I don’t know if anyone needs me to actually say this, but the Packers are legit. What a dominant start to the season for this defense, which shut down both the Lions and Commanders in the span of a few days. The offense looks good — Jordan Love has missed a couple throws that could have been massive, but only barely, and he did throw a dime to Jayden Reed for a TD that unfortunately both got called back and also led to a long-term injury for Reed — and the defense looks even better.
Given that, the Commanders’ approach in last night’s game was head-scratching. One of the things I believe strongly is we don’t do a good job of judging coaches with respect to their circumstances. I think Zac Taylor should have been fired years ago. My Stealing Bananas cohost Shawn Siegele has made a similar case about Sean McDermott, based on him being a defensive coach whose defenses have failed Josh Allen more than supported him.
A big one I argued all of last year was Dan Quinn didn’t really earn the reputation he gained as an aggressive fourth-down coach. Washington fans wanted him to be the new Dan Campbell as this macho figure. When I shared part of the below take on Twitter last night, one commenter wrote I was “trying to victory lap my takes on him” which were “probably due to prior convictions (I) had before he hung his nuts on the league last year with aggro fourth down decisions,” and then that got a few likes. I share that because that subset of homer fan is so funny to me; there’s always such a projection of the ideals they want to see in their coach or players, and they take it so personally if you point out that pesky reality sometimes conflicts with that vision.
I wasn’t trying to victory lap because I’ve seen few people agree with this take, and have seen many national analysts I respect — not the talking heads, but some from the group of good ones — reference the popular narrative of Quinn’s decision-making as a big positive. When that happens, I tend to believe I’m definitely missing something. But last night was very frustrating, mostly from the perspective of a Jayden Daniels fantasy manager and superfan. I wanted to see that guy get every opportunity to establish an early MVP case, and the way his coaching staff managed the game mostly took that away from him.
This was something we saw last year. As I wrote in Stealing Signals as last season unfolded, I felt the Commanders were too conservative early, and Quinn was actually slow to react to how quickly and obviously dominant Daniels was. The first few times they had to go on fourth downs were not really toss-up decisions, but any coach’s hand would have been forced. By midseason, the Commanders were famously like 10 for their first 10 fourth-down tries on the year, and by the time they faced some real toss-up decisions, Quinn was emboldened to go for it more.
But there were spots, particularly in an early Ravens game, where Quinn missed the boat. I’ve written about the specifics of that decision enough that it’s old news for many of you, but just to refresh, it was Week 6, but Daniels had already looked amazing and then had his breakout game against Cincinnati, and it was 4th-and-6 from the plus-44, down 7, with seven minutes left in the third quarter. Seven minutes left in the third feels early to go, but if you’re an actually aggressive coach, you understand that you can’t depend on your ability to stop Lamar Jackson on what becomes basically multiple possessions, because you’re already down 7.
When they did punt, the Ravens scored a touchdown to push it to 14, Daniels answered with a touchdown drive (converting a fourth down), the Ravens got a field goal to push it to 10, and then after another fourth-down conversion, Quinn settled for a field goal to cut it to 7 that was at least understandable, and then the Ravens never gave the ball back. So Quinn’s punt decision in the third was followed by the Ravens and Commanders trading scores on the next four combined drives, including the Commanders extending both of their drives on fourth downs, and then that was the game. The Commanders undeniably would’ve wanted to go back to that third-quarter decision and not voluntarily kick the ball away because they needed that possession. Quinn is a defensive coach, and he made a decision that required his defense to make a stop, and the game ended without the Commanders ever getting that stop, including when the Ravens easily ran out the final 2:48 of game clock with five straight rush attempts for 40 yards and the necessary two first downs, before kneeling.
Anyway, that was one game early in the year, and if you want to give Quinn credit, he did fairly quickly start going for it in spots that we talk about as “aggressive.” The problem for me giving that credit was I would’ve felt that continuing to deny Daniels the chance to win games for them at all costs would have basically been insane. It would have actually been extremely difficult to explain to his locker room why they would have not gone in those situations.
Everyone always talks about defensive players like they are not real humans, implying they’ll lose confidence if you don’t punt and trust them to make stops or those kinds of things. In actuality, every quote you hear from defensive players indicates they know when they have ballers on the offensive side of the ball, because they have eyes and see it every day, both in practice and in games. The same goes for offensive players knowing when they have a good defense. Guys know when their teammates are good, and when they suck.
Yes, in the not distant history of football, there have been imbalanced teams and you get some quotes from defensive players where they wished they were just given the chance to win games for their team. A lot of that was in a different era where fourth-down decisions were misunderstood, but also those situations did not include players like Jayden Daniels. The situations that come to mind are like when Mark Sanchez was quarterbacking those old Jets’ teams, and those defenders absolutely wanted their coaches to just punt the ball away and let them go get stops or turnovers, because they had no faith in their QB.
This is the underrated thing that’s so frustrating about what Dan Quinn did last night. Because of 2024, he already has the clout in his locker room, and with local media. Jayden Daniels was the truth last year in big spots. No one is going to question Quinn being aggressive in a short-week road game against an NFC favorite.
At yet, Quinn very much did not hang his nuts on anything last night. In the first half, Green Bay got ball first, and through five possessions they had held the ball three times to just two for Washington. The Packers had moved the ball well, while the Commanders couldn’t get anything going on their first two.
That said, the score was only 7-0. On the first drive, Reed’s TD was wiped off by a fortunate (for Washington) holding call, and then on 4th-and-3 Love was late and behind Matthew Golden for what could have been a 33-yard TD, but the trailing defender got back in the play to tip it away. On the third drive, Love took a second-down sack that pushed a 2nd-and-4 to a 3rd-and-14. It was already clear that Washington was going to have a tough time stopping Green Bay, but they had managed to keep the game close while they waited for their offense to get their first first down.
Then on the punt after Green Bay’s third possession, Washington got a facemask penalty to set them up with great field position. They converted a first down, then wound up with a 3rd-and-9 drop from Noah Brown from the plus-43. That’s just outside field goal range probably, but Washington had made a couple plays, and importantly Daniels had just thrown an accurate ball to his receiver, who the booth thought was maybe held, in addition there still being a real chance he caught and converted, as he had the ball in his hands for a brief second before it was ripped away.
A lot of times it’s like, “Why would anything be different on fourth down than the previous three downs?” But Daniels hit Brown on the hands on third down, and the offensive line had held up pretty well the previous couple snaps. He looked like he might be ready to get into a rhythm. If I was a Packers’ fan, I was praying they’d punt and not get aggressive in that spot.
I know it was the first half, but to me this was just a clear, clear go situation. Quinn decided to take the ball out of Daniels’ hands and punt from plus territory, which to me showed a lack of feel for the game at that point. Importantly, I don’t even want to make this point about the numbers. I want to make it about football, and concepts like momentum that coaches always reference.
The Commanders had done nothing offensively through a quarter-plus, and the Packers were fairly easily moving the ball. The risk of giving up a short-field touchdown at that point almost didn’t seem relevant; hell, at least you’d get the ball back quickly. Punting ran the risk of pinning them deep but then watching an excruciating 90+ yard drive the other way that basically ended the first half without your offense even really playing.
Defensive coaches never seem to grasp this stuff. Your team had done nothing to establish an offensive identity at that point, and at that point, the “gamble” of using that extra down that you are perfectly allowed to use on offense was absolutely worth it to try to impose your own will onto the game.
Anyway, the Commanders did pin Green Bay deep, and the Packers did go 92 yards on 10 plays on about five minutes of game time to score a TD. And whether you believe this or not, I will just say that I wrote the majority of the above before seeing that Packers’ drive. I paused my game to write up this part of the introduction for today. That wasn’t hindsight analysis based on the ensuing result; at the point of the decision, I felt it was insane to not give Daniels the opportunity to go for it, just for field position, because you may not even stop the Packers coming back, and all you’d do was make it even longer before Daniels could get into the game as they traversed more of the field.
There was still plenty of time in the half, and on the next drive, the Commanders got into long FG range, and Quinn opted to kick a 51-yarder on 4th-and-5, which was no gimme but they did get it to make it 14-3. I wrote that “no gimme” line before seeing the rest of the half, too; it wasn’t influenced by them going on to miss a field goal, but that’s what happened on the final drive.
To be clear, I don’t think the 51-yard FG was the worst call in the world, entirely because at that point there was about four-and-a-half minutes in the half. You could justify the decision because you’re thinking sort of a two-for-one — to steal the basketball term — where a score there means you might get ball last in the half, which is a pretty huge thing to prioritize. If you go, and even if you convert the fourth down and do wind up with a TD, that probably only leaves time for Green Bay’s possession coming back, so the “benefit” of that decision might actually erase your last possession.
Of course, because of how poor you’ve done as a defensive coach at stopping the Packers, you also run the risk of them just keeping the ball for the final four-and-a-half, and that would be another disaster scenario given your field goal didn’t even cut the lead to one score, and it could be as many as three scores before half. I probably still would have been more urgent and went there, because you do have some timeouts and maybe you can get the ball back either way, and because you have to let Jayden Daniels give you a chance to win the game.
The Commanders did get the stop after their field goal, and then much to my chagrin since I’d already written much of the above, things somehow got worse. Quinn refused to use his timeouts under two minutes, showing zero urgency, and not even giving his play-caller and QB a stoppage to maximize their potential execution. They settled for a 58-yard field goal try that was missed, and the whole reasoning for working as slowly as they did seemed to be to not give the Packers another shot to score before half, but they did exactly that as a result of a process meant to avoid it, which is one of those things where whenever we talk about these conservative decisions, people love to talk down on the aggressiveness as if only the old-school way of thinking understands the game, and it always assumes that the execution of the old-school path will be perfect, but your kicker is not going to make every 58-yard field goal, and if he doesn’t you don’t even get the benefit you are seeking.
The Packers got it back with 14 seconds, and after a 14-yard completion they actually had time to call a straight run to Josh Jacobs to set up a better field goal of their own. That they missed a 48-yarder doesn’t change the catastrophic result of Quinn’s management.
And even if the Commanders had hit their own 58-yard field goal, you’re not doing as much as you think you are by making it 14-6. They needed to use that possession to do everything in their power to go get 7 points. I talk about this constantly, but football is a game of possessions, and you can’t be satisfied going into the locker room down 8 when you might only get four possessions in the whole second half and you’re also not going to just blank the Packers suddenly when you can’t stop them.
But that’s the other part of the decision-making where again the conservative side can only visualize everything going exactly to plan. “We’ll hit the long field goal and the Packers won’t get last chance” is one example of that, but so is the math that assumes an 8-point game is a one-possession game in the future because you’ll just get that 2-point conversion when you need it, despite it actually being a coinflip even against bad defenses (but you’re going up against a very good one). Cutting it to 8 maybe just kept you two scores behind.
But what’s really maddening about this, is the whole conservative thought process that sees every result through rose-colored glasses where all the things we’ll need to go right to justify not just being aggressive will definitely go right — you can just apply that optimism to going for it. It drives me insane! Why can’t you just tell yourself, “You know what, if we go for it here, we’re going to convert, and we’re going to go down and score the touchdown, and we’ll be right back in this game!” Or, “Hey, I’m going to use my timeouts, because I have faith we’re going to get the first downs and run the clock down anyway, and we’re going to score a TD right before half and Green Bay won’t get a possession anyway!” Just think optimistically about that shit!
And again, this is now Year 2. Jayden Daniels made you right on this stuff constantly last year, and everyone gave you a bunch of credit — for his poise — by touting your aggressiveness, and you have some clout and some results to fall back on to defend your decisions. At this point, there’s really zero excuse for the lack of imagination Dan Quinn showed last night for how things could actually go well if he just took on some risk and trusted his best player. It’s madness, and people only defend it because of a whole bunch of biases like a bias toward delaying a loss, and a bias toward the status quo, and loss aversion, and all of that stuff. But none of it is rational, logical decision-making within the parameters of what is ultimately just a game where we’re trying to get points and win.
The decisions Quinn made last night made it more or less impossible for the Commanders to actually win, unless the way the game was playing out just shifting dramatically on both sides of the ball. In the second half, the Commanders did actually start getting some stuff going, but they needed more possessions. They needed to maximize that first half better. They wound up losing 27-18 in a game that felt like it could have been 20, but it mostly was that kind of game — Green Bay out-gained them 404 to 230.
One of the other things that happens when this type of result occurs is people say, “Washington would have lost either way.” And my answer is yes, absolutely. That game looked bleak early. But that’s exactly why the decisions you make from the early part of the game need to maximize win probability, and when you have one of the five best quarterbacks in the NFL, and one who to this point has shown that he might actually be the most poised and clutch QB in the entire NFL, you have to get out of that dude’s way and see if he can make something special happen.
The early game there was clear. You have to understand what you’re up against and adjust accordingly. Dan Quinn did a terrible job of that last night. He managed the game like it was already over, and based on the 2024 season and how he’s viewed, he had all the clout to make the actual right decisions, if he was truly an aggressive head coach that understood the essence of these types of decisions. He has no excuse for it.
Quick thoughts on trading
I get asked a lot about trades, and one of the things I’m seeing a lot early this year is what I’d give to go acquire guys that I wasn’t super high on but had a good first week and I said nice things about in Week 1 of Stealing Signals. The answer is usually, “Not as much as the person who has them is going to want.”
To be blunt, often when I say nice things after one week about guys that I didn’t tout as draft targets, it’s because people get mad when I don’t take my Ls, and I don’t want to seem stubborn. That’s not the only outcome, and I shift heavily in some cases, but my point is that in a lot of the cases I probably sound like I’m changing my tune more than I am. I’ve talked before how I need to balance that with actionable advice about how I’d actually handle things, so let’s do that here and let me just say as a default I’m not responding to one week of data on a guy I didn’t really like in an aggressive enough way to want to buy high on him. It would be rare enough that I would almost certainly explicitly say that my opinion changed that much.
This isn’t just stubbornness or something. What’s way more relevant is this is a market-based game. And in these examples, the manager in your league who drafted that player, likes him. Then they saw good things early, so they are going to feel validated. Their price for him is very high at this point. It’s not that I’m not OK being wrong; it’s that it’s almost never going to be the case that the right value proposition in trade is the player you were too low on that gained value.
That’s just throwing good money after bad and chasing a mistake. I’d rather you tried to buy low on someone I didn’t like who it looks like I’m right about, because they looked terrible. Even though that thesis looks bad, and I was correct to be concerned, there’s at least potential that the original market valuation was seeing something that hasn’t materialized yet, i.e. there’s potential for you to win the trade because of a lower cost and the opportunity for surplus value.
But don’t go chasing buy highs when it’s players we were wrong about. For some reason I got this type of question three or four times this week, and the tone of them was all very similar in that it was sort of being panicked that we missed something so we need to chase it. And that’s not how I want you to play it, if I have my say.
It’s one thing if it’s someone we liked. In those scenarios, I do get it. I’m not out on buying high as a philosophy; if you think there’s still surplus value, great! And in cases where it’s a guy we really liked, but you just couldn’t get him in your draft for some reason, and then the thesis starts hitting and you really see even more meat on the bone, you can totally justify that because you really do feel like that guy was undervalued from the jump and now it definitely looks that way (that he was initially undervalued, and may still be). That’s a buy high I can be OK with!
But the other one is basically the worst move you can make. I think I was asked about Garrett Wilson, and about Deebo Samuel after Week 1, and also there are guys like Ricky Pearsall. And I’m trying to walk the tightrope of saying these guys looked better after Week 1 than where I ranked them but I also don’t want to pay their rising prices, and I don’t want you to, either.
What is Input Volatility?
Let’s get to the games. If you’re new, how this works is I offer these considerations solely because subscribers have asked, but not because I think they will be explicitly great predictions. I do so much deep diving into the recap and long-term value stuff in the early part of the week that I do not do a big deep dive into matchups in the late part of the week. I don’t think of myself as a good start/sit analyst, and I defer to others for those decisions in my own leagues.
That said, you guys have asked, because I do a ton of research, and I might have a thought about a different part of a range of outcomes in some cases. And that’s what “input volatility” is. My start/sit process tends to defer to projections, and just live with the results. My guy Michael Leone has built out the Establish The Run projections to be what I consider to be the best in the industry. I like to work off those.
This doesn’t mean I don’t override the projections in some cases. And those are cases where I think there’s some “input volatility,” i.e. that the inputs into their projections may be difficult to pin down for given players, and I may want to lean into the uncertainty, because I might see some ways things break favorably that can’t really be captured by a sharp projection. Essentially, projections can’t be all things — what I love about ETR is they do work hard to factor in a range of outcomes, including having both a base and ceiling projection as outputs — but there are still assumptions that have to be made on the input side that can’t all be done with the same level of confidence and certainty of role, especially early in the season.
But when I write about the different things, I don’t always catch the important matchup-based things that are going into the projections. I’m just going game-by-game and throwing out what hits me. Alright, let’s do it.
Browns at Ravens
It’s the first game, and I didn’t really think through who the poster boy would be, but I’m deciding right now Harold Fannin is obviously the poster boy (which if you’re reading this somewhere with an image, I guess you already knew, ha). There’s a ton of volatility with the Browns this week, and it wouldn’t be surprising if Fannin had a quiet Week 2. But I’m definitely willing to override and jam him into lineups where he’s at least close in projection. The reasoning would be there are scenarios where we look back at Harold Fannin as an immediate star, and if that’s the case we’re just a week or two from him projecting much higher as a default.
Part of why Fannin can’t project super high is I do still expect Jerry Jeudy to be a very good No. 1 here, I do think Cedric Tillman’s continued success carrying over from last year deserves respect, and I don’t think David Njoku is going to be nothing to this offense. But if I had both Fannin and Njoku, I’d play Fannin, and it’s both Njoku and Tillman that I’m a little less excited about playing here. Jeudy is the one I’m still confident in.
Jerome Ford is a guy I’d try to sit regardless of whether Quinshon Judkins plays, because Ford’s snap shares and routes last year didn’t always equate to the types of touches they should, something Siegele kept reminding me this offseason. I felt like that might have been just because he was sharing a backfield with Nick Chubb, and that he was now the veteran and they’d have to use him, but Week 1 was not promising.
Judkins is a sit regardless, as he just practiced Thursday for the first time. Dylan Sampson is I think very startable regardless, particularly in PPR or half PPR if you’re needy. Even if Judkins suits up, I don’t expect a ton of work. They’ve called it a “ramp-up period,” and his practice Thursday was his first since the spring.
There aren’t really any volatility guys on the Ravens’ side. I was discouraged by Mark Andrews Week 1, but you can still start him with Isaiah Likely out.
Jaguars at Bengals
There’s probably a little bit of volatility with Bhayshul Tuten, but I don’t think you can really play him unless you’re already really without options. The Bengals do have a rush defense that’s attackable, and all it takes is one big run for a guy like Tuten. It seems like Travis Etienne should get most of the work, though.
Travis Hunter is probably going to be pretty volatile in terms of snaps on a weekly basis, but I’d still play him until we see a good reason not to (or unless I have really good alternatives).
The Bengals are a concentrated and straightforward offense in terms of who is good for fantasy (i.e. core guys) and who is less so (i.e. ancillary guys).
Giants at Cowboys
I hate that I keep having to do this but Wan’Dale Robinson got the deep shot that got negated by penalty, and does have more air yards upside than anyone but me thinks. I still don’t love it when Russell Wilson is still under center.
Cam Skattebo will have potential to scale up until the point that he does scale up, because I do expect him to work into a bigger role. Again, with Wilson under center, it’s probably not a Week 2 move. If I had a toss up decision involving Tyrone Tracy, I might sit him because of the Skattebo and Wilson notes.
I’m pessimistic about Wilson, but you still play Malik Nabers, just to be perfectly clear. He’s incredible.
For the Cowboys, probably the biggest volatility thing is just if Jaydon Blue is active, which would be great to see. Don’t count on it — teams make guys inactive Week 1 for reasons, and then they tend to default to those reasons Week 2 also — and even if he does go, Javonte Williams will clearly again be the lead.
Bears at Lions
I’m not super in but I’m at least Olamide Zaccheaus curious. I really want them to use more Luther Burden, but he barely played in Week 1, and Zaccheaus did look good. In deeper PPR leagues, like some dynasty formats where you can wind up really thin, I think there’s justification for rostering and playing him.
There’s probably some minor volatility with D’Andre Swift, but I probably wouldn’t expect such a big Week 1 workload to disappear all at once, if it did scale back at all to make room for other guys.
Nothing to report on Lions’ side.