How do you like the moves your team has made so far?
22 thoughts on “2025 NFL Offseason/2026 Pre-Season”
Raiders
With regard to Klint Kubiak, I’m more on the positive side, especially with the move to get Linderbaum(?) at C. Kubiak mentioned that the C is the most important position, in terms of the zone scheme (or at least that’s what I recall; and he may have been referring primarily to the most important OL position for zone blocking).
I also like the Kirk Cousins signing.
The bigger concern I have has to do with Brady’s involvement–namely, is he a) meddling in ways he shouldn’t and/or b) does he have the knowledge to do well as an executive. Additionally, is he “dabbling” as a quasi-GM/president? A part of me wishes he either take a full-time executive roll, or keep greater distance from the team.
Seahawks
I’m concerned about the loss of Kenneth Walker and his eventual replacement. I haven’t seen him a lot, but I’m meh on Emanuel Wilson, the Packer FA they signed. (Same with Najee Harris, as a potential RB they bring in.)
But Brian Fleury, the new OC, is the bigger question mark. If he’s really good–if he can get the entire offense to execute the zone-blocking system really well–similar to the Shanahans or Gary Kubiak–I’d be less worried about the RB position. But this is asking a lot, and I doubt he’ll be that good.
Fleury is a Shanahan disciple. Yet he was last a tight end’s coach. I wonder if a tight end coach ever jumped up to become an offensive coordinator.
Other than defensive coordinator Parker, which we touched on prior, Dallas’ two biggest acquisitions are Jalen Thompson, safety from Arizona and Rashan Gary, defensive end from the Packers. Cowboy insiders seem really happy with Thompson. I think generally speaking the Cowboys were more active in this free agency then in the past.
As far as the draft, I’m hoping the Cowboys trade back at least one of their first-round picks and maybe even both depending on how it plays out. Insiders got the Cowboys picking an interior linebacker, which can be done later in the first round or the second. If Sonny Stiles, interior linebacker at OSU, is on the board when Dallas picks at 12, I’m thinking most want the Cowboys to pick him.
Oh Ben Johnson. But he went from TE coach to OC, while staying with the Lions. In this case Fleury went from TE coach to OC while switching teams. I feel like that’s a big difference. These coaches must all know each other pretty well, so maybe it’s not that big a stretch. But from the outside looking in, there are questions on how one knows a TE coach can be an OC.
Osa Odighizuwa was a very good player. But he didn’t do well last year, but really nobody did on Dallas’ defense. I hope he does well with the Niners. He’s seemed like a great guy on top of being a good player.
To me, the bigger factor is the level of demand/interest in Fleury from other teams. I think he was interviewed for the Patriots HC job (or maybe OC for them, I can’t recall), but my sense is that he wasn’t really a hot commodity. To me, that’s a bigger concern. Along similar lines, the hot commodities were already taken by the time the Hawks went looking for candidates. So Fleury might have been the best option, relative to a small pool of relatively lackluster candidates.
He’s seemed like a great guy on top of being a good player.
That may be, but I’m hoping he doesn’t do so well.
The Cousins signing is one of those seemingly rare cases where it looked like it made sense to everyone involved, and everyone suggested it should happen, and then it did happen.
I’m still not a fan, but after The Quarterback on Netflix, I have to admit I find myself rooting for the guy to do well. The non-football stuff in his segments were of least interest, but the football segments — especially the cerebral focus on preparation with Kevin O’Connell — really impressed me.
Every season I pick a team that could come out of nowhere to make the playoffs, and the Raiders seem like they could be that team. They have so many needs, but I don’t think it’s out of the question for a few WRs to find their hands and a next gear.
…and the Raiders seem like they could be that team.
Some Raider fans made optimistic comments like that last year, too, and I felt like they were building unrealistic expectations. The organization has been bad for a long, long time, and the roster wasn’t good. Anything near .500 would have been an achievement to me, especially if they often played well. Although the roster seems better this year, I feel the same way.
I really like Cousins, and I really like the move to sign him. I just hope the OL is a lot better this year.
Will you guys be happy with the Mendoza pick? There are two schools of thought when it comes to selecting a QB early. One is to wait and not pick a QB until the team is ready for one—meaning you build the supporting cast first. The other is to take the QB as soon as you have the chance, because you never know when you’ll have a high draft pick again.
The confidence level of the said QB is the key to me. In other words, how much uncertainty do the GM, scouts, coaches have over the QB? If there’s a strong consensus and confidence, I think picking the QB is the right move, regardless of what the roster is like. I would oppose passing on a QB like this, in order to focus on the roster, even if the roster has a lot of holes.
How confident are the Raiders that Mendoza will pan out? I have no idea. If there are significant question marks, though–if the assessment relies on too much projection–I would support trading down, especially if they can build in the trenches.
In general, top 5 or even top 10 picks, regardless of the position, should be almost surefire (or as close to surefire as can be) good starters with relatively high-ceilings. And if there are no players like this, the team should trade down.
My position on the draft is well known. I think it’s a dice roll. But of course, in the top half of the first round you want sevens, and the consensus seems to be that Mendoza, while not surefire, is close to seven with a few caveats. IF Kubiak can teach him to throw to the middle of the field, IF Mendoza can be comfortable under center, IF the Raiders don’t rush him, IF Cousins can mentor him (I’m all in on this one factor, actually), IF they can put some pieces around him in the next season or two.
I’m optimistic in pretty much all areas of life, but football has taught me to temper expectations (which is weird, because once upon a time I was skeptical about their drafting Marcus Allen and Tim Brown). So, so, so many things could go wrong, but it’s hard not to think of Kubiak plus Cousins plus Mendoza as anything but a high-ceiling possibility.
Here’s a related question. With the advantage of hindsight, are the Colts happy they drafted Andrew Luck, and are the Rams happy they drafted Jared Goff (think about it!)?
Hmmm, I think my gut reaction would have been both teams are not happy with their decision. Luck left at the top of his prime, and Goff was thought not to be “good enough” to win it all. But both had a good amount of success, with Luck being arguably a top five QB and Goff going to be a Super Bowl. All that being said, I think I’ll lean not happy, but it’s closer than my initial reaction.
I’m not sure about where you’re going with Luck, but with Goff, I’m guessing you’re thinking he lead to them getting Stafford. Therefore, the Rams would be happy drafting Goff.
The Rams trading Goff for Stafford got them to a championship. Drafting Goff appears to have been a good move, right?
Luck took over for a Hall of Fame legend, one of the best quarterbacks of all time. He changed the personality and look of the team while keeping the fanbase interested and the team relevant. The injuries were rough, but injuries can happen to anyone.
While Luck didn’t take the Colts to a Super Bowl, he seemed to the next-best thing, which is keep the team competitive and in contention for most of his time. I’d say the Colts are happy with what they got from Luck.
My position on the draft is well known. I think it’s a dice roll. But of course, in the top half of the first round you want sevens,…
Wouldn’t you want sevens for any first round pick? Or do you mean, in the top half of the first round, expecting more of a homerun is more reasonable?
I’ve thought of the dice-roll question in this draft, specifically because the Seahawks have been drafting at the end of the rounds. And according to pundits, this isn’t a very good draft. Put those together and the players that would most likely be available for the Seahawks at 32 were players with serious question marks. To me, in that type of situation, “dice roll” seems like an appropriate descriptor.
But when a team has a clean evaluation on a player (i.e., no red flags), I wouldn’t call this a “dice roll.” The evaluation can prove wrong, an injury can occur, or the player may not pan out for another reason. So there is some chance involved; there are no guarantees, but I would say these player panning out is greater than 50/50.
What is weird though, there seems to be a lot more scrutiny on players, and I feel like the number of busts haven’t significantly declined. I think just the history and background of why previous players were busts (ie: physical traits, off field problems, not loving football, not enough reps against high level talent, etc) would give the leg up to today’s GMs.
What is weird though, there seems to be a lot more scrutiny on players, and I feel like the number of busts haven’t significantly declined.
Assuming what you say about busts is true (and I’m not sure it is), besides evaluation, teams need to know the type of player they want–for their scheme and culture, and they have to be disciplined in choosing these players over other players who may be more sexy. Relatedly, upside and physical traits can be seductive. But choosing too many players like this, especially if their skill and production have been lackluster, can lead to a lot of bad picks. Personally, I don’t like using first round picks on players like this, but I think some (many?) teams don’t mind doing this.
I read an approach to predicting wins that I really like. Instead of examining each game and determining a won or a loss, this approach ascribes a percentage to winning for each game, and then totals up each of the percentages (after being converted into decimals) to get to expected wins.
I’m going to try that with the Seahawks and Raiders.
Seahawks
Week 1 vs. New England: 60%
Week 2 @Arizona: 80%
Week 3 @Washington Commanders: 70%
Week 4 vs. Los Angeles Chargers: 50%
Week 5 vs. San Francisco: 50%
Week 6 @Denver: 50%
Week 7 vs. Kansas City: 50%
Week 8 vs. Chicago: 60%
Week 9 vs. Arizona: 80%
Week 10 @Las Vegas: 80%
Week 11: BYE
Week 12 @San Francisco: 60%
Week 13 vs. Dallas: 60%
Week 14 vs. New York Giants: 70%
Week 15 @Philadelphia: 50%
Week 16 vs. Los Angeles Rams: 50%
Week 17 @Carolina: 70%
week 18 @Los Angeles Rams: 40%
10.2 wins.
This seems a little low for me. I think I would guess somewhat between 11-12 wins.
Raiders
week 1 vs. Dolphins 60%
week 2 at Chargers 40%
week 3 at Saints 60%
week 4 vs. Chiefs 40%
week 5 at Patriots 30%
week 6 vs. Bills 30%
week 7 vs. Rams 10%
week 8 at Jets 50%
week 9 at 49ers 30%
week 10 vs. Seahawks 10%
week 11at Broncos 40%
week 12 at Browns 60%
week 13 Bye
week 14 vs. Chargers 40%
week 15 vs. Broncos 40%
week 16 vs. Titans 50%
week 17 vs. Cardinals 60%
week 18 at Chiefs 40%
6.9 wins. This seems pretty close. Maybe if things really improve 10 wins is doable…I think I would be 9 wins as the ceiling.
You gave the Seahawks only an 80% chance to win and a 10% chance for the Raiders to win in the head-to-head. I know these numbers are picked in a “vacuum”, but I would think the counter number or the percent chance the other team wins should be in line with each other, no?
You also gave the Seahawks a greater chance to win in San Fran then you did at home in their two games. That’s an odd take.
… but I would think the counter number or the percent chance the other team wins should be in line with each other, no?
You’re right. I just wasn’t thinking about the percentage I listed when I did the SEA schedule.
You also gave the Seahawks a greater chance to win in San Fran then you did at home in their two games. That’s an odd take.
The simple explanation is that I initially put both games at 50%, but then I thought 60/40 would be better–but I just randomly changed the numbers without looking at home and away games.
I want to bring up two topics that I’m wary of bringing up to other NFL fans, especially Seahawk fans and those who value analytics. (I believe Mitchell really values analytics, but I feel comfortable bringing this up with him.
First, I felt like the NFL had a down year last year in terms of overall quality. For example, the very best 2025 teams would be worse than the very best teams of some other seasons. I think I mentioned this before, but I can’t remember. Do you guys share that impression?
By the way, the first thing that comes to mind is QB play. Interestingly, there seems to be many solid-to-good starter QBs, which has been kind of rare in other seasons, but a lack of truly great QB play. For example, Josh Allen is a phenomenal talent, but for a really good QB, his performance is a bit shaky. I’d say the same with Lamar (and he seems to be slowing/breaking down a bit). This is especially true when thinking about the playoffs. How many QBs do you think would perform at a high level in the playoffs–i.e., make the handful of difficult/important throws/plays and also protect the football? In terms of ball security, a lot of the playoff QBs were pretty bad I thought.
Who were the QBs that you’d expect to perform at a really high level in the post-season? The number wouldn’t be high. I’d be even uncertain with someone like Stafford.
(If it’s not obvious, I didn’t want to discuss this with Seahawk fans because it would sound like I’m diminishing their success, which it kind of is, but that’s how I honestly feel.)
Second, if the overall quality of the league is better in some seasons, then doesn’t this make comparing teams over time problematic when relying on statistics? The statistics of a given team is based on the opponents they faced in a given season. If every season can vary, in terms of overall quality, then comparing teams or players across seasons can be an apples-to-oranges comparison. Or is that wrong?
Here’s another thing: How does one assess the overall quality of the league, especially via a quantitative method? Can it be done? I feel like there’s a circular problem with using stats here. If I say the 2025 Seahawks D was great, that’s based on the 2025 opponents. But if the 2025 offenses were not as good as 2024 offenses (or any other season), that would lessen our opinion of the Seahawks D. But the 2025 offense is based on the quality of the 2025 defenses. See what I’m getting out?
I feel like the eye-test is the only way to get out of this problem. Somehow the individual has to calibrate and adjust when comparing teams across different seasons. This is really problematic as well, as the eye-test and memory can be highly unreliable. The individual needs knowledge of Xs and Os as well.
By the way, I thought this topic when someone tried to compare the 2025 Seahawk defense to other great defenses in the past. Statistically, I think the 2025 Seahawks D was better, statistically, than the 1979 Steelers. Do I think that? No way. Then again, how reliable is my understanding of the 1979 Steelers defense? If I watched their games now, there’s a chance I could change my mind, because I know a lot more now than I did then. But I would be surprised if I did change my mind.
Also, this person mentioned that the 1988(?) Vikings were better than the 2025 Seahawks. I recall the Vikings had a very good defense in the mid-to-late 80s (those teams that went to the playoffs with Tommy Kramer). I recall one unit having quite bit of INTs as well. But there’s no way I would consider them in the same class at the 1985 Bears or even the 1986 Giants (or one of those Giant defenses around that time). I’d probably put some of the 49er and Redskin defenses ahead of those Viking defenses. Same with the Saints Dome Patrol defense But maybe this is an error on my part?
Raiders
With regard to Klint Kubiak, I’m more on the positive side, especially with the move to get Linderbaum(?) at C. Kubiak mentioned that the C is the most important position, in terms of the zone scheme (or at least that’s what I recall; and he may have been referring primarily to the most important OL position for zone blocking).
I also like the Kirk Cousins signing.
The bigger concern I have has to do with Brady’s involvement–namely, is he a) meddling in ways he shouldn’t and/or b) does he have the knowledge to do well as an executive. Additionally, is he “dabbling” as a quasi-GM/president? A part of me wishes he either take a full-time executive roll, or keep greater distance from the team.
Seahawks
I’m concerned about the loss of Kenneth Walker and his eventual replacement. I haven’t seen him a lot, but I’m meh on Emanuel Wilson, the Packer FA they signed. (Same with Najee Harris, as a potential RB they bring in.)
But Brian Fleury, the new OC, is the bigger question mark. If he’s really good–if he can get the entire offense to execute the zone-blocking system really well–similar to the Shanahans or Gary Kubiak–I’d be less worried about the RB position. But this is asking a lot, and I doubt he’ll be that good.
Fleury is a Shanahan disciple. Yet he was last a tight end’s coach. I wonder if a tight end coach ever jumped up to become an offensive coordinator.
Other than defensive coordinator Parker, which we touched on prior, Dallas’ two biggest acquisitions are Jalen Thompson, safety from Arizona and Rashan Gary, defensive end from the Packers. Cowboy insiders seem really happy with Thompson. I think generally speaking the Cowboys were more active in this free agency then in the past.
As far as the draft, I’m hoping the Cowboys trade back at least one of their first-round picks and maybe even both depending on how it plays out. Insiders got the Cowboys picking an interior linebacker, which can be done later in the first round or the second. If Sonny Stiles, interior linebacker at OSU, is on the board when Dallas picks at 12, I’m thinking most want the Cowboys to pick him.
Ben Johnson is only one that comes to mind. Maybe Mike Tice, but I think he was a TE, and not sure if he coached TEs.
How do you feel about the Cowboys trading that DT to the Niners? He seemed like a solid player.
Oh Ben Johnson. But he went from TE coach to OC, while staying with the Lions. In this case Fleury went from TE coach to OC while switching teams. I feel like that’s a big difference. These coaches must all know each other pretty well, so maybe it’s not that big a stretch. But from the outside looking in, there are questions on how one knows a TE coach can be an OC.
Osa Odighizuwa was a very good player. But he didn’t do well last year, but really nobody did on Dallas’ defense. I hope he does well with the Niners. He’s seemed like a great guy on top of being a good player.
To me, the bigger factor is the level of demand/interest in Fleury from other teams. I think he was interviewed for the Patriots HC job (or maybe OC for them, I can’t recall), but my sense is that he wasn’t really a hot commodity. To me, that’s a bigger concern. Along similar lines, the hot commodities were already taken by the time the Hawks went looking for candidates. So Fleury might have been the best option, relative to a small pool of relatively lackluster candidates.
That may be, but I’m hoping he doesn’t do so well.
The Cousins signing is one of those seemingly rare cases where it looked like it made sense to everyone involved, and everyone suggested it should happen, and then it did happen.
I’m still not a fan, but after The Quarterback on Netflix, I have to admit I find myself rooting for the guy to do well. The non-football stuff in his segments were of least interest, but the football segments — especially the cerebral focus on preparation with Kevin O’Connell — really impressed me.
Every season I pick a team that could come out of nowhere to make the playoffs, and the Raiders seem like they could be that team. They have so many needs, but I don’t think it’s out of the question for a few WRs to find their hands and a next gear.
Some Raider fans made optimistic comments like that last year, too, and I felt like they were building unrealistic expectations. The organization has been bad for a long, long time, and the roster wasn’t good. Anything near .500 would have been an achievement to me, especially if they often played well. Although the roster seems better this year, I feel the same way.
I really like Cousins, and I really like the move to sign him. I just hope the OL is a lot better this year.
Will you guys be happy with the Mendoza pick? There are two schools of thought when it comes to selecting a QB early. One is to wait and not pick a QB until the team is ready for one—meaning you build the supporting cast first. The other is to take the QB as soon as you have the chance, because you never know when you’ll have a high draft pick again.
The confidence level of the said QB is the key to me. In other words, how much uncertainty do the GM, scouts, coaches have over the QB? If there’s a strong consensus and confidence, I think picking the QB is the right move, regardless of what the roster is like. I would oppose passing on a QB like this, in order to focus on the roster, even if the roster has a lot of holes.
How confident are the Raiders that Mendoza will pan out? I have no idea. If there are significant question marks, though–if the assessment relies on too much projection–I would support trading down, especially if they can build in the trenches.
In general, top 5 or even top 10 picks, regardless of the position, should be almost surefire (or as close to surefire as can be) good starters with relatively high-ceilings. And if there are no players like this, the team should trade down.
My position on the draft is well known. I think it’s a dice roll. But of course, in the top half of the first round you want sevens, and the consensus seems to be that Mendoza, while not surefire, is close to seven with a few caveats. IF Kubiak can teach him to throw to the middle of the field, IF Mendoza can be comfortable under center, IF the Raiders don’t rush him, IF Cousins can mentor him (I’m all in on this one factor, actually), IF they can put some pieces around him in the next season or two.
I’m optimistic in pretty much all areas of life, but football has taught me to temper expectations (which is weird, because once upon a time I was skeptical about their drafting Marcus Allen and Tim Brown). So, so, so many things could go wrong, but it’s hard not to think of Kubiak plus Cousins plus Mendoza as anything but a high-ceiling possibility.
Here’s a related question. With the advantage of hindsight, are the Colts happy they drafted Andrew Luck, and are the Rams happy they drafted Jared Goff (think about it!)?
Hmmm, I think my gut reaction would have been both teams are not happy with their decision. Luck left at the top of his prime, and Goff was thought not to be “good enough” to win it all. But both had a good amount of success, with Luck being arguably a top five QB and Goff going to be a Super Bowl. All that being said, I think I’ll lean not happy, but it’s closer than my initial reaction.
I’m not sure about where you’re going with Luck, but with Goff, I’m guessing you’re thinking he lead to them getting Stafford. Therefore, the Rams would be happy drafting Goff.
The Rams trading Goff for Stafford got them to a championship. Drafting Goff appears to have been a good move, right?
Luck took over for a Hall of Fame legend, one of the best quarterbacks of all time. He changed the personality and look of the team while keeping the fanbase interested and the team relevant. The injuries were rough, but injuries can happen to anyone.
While Luck didn’t take the Colts to a Super Bowl, he seemed to the next-best thing, which is keep the team competitive and in contention for most of his time. I’d say the Colts are happy with what they got from Luck.
I agree with those thoughts.
Mitchell said,
Wouldn’t you want sevens for any first round pick? Or do you mean, in the top half of the first round, expecting more of a homerun is more reasonable?
I’ve thought of the dice-roll question in this draft, specifically because the Seahawks have been drafting at the end of the rounds. And according to pundits, this isn’t a very good draft. Put those together and the players that would most likely be available for the Seahawks at 32 were players with serious question marks. To me, in that type of situation, “dice roll” seems like an appropriate descriptor.
But when a team has a clean evaluation on a player (i.e., no red flags), I wouldn’t call this a “dice roll.” The evaluation can prove wrong, an injury can occur, or the player may not pan out for another reason. So there is some chance involved; there are no guarantees, but I would say these player panning out is greater than 50/50.
What is weird though, there seems to be a lot more scrutiny on players, and I feel like the number of busts haven’t significantly declined. I think just the history and background of why previous players were busts (ie: physical traits, off field problems, not loving football, not enough reps against high level talent, etc) would give the leg up to today’s GMs.
Assuming what you say about busts is true (and I’m not sure it is), besides evaluation, teams need to know the type of player they want–for their scheme and culture, and they have to be disciplined in choosing these players over other players who may be more sexy. Relatedly, upside and physical traits can be seductive. But choosing too many players like this, especially if their skill and production have been lackluster, can lead to a lot of bad picks. Personally, I don’t like using first round picks on players like this, but I think some (many?) teams don’t mind doing this.
I read an approach to predicting wins that I really like. Instead of examining each game and determining a won or a loss, this approach ascribes a percentage to winning for each game, and then totals up each of the percentages (after being converted into decimals) to get to expected wins.
I’m going to try that with the Seahawks and Raiders.
Seahawks
Week 1 vs. New England: 60%
Week 2 @Arizona: 80%
Week 3 @Washington Commanders: 70%
Week 4 vs. Los Angeles Chargers: 50%
Week 5 vs. San Francisco: 50%
Week 6 @Denver: 50%
Week 7 vs. Kansas City: 50%
Week 8 vs. Chicago: 60%
Week 9 vs. Arizona: 80%
Week 10 @Las Vegas: 80%
Week 11: BYE
Week 12 @San Francisco: 60%
Week 13 vs. Dallas: 60%
Week 14 vs. New York Giants: 70%
Week 15 @Philadelphia: 50%
Week 16 vs. Los Angeles Rams: 50%
Week 17 @Carolina: 70%
week 18 @Los Angeles Rams: 40%
10.2 wins.
This seems a little low for me. I think I would guess somewhat between 11-12 wins.
Raiders
week 1 vs. Dolphins 60%
week 2 at Chargers 40%
week 3 at Saints 60%
week 4 vs. Chiefs 40%
week 5 at Patriots 30%
week 6 vs. Bills 30%
week 7 vs. Rams 10%
week 8 at Jets 50%
week 9 at 49ers 30%
week 10 vs. Seahawks 10%
week 11at Broncos 40%
week 12 at Browns 60%
week 13 Bye
week 14 vs. Chargers 40%
week 15 vs. Broncos 40%
week 16 vs. Titans 50%
week 17 vs. Cardinals 60%
week 18 at Chiefs 40%
6.9 wins. This seems pretty close. Maybe if things really improve 10 wins is doable…I think I would be 9 wins as the ceiling.
You gave the Seahawks only an 80% chance to win and a 10% chance for the Raiders to win in the head-to-head. I know these numbers are picked in a “vacuum”, but I would think the counter number or the percent chance the other team wins should be in line with each other, no?
You also gave the Seahawks a greater chance to win in San Fran then you did at home in their two games. That’s an odd take.
You’re right. I just wasn’t thinking about the percentage I listed when I did the SEA schedule.
The simple explanation is that I initially put both games at 50%, but then I thought 60/40 would be better–but I just randomly changed the numbers without looking at home and away games.
I want to bring up two topics that I’m wary of bringing up to other NFL fans, especially Seahawk fans and those who value analytics. (I believe Mitchell really values analytics, but I feel comfortable bringing this up with him.
First, I felt like the NFL had a down year last year in terms of overall quality. For example, the very best 2025 teams would be worse than the very best teams of some other seasons. I think I mentioned this before, but I can’t remember. Do you guys share that impression?
By the way, the first thing that comes to mind is QB play. Interestingly, there seems to be many solid-to-good starter QBs, which has been kind of rare in other seasons, but a lack of truly great QB play. For example, Josh Allen is a phenomenal talent, but for a really good QB, his performance is a bit shaky. I’d say the same with Lamar (and he seems to be slowing/breaking down a bit). This is especially true when thinking about the playoffs. How many QBs do you think would perform at a high level in the playoffs–i.e., make the handful of difficult/important throws/plays and also protect the football? In terms of ball security, a lot of the playoff QBs were pretty bad I thought.
Who were the QBs that you’d expect to perform at a really high level in the post-season? The number wouldn’t be high. I’d be even uncertain with someone like Stafford.
(If it’s not obvious, I didn’t want to discuss this with Seahawk fans because it would sound like I’m diminishing their success, which it kind of is, but that’s how I honestly feel.)
Second, if the overall quality of the league is better in some seasons, then doesn’t this make comparing teams over time problematic when relying on statistics? The statistics of a given team is based on the opponents they faced in a given season. If every season can vary, in terms of overall quality, then comparing teams or players across seasons can be an apples-to-oranges comparison. Or is that wrong?
Here’s another thing: How does one assess the overall quality of the league, especially via a quantitative method? Can it be done? I feel like there’s a circular problem with using stats here. If I say the 2025 Seahawks D was great, that’s based on the 2025 opponents. But if the 2025 offenses were not as good as 2024 offenses (or any other season), that would lessen our opinion of the Seahawks D. But the 2025 offense is based on the quality of the 2025 defenses. See what I’m getting out?
I feel like the eye-test is the only way to get out of this problem. Somehow the individual has to calibrate and adjust when comparing teams across different seasons. This is really problematic as well, as the eye-test and memory can be highly unreliable. The individual needs knowledge of Xs and Os as well.
By the way, I thought this topic when someone tried to compare the 2025 Seahawk defense to other great defenses in the past. Statistically, I think the 2025 Seahawks D was better, statistically, than the 1979 Steelers. Do I think that? No way. Then again, how reliable is my understanding of the 1979 Steelers defense? If I watched their games now, there’s a chance I could change my mind, because I know a lot more now than I did then. But I would be surprised if I did change my mind.
Also, this person mentioned that the 1988(?) Vikings were better than the 2025 Seahawks. I recall the Vikings had a very good defense in the mid-to-late 80s (those teams that went to the playoffs with Tommy Kramer). I recall one unit having quite bit of INTs as well. But there’s no way I would consider them in the same class at the 1985 Bears or even the 1986 Giants (or one of those Giant defenses around that time). I’d probably put some of the 49er and Redskin defenses ahead of those Viking defenses. Same with the Saints Dome Patrol defense But maybe this is an error on my part?