As training camps near, the NFL offseason is winding down. Many unresolved matters remain — much of them pertaining to quarterbacks and wide receivers — but teams’ rosters are mostly set. Leading up to Week 1, PFR will continue to add to its annual Offseason In Review series. Here is where our latest offseason examinations stand so far:
AFC East
- Buffalo Bills
- Miami Dolphins
- New England Patriots
- New York Jets
AFC North
- Baltimore Ravens
- Cincinnati Bengals
- Cleveland Browns
- Pittsburgh Steelers
AFC South
- Houston Texans
- Indianapolis Colts
- Jacksonville Jaguars
- Tennessee Titans
AFC West
NFC East
- Dallas Cowboys
- New York Giants
- Philadelphia Eagles
- Washington Commanders
NFC North
- Chicago Bears
- Detroit Lions
- Green Bay Packers
- Minnesota Vikings
NFC South
- Atlanta Falcons
- Carolina Panthers
- New Orleans Saints
- Tampa Bay Buccaneers
NFC West
- Arizona Cardinals
- Los Angeles Rams
- San Francisco 49ers
- Seattle Seahawks
Love this series. It’s a TON of work for y’all, but it’s one of those things that makes a small and independent site like PFR stand out. Great work y’all, and as always, we appreciate you doing it for us.
I agree it’s an excellent series but to my thinking every off-season team review should also include a grade. I suppose the staff are trying to avoid stirring up a hornets nest by including that element.
On one hand, I agree. On the other, sometimes the unexpected happens and it throws it all off. Maybe a preliminary grade? I think that the easiest thing to discern is how active a team was. Usually it’s good, but sometimes it isn’t. But it’s too hard to know when a team made the right or wrong move until after.
Right now, most of us would say that Dallas, for instance, has not been active enough in the offseason, right? But is lack of activity bad? It depends. If the Cowboys manage to re-sign all three of Prescott, Parsons, and Lamb because they waited, that would be good, right? Well, it would be if they all became or stayed the best at their positions and led Dallas to a bunch of quality wins. If Dallas lets Lamb walk and he’s mediocre or doesn’t earn his contract somewhere else, they look good. If they let Prescott walk and he wins an MVP while they start an average QB, they look bad. If they re-sign Parsons for a big deal and he misses two straight seasons, they look bad. However, they re-sign him and he sets the single season sack record, they look great
(as a sidenote, I feel like the first couple of years after adding games are great for the star players to re-sign: we all know that more games makes breaking records easier, but people a few years removed won’t remember that and the guy still gets to grab that praise for breaking it)
There’s just too much that can happen for me to comfortable with a “grade” per se, but I think that the question if “did this team address its needs, or set itself up to?” is the most important. Imagine if the Eagles traded away A.J. Brown to, say, the Patriots (no particular reason to pick them or Brown, just a hypothetical) for two first round picks. Many people would consider the move to be shocking and unnecessary. It would look bad to many, maybe rightfully so. If those picks become another first round receiver who plays for the Eagles for ten years, and perennial All-Pro corner, then the trade looks much better down the road (sub Jamar Chase and Cincy if it fits better).
In a more concrete example, consider if the Panthers did the right thing last year and traded away Burns to the Rams. Of course, that still an obvious move in my mind even at that time, but even Carolina would have agreed with me if they knew then what we know now. Better than that, the Adams trade to Seattle is a great citation. At the time, it seemed like it could have great to many people (despite the major schematic differences). Afterward? Definitely not worth it. Years ago, Belichick traded a sixth to acquire Hall of Famer Wes Welker. Didn’t seem like much at the time, but the Patriots ended up with probably the best slot receiver of all time in that trade. Some probably wouldn’t felt like it was enough to address the receiving corps behind Moss back then, so it may not have graded well. But, it was an effort made to address that need, which is all a team can really try to do, and that’s I think what we should look for.
So, it’s hard to tell at the time, but I do think that you have a point when you say that there should be some kind of evaluation. I guess for my end, I’d see it more as an evaluation of the effort taken or the plan made more than a prediction on the move itself.
I would agree that grades or “power rankings” have a subjective element to them and are often just best guess indicators but I like seeing them and they often stimulate discussions (which is the whole idea behind having a forum).
Fair points.