| The 1961 Sports Broadcasting Act gave the NFL the right to package the TV rights of the member clubs. There is nothing in it about “streaming.” And Roger Goodell will not be explaining to Congress why the NFL has presumed it does. Mike Florio: The House Judiciary Committee has asked NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to testify at a hearing next week regarding the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. Goodell is not inclined to accept the invitation. Via John Ourand of Puck, Goodell will “politely decline” to appear. The hearing is the latest step in an effort to pressure the NFL regarding its broadcast antitrust exemption. The assault seems to trace to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch, who is believed to be using any/all political and P.R. levers in an effort to push back against the NFL’s apparent plan to get its current TV partners to pay more for deals that are already in place through the 2029 season. The stakes are nevertheless high for the NFL. The SBA arguably applies only to league-wide packages sold to over-the-air networks, like Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC. The antitrust exemption possibly does not apply to cable or streamer providers. By selling packages to companies like Amazon, Netflix, and ESPN, the league could be violating the terms of its exemption. Then there’s the question of whether the entire exemption, which dates back to 1961, should go away entirely. (Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has flagged that very question.) If that happens, the NFL’s entire economic model would be plunged into chaos. And it could result in a gross disparity in revenues among the teams, with the league potentially fracturing into two separate operations — those teams that can negotiate significant TV deals for their home games (like the Cowboys), and those that can’t. |
| NFC NORTH |
| CHICAGOWe think we have this right – the Bears told the City of Chicago it would not be wasting anymore time talking to the city about sites for the new stadium within the city borders. The Mayor Brandon Johnson instructed his vassels in the state legislature not to vote to support tax breaks for the site in Arlington Heights. Which would seem to leave the site in Hammond, Indiana as the last one standing. But, Bears mastermind Kevin Warren is hesitating. Jon Greenberg of The Athletic tries to fathom it all: It’s been a long time since I watched it, but I remember “The Neverending Story” being a lot more entertaining. The new version, co-produced by the state of Illinois and the Chicago Bears, is getting a bit tedious. While you were sleeping Monday morning, the Illinois General Assembly somehow ended its spring session without a deal to help fund the Chicago Bears’ long-running stadium gambit. After months of incremental progress toward a deal, a late audible by the state Senate and a flag on the play from the House caused the clock to run out. To keep the tired football metaphors going, it felt like a tie that left everyone unsatisfied. Well, except for the Indiana state legislature, which breezily passed a bill that opened the door for the Bears to move across state lines to Hammond, Ind. But this game isn’t over yet. Seriously. In a statement released early Monday morning after a stadium authority bill died in the Illinois House (which had already passed a mega-projects bill that died in the state senate this weekend), the Bears noted, “We will finalize our evaluation of both Arlington Heights and Hammond, and remain on the late spring/early summer timeline that we have previously communicated. We will provide an update when we have a decision to share.” Translation: We really want to build on the land we own in Arlington Heights, but you’re making it tough on us! Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker told reporters he would continue to work to get a deal done between now and the state legislature’s veto session in the fall, but also reiterated he wouldn’t just hand over public money to the Bears. “The reality is, I wasn’t willing to give up billions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to give it to a billionaire-owned team,” he said. The reality also is his office tried to broker a deal in the late stages of the legislative session, but was hamstrung by political factions within his own party, not to mention the Bears, who have been described, generously, as “wishy washy” for their dalliances with Arlington Heights, the city of Chicago and Hammond over the past five years. Arlington Heights mayor Jim Tinaglia can’t believe his village is still waiting for the Bears to build on the old racetrack land they bought and tore down. “The Village of Arlington Heights has spent the past five years working diligently to prepare for the redevelopment of Arlington Park,” Tinaglia said in a statement. “We are truly disappointed with the outcome from the spring legislative session yet again. Although we recognize that these discussions are complex and involve many stakeholders, this is clearly a fumble for the state of Illinois.” All along, I’ve heaped blame on the Bears who have managed this scenario about as poorly as they used to handle the football part of the family business. But there’s no question the General Assembly deserves its share of the fans’ ire. How they managed to not pass a bill, complicated as that process can be, is a real head-scratcher considering both the House and Senate passed their own versions during the spring session. There are plenty of more important problems in the state, but this is a pretty big bit of business, and Indiana put a lot of pressure on Illinois by passing a stadium authority bill during the NFL combine in Indianapolis. Government inaction in Springfield is nothing new. But then again, neither is the Bears fumbling and bumbling. How could they buy a plot of land for almost $200 million in 2023 and still not have broken ground on a stadium project? How could they possibly be at a point where building a stadium near a Superfund site and an oil refinery in northwest Indiana is their best alternative? While I think the Bears belong in Chicago, the ship has obviously sailed away from Burnham Harbor. Mayor Brandon Johnson and local legislators should just accept it and focus on making sure Soldier Field can still attract concerts and other big events. Everyone is at fault here, except, of course, for Ben Johnson and Caleb Williams, who have brought some much-needed respect back to a hapless organization. Perhaps the Bears should’ve sent them to Springfield to lobby for the bill. Honestly, why didn’t they? Though the Bears said they’re sticking to their late spring/early summer deadline to make a decision, I’ll believe it when shovels hit the ground. After all, Bears president Kevin Warren has been promising us some sweet shovel action for years. At the 2024 Super Bowl in Las Vegas, he told WGN’s Jarrett Payton they would start moving dirt imminently. “The timeline has to be in 2024,” Warren said then. “In a perfect world, I would like to have clarity in this legislative session that is coming up. Time is money. It takes probably three years once you put a shovel in the ground. ’24 should be the focal point.” A month later, he told reporters, “The plan will be to put a shovel in the ground on the lakefront.” By January 2025, Warren still couldn’t tell you where the Bears were building a stadium, but he was confident it would start soon. “I remain steadfast that the goal we have is shovels in the ground in 2025,” he said. “I’m confident it will happen.” When it was politely suggested that no progress had been made in years, Warren reminded us they were having meetings every day. Have faith, he told us. So again, I’ll believe this is over when a celebratory shovel hits the ground either in suburban Chicago or Hammond. Unfortunately, while we’d all love some closure on this story, it doesn’t really have to end quite yet. The Bears have a lease that runs until 2033 and the Illinois state legislature has a veto session in November. Given that the House and Senate each passed a bill, unsuccessful or not, there is obviously interest in getting something done. These stadium boondoggles are always bad for the taxpayers. But no one cheers for good governance. Imagine being the politicians responsible for the Bears leaving the state for Indiana. The neighboring state is ready and willing to welcome the franchise, but the Bears still have to figure out if the Hammond site is actually suitable for a stadium and a mixed-use development. It’s certainly not preferable. If George McCaskey moves the “pride and joy of Illinois” to Indiana, it will be a dark day in the history of the charter franchise. If I were him, I’d come out and say we’re staying in Illinois and let’s get a deal done. If he did that, maybe this rambling story will finally end. |
| NFC EAST |
| PHILADELPHIATim McManus of ESPN.com on the reaction in the Eagles locker room to the departure of WR A.J. BROWN: There was a mixed reaction to receiver A.J. Brown’s departure by his former Eagles teammates Tuesday, ranging from a sense of loss to relief that the saga is now in the rearview mirror. “I think this is more of a — it sounds terrible — but like, thank God it’s over. It was a slow pain of just, is he in, is he out?” left tackle Jordan Mailata said. “We didn’t really know, and that really wasn’t our focus as a team, our team, especially on offense.” Brown was traded to the New England Patriots on Monday in exchange for a 2028 first-round pick and a 2027 fifth-rounder. The move had been expected for weeks following a frustration-filled 2025 season during which Brown made his dissatisfaction with the Eagles’ offense plainly known. Brown, though, made a resounding impact during his four years in Philadelphia, complete with two seasons with 1,400-plus receiving yards, two trips to the Super Bowl and a world championship. He was also a force in the locker room, as players expressed Tuesday following practice. “That’s my big brother. I wish him nothing but the best,” cornerback Quinyon Mitchell said. “He helped me grow in my game and gain more confidence, so I’m thankful for him and I love him as a big brother.” Fellow corner Cooper DeJean noted that Brown was the first to call him “All-Pro Coop” and pushed him to live up to the name, which eventually he did. “Anytime you lose a great player like him, it hurts,” DeJean said. “And he’s a great friend of mine, he was a great teammate in our locker room. But there’s a business side to this thing, so everybody did what was best for them.” The Eagles were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs by the San Francisco 49ers following a down regular season offensively in which they tied for first in three-and-out drives (50) and 24th in total offense (311.2 YPG). They have been busy learning a brand-new system under offensive coordinator Sean Mannion in an effort to get back on track. The players now officially know the challenge will be taken on without Brown. “Yes, we can move on now,” Mailata said. “I think most of us that have been here the last six weeks, we have moved on, just from, we have enough to worry about.” |
| NFC WEST |
| LOS ANGELES RAMSOh my, DT Aaron Donald has awoken from his retirement slumber at the news that EDGE MYLES GARRETT is now a Ram. Sarah Barshop of ESPN.com: McVay was also asked about the possibility of defensive tackle Aaron Donald coming out of retirement to play with Garrett. Earlier in the day, ESPN’s Pat McAfee said on “The Pat McAfee Show” that he texted Donald about the possibility. Donald replied, according to McAfee, “It for sure got me thinking.” Donald retired in 2024 after 10 NFL seasons. McVay said he’d welcome back the future Hall of Famer, but the decision is ultimately up to him. “Aaron’s a guy that I stay really close in touch with and I know the respect that he has for Myles,” McVay said. “Talked to him about the opportunity to be able to bring him on board. If Aaron decides he wants to dust them off at the age of 35, I bet you he could still do it at a pretty high clip.” Garrett, meanwhile, said he found out that the trade was “even a possibility” about a week ago and said the news was a “surprise.” Garrett had a no-trade clause in his contract and said the decision about whether to waive it to be traded to Los Angeles was one he had to “sleep on.” “I don’t take my time in Cleveland for granted,” Garrett said. “I did love being there. … It tears at you to leave and to break away, but that’s just a part of the things you learn and have to adjust to as you grow up and learn you have to move on.” Garrett said that “since the very beginning, it’s always been about winning.” As the Rams see it, drafting QB TY SIMPSON for the future in 2026, enabled them to ship the first round pick in 2027 for Garrett. More from Barshop: After just drafting QB Ty Simpson 13th overall, how all-in are the Rams in 2026?It was actually the move to draft Simpson at No. 13 that gave the Rams the flexibility to trade for Garrett. One of the considerations after drafting the quarterback out of Alabama, a source said at the time in late April, was the ability it gave the Rams to use their 2027 first-round pick on a non-quarterback. While that could have looked like using a draft pick at the NFL trade deadline, it also meant the Rams had the pick available to use in this deal here on June 1. Now, after trading for the 2025 NFL Defensive Player of the Year, it’s hard to look at the Rams’ roster and see many weaknesses. Along with the trade for Garrett on Monday, the Rams also revamped their secondary this spring by trading for All-Pro cornerback Trent McDuffie and signing cornerback Jaylen Watson. In his end-of-season news conference, Rams general manager Les Snead said if quarterback Matthew Stafford returned for Year 18, Los Angeles would want to make sure it is doing all it can to maximize the remaining time he wants to play. It’s clear with the moves the Rams have made this offseason that Snead and Los Angeles view the last few years of Stafford’s career as a time to go all-in. – Barshop Ryan Wilson of CBSSports.com, with a long analysis, is thoughtfully skeptical about the trade: The easy way to look at the Myles Garrett trade is to say the Rams added the best defensive player in football and instantly became the favorite to win Super Bowl LX. Garrett is still one of the rare defenders who changes the pre-snap math for every offense he lines up against. He’s coming off a record-setting 23-sack season, just won NFL Defensive Player of the Year and gives the Rams the type of game-wrecking edge presence that comes along every couple of decades. But that’s also the easy part of the conversation. The more interesting question isn’t whether Garrett makes the Rams better — he does. The question is whether the Rams would have been better off keeping Jared Verse, preserving future draft capital and using those resources to build a more complete version of this same roster. That’s where things become less straightforward. The Rams didn’t just trade for Garrett in a vacuum. They traded Verse, the 2024 Defensive Rookie of the Year, along with a 2027 first-round pick, a 2028 second-round pick and a 2029 third-round pick. That’s the kind of move that only makes sense if an organization believes its current championship window is more valuable than future flexibility. Given that we’re talking about the latest version of the “F them picks” Rams … yeah, of course that’s what they believe. General manager Les Snead’s philosophy has never really been about ignoring the draft. It’s about being willing to exchange future uncertainty for present certainty when the championship window is open (see the trades for Matthew Stafford and Jalen Ramsey, moves that led directly to a Lombardi Trophy). Most teams talk themselves out of such decisions because of the cost. The Rams have repeatedly talked themselves into them. Sometimes that’s left them with less depth and fewer resources down the road, but it also produced a Lombardi Trophy and multiple seasons during which they entered the year with a legitimate chance to win another one. When you view the Garrett trade through that lens, it feels less like a departure from the Rams’ philosophy and more like its logical conclusion. So the question isn’t whether Garrett is better than Verse. The question is whether the difference between those two players is worth everything else the Rams surrendered to acquire him. The opportunity costWhile it’s fun to just anoint the Rams as Super Bowl champions and go on with our days, the real challenge is that every blockbuster trade should be evaluated against the alternatives. History is full of deals that made teams better without making them champions. Khalil Mack transformed the Bears. Tyreek Hill took the Dolphins offense to another level. Christian McCaffrey helped push the 49ers to a Super Bowl. All three trades worked. None ultimately produced a Super Bowl. The lesson: the player usually delivers … but the championship usually doesn’t follow. That’s what makes the Garrett trade so compelling. The Rams weren’t choosing between Garrett and doing nothing. They were choosing Garrett over every other possible use of those resources. Which brings me to A.J. Brown, who landed in New England for less draft capital than the Rams surrendered for Garrett. It’s also worth noting that this wasn’t purely a hypothetical alternative. The Rams were repeatedly connected to Brown throughout the offseason and, according to multiple reports, were at one point further down the road on a potential deal than New England. Ultimately, the Patriots emerged as the destination, aided by Brown’s relationship with Mike Vrabel and Los Angeles’ decision to move in a different direction. Pairing Brown with Puka Nacua would have given Sean McVay two No. 1 wide receivers and one of the most dangerous receiving tandems in football. And while depth still would have been a concern — if the team moved on from Adams had they landed Brown (as reports suggested), that would have left Jordan Whittington, Konata Mumpfield and rookie C.J. Daniels competing for significant snaps — the Rams may not have viewed that as a problem. No team currently has more tight ends on its roster than Los Angeles. After drafting Terrance Ferguson a year ago, the Rams doubled down this spring by selecting Max Klare, adding another athletic pass-catching option to a room that still includes Tyler Higbee. One possible interpretation of the Rams’ offseason is that McVay is becoming less interested in stockpiling traditional wide receivers and more interested in creating matchup problems through versatility. If Ferguson and Klare become meaningful pieces of the passing game, the need for another expensive receiver becomes easier to justify passing on. That’s also where the draft enters the conversation. Selecting either Makai Lemon or Omar Cooper Jr. would have given McVay another young, cost-controlled playmaker regardless of whether Brown or Adams occupied the top of the depth chart. On the other side of the ball, pass rusher Rueben Bain Jr. could have been paired with Verse to create a long-term pass-rushing foundation. None of those players individually matches Garrett’s impact. But Garrett wasn’t competing against one player. He was competing against everything else the Rams could have done with those resources. How much better is Garrett than Verse?This is where the conversation becomes tougher to evaluate. The counterargument to keeping Verse is obvious and a good one: Garrett is better. The question is how much better. While Garrett remains the gold standard for NFL pass rushers, Verse may already be closer than the trade compensation suggests. Over the past two seasons, Garrett led the NFL with 167 pressures while Verse was third with 157. Garrett finished with 101 hurries and Verse had 108. In other words, the Rams didn’t trade a developmental player or even a promising young pass rusher. They traded one of the most productive edge rushers in the NFL. The separation, however, shows up when those pressures become game-changing plays. Garrett recorded 37 sacks over that stretch, the most in the league. Verse had 12. Garrett led the league with 55 tackles for loss. Verse had 22. So while the gap in disruptive plays is smaller than many people realize, the gap in finishing ability quickly becomes a chasm. One of the biggest surprises in the metrics supports both sides of the argument. As a rookie in 2024, Verse drew double teams at nearly the same rate as Garrett, per ESPN. Offenses quickly started treating Verse like one of the league’s premier pass-rushing threats. That’s impressive and surprising. And it shows the Rams weren’t trading a player who might someday command elite attention — they were trading a player who already did. The difference then? Last season, Garrett saw double teams on more than half of his pass-rush opportunities while continuing to lead the league in sacks and pressures. Plenty of pass rushers can dominate when offenses don’t game-plan around them. Very few produce at an elite level when entire protection schemes are built to stop them. That’s the strongest football argument for the trade. The Rams aren’t paying for pressures. They’re paying for sacks, game-changing plays and the certainty that comes with knowing exactly what Garrett is. They’re evaluating who gives them the best chance to win the Super Bowl in 2026, not who might be the better player in 2029. If that’s the question, Garrett is almost always the answer. He changes protections, forces quarterbacks to play faster (or face the consequences) and commands constant double teams, creating cleaner opportunities for Kobie Turner, Braden Fiske and Byron Young. He makes the secondary better because quarterbacks simply have less time to find answers. In that sense, Garrett doesn’t just replace Verse’s production, he changes the way offenses have to play the Rams. Why Stafford still matters moreAs significant as Garrett is, the most important variable on the roster remains Stafford. That’s true of virtually every championship team not named the 2000 Ravens. Garrett can make the defense terrifying, create shorter fields and be the difference between winning and losing on a critical third down in January. But what he can’t do is compensate for a quarterback who isn’t playing at a championship level. Put another way: the Rams made this move because they believe Stafford still has another Super Bowl run in him. If they’re right, Garrett may be the final piece who pushes them over the top. If they’re wrong, everything changes — and likely very quickly. The Rams have elite players at quarterback, wide receiver, edge rusher, cornerback and on the defensive line. They have one of the best offensive coaches in football. They also have a roster construction model that leaves less margin for error than teams built primarily through the draft. That’s the uncomfortable reality facing any star-driven roster, though a reality Snead and McVay have shown they’ll happily embrace. How this trade will get judgedThe optimistic comparison is the 1994 49ers. That team was loaded before adding Deion Sanders. Steve Young was in his prime. Jerry Rice was still Jerry Rice. San Francisco wasn’t trying to become a contender. It already was one. The goal was to add the final piece. That’s what the Rams are hoping Garrett does. They’re not asking him to drag a mediocre team into relevance. They’re asking him to push a Super Bowl-caliber roster over the top. That distinction matters, and it’s why this trade feels more defensible than many of the blockbuster moves that have fallen short over the years. Mack arrived in Chicago with the expectation he could help elevate a talented but incomplete roster. Hill was supposed to unlock another level for Miami. Christian McCaffrey helped turn San Francisco into a perennial contender. All three players delivered. The teams just never achieved the outcome that ultimately justified the price. The Rams are one of the few franchises that can point to Stafford and Ramsey and say their all-in approach actually produced a championship. Whether that’s because Snead is better than most at identifying the right stars, McVay is better than most at maximizing them, or some combination of both, it helps explain why Los Angeles was willing to make another massive bet on elite talent. Still, the alternative version of this team is difficult to ignore. Imagine the Rams with Verse still on the edge, Brown lining up alongside Nacua and future picks still intact. Imagine Verse paired with Bain. Imagine McVay adding Lemon or Cooper to a receiver room that could use another long-term answer. None of those versions has Garrett, but all of them might have been deeper, younger and more sustainable. That’s the debate. The Rams chose the highest-ceiling individual player over the broader roster-building choice. They chose the future Pro Football Hall of Famer over the younger player and the possibility of adding multiple premium pieces elsewhere. And, yeah, I get it. If you believe Stafford can win another Super Bowl right now, you don’t build for 2029. You build for February. You add the player who can ruin a playoff game by himself and worry about the future later. Essentially, Snead is keeping the main thing the main thing. But understanding the move is not the same as concluding it was unequivocally worth the cost. Garrett makes the Rams scarier — a lot scarier. It’s not hard to argue that he makes them the best team in the NFC. He might be the difference between losing another conference championship game and playing for a Lombardi Trophy. What Garrett doesn’t do is eliminate the question of what else the Rams could have become. Yes, Los Angeles paid a hefty price to upgrade from an elite young pass rusher to the best pass rusher in football. And the question isn’t whether Garrett is better than Verse – the question is whether the difference between those two players is worth everything else they gave up. If Garrett helps deliver another Super Bowl to the Rams, nobody will care about the picks, the cap implications, or anything else. But that’s always been the gamble with blockbuster trades. They aren’t judged against the player acquired, they’re judged against everything that was sacrificed to get him. The difference, at least in Los Angeles, is that Snead has earned enough credibility that what feels reckless elsewhere often feels almost inevitable with the Rams. The 2026 season will determine whether this becomes another Stafford trade or a reminder that even the right player isn’t always the right trade. |
| AFC NORTH |
| CLEVELANDJim Schwartz opens up on why he left the Browns after Todd Monken was chosen as head coach. Kevin Patra of NFL.com: After being passed up for the Cleveland Browns head coaching gig in favor of Todd Monken, former defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz declined the chance to stay with the organization. Following months of silence, Schwartz discussed his decision with Ryan Ripken. “It sort of is what it was,” Schwartz said. “We had a lot of success on defense and the Browns made a change at head coach, and they passed over me with all the success that we had and the ability to develop players, our best players had their best years, all those different things. And that was a decision they made. They wanted to go with an offensive guy. They chose Todd. I’m fine with that. They can make decisions that they want to make, but they can’t expect me to stay on board for that. Anybody that’s in any business, you get passed over for a promotion when you’ve done a really, really good job in your job and you think you were in line for that promotion. It’s time to go.” Schwartz, who was the DC in Cleveland for the past three seasons, reiterated that he didn’t want to stick around in shotgun-wedding fashion. “Todd deserved his own guy. A forced marriage isn’t going to work in the NFL,” he said. “Having command of the players and having command of the locker room, all those things are extremely important, and I didn’t feel like I could do my job after getting passed over for the head coaching job. It sort of put me in a tough position. ‘Hey, we want you to listen to this guy, but we didn’t want to make him the head coach.’ “So, I made the decision to resign, and I have to sit out this year as a result. But I think anybody that’s been in any business, when you’ve done a good job, when you mention those numbers, we weren’t one of the best defenses in three years, we were the best defense in three years. The decision they made, that’s their decision, but to expect me to stay and for me to be on board with that, that’s just a tough situation. It wouldn’t have been good for me and it wouldn’t have been good for Todd. It was best for him to get his own guy in there and to move forward with him as opposed to just having an arranged marriage and having me there and maybe having some players more loyal to me than him. It can just be a bad situation. 33 years in the NFL, I’ve never been around that before. That all went into the decision.” Schwartz is correct, that could have been awkward, particularly for defensive players who might have been more devoted to the DC than the head coach. The current question is whether Myles Garrett would have wanted to stay in Cleveland if Schwartz were the head coach — not that it changes the fact that the compensation in the Browns’ trade was the right move for the club at this time. With the Browns able to block his path to another coordinator gig, Schwartz, 60, will have to sit out a season. The bluntness with which he’s approaching the situation will serve him well in his next round of interviews. “I wasn’t upset about it,” Schwartz said. “I was disappointed about it. I wasn’t upset about it; I wasn’t mad about it, but it’s just my experience told me that wasn’t going to be a situation that was going to work.” |
| AFC EAST |
| NEW ENGLANDT WILL CAMPBELL feels he will be better in 2026 than he was at the end of ’25. Josh Alper of ProFootballTalk.com: Patriots left tackle Will Campbell offered an update on how his knee is feeling when he spoke to reporters from the team’s facility on Tuesday. Campbell opted not to speak to the media in the immediate aftermath of New England’s Super Bowl loss to the Seahawks, which he later said was because he was emotional after playing poorly and allowing Drake Maye to be pressured 14 times in the game. When Campbell did speak, he also revealed that he had torn a ligament in his knee during the regular season. Campbell did not have surgery and said his focus on rehab has him feeling back to full strength heading into his second season. “After the season, my No. 1 goal was just take a couple of days away and just assess everything with the coaches,” Campbell said. “Pinpoint down the things I do really well and then things I need to get better at. Getting back healthy, I did PT five days a week the entire offseason until we got back basically. Just trying to rebuild the strength in my knee to get it back to where it was previously and I feel like I did a good job of that.” There were questions about Campbell’s ability to be an NFL left tackle heading into the draft, but he quieted many of them during the regular season. The Super Bowl was part of a dreadful playoff run that he and the Patriots are hoping was simply about his injury rather than an upgrade in the competition the Patriots faced after a relatively light regular season slate. |
| THIS AND THAT |
| SEVEN TEAMS THAT ADDRESSED WEAKNESSESMatt Okada of NFL.com: Things change fast in the NFL. In 2024, the Patriots had the worst passing offense in the league and finished 4-13; a year later, Drake Maye posted the league’s highest passer rating and New England made the Super Bowl. When things go right, front offices, coaching staffs and improved personnel can turn a debilitating weakness into a surprising strength in a matter of months. With the help of analytical insights from NFL Pro and NFL IQ, I’ve curated a short list of franchises who might have done just that this offseason. Despite struggling mightily in a specific area one year ago, these teams have made the right moves and paved a smooth runway to turn things around in 2026. Arizona Cardinals2025 record: 3-14WEAKNESS: Stagnant rushing offenseIn 2025, Arizona fielded the second-worst rushing offense in the NFL (93.1 yards per game), ahead of only Las Vegas’ ground attack. The Cardinals’ average of 2.7 yards after contact per carry also ranked second-worst, while their -0.1 expected points added per carry and 19.5% missed tackle forced rate were both bottom eight. No running back in their hodgepodge room (including Michael Carter, Zonovan Knight, Emari Demercado, Trey Benson and James Conner) reached 350 rushing yards — a bleak statistic that no other team has replicated in a season since 2020. Reinforcements have arrived. Arizona added Tyler Allgeier as a safe and reliable piece on the depth chart, then selected Notre Dame superstar Jeremiyah Love at third overall. According to NFL IQ, Love’s draft score of 96 overall is tied for the second-highest figure Next Gen Stats has ever calculated for an RB, just behind Saquon Barkley’s 97 in 2018. Love and Allgeier are both major upgrades over what Arizona fielded in 2025 and, in tandem, could provide a crucial spark to the offense this season. Baltimore Ravens2025 record: 8-9WEAKNESS: Pass-rush impactIn 2025, Baltimore had the fourth-lowest pressure rate (28.4%) and second-lowest sack rate (4.3%), with both figures representing franchise worsts in the eight seasons of available data on NFL Pro. As a result, the Ravens surrendered 247.9 passing yards per game (their most since 2021) and 23.4 points per game (their most since 2015), ultimately finishing with a losing record for just the second time in a decade. But Baltimore attacked the problem head-on this offseason. General manager Eric DeCosta added 10 Pro Bowls of pass rusher between Trey Hendrickson and Calais Campbell, then drafted Zion Young 45th overall. With an elite 18.6% pressure rate and 74.5 sacks over the last six years, Hendrickson could probably turn this unit around single-handedly. Add in the other notables, and the Baltimore pass rush could shift from a weakness to a strength — and maybe even catapult the Ravens to the Super Bowl. Cincinnati Bengals2025 record: 6-11WEAKNESS: Struggles at safetyI hammered this in my “Highest priority fix” article back in February: Cincinnati’s 2025 safety situation was abysmal. As a position group, Bengals safeties allowed 10.8 yards per target and specifically struggled with broken plays, surrendering 8.5 yards after catch per reception and logging a 15.9% missed tackle rate. All of those marks were league-worsts among safety units last season. To address the issue, Cincy signed the highest-ranked free-agent safety in Gregg Rosenthal’s Top 101, Bryan Cook, as well as Kyle Dugger. Cook was analytically elite last season, so the upgrade cannot be overstated. The Bengals also spent a third-round pick on cornerback Tacario Davis, who has the size (at nearly 6-foot-4) to play some snaps at safety and help cover tight ends. The Bengals were historically bad at that latter part last year, allowing the most yards to TEs in a single season (1,444) by any defense in the Super Bowl era, per NFL Research. The jury’s out on whether this weakness becomes a strength in 2026, but at the very least, Cincinnati shored up a major hole. Cleveland Browns2025 record: 5-12WEAKNESS: Porous offensive lineWhile the Browns are still figuring out who to start at quarterback, they’ve already made a concerted effort to better protect whoever wins that position battle. Last year, Cleveland fielded 14 unique offensive line combinations (third-most by any offense) and allowed a league-high 46.5% pressure rate, including 106 total pressures yielded by their left tackles. Then the vast majority of the starting unit departed in free agency. In response, the Browns traded for (and extended) Tytus Howard, signed Zion Johnson and Elgton Jenkins and drafted Spencer Fano with the ninth overall pick. All four appear likely to start alongside Cleveland’s one OL holdover, right guard Teven Jenkins. And despite being a rookie, Fano is arguably the biggest pickup of the bunch. He was Bucky Brooks’ top tackle prospect, while Daniel Jeremiah said the Utah product has “five-position versatility.” By almost completely resetting the unit, the Browns may have flipped a weakness into a strength and given Deshaun Watson and/or Shedeur Sanders a fighting chance at success in 2026. Dallas Cowboys2025 record: 7-9-1WEAKNESS: Offensive defenseFor the second straight year, Dallas’ defense was a legitimate liability in 2025, allowing the most points (30.1 per game) and third-most yards (377.0 per game) in the league, as well as the highest success rate (47.6%) and EPA/play (0.13) to opposing offenses. Then the Cowboys traded away two defensive tackles and lost three linebackers (two to free agency and one to retirement). But Jerry Jones and Co. didn’t sit idly this offseason. They traded for edge rusher Rashan Gary and linebacker Dee Winters, signed multiple defensive backs and defensive linemen and then drafted five defensive players in the first four rounds, including defensive back Caleb Downs at No. 11 overall and edge rusher Malachi Lawrence at No. 23. They also replaced DC Matt Eberflus with Vic-Fangio disciple Christian Parker. Between new personnel and new scheme, Dallas has prioritized solving its defensive woes and laid the groundwork for a resurgence in 2026. Las Vegas Raiders2025 record: 3-14WEAKNESS: Suspect front sevenWhile quarterback was the first focus for the 3-14 Raiders, they also did significant work to fix the front seven on defense. Las Vegas produced the third-lowest QB pressure rate in the league last year (28.0%), and the linebacker group was particularly problematic, generating the second-lowest pressure rate (10.8%), the fourth-highest missed tackle rate (14.6%) and the most missed tackle yards allowed (416) at the position. The solve? John Spytek and Co. dished out $124.5 million in contracts for linebackers Quay Walker and Nakobe Dean and defensive end Kwity Paye. Last year, Walker’s 95.5% tackle efficiency ranked fourth among defenders with 100+ attempts and Dean’s 40.7% pressure rate led all linebackers with 20+ pass rushes. While Paye never quite met Indy’s first-round expectations, he did log 40+ pressures in each of the last three seasons. Additionally, Vegas picked up Auburn defensive end Keyron Crawford in the third round. With Maxx Crosby still in house after the nixed Ravens trade, this front seven could transform into a far more formidable unit in 2026. Tennessee Titans2025 record: 3-14WEAKNESS: Wide receiver reliabilityDuring Cam Ward’s first season at the helm in Nashville, the No. 1 overall pick struggled to get on the same page with his subpar wide receiving corps. No Tennessee wideout reached 90 targets, and the unit’s average of 6.2 yards per target ranked second-worst, ahead of only the Jets’ WR group. Titans wideouts posted the NFL’s lowest catch rate over expected (-8.9%) and lowest receiving yards over expected (-514). Fortunately, the front office wasted no time in upgrading Ward’s options. First, Tennessee signed Wan’Dale Robinson to a four-year, $70 million deal. The former Giant logged a strong 25.7% target rate and 1.9 yards per route run last year. He can serve as a reliable safety valve for Ward and the offense. Next, the Titans spent the fourth overall pick on Ohio State receiver Carnell Tate, an excellent downfield option and legitimate WR1 who’s been compared to another former Buckeye in Chris Olave. Along with a year of growth for 2025 rookies Elic Ayomanor and Chimere Dike (and Ward himself), this group is set up for a huge step forward and could jump-start an offensive breakout. |
