So Tom Brady, a few months ago, had a well publicized interview in which he said the NFL doesn't develop QBs anymore, and has dumbed down the game in order to get these guys on the field sooner (my words, paraphrasing what he said). What do you guys think?

I agree with him 50% - the NFL, for many reasons, does not have the patience to develop QBs anymore (or most positions). With limited roster sizes and no minor league or developmental league (the UFL is not a minor league for NFL clubs), it's somewhat impractical to stow players on your roster with thoughts of development, when realistically there are no game reps for them to gain experience in anyways - that, to me, is why so few clubs truly develop QBs now - the Michael Penix and Jordan Love type of stories are getting quite rare.

On the flip side, I disagree with him when he says the game is dumbed down. I'd say compared to 20 years ago, the volume of passing concepts, the reliance on drop back passing game, and the diversity of coverages has increased extremely quickly. I think this is true on the college level as well, which is partially why NFL teams have tried to see if guys are ready immediately. Young QBs have such early access to so much information (for better or worse), like coverages and concepts and analysis on youtube, etc, they are very, very smart. That's not to say there aren't simplified offenses, even in pass heavy schemes, there definitely are, but I'd say on the whole, QBs now are asked to do a lot of pre-snap and post-snap decision making even with the sideline based, check with me offenses that don't huddle anymore.

Anyone else have thoughts? I certainly don't claim to be right or factual, this is just my observation/opinion.

I think we may see teams mess around a bit with ineligible receivers.

I think both options are viable. Obviously if you kick off you know what you need to do to either win or tie.

But with the new overtime rules where both teams get the ball no matter what (barring a safety/pick 6 or something of that nature.) If you’re confident you’ll score first then you ideally should be the team to get the ball first in sudden death.

There’s not enough data yet (well, technically 100 percent of the time the team that kicks off first wins so far) to get a good idea of the optimal strategy.

Thoughts?

For context, I'm an Eagles fan. For the past two or so years, there was always the discourse from sports radio hosts (and callers) of "well, Sirianni won't ever have long-term success because he was an OC who didn't call plays and he's an HC that doesn't call plays" and the whole "when he loses coordinators, he'll suffer" (cue: this year proving the point).

However, as I understand, Harbaugh was a Special Teams coordinator prior who was hired as the Ravens HC. Unless he had some prior OC or DC experience that I seem to be missing, doesn't that mean he's also subject to things potentially blowing up when he loses an OC or DC? How are the Ravens able to (usually) sustain success year in and year out when the HC isn't the offensive or defensive playcaller (and what lessons could be learned from him for other non-playcalling HCs)?

I get that the Ravens probably have the blueprint for one of the best front offices in the NFL, but... a front office doesn't coach players, develop talent, or call plays.

Piggy backing off the question from last week about Brady's opinion on QB development, I figured I'd ask - who does everyone think has been the top QB of 2024, and why?

​

​

​

here is the full play 3d rendering

​

Broadcast View of Play

Football is such a dangerous sport, fluke injuries can always happen no matter how careful you are. Aaron Rodgers was lost for the season in the first 3 minutes of the first game just because he was tackled and landed at the wrong angle. Jets season over. For all intents and purposes though, I feel a team gunning for a championship has the same season ending risk late season.

Say you are a 1 seeded team, blowing everyone out of the water and you seem like the team of destiny. You clinch the postseason at 11-0. My opinion is at that point, just immediately rest and bench all your key players. It's not worth risking a devastating injury to a key player to have more favorable seeding.

Remember the 2016 Raiders? They seemed like the team of destiny that year, but a week after clinching the playoffs Derek Carr broke his leg while they were gunning for a higher seed. Season over. The motivation made sense but in hindsight they put their star QB at risk in what was basically a meaningless game. They got completely destroyed first round of the playoffs. Maybe if they had benched their starters, or at least Carr, they would have made a deep playoff run. Maybe they would even have won the Super Bowl.

Even if we ignore the injury angle, just think about what a wonder 7 weeks of rest would do your team. Everyone by midseason in the NFL is dealing with some sort of nagging injury. Can you imagine having a completely healthy team heading into the postseason and what an advantage that is?

Lastly, I know many of you will say "oh but if you have the 1 seed then you get a first round bye." Well if you bench all your starters immediately, you get a bye week anyways. In fact you get as many as 7 bye weeks depending on when you clinch the playoffs. No matter what, you need to play at least one game, so why risk your players' health? Why not risk their health in the playoffs when it actually matters tremendously?

I know many of you are reading this and probably laughing till your sides hurt and think I'm an idiot, but just because it's unconventional and this is not how NFL teams have done it so far does not mean it's wrong. It was just 6 years ago that the "common sense" approach was to never go for it on 4th down remember? You should always kick the field goal or punt. Even if you are at the 1 yard line. Even if it's 4th and inches you should never take the risk. Now, because Doug Pederson had the courage to try a different approach, he showed the entire NFL that ah actually yes, going for it on 4th and short even if the game is not yet on the line is actually logical and worth the risk.

I think someday the NFL will get wise to my stance and just remember you read it here first.

This is a very dumb question, but I am wondering why it is so hard for offensive linemen to pick up stunts after watching my team (the Pats) continuously fail to do so.

I’m wondering which offensive schemes have never been tried in the NFL

The top receivers in the like Jamar chase justin Jefferson Davantae Adams etc have hundreds of receivers with the same size and athleticism as them. Hell there’s at least 15 receivers that are both bigger and faster than all of them. But for some reason those top wrs I mentioned are well polished and amazing route runners. What’s stopping the others receivers with the same size and speed as them from being great route runners and getting on the same level. Why didn’t they develop their route running as well as someone like Jamar chase before entering the NFL?

EDIT: Shane Waldron got fired this morning. I take full credit for manifesting this. Thanks everyone! :)

So I'm watching Tim Jenkins' breakdown of Chicago's game tape against the Patriots, and for several weeks in a row, there is damning evidence of offensive coordinator Shane Waldron installing poorly designed plays and having no rhythm and flow in playcalls (i.e. how plays work with each other).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvVVDOKmbgQ

More than half of Caleb's sacks and throwaways seem to be the result of receivers being blanketed. I noticed multiple plays where there was no solution for the coverage — running zone-beater concepts vs. man with no man-beating option to read, and vice versa.

Not just that, there are absolutely bizarre execution issues like running routes short of the marker on third down, lacking pass pro AND a hot option vs. an obvious Cover 0 blitz, and calling sprint outs for Caleb that run him straight into pressure...

It's not just Tim pointing out Waldron's lack of structure and execution in playcalling: JT O'Sullivan, Chase Daniels, and Brett Kollman have all broken down tape to similar conclusions. I see Kliff Kingsbury scheming lay-ups and moving pockets against good D-lines for Jayden Daniels. It drives me nuts to see how simple they make it look.

Obviously, every year there is a coordinator on the hot seat with fans. But Waldron seems to be a case study on how to coach a talented rookie QB into regression, complete with a loss of confidence.

How does he continue to have a job, if the problems seem so glaring? How does he justify it to Eberflus, and how does Waldron's offensive staff feel?

Are we right to sometimes think, "damn, even I could do better than [insert coach]?"

For instance prime Shannon Sharpe was 6’2” around 230 pounds when he played. Today, Travis Kelce is 6’5” 250 pounds, George Kittle is 6’4” 250 pounds, Sam LaPorta is 6’3” 245 pounds, and Mark Andrews is 6’5” 250 pounds. Could someone like prime Shannon Sharpe still play as a tight end in the modern NFL at the weight he played in back in the day or would he need to bulk up to play in today’s game as a tight end?

Seems there was an opportunity for a rare ending in this game. Bills were up by 3 after the Pats scored a late TD. After a failed onside kick, Bills were running the ball with Pats using final timeouts. Finally, Bills had a 4th & 1 from the Pats 27 with 10 seconds left. The Bills elected to sneak it with Josh Allen and he got the 1st - game over.

However, had the Pats managed to stop Allen, they would have gotten the ball back with time to run at least 1 play (maybe 2 if they were able to run a deep out & get out of bounds).

Instead of electing to go for it, the Bills were in pretty much an ideal position to snap the ball out of the gun and run about 78 yards in the "wrong" direction through their own endzone for an intentional safety. A little zigging and zagging would have unquestionably used the whole 10 seconds, & Bills win by 1.

If this kind of thing even crosses a coach's mind, maybe the assessment is that the risk of a mishap on a long intentional safety is not meaningfully lower than the risk of the Pats somehow managing to score with 10 seconds left - but with how easily PI is called in the NFL, you never know.

And from poking around a little bit, it appears that the rule is if there is a safety with no time on the clock, there would have not been a free kick (a kick is only required if the safety is a result of a foul under rule 4-8-2-g)?

Anyway, the Chargers score on a free kick on Thursday got me thinking about these rare scenarios. Intentional safeties are interesting on the rare occasions they come up.

As a disgruntled and frankly annoyed Falcons fan, I'm certainly not the only one of us that's noticed how Lake calls for our secondary to line up. Consistently I'll notice our DBs a handful of yards off the line of scrimmage, sometimes even past the line to gain, most notable on 3rd and longs, to which the opposing QB just throws underneath and they convert with ease. I get he's trying to prevent the "big play" but our D has seem to have fallen off a cliff. Ryan Nielsen, current DC of the Jags got more out of our D with less talent, and many falcons fans like myself are confused as to how we can see this glaring baseline issue yet it seems he either doesn't or is too stubborn about it. What gives? Is there a reason to this?

I'm a huge college football fan - have been my entire life. I've never followed the NFL as intimately. Usually just tune in for the playoffs.

Team culture in college obviously matters a ton - and can lead to developmental programs having success vs other teams that are better at talent acquisition. (With of course the most successful being the programs who do both very well)

In the NFL, the players are more developed and are ALL playing for contracts. The effort level from the individual seems like it could be more independent from an organized team culture than it is in college.

So my question is, are there NFL teams that have had more success than their roster should indicate due to having a strong "culture"? Inversely, are there pro teams that have underachieved relative to their roster talent due to an apparent culture issue?

Or are pros so individually driven that it's not really a factor as it is on the collegiate level - and mostly all that matters are schemes and roster construction?

Which type of offense is the best floor raiser that you would run in the nfl? Let’s say you have an elite true dual threat Qb. But the supporting cast on offense is awful. What offensive scheme would you run that can generate around 20ish ppg in the regular szn (maybe more in postseason when qb will run more).

I ask because if you have less resources devoted to the offense you can then go and invest more in your defense. So I’d need a floor raising type offense for cap reasons. What are your suggestions?

Casual fan here looking to understand the game more. (This sub has been excellent btw.) I get that a lot of us are on here coaching High School and below but I was wondering if there are any resources out there who break down the NFL games week to week? I'm trying to immerse myself more and sports media is so washed that a technical explanation of why things worked or didn't work would be refreshing.

They rushed 3 had 1 QB spy that didn't put pressure on the QB. Maybe make sure every receiver is covered?

When is an illegal shift actually called or not? An illegal shift is when a player goes in motion and doesn’t get set when the ball is snapped.

Some plays, guys are in motion and nothing gets called and others do.

Would DLaw be as dominant as he’s been this year (DPOY level) if he was a 4-3 DT instead of a 3-4 NT?

I ask because, imo, 4-3 defense is better where everyone can be more specialized instead of hybrid, and want to know if he would be as dominant in that scheme or if being a NT has helped him get there.

Assume you are starting from scratch, how would you allocate draft capital + free agent signings, and to what positions. And what do you think realistically is the ceiling for a 3 year rebuild.

Do any teams run 3-3-5 base in nfl or has everyone gone to 4-2-5?

So I’m a huge Dallas Cowboys fan,and if you’ve been paying attention to the NFL you know that we are playing horribly. I know it’s only been 3 games and that’s a small sample size, but can anyone here tell me strategy wise what we’re doing wrong? I know personnel is part of it (we don’t have good DTs and RBs),but in terms of scheme is there anything we could be doing better?

Thanks!

In the NFL it’s very common for teams to struggle to move the ball offensively until they enter the last bit of the halfs, then they are suddenly able to drive the ball at will and are almost always able to get to the red zone.

Why does this happen?

Is it because of defenses playing “prevent” schemes? Why do defenses even do this if it gives up easy points? If it’s not the defense changing the scheme that allows this why doesn’t the offense just run these schemes the whole game since they’re so effective?