Front Office NFL Chat
powered byJotCast
This chat is available to members only. Please log in to participate.
Sam Robinson
3:02
Hey everyone, some interesting trades (and non-trades) this week. Let's get started!
Khalil Mack
3:09
Am I content on playing out the string in Los Angeles, rather than having to relocate during the season to suit up for a contender? Otherwise, what's my deal?
Sam Robinson
3:09
Hey Khalil, there are certainly worse cities you can be stuck in on a bad team. But I am confused why you're still a Charger.

At 35 and on a one-year deal, you profiled as the classic rental piece that could have at least fetched the Chargers a mid-Day 3 pick. (An acquiring team would have only needed to pay about $4MM). If DeForest Buckner got the Colts a fourth, that would have been doable to send you to a contender. The Chargers, now that the Henley swap is off, not trading anyone is poor roster management.

This could matter for your Hall of Fame chances too. You have the DPOY honor, but having never been on a team that won a playoff game is at least semi-relevant for your case. You are 28th in official sacks. A few players above you (Leslie O'Neal, Robert Mathis, Clyde Simmons, Simeon Rice) aren't in. It is a bummer you won't be a key part of a Super Bowl push this season to help bolster your chances.
Stephen from Northern Ireland
3:19
I love my jags aggressiveness but did they give up too much?
Sam Robinson
3:19
Hi Stephen...I didn't hate the Jordan Davis trade as much as most, but that is a bit much to give up for a player that doesn't deliver much rush production. That said, the Jaguars are clearly banking on Davis -- in addition to his imposing presence boosting the team's 32nd-ranked run stop win rate -- elevating their other pass rushers.

The Rams obviously won big by doing this in 2021, getting Stafford and Miller (two years after the Ramsey trade). They also had Stafford and McVay. I don't think Lawrence-Coen is on that level, infrastructure-wise. And the Jags may have a more difficult AFC playoff field (one that could be filled with future Hall of Fame QBs) to navigate.

Bates costing a 2/5 package in a contract year surprised me as well. With the team previously trading its 2026 first-rounder in the Hunter deal, it has given up a bit too much on the whole.

But Campanile may be a head coach elsewhere next year. Ditto Udinski. The Jags overpaid a bit, but their defense could be MUCH better this year
Ghost of George Young
3:26
Hey, Sam.   Which teams had the most head scratching trade deadline?   The Colts decision to hold onto to Taylor and Stewart unless their high asking prices were met despite their need for draft capital? Jacksonville embracing the "F Them Picks" mentality to an extreme?  The Jets and Cardinals choosing not to sell pieces like Will McDonald and Budda Baker, respectively?  The Rams not adding to its WR room or GB not adding a veteran RB?  Thanks.
Sam Robinson
3:26
Great question. I won't say the Jags because a team without a Super Bowl appearance loaded up on defense -- and Bates could be retained via the tag, if necessary, in 2027 -- and the Jets already have three firsts in 2027. I think I'm OK with them not being aggressive sellers once again.

I thought the Colts should have traded Taylor. The 2/5 package from the Giants was reasonable for a running back seven years in -- and one that doesn't impact the pass game like McCaffrey (whose trade package the Colts strived for). His value will go down in the offseason. Not sure the Colts can get a better offer. Keeping Stewart, at 33: also unnecessary.

I agree re: Baker. He probably should be a Bill now. But the Chargers get my vote. Not making any seller trades is irresponsible. I didn't agree with the Bolts' conservative offseason, and they should have helped their 2027 cause by moving pieces -- Mack especially. My view of that franchise's big-picture plan has changed significantly this year.
Mike
3:37
Do you see Hooker making a big difference for the Bills? How long does it take a safety to acclimate with a new defense?
Sam Robinson
3:37
Hi Mike, I do. I don't regard Hooker on the same level as Bates or Budda Baker, but he is also younger (28) and on a through-2028 contract -- a good value ($13.5MM AAV) as well. If the Jags only rent Bates and they don't reach the Super Bowl, that is an overpay. The Bills needed to do something in the secondary, and it's good -- after their deadline failures last year -- this crossed the goal line.

Re: acclimation, it depends. Minkah Fitzpatrick made an immediate impact with the Steelers once he arrived in-season, but this is not a plug-and-play-type position the way RB or even WR/EDGE are. That is why the latter two are much buzzier positions than safety at deadlines. What you brought up will be an interesting AFC storyline to follow.

The Bills' defense annually underwhelms in the playoffs. Allen is also 30 (and 30 with a more punishing workload than almost any QB has ever has had). Buffalo needs to make this work soon. A case they should have operated like the Jags exists, but Hooker is a good piece
TD-Machine
3:45
Did the trade deadline shift the list of Super Bowl contenders in either conference, or are things basically the same given which teams added?
Sam Robinson
3:45
Hey TD-Machine, I had the Jags as a solid home-field candidate before their trades. So, I like their schedule-based case to be the 1 seed for the first time since Mark Brunell and Co. got there in '99. Bates and Davis will change things for Campanile's defense. Given their improvement last year on that side of the ball, this is the right team to take a swing.

Chicago and Minnesota are the two others to focus on here. The Vikings could have gone by way of the 2009 Broncos by becoming a 6-0 team to miss the playoffs. In an NFC race in which at least one talented team will miss out, the Vikes could not afford to keep their QB situation as is. Their division is too tough. I like their chances to reach the playoffs much more with Cousins.

The Bears have done the two-firsts package three times since 2009 (Cutler, Mack) via Simmons. These buyer moves are risky, but Simmons is a top-tier DT in his prime. If we're looking at just this season, that should be a major boost for a team that had missed on DLs recently
Inquiring Minds
3:53
In the other major sports leagues, there is still player movement in terms of buyouts or players asking for and receiving their releases after the trade deadline.   Aside from Brandon Aiyuk, are there any notable veteran players that might shake loose and sign with a playoff contender?
Sam Robinson
3:53
The NFL's waiver system makes this a bit difficult. All vested vets are now subject to waivers, leaving open the possibility of blocker moves (like the Chiefs with Terrell Suggs in 2019) taking place. But we do see some post-deadline cuts -- OBJ in 2021 is a notable example. I don't expect much beyond Aiyuk here. Waivers inject uncertainty into the situation, whereas NBA buyouts typically send discarded vets to Finals contenders.

The Bolts doing Mack a solid would be interesting, but again, it is not a given he reaches a preferred destination. Teams do not have to cooperate on the waiver wire, and Mack has roughly $4MM left on his 2026 base salary. That is reasonable to claim.

If the Ravens sink (again) without Lamar, giving Calais Campbell ($2.5MM base) a shot to find a contender would make sense. But the 40-year-old is believed to want to stay in Baltimore.
walterj23
4:05
As a Steelers fan I'm  completely  disappointed  they didn't go out and get a difference  make at WR or CB . How far do you expect them to get through the playoffs with what they have now ? One and done ?
Sam Robinson
4:05
Hey Walterj, the Steelers may be OK at WR once Pittman comes back. I know Metcalf hasn't delivered on promise this season, but him, Bernard and Pittman are a decent trio. Roman Wilson is a reasonable wild card, though his ceiling is now looks much lower than some of the many PIT Day 2 WR success stories. I agree with you at CB. That was a move to try and make.

Best-case scenario is probably one playoff win. It's just hard to see Rodgers at this stage of his career in an AFC championship game, and I'm not sure this is a defense capable of true dominance to cover for middling-at-best offense. But the schedule could be cooperative to give Pittsburgh the division.

The DEN-JAX-HOU stretch (I'm not giving up on the Texans yet) looks tough, beyond that and Sunday's Cincy game, the Steelers have a smooth finish. I'm pretty intrigued by this year's Steelers, to be honest. Was not expecting them to be quite at this level.
NFC Playoffs
4:14
How many teams from the NFC North/West do you see making the playoffs this year?
Sam Robinson
4:14
Five. Wow is this gonna be a fun race. Going to exclude SF and CHI from the drama, and I like where GB is without Parsons or a good run game. I'll say three from the North and two from the West. As it stands now, I like Seattle a bit more than L.A. (that post-bye stretch -- GB, KC, SF -- will define its season, and health just might not be there in time). But the Hawks desperately need to give JSN some help; they are missing Kubiak, clearly. I just like their defensive capabilities to hang on.

Think I'll need to be asked this again in a month, as we see Cousins back in O'Connell's offense. Minnesota-Detroit-Green Bay will be appointment viewing. Not guaranteeing the Bears win the North yet, either. 49ers a slightly better bet for home field, though.
The (NFC) South will Fall Again
4:20
After another disappointing week, it appears that the eventual NFC South winner will end up with a post .500 record (while a 10+ win team will miss the playoffs, possibly the defending champs).  I understand that division champions will always get an automatic playoff bid, but how would you arrange the playoff structure if a sub .500 team matches up with a Wild Card team with 10 or more wins?  Would you give that WC team the home game? Should the team with the better record always get the home game, or only in scenarios where the other is under .500?
Sam Robinson
4:20
Always an interesting topic. I don't think I'd be into a record requirement to host a game. Too many variables involved. The schedule breaking down where teams get one full AFC division and a full NFC division to play leaves the door open for easier paths. One of the reasons why I don't like the one-bye setup this decade. Too much of an advantage for one team, one that could have drawn a much easier schedule.

I think I like the proposal from a couple years ago where the division winners get in but are not guaranteed home games. A good compromise, because we have seen this scenario play out there the .500-or-worse team finds momentum at home; the '08 Chargers, '10 Hawks, '11 Broncos and '14 Panthers (albeit against the Cards' third-string QB) all won. It went the other way with the '22 Bucs, but we have several examples of teams receiving undeserved advantages in the playoffs.

If we get another sub-.500 NFC South champ, I'm all for revisiting the Lions' proposal for playoff revamping.
Sam Robinson
4:20
Thanks, as always, for the questions. Wow is this NFC playoff race going to be fun. And a lot of variables in the AFC as well. Have a good weekend!
Connecting…