How do you like the moves your team has made so far?
41 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?
To me QB play is so reliant on the pieces around them (ie: their teammates), that it’s so hard to judge. Josh Allen didn’t have as good numbers as in the past, but I thought he really could have won the MVP. He had nothing around him. In terms of Seattle and Darnold, he’s a good QB. Yes, he can cost his team games, but he can make enough plays to win some as well. To me, he’s a borderline top ten QB.
I will agree that the good teams weren’t great last year, particularly New England. Their defense was good not great, and their offense had no weapons. I thought the best teams at the end of the regular season were Seattle, Rams, Texans, and Broncos. Texans had awful QB play in the playoffs, Broncos had Nix go down before the AFC championship game and still looked like the better team, and the Rams just couldn’t play enough D to beat Seattle.
I don’t have anything much to add to comparing defenses or teams in general from various seasons or eras. Comparing teams in any sport between eras is impossible. However, do you think this Seattle defense is better than the Carroll Super Bowl teams? Carroll’s one high was incredible with Earl Thomas, but last year’s Seattle defense backs may be even better. It’s close. I think the Cowboys team with Aikman had one of the better defenses especially with Deion. They would rotate their defensive front continuously during games because they were so deep.
Regarding QBs and Josh Allen, specifically, I’m not critical because of his production–it’s more, his decision-making, which I’ve been generally iffy about. Mahomes didn’t really have a great year, but I would attribute that to not having any playmakers and having a tough schedule.
Think back to when Brady, Manning, and Brees were playing. QBs like Rivers, Ryan, Romo, Newton, Russ–these are were the second tier guys. I feel like the 2025 QBs weren’t as good. And in the playoffs–man, the QB play seemed like some of the worst it’s ever been. Stafford was MVP, but he was a bit shaky against the Panthers. I like Darnold, but I feel like he played not to lose in the SB, and Walker really did the work on offense.
I thought the best teams at the end of the regular season were Seattle, Rams, Texans, and Broncos.
If you compared them to the best teams in the last 5-10 years, would any be at the same level? I actually don’t have a clear idea.
However, do you think this Seattle defense is better than the Carroll Super Bowl teams?
I’d go with the LOB. If you look at all three levels, I think the LOB defenses beats the 2025 defense, secondary and LBs at least.
To me, the 2025 defense relies on scheme/coaching–they’re not as talented compared to other great defenses.
The 90’s Cowboy defenses were very good, but I wouldn’t put them in the all-time great category. (I wouldn’t put the LOB, either, but they’re close.)
What is the ideal or even acceptable weight for a RB?
This question interests me because the Seahawks drafted an RB who is listed at 200 pounds (or maybe a little under). How many good backs were durable at this weight? What do you guys think is an good weight to be for a RB? (I’ve looked at the weights of RBs, so I have some thoughts on this, but I’ll wait until later to share them.)
Also, of the RBs I looked up, who was the heaviest and how much did he weigh? (I would be surprised if there is someone heavier than this. And I’m not counting defensive players coming in on special plays–e.g., Refrigerator Perry.)
Also, the guy who is now in second place is somewhat of a surprise. He didn’t come to mind quickly. (Note: I could be missing some of the RBs. Also, I’m mostly listing players who played in our time period. For example, Marion Motley won’t be on the list. But he looked huge so I looked him up. He’s not close to the heaviest on my list.)
My first thought in terms of weight for the average RB is 215 to 220. But everyone in the world is getter bigger, so the better RBs may be slightly bigger now. I think Zeke played at around 220 to 225.
The three names I came up with off the top of my head for biggest RBs were Jerome Bettis, Chris Fuamatu-Maafala (although he may be listed as FB), and Christian Okoye. But I cannot imagine any of these were the heaviest. I’m sure there is an almost 300 pound guy that played.
In looking up the height and weight of many RBs, I would say 220 is not the average or norm. Based on what I saw, I would say the average is closer to between 205-210. And the average height would be 5′ 10.” One way you can tell this is true is when try to guess the height taller RBs. Derrick Henry looks like he’s 6’5″, but he’s listed as 6′ 2″. That surprised me. Christian Okoye seemed really tall as well, but he’s 6′ 1″, which actually may be relatively tall for RBs, but he seems taller than that.
I forgot about Bettis and Fuamatu-Maafala. Bettis is up there, but he’s not the heaviest.
I looked up the top RBs now, and the average cannot be 210ish. Bijan is one of the lowest at 210. Jonathan Taylor is 225. Even McCaffrey is 215. Barkley is 230 something. Gibbs plays at 200 though.
Alstott was a throw-back to the time when FBs were lead-backs–e.g., Riggins or Czonka. Are there any other FBs who were basically the (a) lead back? I think Bettis was listed as a RB, so I guess he wouldn’t count.
I wasn’t just using current RBs, but I went back to older ones as well. There are good ones below 210 (e.g., Sweetness is listed at 200).
But here are some current ones around 210 and below:
Ashton Jeanty–208
De’Von Achane–190
TreVeyon Henderson–202
Chase Brown–210
Bhayshul Tuten–209
Tony Pollard-209
Bucky Irving–195
Aaron Jones–208
Jadarian Price–210 (He was about 200 at the draft.)
I’m not sure if we’ve discussed this before, but I’ve been having conversations about the importance of an offensive coordinator (OC) or coordinators in general. From watching the NFL all these years, my conclusion is that they’re extremely important, particularly if you want to win a SB. Do you guys agree with that? If so, what do you base this on? Also, why do you think the quality of the coordinators is so critical?
For me, I’ve seen the way the addition or subtraction impacts the team. Changes in the roster matter as well, but significant changes seem to occur when there’s a significant difference in the quality of the coordinator. To me, this has happened so many times that it’s almost obvious to me. Do you guys have the same perception?
As for why this matters, I tend to think it has to do with the play calling, as well as play design and game planning. The great coordinators will have plays and a game plan that is really good for a given opponent, and they’ll be match wits, so to speak, with regard to play calling. Do you guys basically agree with that, or is there something else?
Oh, I think with coaches like the Shanahans, Gary Kubiak and Sean McVay, they also know how to teach and implement the zone-blocking system at a level which almost no other coach can match. (Klint might join that group, but he’s never been the coordinator at a team for more than one year, so the jury’s still out on this for me.)
I think it’s weird that someone will argue against the importance of a coordinator. That being said, though how important is situational. I’m guessing you will agree that Bieniemy as the OC of the Chiefs is much less important than Spags as the DC. That’s because Reid might handle the offense. So if that’s the argument, I think it could be valid.
I heard that McVay is doing less and less outside zone runs. I’m guessing when you talk about zone blocking, you mean outside zone, which became famous with Terrell Davis and Shanahan. Dallas with DeMarco Murray was one of the best outside zone running team, I’ve seen outside of Denver. Bill Callahan was the OC during Murray’s best year. He was never a great OC though. He was a great line coach. Even Kyle Shanahan runs less outside zone than he did with Atlanta, it seems.
I’m guessing you will agree that Bieniemy as the OC of the Chiefs is much less important than Spags as the DC.
Yeah, I agree–but I’m not counting those situations. Instead, I’m thinking of coordinators on the opposite side of their HC, who will generally be a former OC or DC. (For someone like John Harbaugh, the DC and OC are important.)
I’m guessing you think these coordinators are important, based on what you’ve seen over the years. That’s basically how I’ve come to see their importance. Generally, I’d say the HC is really dependent on the coordinator on the opposite side of the ball. The HC could be great, but that generally doesn’t matter. For example, Andy Reid is a great coach, but he depends heavily on the quality of his DC.
There are a few exceptions to this, and I would mention Belichick, McVay and Parcells. McVay and Parcells seem great at coaching the coordinator, and maybe Parcells is great at selecting them as well.
I’m guessing when you talk about zone blocking, you mean outside zone,…
Sort of…I would include inside zone blocking as well. When you go back to Alex Gibbs and the Broncos, Gibbs just wanted to use zone-blocking exclusively and there would only be inside and outside zone blocking. I don’t think any NFL offense goes to this extreme now.
By the way, based on the little I know, Gibbs’s ZBS reminds me of Bobby Knight/Rick Majerus style man-to-man offense, where certain rules/principles guide movement of the players and ball–versus set patterns. For this to work, every player has to know how to read and anticipate the situation and act accordingly. In other words, they have to be intelligent.
Dallas with DeMarco Murray was one of the best outside zone running team, I’ve seen outside of Denver
Their outside running was really good, but I feel like the execution was based on a great OL, and it just seemed different from the Shanahan/Gibbs ZBs. With Shanhan (and Gary Kubiak), it’s like the entire run game was one entity. Success for the RB wasn’t so much about ability, but making the right reads, at the right time….I don’t know how to describe it.
Even Kyle Shanahan runs less outside zone than he did with Atlanta, it seems.
I agree with this. I feel like he’s not really a zone-blocking guy now. And I would say the current Falcons team are a better outside zone blocking team–they could actually be the best in the league. (I feel like McVay still utilizes the outside zone runs, but I think he’s doing more power type of blocking as well.)
So, if it is the situation in which the coordinator is the opposite side of the ball as the specialty of the head coach, I’m not sure why there would be an argument against the importance of the coordinator. Basically, I’m in agreement with you. I would think Spags or any good DC would be paramount to the success of the Chiefs, for example.
I didn’t research or know much about the zone blocking scheme, but I always thought the outside zone is much different than the inside zone. However, I would agree in both cases it’s about reading the defense and then reacting by both the linemen and the RB. I thought the outside zone relies on the RB to find its own crease not a specific hole and like in DeMarco Murray’s case, move horizontally until you find the crease you want and then cut and start going vertically, and the inside zone relies on the cut back lanes like Joe Gibbs’ famous counter run play.
With the Cowboys outside zone, my understanding was that it was built around Murray. He was great at planting that foot and hitting the hole going to the outside, versus running in the middle, which requires a different type of explosiveness. The Cowboy o-line consisted of three All Pros in Martin, Frederick, and Tyron Smith, but the other two guys (Free and Leary) were maulers or slow of foot guys. I thought Papa Shanahan’s linemen were always smaller and quicker.
My favorite running play is the outside zone in which the ball is pitched the RB. That is the Terrell Davis special and what Kyle used to run in Atlanta. I rarely see that play used now in general. It seems like it was super effective even in short yardage situations.
… I’m not sure why there would be an argument against the importance of the coordinator.
With the Seahawks, I think some fans believe that the offensive assistants –some retained from Kubiak’s staff and newcomers that Macdonald brought in–are really good and will make the actual OC less important. The theory is interesting, but I’m very skeptical. If this were a viable plan, I would think more defensive HCs would do this. Now, maybe the approach doesn’t work because assembling the assistants who are sufficiently good enough to make this work is generally too difficult. And maybe Macdonald somehow was able to pull this off for 2026. It’s possible, but I’m highly skeptical that this is the case.
I thought the outside zone relies on the RB to find its own crease not a specific hole…
I think this principle is the same for inside zone…I did some reading online about inside versus outside zone. I couldn’t find a lot, but my sense is that in both types of zone blocking, the linemen step laterally, either right or left. Outside zone differs in that the linemen almost sprint to one of the sidelines. With inside zone, the linemen are only stepping to one side…I’m not sure if this is correct, though. (The principles and entire system is really cool, though.)
I thought Papa Shanahan’s linemen were always smaller and quicker.
That’s my impression as well. When Klint Kubiak and John Benton (the Seahawks OL coach) talked about the most important qualities for an O-linemen, they mentioned two traits. Some of the time, they would talk about getting off the ball quickly. Other times they would mention intelligence. For intelligence, I think it involves good vision and processing information quickly. I think it involves understanding the concepts of the run and also the ways defenders can react to it. Again, it reminds me of a passing game offense in basketball. (For that offense to work well, the players have to have this type of intelligence as well.)
My favorite running play is the outside zone in which the ball is pitched the RB.
For whatever reason, those toss plays seem less common, even for offenses running the Shanahan system. I like it as well.
By the way, Mike Shanahan had an interesting wrinkle when he was at Washington (or that’s when I first noticed it). Instead of running outside on a toss, the toss would be used on an inside run.
Have you seen Atlanta’s OL execute the wide zone last year? To me, they looked like the best OL doing this. When they fire off the ball, they not only moving laterally, but they move the LOS one or two yards forward. I like watching them execute that play.
Hmmm, I never even thought about the assistants. I can see the point of the Seattle fans. Kubiak established his style of play and the guys under him can still carry it forward, even though he left. I’m guessing even though Kubiak left, he left some or most of his coaches behind? However, in most cases, the assistants under the OC are built with the OC in mind. In Dallas’ case, Dallas’ OC Adams brought in Conor Riley as his o-line coach because they matched style of play. So that would make the coordinator extremely important at least in the start.
I watched the zone blocking video and got the basic concept. But when I hear of inside zone versus outside zone, the biggest differences are one, the RB in the inside zone scheme is almost always trying to cut back behind the linemen. And two, the inside zone utilizes a double team to get one of their o-linemen to the second level. Actually, thinking about this more, I think maybe what I wrote is a common variation of the inside zone. I believe it’s what McVay likes to run, so maybe it’s not part of the “core principle” of inside zone. The outside zone is more of stretching the defense out to create holes and having the RB decide which hole is viable. That being said though, double teams to one defender to get to the second level is probably a “trick” used in almost all schemes, even gap. But my understanding, it is core to what McVay wants to run, at least in the last two or three years.
I think I said it last year, I thought Atlanta was the best running team in the NFL or maybe second behind the Bills. Surprisingly though, I’m not sure how great an offense they were. They were probably top ten, but they weren’t able to piggyback off the success of their great running game.
I’m guessing even though Kubiak left, he left some or most of his coaches behind?
Two from Kubiak’s staff that he brought in, and others that Macdonald retained from the previous regime. But do you buy the argument that the OC isn’t as important if the assistants are good? I don’t really buy it. One guy has to call the plays. He can have a lot of good input from others, but he ultimately has to have a good understanding of the offense and opposing defense and the specific circumstances in the game.
But when I hear of inside zone versus outside zone, the biggest differences are one, the RB in the inside zone scheme is almost always trying to cut back behind the linemen.
My sense is that inside zone runs are generally supposed to occur between the tackles (hence, inside). If that’s the case. then I would think cutbacks would be more frequent. But a cut back in this case could be right inside of the play side tackle or even TE.
And two, the inside zone utilizes a double team to get one of their o-linemen to the second level.
I think wide zone features double-teams as well. My understanding is that a linemen will double team if there is no defender in front of him, and I think that applies inside and outside zone runs. I’m not sure about that, though.
The outside zone is more of stretching the defense out to create holes and having the RB decide which hole is viable.
I think the first part is correct–the O-linemen are basically sprinting out to one of the sidelines. If they beat the defender that should create a crease to the outside of them. But in inside and outside, the RB has to decide which hole to hit, based on certain cues. There’s no predetermined gap that the RB is supposed to run through.
Again, it’s like Big Ten screening offense, versus a set play.
Surprisingly though, I’m not sure how great an offense they were.
To me, Zac Robinson, Atlanta’s OC, didn’t do a good job of mixing run and pass, and I feel like he get locked into the passing game and neglect the running game. It’ll be interesting to see him in TB this year, because my sense is that Bowles will guide him on this and the offense will be more balanced.
This podcast gave me an understanding of current NFL defensive trends. I don’t have a great understanding of all the terms (e.g., playing a gap and half), but I think I have a broader understanding.
Here’s my understanding of what’s going on, starting with a simple overview of how we got to the present moment.
3-4 approach, which relies on confusing QBs and OCs utilizing for greater schematic variety, is now en vogue and has been for a while
Two things that make the approach different now: 1) offenses have a variety of ways to neutralize blitzes–and by this I mean they can really make defenses pay if the defense blitz too often; 2) defenses must be able to defend spread offensive approach, especially in 11 personnel (3 WRs, 1 TE). My sense is that the DCs out of the LeBeau/Blitzburgh approach can’t work and the Steelers struggled to adjust to this.
Defenses would counter this by going to nickel coverage more often, and also utilizing interior LBs that were better in coverage. These LBs were faster than typical iLBs, but they were also lighter as well.
Many offenses are adjusting by emphasizing the run. Defenses can adjust by having a beefier LB, better in run defense or going to a base defense. But this leaves them vulnerable against the spread offense. DCs can play a cat-and-mouse game with OCs, depending on the personnel groupings.
But there’s another approach that some defenses are turning to. Here’s how I understand it:
First, I think defenses always want to be able to defend against a spread attack. Specifically, they want to eliminate significant mismatches (e.g., a LB guarding a WR or speedy TE). To achieve this, they need better pass defenders in the second and third levels. Generally, this means adding one or two DBs.
But as mentioned above, this can make the defense vulnerable to the run game. I think there are 2-3 ways DCs are achieving this:
The second and third level players have to be really good tacklers, including in the run game. In some cases, this may be more important than man-to-man coverage skills. More on the reason for this later.
To make this viable, the DL, including edge defenders, have to be really good run defenders. Being good at playing the run is almost more important than being a great pass rusher–including for edge players. To me, this is one of the big differences now. My sense is that the reason for this is to keep the second and third level defenders clean–i.e., limit the OL getting to the second level. This makes sense if the defense relies on lighter LBs and DBs. A defense like this may be able to defend a spread attack, but they won’t be able to effective defend the run if the opposing OL is getting on the LBs and DBs quickly and too often.
One other thing that DCs like Mike Macdonald has relied on is a big nickel defender–basically a player that can cover a WR like a DB and defend the run or even rush the QB like a LB. Players like Kyle Hamilton, Nick Emmanwori, and Derwin James.
This may sound OK, but how will the defense pressure the QB if the DL/edge players aren’t great at rushing the passer? I think the answer is ultimately deception, by bringing the pass rush from different positions, and not necessarily blitzing.
To make this work, I forgot to mention two other components: 1) Versatile players–i.e., players that can play multiple positions; and 2) the ability to effectively teaching and installing this type of system, which will almost certainly be complex. On a related note, if the defense is very multiple, that usually means compromising on effort, execution, and fundamentals, at least to some degree. Can the coaches teach such a defense without adversely impacting these elements?
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?
To me QB play is so reliant on the pieces around them (ie: their teammates), that it’s so hard to judge. Josh Allen didn’t have as good numbers as in the past, but I thought he really could have won the MVP. He had nothing around him. In terms of Seattle and Darnold, he’s a good QB. Yes, he can cost his team games, but he can make enough plays to win some as well. To me, he’s a borderline top ten QB.
I will agree that the good teams weren’t great last year, particularly New England. Their defense was good not great, and their offense had no weapons. I thought the best teams at the end of the regular season were Seattle, Rams, Texans, and Broncos. Texans had awful QB play in the playoffs, Broncos had Nix go down before the AFC championship game and still looked like the better team, and the Rams just couldn’t play enough D to beat Seattle.
I don’t have anything much to add to comparing defenses or teams in general from various seasons or eras. Comparing teams in any sport between eras is impossible. However, do you think this Seattle defense is better than the Carroll Super Bowl teams? Carroll’s one high was incredible with Earl Thomas, but last year’s Seattle defense backs may be even better. It’s close. I think the Cowboys team with Aikman had one of the better defenses especially with Deion. They would rotate their defensive front continuously during games because they were so deep.
Regarding QBs and Josh Allen, specifically, I’m not critical because of his production–it’s more, his decision-making, which I’ve been generally iffy about. Mahomes didn’t really have a great year, but I would attribute that to not having any playmakers and having a tough schedule.
Think back to when Brady, Manning, and Brees were playing. QBs like Rivers, Ryan, Romo, Newton, Russ–these are were the second tier guys. I feel like the 2025 QBs weren’t as good. And in the playoffs–man, the QB play seemed like some of the worst it’s ever been. Stafford was MVP, but he was a bit shaky against the Panthers. I like Darnold, but I feel like he played not to lose in the SB, and Walker really did the work on offense.
If you compared them to the best teams in the last 5-10 years, would any be at the same level? I actually don’t have a clear idea.
I’d go with the LOB. If you look at all three levels, I think the LOB defenses beats the 2025 defense, secondary and LBs at least.
To me, the 2025 defense relies on scheme/coaching–they’re not as talented compared to other great defenses.
The 90’s Cowboy defenses were very good, but I wouldn’t put them in the all-time great category. (I wouldn’t put the LOB, either, but they’re close.)
What is the ideal or even acceptable weight for a RB?
This question interests me because the Seahawks drafted an RB who is listed at 200 pounds (or maybe a little under). How many good backs were durable at this weight? What do you guys think is an good weight to be for a RB? (I’ve looked at the weights of RBs, so I have some thoughts on this, but I’ll wait until later to share them.)
Also, of the RBs I looked up, who was the heaviest and how much did he weigh? (I would be surprised if there is someone heavier than this. And I’m not counting defensive players coming in on special plays–e.g., Refrigerator Perry.)
Also, the guy who is now in second place is somewhat of a surprise. He didn’t come to mind quickly. (Note: I could be missing some of the RBs. Also, I’m mostly listing players who played in our time period. For example, Marion Motley won’t be on the list. But he looked huge so I looked him up. He’s not close to the heaviest on my list.)
My first thought in terms of weight for the average RB is 215 to 220. But everyone in the world is getter bigger, so the better RBs may be slightly bigger now. I think Zeke played at around 220 to 225.
The three names I came up with off the top of my head for biggest RBs were Jerome Bettis, Chris Fuamatu-Maafala (although he may be listed as FB), and Christian Okoye. But I cannot imagine any of these were the heaviest. I’m sure there is an almost 300 pound guy that played.
In looking up the height and weight of many RBs, I would say 220 is not the average or norm. Based on what I saw, I would say the average is closer to between 205-210. And the average height would be 5′ 10.” One way you can tell this is true is when try to guess the height taller RBs. Derrick Henry looks like he’s 6’5″, but he’s listed as 6′ 2″. That surprised me. Christian Okoye seemed really tall as well, but he’s 6′ 1″, which actually may be relatively tall for RBs, but he seems taller than that.
I forgot about Bettis and Fuamatu-Maafala. Bettis is up there, but he’s not the heaviest.
I’ll wait a bit to let Mitchell try to guess.
I looked up the top RBs now, and the average cannot be 210ish. Bijan is one of the lowest at 210. Jonathan Taylor is 225. Even McCaffrey is 215. Barkley is 230 something. Gibbs plays at 200 though.
I immediately thought of Adrian Peterson, who’s listed at 6’1″ and 210.
My second guess was Bo Jackson, who’s listed at 6’1″ and 230, which is insane. How did he have that acceleration at that weight?
Anyway, Bo is disqualified because we’re talking about durable backs, and he wasn’t.
I know Mike Alstott was a fullback, but in 1997, 1998, and 1999, he carried the ball 176, 215, and 242 times, with 23, 22, and 27 receptions.
During the same period, Warrick Dunn had 224, 245, and 195 rushes and 39, 44, and 64 receptions.
The argument can be made that Alstott was their RB2 in these years. 🙂 6’1″ 248.
Mark Van Eeghen: 6’2″, 223.
Alstott was a throw-back to the time when FBs were lead-backs–e.g., Riggins or Czonka. Are there any other FBs who were basically the (a) lead back? I think Bettis was listed as a RB, so I guess he wouldn’t count.
I wasn’t just using current RBs, but I went back to older ones as well. There are good ones below 210 (e.g., Sweetness is listed at 200).
But here are some current ones around 210 and below:
Ashton Jeanty–208
De’Von Achane–190
TreVeyon Henderson–202
Chase Brown–210
Bhayshul Tuten–209
Tony Pollard-209
Bucky Irving–195
Aaron Jones–208
Jadarian Price–210 (He was about 200 at the draft.)
I’m not sure if we’ve discussed this before, but I’ve been having conversations about the importance of an offensive coordinator (OC) or coordinators in general. From watching the NFL all these years, my conclusion is that they’re extremely important, particularly if you want to win a SB. Do you guys agree with that? If so, what do you base this on? Also, why do you think the quality of the coordinators is so critical?
For me, I’ve seen the way the addition or subtraction impacts the team. Changes in the roster matter as well, but significant changes seem to occur when there’s a significant difference in the quality of the coordinator. To me, this has happened so many times that it’s almost obvious to me. Do you guys have the same perception?
As for why this matters, I tend to think it has to do with the play calling, as well as play design and game planning. The great coordinators will have plays and a game plan that is really good for a given opponent, and they’ll be match wits, so to speak, with regard to play calling. Do you guys basically agree with that, or is there something else?
Oh, I think with coaches like the Shanahans, Gary Kubiak and Sean McVay, they also know how to teach and implement the zone-blocking system at a level which almost no other coach can match. (Klint might join that group, but he’s never been the coordinator at a team for more than one year, so the jury’s still out on this for me.)
I think it’s weird that someone will argue against the importance of a coordinator. That being said, though how important is situational. I’m guessing you will agree that Bieniemy as the OC of the Chiefs is much less important than Spags as the DC. That’s because Reid might handle the offense. So if that’s the argument, I think it could be valid.
I heard that McVay is doing less and less outside zone runs. I’m guessing when you talk about zone blocking, you mean outside zone, which became famous with Terrell Davis and Shanahan. Dallas with DeMarco Murray was one of the best outside zone running team, I’ve seen outside of Denver. Bill Callahan was the OC during Murray’s best year. He was never a great OC though. He was a great line coach. Even Kyle Shanahan runs less outside zone than he did with Atlanta, it seems.
Yeah, I agree–but I’m not counting those situations. Instead, I’m thinking of coordinators on the opposite side of their HC, who will generally be a former OC or DC. (For someone like John Harbaugh, the DC and OC are important.)
I’m guessing you think these coordinators are important, based on what you’ve seen over the years. That’s basically how I’ve come to see their importance. Generally, I’d say the HC is really dependent on the coordinator on the opposite side of the ball. The HC could be great, but that generally doesn’t matter. For example, Andy Reid is a great coach, but he depends heavily on the quality of his DC.
There are a few exceptions to this, and I would mention Belichick, McVay and Parcells. McVay and Parcells seem great at coaching the coordinator, and maybe Parcells is great at selecting them as well.
Sort of…I would include inside zone blocking as well. When you go back to Alex Gibbs and the Broncos, Gibbs just wanted to use zone-blocking exclusively and there would only be inside and outside zone blocking. I don’t think any NFL offense goes to this extreme now.
By the way, based on the little I know, Gibbs’s ZBS reminds me of Bobby Knight/Rick Majerus style man-to-man offense, where certain rules/principles guide movement of the players and ball–versus set patterns. For this to work, every player has to know how to read and anticipate the situation and act accordingly. In other words, they have to be intelligent.
Their outside running was really good, but I feel like the execution was based on a great OL, and it just seemed different from the Shanahan/Gibbs ZBs. With Shanhan (and Gary Kubiak), it’s like the entire run game was one entity. Success for the RB wasn’t so much about ability, but making the right reads, at the right time….I don’t know how to describe it.
I agree with this. I feel like he’s not really a zone-blocking guy now. And I would say the current Falcons team are a better outside zone blocking team–they could actually be the best in the league. (I feel like McVay still utilizes the outside zone runs, but I think he’s doing more power type of blocking as well.)
So, if it is the situation in which the coordinator is the opposite side of the ball as the specialty of the head coach, I’m not sure why there would be an argument against the importance of the coordinator. Basically, I’m in agreement with you. I would think Spags or any good DC would be paramount to the success of the Chiefs, for example.
I didn’t research or know much about the zone blocking scheme, but I always thought the outside zone is much different than the inside zone. However, I would agree in both cases it’s about reading the defense and then reacting by both the linemen and the RB. I thought the outside zone relies on the RB to find its own crease not a specific hole and like in DeMarco Murray’s case, move horizontally until you find the crease you want and then cut and start going vertically, and the inside zone relies on the cut back lanes like Joe Gibbs’ famous counter run play.
With the Cowboys outside zone, my understanding was that it was built around Murray. He was great at planting that foot and hitting the hole going to the outside, versus running in the middle, which requires a different type of explosiveness. The Cowboy o-line consisted of three All Pros in Martin, Frederick, and Tyron Smith, but the other two guys (Free and Leary) were maulers or slow of foot guys. I thought Papa Shanahan’s linemen were always smaller and quicker.
My favorite running play is the outside zone in which the ball is pitched the RB. That is the Terrell Davis special and what Kyle used to run in Atlanta. I rarely see that play used now in general. It seems like it was super effective even in short yardage situations.
With the Seahawks, I think some fans believe that the offensive assistants –some retained from Kubiak’s staff and newcomers that Macdonald brought in–are really good and will make the actual OC less important. The theory is interesting, but I’m very skeptical. If this were a viable plan, I would think more defensive HCs would do this. Now, maybe the approach doesn’t work because assembling the assistants who are sufficiently good enough to make this work is generally too difficult. And maybe Macdonald somehow was able to pull this off for 2026. It’s possible, but I’m highly skeptical that this is the case.
I think this principle is the same for inside zone…I did some reading online about inside versus outside zone. I couldn’t find a lot, but my sense is that in both types of zone blocking, the linemen step laterally, either right or left. Outside zone differs in that the linemen almost sprint to one of the sidelines. With inside zone, the linemen are only stepping to one side…I’m not sure if this is correct, though. (The principles and entire system is really cool, though.)
That’s my impression as well. When Klint Kubiak and John Benton (the Seahawks OL coach) talked about the most important qualities for an O-linemen, they mentioned two traits. Some of the time, they would talk about getting off the ball quickly. Other times they would mention intelligence. For intelligence, I think it involves good vision and processing information quickly. I think it involves understanding the concepts of the run and also the ways defenders can react to it. Again, it reminds me of a passing game offense in basketball. (For that offense to work well, the players have to have this type of intelligence as well.)
For whatever reason, those toss plays seem less common, even for offenses running the Shanahan system. I like it as well.
By the way, Mike Shanahan had an interesting wrinkle when he was at Washington (or that’s when I first noticed it). Instead of running outside on a toss, the toss would be used on an inside run.
Have you seen Atlanta’s OL execute the wide zone last year? To me, they looked like the best OL doing this. When they fire off the ball, they not only moving laterally, but they move the LOS one or two yards forward. I like watching them execute that play.
Hmmm, I never even thought about the assistants. I can see the point of the Seattle fans. Kubiak established his style of play and the guys under him can still carry it forward, even though he left. I’m guessing even though Kubiak left, he left some or most of his coaches behind? However, in most cases, the assistants under the OC are built with the OC in mind. In Dallas’ case, Dallas’ OC Adams brought in Conor Riley as his o-line coach because they matched style of play. So that would make the coordinator extremely important at least in the start.
I watched the zone blocking video and got the basic concept. But when I hear of inside zone versus outside zone, the biggest differences are one, the RB in the inside zone scheme is almost always trying to cut back behind the linemen. And two, the inside zone utilizes a double team to get one of their o-linemen to the second level. Actually, thinking about this more, I think maybe what I wrote is a common variation of the inside zone. I believe it’s what McVay likes to run, so maybe it’s not part of the “core principle” of inside zone. The outside zone is more of stretching the defense out to create holes and having the RB decide which hole is viable. That being said though, double teams to one defender to get to the second level is probably a “trick” used in almost all schemes, even gap. But my understanding, it is core to what McVay wants to run, at least in the last two or three years.
I think I said it last year, I thought Atlanta was the best running team in the NFL or maybe second behind the Bills. Surprisingly though, I’m not sure how great an offense they were. They were probably top ten, but they weren’t able to piggyback off the success of their great running game.
Two from Kubiak’s staff that he brought in, and others that Macdonald retained from the previous regime. But do you buy the argument that the OC isn’t as important if the assistants are good? I don’t really buy it. One guy has to call the plays. He can have a lot of good input from others, but he ultimately has to have a good understanding of the offense and opposing defense and the specific circumstances in the game.
My sense is that inside zone runs are generally supposed to occur between the tackles (hence, inside). If that’s the case. then I would think cutbacks would be more frequent. But a cut back in this case could be right inside of the play side tackle or even TE.
I think wide zone features double-teams as well. My understanding is that a linemen will double team if there is no defender in front of him, and I think that applies inside and outside zone runs. I’m not sure about that, though.
I think the first part is correct–the O-linemen are basically sprinting out to one of the sidelines. If they beat the defender that should create a crease to the outside of them. But in inside and outside, the RB has to decide which hole to hit, based on certain cues. There’s no predetermined gap that the RB is supposed to run through.
Again, it’s like Big Ten screening offense, versus a set play.
To me, Zac Robinson, Atlanta’s OC, didn’t do a good job of mixing run and pass, and I feel like he get locked into the passing game and neglect the running game. It’ll be interesting to see him in TB this year, because my sense is that Bowles will guide him on this and the offense will be more balanced.
This video seems to provide an easy-to-understand, basic explanation of zone-blocking:
This podcast gave me an understanding of current NFL defensive trends. I don’t have a great understanding of all the terms (e.g., playing a gap and half), but I think I have a broader understanding.
Here’s my understanding of what’s going on, starting with a simple overview of how we got to the present moment.
But there’s another approach that some defenses are turning to. Here’s how I understand it:
First, I think defenses always want to be able to defend against a spread attack. Specifically, they want to eliminate significant mismatches (e.g., a LB guarding a WR or speedy TE). To achieve this, they need better pass defenders in the second and third levels. Generally, this means adding one or two DBs.
But as mentioned above, this can make the defense vulnerable to the run game. I think there are 2-3 ways DCs are achieving this:
This may sound OK, but how will the defense pressure the QB if the DL/edge players aren’t great at rushing the passer? I think the answer is ultimately deception, by bringing the pass rush from different positions, and not necessarily blitzing.
To make this work, I forgot to mention two other components: 1) Versatile players–i.e., players that can play multiple positions; and 2) the ability to effectively teaching and installing this type of system, which will almost certainly be complex. On a related note, if the defense is very multiple, that usually means compromising on effort, execution, and fundamentals, at least to some degree. Can the coaches teach such a defense without adversely impacting these elements?