Mailbag! Falcons! Jets! Dan Campbell! Kickoffs! Aesthetics! Doggos!

Also: Sean Clifford, run-pass ratios, alternate Browns history, Civ VII, coaching trees and far too many other topics and tangents. -

Mailbag is here. Thanks for all of your questions! Let’s get started.

I've always wondered about your views on positional value, especially if taken to a hypothetical extreme. So here's an scenario: imagine you were a GM and had the first pick in a draft and you were given the option of two players to take. One is a kicker, but that kicker is guaranteed to be as good (if not better) and have the longevity of peak Justin Tucker. The other is a QB that has a 50-50 shot at being either Pat Mahomes or Christian Hackenberg (and it's a pure crap shoot). Who do you pick? – Gordon

I’m sorry, did you just give me a 50% chance at Patrick Mahomes?

I’ll take the 50% chance at Patrick Mahomes, unless I am asked to throw in a kidney or something. (Author considers his age and overall physical health.) Scratch that: I will throw in the kidney for a 50% chance at Patrick Mahomes.

If my range of options is the typical first-overall quarterback of the last decade or so – Jameis Winston, Jared Goff, Baker Mayfield, Kyler Murray, Joe Burrow, Trevor Lawrence, Bryce Young, Caleb Williams – I might consider a guaranteed Tyreek Hill or Myles Garrett instead of a quarterback that could have me stroking my beard about a quarter-billion dollar contract in three years.

Having watched a lot of the 2010s Ravens, I cannot imagine prioritizing even a Justin Tucker-level kicker that high.

I thought Russell Wilson was a good season or two away from being an all-time top 10 QB. Was I wrong? And if I was right, has there ever been a QB that good who became this bad so quickly? I mean, this didn’t happen to an old guy. He was still in what we would consider a modern quarterback’s prime, wasn’t he? – Sheepnado.

Wilson was was poised to be a historic figure in football history ten years ago. He was on pace for the Pro Football Hall of Fame as of 2020. He is now a very borderline Hall of Fame candidate who might take years to even reach the finalist stage.

Wilson began his fade around age 32. Ken Stabler was in decline by that age. So was Dan Fouts. Jim Kelly faded rather quickly after age 33. Troy Aikman was heading toward the booth at 31. More recently, Donovan McNabb’s last serviceable year came when he was 33. Boomer Esiason reaches the Pro Bowl for the last time at age 30, and it’s as fluky as Wilson’s berth in 2021.

You emphasized modern quarterbacks. Cam Newton and Jay Cutler were toast by their early 30s. There is Andrew Luck, of course. Matt Schaub vaporized at age 32. Michael Vick’s comeback came at age 30 and he faded quickly after that. Andy Dalton was on the backup trail by age 33. Wilson was better than many of these guys, but he has also held onto semi-competence through last year, when casual observers could be fooled into thinking he was performing well.

We’ve grown so used to long quarterback careers that we have come to assume that it’s common for them to remain effective through their late 30s. This leads to some faulty reasoning. See: Matt Ryan in 2022. It’s tempting to think that Aaron Rodgers and Kirk Cousins will return from injuries and pick up where they left off two years ago, but there’s a high likelihood that both end up having Wilson-in-Denver type seasons, spurred as much by a decline in skills as a change of scenery.

Speaking of which…

What happens if "Super Bowl or Bust" actually succeeds this year, and the Super Bowl features all the NFL's greatest annual punchlines -- the Jets AND the Falcons AND Aaron Rodgers AND Kirk Cousins? – Chillzilla.

Well, the odds on this exact matchup are +13000, so if you are feeling it …

Seriously, it’s not that outlandish a scenario. I just shudder at how the copycat NFL would respond. Can you imagine general managers trying desperately to replicate the success of the 2024 Falcons? Though, when you think about it, the Falcons are really just trying to imitate the 2020 Rams, aren’t they?

Speaking of which:

What are the Falcons doing? Judon and Simmons suggest they're a veteran team looking for pieces to get over the hump. But Cousins is old, coming off a significant injury and has always been better at negotiating contracts than playing football. Drafting Penix instead of more immediate help suggests they know they're not really there yet. – Tracer Bullet

The Michael Penix selection was pure groupthink. You know how decisions-by-committee work: once too many very-smart-and-important people are in a room they become like hands on a ouija board. The Falcons front office org chart is like a serial killer bulletin board. Rich McKay, Terry Fontenot, Ryan Pace, Greg Beadles, Arthur Blank, Ruston Webster and Raheem Morris started babbling to each other about long-range planning and positional value, and next thing you know they are drafting a quarterback for 2026 instead of the edge rusher or wide receiver they really, REALLY needed.

As for Matt Judon and Justin Simmons: the Falcons realize that if they don’t win the NFC South they will be the laughing stock of the league, everyone will get fired and Blank will speed-dial Bill Belichick like a drunk calling his ex at 3 AM. So they are tripling down on their commitment to a 10-7 season. Good times!

Does the NFL need to look at rules changes to return some run/pass balance to game? Because if it’s just about throwing to crazy athletic receivers before linemen kill you, why not just play flag football? – Leo Doench

Here are the percentages of running plays per year over the last few years. I did not filter out scrambles as passing plays, because that is a hassle, but sacks ARE included as passing plays:

• 2023: 42.5% running plays

• 2022: 43.3%

• 2021: 42.1%

• 2020: 41.9%

• 2019: 41.2%

• 2018: 41.2%

• 2017: 42.4%

• 2016: 40.7%

• 2015: 40.9%

• 2014: 41.8%

The data suggests that run-pass rates have been at equilibrium for at least a decade, with perhaps a recent upswing in recent years as more dual-threat quarterbacks have earned starting jobs.

The run rate in 2004 was 45.1%: higher than current rates, but the difference amounts to about 1.4 fewer rushing plays per game. That’s not a change that folks will notice from the couch across 20 years.

The tactical pendulum may already be swinging toward greater balance. The Eagles, Ravens and Lions have all had recent success with run-heavy offenses. Jim Harbaugh believes he can build a run-first team out of the Chargers, and the underpinnings of what he is trying to do are sound, even if his rhetoric is a little loopy. The Raiders also appear committed to a little smashmouth. But “balance” is always going to hover around a 60-40 pass-run split because passing is inherently more efficient. I do not want the NFL futzing with the rules to change that!

Which division is most likely to have all four teams make the playoffs? – Andrew

I could not find a prop bet for this, but here are the DraftKings moneylines (as of Wednesday afternoon) for which division will have the most total wins:

• AFC North: +225

• NFC North: +330

• AFC East: +550

• NFC West: +550

• AFC West: +900

• NFC East: +950

• AFC South: +1400

• NFC South: +1600

“Most wins” and “four playoff teams” are two different ducks, but I would still go with the AFC North, even though I think the Steelers are ready to melt into a soggy lump of irrelevance.

Speaking of which …

It's long been my contention that Jerry Jones as GM automatically spots the opposing team 7 points. Who in your opinion gives a similar sort of advantage, and by how many points? – Dwight Jon Zimmerman

I am starting to worry that Arthur Smith costs his teams several points per game as a gameplanner/playcaller. This is a coach who had an offense featuring Bijan Robinson, Drake London and Kyle Pitts and purposely schemed up gadget plays for Jonnu Smith. He’s like a hyperactive child who breaks a new toy by smashing every button on its controller at once.

Kliff Kingsbury is also a net liability, though I think he and Steve Keim deserve equal blame for the debacle in Arizona, and Michael Bidwill isn’t exactly a model of enlightened stewardship. Kingsbury reminds me of the cad who knocks up the protagonist’s little sister in a telenovela: not a villain so much as a recurring annoyance.

David Tepper might cost the Panthers 14 points per game.

Who, if anybody, should/can the Packers sign to back up Jordan Love? Seems like their current backups aren't ready to step in and give us a shot at winning games if the worst should happen this season. — Indigo_Bunting

Matt LaFleur and Brian Gutekunst don’t appear to value big-name veteran backups very much. Anyone who has watched Marcus Mariota bumble from one begrudging “mentor” job to another can understand why. But Sean Clifford has looked bad for two preseasons, and the camp buzz around him is poisonous. He appears to be the kind of backup who could blow a 10-point second-half lead if Jordan Love had to leave a game for a few series due to a pinkie cramp.

Case Keenum is highly expendable in Houston and still has some game-management powers. Love doesn’t need a mentor per se, but he has never had an earthling in the quarterback room to talk to.

This is the only backup quarterback question I will answer today. I am saving the rest of my thoughts for Backup Quarterback Rankings on September 3rd.

In your experience, what is the number one cause for teams that just appear to be snakebitten – no matter what they do, they cannot figure out how to have sustained success? – Josh R.

I often refer to the Unholy Trinity of franchise mismanagement: a head coach working with a general manager who did not hire him and a quarterback neither decision-maker selected. The Unholy Trinity is turning into a rare phenomenon these days – coach/GM “regimes” are usually bundled – but the AFC East operated under this principle for much of the Brady Patriots era. The Dolphins, in particular, always seemed to be led by a coach and GM playing power games with each other so they could choose a quarterback with which to saddle the next coach and GM.

The Perpetual Coaching Change is another big issue: new coach arrives, blames everything on last coach, brings in “his guys” from his last stop, removes the ping pong table from the locker room (or re-installs it), fails to improve team by Year Two, doubles down on “his guys” and/or fires coordinators, gets fired, a new coach arrives, blames everything on last coach . . . NFL owners and CEOs have the long-term memories of goldfish and can go several cycles before realizing that they are swimming in circles.

QBs aside (because that’s the ultimate troll bait), which unit, offensive or defensive, would suffer a total implosion with one key injury, and to whom? – Tom Burton

Two pop to mind: the Lions receiving corps without Amon-Ra St. Brown’s 119 receptions and the Cowboys pass rush without Micah Parsons’ 14 sacks and 87 pressures, now that Dorance Armstrong and Dante Fowler aren’t screaming off the bench. (I like rookie Marshawn Kneeland, but he’s more like an understudy for Tank Lawrence than an instant contributor.)

The Falcons think they have optimized themselves for a deep (by backyard pool standards) playoff run with Kirk Cousins, but if anything happens to Drake London they will essentially be fielding the 2022 Bears receiving corps.

The Chiefs are completely hosed if Travis Kelce loses a step.

Every year it feels like there is a consensus bottom 8 team and top 8 team that the consensus is flat wrong about. Who do you think will turn it around despite everything looking bleak and who will implode despite everything looking good? Or phrased another way: which team will you be wrong about? – The Austrian

I worry that I have been doing my Justin Herbert bit for so long that I have completely lost perspective about the Chargers. The FTN Almanac has a 6.7 win projection for them, and I often preface that projection by saying, “Remember that this is Aaron Schatz’s DVOA analysis, and he doesn’t let me go into the system and fiddle around.” I can see a scenario where a healthy Herbert leads a ground-’n’-pound Chargers team to nine wins. Unfortunately, the Chargers’ over-under is 8.5, so they don’t really qualify as a “consensus” anything.

Most analysts have the 49ers, Lions, Cowboys and Eagles penciled in atop the NFC, with the Falcons on their own cute little platform. My gut tells me one of those teams will crater. But that may just be the vodka-and-RedBull cocktail of eternal Eagles pessimism and wishful thinking doing the talking.

You used to bag on Dan Campbell. How has your opinion of him changed? What could the Lions be reasonably expected to accomplish this year (assuming decent injury luck, no suspensions, etc.)? – Andrew

I started bagging on Campbell back when he took over the Dolphins after BullyGate in 2015. The Dolphins had a little two-game winning bump when he replaced Joe Philbin, and the fawning was immediate and ridiculous. He hung up motivational posters! He played Metallica in the weightroom! It was dumb tough-guy boilerplate, but many of my colleagues reacted as if they had never seen a new boss do new boss stuff before. The Dolphins soon dipped back into mediocrity under Campbell, and he looked like little more than a Fake Parcells who equated Full Metal Jacket speeches with leadership.

Campbell made himself a target for jokes and criticism, probably intentionally, with his whole “bite your kneecaps” persona when he took over the Lions. There were plenty of times over the first year-and-a-half of his career when he appeared to be all shtick, no substance. He now looks more like a master delegator and facilitator whose tough guy routine isn’t a routine at all. Campbell lets Ben Johnson, Aaron Glenn and Dave Fipp run their departments with near autonomy and interfaces well with Brad Holmes and the front office. Lions decisions come “through” him instead of from him. And players respond to the man behind the Captain Caveman routine.

The Lions are legitimate Super Bowl contenders.

Do you think Andrew Berry/Kevin Stefanski would have stuck with Baker Mayfield but for the involvement of Jimmy Haslam? Do you agree that it’s likely the Browns would be better off if they had resigned Mayfield and hung onto the draft picks they gave up for Watson? – Richard Woollems

The Browns picked up Mayfield’s fifth-year option for the 2022 season in April of 2021. Berry and Stefanski would likely have ridden with Mayfield while evaluating him in 2022. I don’t know how that would have played out. I also don’t know who the Browns would have drafted. The picks they traded to the Texans became (after other trades) Jordan Davis and John Metchie: not exactly instant-impact guys.

The Watson sign-and-trade was a horrendous idea that resulted from horrendous process: an imperial owner overruling his methodical staff and resetting the marketplace on a whim. But the Browns succeeded (by their standards) despite the Watson trade last year. That makes it hard to say with any certainty that they would be better off now with someone like Mayfield. They’re coming off an 11-win season, after all. And they might lack win-now urgency without Watson, which itself is a double-edged sword.

Looking at it another way: the Browns are +600 to win the AFC North. Plug Mayfield in for Watson, perhaps with one or two early-round studs on the roster, and what would the moneyline be? Maybe +550?

After watching the new kickoff method, my reaction keeps vacillating between “this is the dumbest and most misguided attempt at kickoff revision” and “it's unbelievable the NFL came up with a novel and interesting modification.” I guess both could be true, but is it going to the way of the future? – Rick Goddard

I have a hard time really caring about the new kickoff rule.

There were 587 kickoff returns in the NFL last year. There were 1,289 of them in 2013. There were 2,161 of them in 2003. There were almost as many offensive holding penalties last year (578) as kickoff returns. The kickoff was a dead play. It was practically dead air.

The new kickoff looks weird. You know what else looks weird? PRESEASON FOOTBALL. I’m bracing for a lot of fans hating the new kickoffs because they hate change and because “hating” it will make a fun talkshow take. Well, I wasn’t so fond of a de-facto five-minute gap between a touchdown and the next meaningful play, either. And I’m certain that football is better off without maximum-speed collisions on a play that took place when a substantial percentage of the viewing audience was in the restroom.

My only real opinion is that I hope some version of the new kickoff rule trickles down to the high school level. The most brutal injuries I have ever seen in person took place on high school fields. They often involved a bouncing kickoff landing next to some surprised would-be blocker, who stumbles over to retrieve the ball just as two defenders at full gallop crash into him. Kickoffs are dangerous and dumb at lower levels of competition. Let’s try something new.

Before the game, if you shot up NFL coaches with sodium pentothal (you might need an extra large dosage for Jim Harbaugh), how often do you think they'd correctly predict the result of the game? Do you think they all blindly believe they're gonna win each game or deep down do they really know how it's gonna go? – Tommy Ruprecht

Folks with even a milligram of self-doubt don’t end up as NFL head coaches. Any introspective instincts they may possess as younger men are usually suppressed by a powerful combination of money, flattery and sleep deprivation. So yes, most believe that they can coach their way to victory each week. They likely know they are underdogs when they face the 49ers or when they are down to their fourth-string quarterback, but they genuinely think they can even the odds through scheme or motivation. When the facade cracks, they start screaming at their superstars on the sideline or babbling like they just guzzled sodium pentothal during press conferences.

It’s worth noting that most NFL coaches on most Given Sundays have a chance to win, so their overconfidence is not really delusional, though it’s often not really earned, either.

I’m still shocked at the non-coverage/outrage at the Commanders 2023 season tank job. Trading their 2 DEs, basically announcing their pre-dismissal of their GM and HC, losing their last 8 games and getting the second pick overall. Do you see the NFL creating some sort of Draft lottery to prevent the Trust-The-Process-Josh-Harris’s from doing this again? — EG

Did that really seem outrageous and shocking to you? What the Commanders did last year was no different than what baseball teams have done at the trade deadline for decades. If the Commanders had, say, traded Terry McLaurin too or inserted a third-string quarterback, I might have balked. All they did was quit during a messy regime change.

There is no need for a draft lottery in the NFL because — repeat after me — TANKING DOES NOT WORK IN THE NFL. IT NEVER HAS. NEARLY EVERY DECISION MAKER KNOWS THIS, AND IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SERIOUS DEBATE IN NFL CIRCLES.

Yes, there’s rebuilding, trading veterans for draft picks at the deadline and “evaluating the bench” in Week 18. But teams do not “tank” in the sense of purposely giving up on whole chunks of seasons just to move up in the draft order. The Sashi Brown Browns were the only team to try it, and everyone involved was fired in disgrace, on merit.

I know from the DVOA Discord that “Tanking” is a magic word that conjures all sorts of conspiratorial, fantastical thought among fans. Perhaps its a viable strategy in the NBA or MLB. In the NFL, it’s simply not a thing.

In 'rest of the world' sports we often talk about playing in a beautiful, aesthetically pleasing style. And occasionally even putting this on a par with winning. Does anyone talk like this about the NFL? And who would be the most 'beautiful' football team you've watched? – Nick Gould

I cannot imagine anything more antithetic to the language and sensibility of football than the concept of “pleasing aesthetics.” (Except perhaps “tanking.”) Football players, fans and even faux-poetic scribes like me glorify blood, mud, snot, spittle, acrid sweat, foul breath, bruises, welts, broken fingers and thumbs-up gestures delivered from stretchers. Fans are almost reflexively conditioned to respond to a low-scoring fumble-fest in a steady downpour as rEaL FoOtBAlL and at least pretend they prefer it to a 41-38 shootout in an air-conditioned dome. Discussing football’s “aesthetics” is a great way to receive a wedgie that splits your body in half. I wouldn’t even dare do it at the New York Times, an outlet whose writers often find sublime beauty in their innermost navels.

The Buddy Ryan Eagles were the most beautiful team I ever watched. They injured opponents! And themselves! It was like a ballet of aggravated assault! And sometimes they won! That may not be my honest answer, but it’s the one I am confident enough in my masculinity to provide.

When you wrote your annual HOF predictions/discussion, you seem to have had very good contacts that were directly involved in the HOF discussions and/or election and those were a) very interesting and b) the only HOF discussions I ever read because most others were too focused on the big story lines and grievance trolling. Anyway, long way of asking if you still have those contacts and if you will be doing similar stories on this forum. – Kelly Mamer

Thanks for your input! And yes, I hate Pro Football Hall of Fame grievance trolling as much as many of my colleagues love it.

I do still have many excellent contacts, and I hope to reach out and speak to more voters once the finalists are named.

One thing that hampered my efforts in recent years: the Hall of Fame has changed the voting schedule since the lockdown. Instead of meeting during Super Bowl week, the committee meets via Zoom call several weeks earlier. If I don’t talk to my colleagues on the committee early enough, I end up talking to them AFTER the vote, and they are not allowed to reveal anything under penalty of torture. I plan to reach out earlier and devote more energy to the Hall of Fame discussion this year.

Thoughts on the CIV VII reveal? I don't like the age divides they're using/talking about. — Kit Wren

Typically, in Civilization video games, you pick an empire and its leader and play as that combination from ancient times until the near future. So perhaps you play as Julius Caesar and Rome. In antiquity, it feels right. By 1941 or so, even though your “legions” are now infantry, it feels a little strange to still be Caesar of Rome. Play as Teddy Roosevelt and the United States, however, and you spent the Bronze Age bickering with Ramses, knowing that hours of gameplay will pass before your signature units and buildings will appear. Longtime Civ players have grown comfortable with the anachronisms, challenges and inconveniences.

Civilization VII, which will be released two days after the Super Bowl, will sequester leaders and empires within one of three historical eras. After playing as Julius for a while, gamers will be forced to choose an appropriate new leader and empire for their next age. Maybe Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire? Or Theodora of Byzantium? If gamers want to play as the United States, they may have to start as Boudicca of the Celts and move through Queen Elizabeth, or perhaps start as some early North American civilization and move through Tecumseh and the Shawnee. Your AI neighbors advance too, so Ramses might become Saladin. I don’t know all the particulars, and some sound problematic at first blush, but that’s the impression the folks at Firaxis gave.

New empires and leaders come with new abilities and units, so the Civ VII system may be a great way to reinvigorate the late game. Many Civ gamers quit once they realize they are on pace to win or lose, because the last 2-to-8 hours of a game can feel like housekeeping. If your next-door neighbor becomes a powerful war hawk just as your vicious Vikings turn into diplomacy-minded Norwegians, you can’t just kneel out the fourth quarter, so to speak. So I’m kinda jazzed.

Assuming you have or have had them, who was your favorite pet in your life? – Josh R.

Frank the Tank, my current copilot, entered our lives during a particularly rough stretch last year. He’s friendly, obedient and snuggly, with a personality somewhere between a land manatee and a furry indica gummy.

I shouldn’t have to specify “friendly and obedient” about a dog, but Beemo, my troubled fur-teen through the 2010s, was reactive and neurotic. It was like having Harley Quinn live with you, if Quinn were so afraid of thunderstorms that she would tear a bathroom closet door to shreds in search of a place to hide.

Here’s the door she wrecked, BTW.

I cannot list every pet here – some of their names are passwords! – but I recently scanned a photo of my childhood pets Egg McMuffin and Daphne. Muffin was a farm dog with the intelligence of a cinder block. Daphne was a psychopath that someone dumped in my father’s car for their own protection. They eventually grew to respect each other, like mismatched buddy cops. They are not to scale in the photographs below; if they were, Daphne would have been a kaiju.

Photos by Doris Tanier circa 1980

Thanks again for all of your questions, and sorry for those I did not get to!

Photo by Marcus Quigmire via Wikimedia Commons