '05-'06, but he barely played. By the end of the 2000s, Manning was clearly better.
The only year McNabb was pretty clearly better (and healthier) than Manning was 2007. Which, uh... yeah.
#76 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:16am
Donovan McNabb took Philly to three consecutive NFCCGs with James Thrash and Todd Pinkston as his leading receivers.
'03 and '04 are totally McNabb, but giving him credit for '02 is a bit much. The '01-'02 defense was just absolutely great. They made Philly's offense look much better than it was, handing the offense the second-best line of scrimmage to start. Philly's offense was 19th in yards/drive in '02 and third in allowed yards/drive.
I mean, look at the divisional round in '02. The scoring was an interception return TD and 2 field goals until a 35-yard TD to Thrash on 4th and 1. McNabb wasn't bad that day, but when your defense literally outscores your offense for the majority of the game, you ain't the reason they won. I mean, by expected points, the offense was outscored by special teams that game.
#77 by theslothook // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:21am
And yet Tom Brady won super Bowl MVP when the offense scored 13 points.
I see absolutely no revisionist history to that take at all. And my overarching point is when you win the super Bowl, absolutely no one does a retroactive analysis on the events that got you there.
#83 by Pat // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:44am
when you win the super Bowl, absolutely no one does a retroactive analysis on the events that got you there.
No. The entire reason we had an irrational Brady-Manning thread on FO back then was because people were doing retroactive analyses on the events that got them there.
If Brady would've collapsed with Tampa and Belichick would've immediately had success with whatever QB he grabbed, of course people's opinions on Brady would've changed. He still would've been a Hall of Famer because you friggin walk in with those wins, but that would've been a hell of a discussion. And it absolutely would've been 100% valid.
And that's exactly what happened with McNabb. Philly QB passing DYAR in late 2000s/early 2010s, scrambled: 628, 554, 641, 816, 485. Try to find the McNabb years without looking.
#41 by rh1no // Feb 08, 2023 - 8:31pm
It really was something else.
But don't forget that he was throwing to Ja'Marr Chase AND Justin Jefferson. What an insane collection of talent. Just about everyone on that roster went pro.
#49 by Spanosian Magn… // Feb 09, 2023 - 3:57am
It will never stop being insane to me that Jefferson and Chase both essentially walked straight off that team and into the NFL (because Chase sat out 2020) as two of the best receivers in the League. Maybe the two best receivers in the League. No development time needed. Unreal.
And the fact that the QB who threw to them is right up there too... it wasn't some Ken Dorsey situation where a fringy talent got elevated by the five billion NFL Pro Bowl guys around him. No wonder they broke all the records.
I don't really have a point. I just wanted to marvel at that some more. Even among the most loaded college teams in history, that is I unprecedented.
#65 by rh1no // Feb 09, 2023 - 9:08am
No point necessary. Sometimes it's just good to reflect.
I originally was against the Bengals drafting Burrow. He couldn't break into the starting lineup at tOSU and he was not particularly noteworthy in 2018, throwing for 2,800 yards with a 59% completion rate. I figured LSU's success was was mostly due to his supporting cast. Besides, he was a fifth-year player in his breakput season, playing against 18-19 year-olds; surely part of his success was due to age and experience and he would struggle against NFL defenses.
I also thought that the Bengals needed to put together an o-line before drafting a franchise quarterback, otherwise they were going to end up ruining Burrow's career à la Carson Palmer or Ki-Jana Carter.
When he tore his ACL during his rookie campaign, I patted myself on the back for being right and prepared myself for another decade of Bengals futility. And when the Bengals drafted Ja'Marr Chase instead of bolstering their offensive line, I was sure the Bengals were doomed.
Well, I may have been right about Burrow's injury risk, but boy am I glad I was wrong about everything else.
#68 by Aaron Brooks G… // Feb 09, 2023 - 9:45am
And when the Bengals drafted Ja'Marr Chase instead of bolstering their offensive line, I was sure the Bengals were doomed.
Well, I may have been right about Burrow's injury risk, but boy am I glad I was wrong about everything else.
Yes and no. The Bengals lost a Super Bowl because Burrow didn't have time to hit a wide open Ja'Marr Chase because their line collapsed immediately.
#78 by rh1no // Feb 09, 2023 - 11:31am
Yes and no is probably the correct way of looking at it.
I wasnt "wrong" in that my conservative approach to the draft correctly identified the risks of building around Burrow and Chase while ignoring the o-line. Burrow easily could have been injured again last year while taking a record number of sacks. Or he could have developed the same bad habits we've seen from guys like David Carr after getting treated like a punching bag for multiple seasons.
Instead, Burrow has continued to develop his skill set to compensate for poor offensive line play. Having a preternatural connection with Chase has been essential to that development. We can -- and should -- say that poor offensive line play cost Cincinnati the Super Bowl, but the Bengals never would have made it to LA without Burrow and Chase in the lineup. These guys are doing to Cincinnati football what LeBron did to Cleveland basketball, and I really didn't see this much potential in those guys.
#106 by occams_pointed… // Feb 09, 2023 - 9:52pm
They didn't need to have drafted Sewell in round one though.
Run back time and do over and the Bengals take Creed Humphrey in round 2 and Trey Smith in round 4 instead of the Chiefs later drafting those two dudes (and Bengals drafting Jackson Carman and D'Ante Smith)... and Burrow might already have one ring and might be playing for another this Sunday.
They totally screwed up the OL talent assessment and the Chiefs -- who also needed an OL fix -- nailed it. The rest is sad history for us Bengals fans.