Trade deadline’s come and gone. And your questions are in …
From fred orr (@clambeaufo): Is Green Bay waving the white flag for this season after not completing a trade at the deadline?
Fred, no, they aren’t. But I am a little surprised they didn’t go the extra mile to get Chase Claypool. The difference in offers was the Steelers’ belief, a fair one, that the Packers will come around and wind up ahead of the Bears in the standings, making the Bears’ second-round pick more valuable. And in the end, Chicago’s willingness to put its own pick, rather than the one it got from Baltimore for Roquan Smith, gave the Bears the edge.
I also think it’s fair to ask whether they could’ve thrown a fourth-rounder in there to make up the difference. My guess is that since the Packers only have five picks in the first six rounds in April, giving up two in that range would’ve been tough.
Eric Hartline/USA TODAY Sports
That said, I don’t think the white flag has been waved. The defense is loaded and will be fine. The offense is where the questions lie, and after talking to coaches who’ve faced the Packers this year, the problems are a little clearer to me. Because Aaron Rodgers, like Peyton Manning before him, isn’t wild about motioning and moving skill players all over the place (so they can get a clearer look at the defense). The Packers are relatively stagnant presnap—which is great, so long as you have guys who can beat man coverage.
Green Bay had that in Davante Adams, and Adams’s presence opened things up for everyone else. Now, Adams is gone, and the Packers don’t have that guy. Claypool might’ve been that guy (we’ll see what he looks like as a No. 1 in Chicago). Odell Beckham Jr., if healthy can be that guy. What about Packers rookie Christian Watson and Romeo Doubs? The hope is they evolve into becoming those sorts of guys.
Will it happen this season? That’ll be a big question, as the Packers consider the idea of Beckham in the coming weeks. Because if you look at where they are logistically, both from a cap and roster-building standpoint, they are still very much all in for right now.
From SandersHines (@Darkshark5326): Why do you think Kareem Hunt didn’t get traded?
Sanders, I think it’s because of a combination of the asking price and supply at the position. Hunt is good, for sure, but it’s just too easy to find competence at running back. Just look at how easy the Bills landed Nyheim Hines—it took a conditional sixth-rounder and a player, Zack Moss, whom Buffalo had on the block for weeks, and that was it. That’s the same Hines, going to Buffalo, who averaged 4.9 yards per carry last year, has two 60-catch seasons on his résumé, and is under contract through 2024.
Likewise, the third-stringer who’d have made Cleveland comfortable with moving Hines, D’Ernest Johnson, was originally acquired by the Browns after playing in the spring of 2019 for the Orlando Apollos of the Alliance of American Football. That league, of course, had its players booted from a team hotel, with all their belongings left for them in a lobby because it couldn’t make payment on its rooms.
So, sure, the fourth-rounder that Cleveland was said to have sought for Hunt doesn’t sound like a lot. But in the grand scheme of things, it’s easy to see where it didn’t make sense for teams to fill a nine- or 10-game need that way, if cheaper options are available. A fourth-round pick, of course, isn’t sure to turn into much of anything. But if you hit on one, you get four years of really cheap service. And the chance to get that isn’t nothing.
From skynyrd991 (@skynyrd991): if Tua doesn't get hurt are the Dolphins 8–0?
Skynyrd, I don’t think so. I think a desperate Bengals team was winning that Thursday-nighter in Week 4 either way. And I think the Dolphins, at best, would have taken one of the next two, those were losses to the Jets and Vikings, based on how the team played and how the opponents were playing at the time. So in that case, they’d be 6–2, rather than 5–3, which is, of course, a pretty big deal in the standings.
Also, an important point: It’s hard to go undefeated—which Miami itself showed Buffalo.
Watch the NFL all season long with fuboTV. Start your free trial today.
From Steve (@sarcasticrye): Over/under on Steelers winning 5 games?
Steve, I’d say, right now, take the over on that number. And I say that acknowledging that, to this point, it hasn’t been great for them. But if you believe that T.J. Watt can come back and be T.J. Watt, and that offloading Chase Claypool will bring real opportunity for George Pickens, and that Pickens can evolve into a star, then I think putting your faith in Mike Tomlin is a pretty safe thing to do, given his track record.
To get to six wins, which would mean finishing 6–11, two-and-a-half games worse than the worst season of Tomlin’s 15 years in Pittsburgh before to this one, the Steelers would have to go 4–5. They rest of the way, they play vs. Saints, vs. Bengals, at Colts, at Falcons, vs. Ravens, at Panthers, vs. Raiders, at Ravens and vs. Browns. Looking at that, I will say it’s pretty tough to come up with the seven wins it’d take to avoid the first sub-.500 year of the Tomlin Era. Four, on the other hand, sounds about right.
And that, to me, should color how the Steelers approach the rest of the season. Developing guys like Kenny Pickett and Pickens should be the priority. The thing about this Pittsburgh team is that if you take a hard look at the starters, it’s not that young a group—Diontae Johnson, Devin Bush, Minkah Fitzpatrick, Watt and, because of the position he plays, Najee Harris, are in the primes of their careers. So it is really incumbent on the brass to get those guys the help they need, by getting the Picketts of the world ready for 2023.
It's a different spot for the Steelers to be in. But it’s also the reality of their situation.
From NFL Trades (@nfl_trades): Why were the Jets so stubborn with trading Elijah Moore
Honestly, Trades, it’s because it’d make zero sense to move him right now. He’s talented. They invested a high second-round pick in him. He’s under contract through 2024. And dealing him off now would harvest, maybe, a fourth-round pick. This for a guy who had 43 catches, 538 yards and five touchdowns in 11 games as a rookie, playing a position where value has been inflated over the past couple of years league-wide.
Charles LeClaire/USA TODAY Sports
I think Robert Saleh, Joe Douglas, Mike LaFleur, and everyone else involved are going to do what they can to get Moore back on board. Since playing time isn’t the issue (he led all Jets receivers in snaps played when the trade request went in), it sure seems like this is about the ball. And with Corey Davis, Garrett Wilson and Braxton Berrios in the building, Moore’s simply not going to get the ball forced his way. So this should give the Jets the chance to confront that reality with Moore, which should help them solve the issue once and for all.
And if it doesn’t? Well, then you probably don’t want the guy around anyway.
From MAKE THROWBACKS PERMANENT (@THROWBACKS4EVER): Should the Miami Dolphins make throwbacks permanent and why is the answer yes?
Yes, Throwbacks, and because they’re awesome.
Here’s a story for you—when I was in elementary school in Massachusetts in the late ’80s and early ’90s, the Patriots were beyond bad. I honestly can’t remember there being many Pats fans in my classes. Everyone sort of picked other teams to root for. So there were Giants fans (a lot of old New England families rooted for the Giants, going back to before the Patriots joined the NFL in 1970), and Cowboys fans and Raiders fans.
And, believe it or not, I remember there being Dolphins fans. too, even though they were in the same division as the Patriots (remember, the Patriots had around 20 years of history playing in the NFL at that point, and a lot of it was embarrassing). Why did a few of my buddies like the Dolphins? Two reasons. One was Dan Marino. The other was the uniforms.
I didn’t like the Dolphins, but those teal Starter jackets were pretty sweet, and the uniforms were even better, and ditching them was a mistake from the start. As any third-grader in 1989 could’ve told you it would be.
From Brian Gushue (@BJGNO12): What are the chances Lumen Field, SoFi Stadium and other venues with turf fields will switch to grass, given many players recently advocating such a move.
Brian, I think the biggest problem in a lot of these venues is the volume of events they host—owners are buying teams and building stadiums at price points where having 10 football games in a major venue just isn’t enough. And if you keep putting boards, seats, body weight, boxing rings, basketball courts and soccer players on top of that grass, that grass won’t make it. So the easy solution in new stadiums like SoFi and even older ones like Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte is to lay the fake stuff down.
That sucks, and not just because some of us are nostalgic for the sport to be played on the surface it always has been. It sucks because there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that it’s caused a rash of injuries—and in particular lower-body, noncontact injuries—that wind up taking great players off the field, which is why the players have been yelling for natural surfaces of late.
Gary A. Vasquez/USA TODAY Sports
This isn’t a problem money can’t solve. The Packers have an incredible hybrid surface that holds up in the Wisconsin winter. Real Madrid’s major stadium renovation included a grow system that literally stores and lights the grass surface underground, so it won’t be affected by other events coming in. The problem there is these solutions are very expensive, very high-maintenance or (and usually) both.
NFL owners would tell you that their ability to maximize revenue helps players in the end and, sure, that’s true. But the football teams are the reasons those stadiums get built in the first place and set the owners up to capitalize in so many other ways, so, to me, the football teams should come first and foremost. And owners should do absolutely everything they can to give their players a first-class working environment, like European soccer clubs (which have to compete with rival leagues for players) do.
From phenomenal_bopper (@truzzthat): Were the Ravens ever interested in a WR at the deadline?
I always think it’s interesting, with questions like this, Phenom, to look at investment. Let’s do that with Baltimore. First, among the team’s six highest cap hits, you have a quarterback (Lamar Jackson), two corners (Marlon Humphrey, Marcus Peters), two offensive linemen (Ronnie Stanley, Kevin Zeitler) and a tight end (Mark Andrews). Among their last five first-round picks, you have a safety (Kyle Hamilton), a center (Tyler Linderbaum), an edge rusher (Odafe Oweh), a linebacker (Patrick Queen) and, yes, a receiver (Rashod Bateman).
So really, every position group except running back is accounted for there, and they took a back in the second round over that stretch. What that should tell you is Baltimore’s always going to balance where they spend their capital. Also, if you look at the highest-paid guys, you’ll see only two came in from the outside—one via a mid-level trade (Peters), the other on a third contract (Zeitler).
The conclusion from there, to me, is simple. The guys the Ravens typically pay at or near the top of the market are uniformly homegrown—outsiders who come in are usually acquired at something of a discount. And that’s where the Ravens’ history in drafting receivers comes into this discussion. Over John Harbaugh’s 15 years, the Ravens have taken three in the first round. One (Breshad Perriman in 2016) was a bust. The next (Hollywood Brown in 2019) had moderate success and was traded. And the jury’s still out on Bateman.
I hope that explains it.
From Chris Gilmore (@CMGilmorePastor): Will Denver be able to fill the void left by Chubb’s exit?
Chris, it won’t be easy. There’s a reason why Denver got so many calls on Bradley Chubb, and it’s the same reason Carolina’s phone was ringing on Brian Burns more than any other player, with the same going for Jacksonville and Josh Allen—having a high-end pass rusher in his mid-20s is one of the most valuable commodities a team can have on its roster. The flip side of that is if you don’t have one, you’re looking. And a lot of teams are looking.
Baron Browning—based on his raw athleticism, and the fact that he’s going through a position switch from college—has a chance to be a pretty good one for the Broncos. But other than that, it at least seems like help will have to come from outside. And the best way to illustrate just how hard it’ll be to find a replacement for Chubb is to take a look at the pick Denver got back.
So let’s say, for argument’s sake, the Chubb pickup gets the Dolphins in the playoffs, which would put the Broncos’ pick in the 20s. If you take the five-year sample from 2016–20, here’s the list of edge rushers drafted in that range: K’Lavon Chaisson, Montez Sweat, L.J. Collier (an inside/outside tweener), Charles Harris, Takk McKinley, Taco Charlton and T.J. Watt. The list is short (the really good ones go higher than that) and is very boom or bust.
Now, I get why the Broncos did it. If you don’t think there’s a long-term deal there to be done with the guy, then it makes sense to get ahead of losing him, with just nine games left on Chubb’s contract. The problem is, that sort of smart planning won’t necessarily get his replacement to Denver. There is, after all, a reason he went fifth in the draft in the first place.
From Pesach Benson (@PesachBenson): What does Taylor Heinicke need to do to take his playing to the next level?
Pesach, at this point, I think we’ve got a pretty decent idea of who Heinicke is. He’s been bumping around the league since 2015—that’s eight seasons—and has 18 starts under his belt. He’s on his fifth team. He’s a good, not great, player, who’s awesome in short stretches but hasn’t proven to have the staying power to be someone’s full-time starting quarterback.
Robert Scheer/IndyStar-USA TODAY NETWORK
You can make a lot of money that way. And the Commanders may well determine he’s the right guy for the rest of this year—if he keeps winning, it’ll be tough to go back to Carson Wentz, particularly with how Heinicke’s seen in that locker room. But the smart money still says Washington, for the third straight offseason, will be looking for a long-term answer at the position come February and March.
From Jeff (@1975Rams): Could and/or should NFL move back the trade deadline & why?
I think it makes sense. The season’s longer now. It helps teams take extra steps toward competing for championships on one end of these bargains, and teams build for the future on the other end. It also could make it easier for teams to move unhappy players, where the extra couple weeks can clarify where teams stand, and will be in January, rather than having those guys stuck (like, say, Brandin Cooks is in Houston).
The only real downside I can think of is that rosters would be in flux later in the year, which creates some instability for players outside of those who are actually traded. Other than that, I’m not sure what would stop you from moving it back a couple of weeks.
From Zach Fogelman (@FogelmanZach): Were you surprised to see the Panthers turn down the Rams’ offer? Also was it shocking to not see the Rams make a move and will they make a splash in the offseason.
Not really, Zach. As we mentioned over the weekend, the Rams put together a monster offer for Brian Burns. And getting two first-round picks (and then some, in this case) would be awfully enticing. The trouble is that the first of those picks would be in 2024, and who knows who’ll be running the Panthers at that point, and the Rams have been consistently good enough to at least create the fear that the picks in both ’24 and ’25 could be very low, in the late 20s or even 30s, in the round.
At that point, you have to ask yourself the question—would I rather have a 24-year-old pass-rusher who’s already dominant and hasn’t come close to reaching his ceiling yet, or two low first-rounders and another pick? Hell, Burns is young enough that he probably wouldn’t even be that much older than those rookies coming in. And then, there’s the reality that he’s under contract for another year and a half, so there’s no rush to move him anyway, especially while you’re in organizational flux.
That’s also enough to explain why the Rams would want to do the deal, at those terms, in the first place. It’s very much the same as the Jalen Ramsey deal from three years ago. The picks the Jaguars got in the deal turned out to be Chaisson, Travis Etienne and (after a trade up in the fourth round) Jordan Smith. Ramsey was, yup, 24 at the time of the trade, did a long-term deal in L.A., and is still a core piece for the team now at 28. So Burns was going to be this year’s version of that, a young foundational piece added for the now and the future.
Add all of it up, and to me it makes sense that the Rams offered what they did, and that the Panthers turned it down. Now, we’ll see if Carolina can get him signed long-term.
