How much better—or worse—is each AFC team after the first wave of free agency?

Summary of How much better—or worse—is each AFC team after the first wave of free agency?

by The Athletic

1h 9m•March 16, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of How much better—or worse—is each AFC team after the first wave of free agency?

Host: The Athletic (Robert Mays, with Derek Klassen)

A week into the first wave of NFL free agency (roughly March 9–16), Robert Mays and Derek Klassen run through every AFC roster to judge whether teams are materially better, worse, or roughly the same compared with opening day of free agency. They weigh incoming signings, losses, draft capital, contract structure (one‑year vs multiyear), positional volatility (especially corner/OL), and longer‑term cap/roster implications.

Methodology

  • Quick, roster-level grading: better / worse / neutral (or nuanced between those).
  • Consider net talent gained/lost, contract design (short-term vs blocking future flexibility), and how moves fit team identity and draft capital.
  • Caveats: early free agency is incomplete—draft and later signings will change many evaluations.

Team-by-team verdicts (AFC)

  • Las Vegas Raiders — Better

    • Major additions (Tyler Linderbaum, Jalen Naylor, linebacker upgrades) improve O‑line and linebacker play; younger players with runway.
    • Still big roster holes up front on defense and need another outside receiving presence; cap implications tolerable.

  • Tennessee Titans — Better (but nuanced)

    • Secondary and defensive front improved with multiple signings (Elante Taylor, Cordell Flott, John Franklin-Myers, others).
    • Many contracts are safe but not high upside; some signings (Wondell Robinson, Flott) could underwhelm relative to price. Still abundant cap room and future flexibility.

  • Indianapolis Colts — Worse

    • Lost multiple key veterans (Michael Pittman, Braden Smith, Quidi Paye); limited replacement splash so far.
    • Could have been neutral if Trey Hendrickson landed in Indianapolis; without that, roster looks downgraded.

  • Los Angeles Chargers — Slightly worse / Neutral (lean worse)

    • Added center depth (Biotis) and offensive role pieces, but they lost pricey interior talent and still need another edge rusher.
    • Approach preserves cap, leaves draft as the primary solution; outcome depends on how well new scheme/OL fit works.

  • New England Patriots — A little better (boring, system‑aligned upgrades)

    • Incremental but sensible additions: outside receiver upgrade, fullback/tight end depth, and OL piece (Elijah Vera‑Tucker) — health dependent.
    • Verdict hinges on Vera‑Tucker’s availability and how Will Campbell/Jared Verse development goes.

  • Baltimore Ravens — Probably better (contingent)

    • Gained edge/defensive help (Hendrickson trade’s effect discussed) but lost Tyler Linderbaum at center; outcome depends on solving center spot (e.g., Lloyd Cushenberry or other).
    • Defense remains in good shape if center gets addressed; offense (skill WRs) still a worry.

  • Houston Texans — Neutral

    • Clean, logical upgrades and trades (David Montgomery, safety depth) and extra draft capital.
    • Not many immediate win additions, but an appealing approach that keeps flexibility and addresses depth.

  • Buffalo Bills — Moderately better (but expensive)

    • Offense bolstered by the DJ Moore trade; losing some OL depth (David Edwards, others) is a hit but manageable.
    • Overpaid in assets/cap for the upgrade, but January/Wild Card goals may justify it.

  • Cleveland Browns — Slightly worse / Neutral (lean worse)

    • Lost useful pieces (David Njoku, some OL changes); added some OL via free agency but overall hard to claim a clear upgrade.
    • Two first‑round picks complicate the snapshot—draft could materially alter this.

  • New York Jets — Better

    • Aggressive short‑term upgrades (Geno Smith upgrade at QB relative to last year, Minka Fitzpatrick trade, one‑year veteran fits) make the team more competent in 2024.
    • Mostly one‑year commitments preserve draft flexibility; approach is win-now without mortgaging the future.

  • Kansas City Chiefs — Neutral / Maybe worse (intentional)

    • Added Kenneth Walker (offensive boost) but lost defensive pieces (Trent McDuffie trade, secondary attrition); team likely weaker on paper now.
    • Move was strategic: they acquired draft capital/picks and plan to retool in draft—still a top contender given Mahomes and remaining assets.

  • Miami Dolphins — Worse (by design)

    • Little inbound free‑agent spending; they lost some defensive pieces (Bradley Chubb, others) and slimmed down their edge/body types.
    • The roster was being reoriented; short‑term defensive thinness is a known and intentional tradeoff.

  • Denver Broncos — Slightly worse

    • Minimal activity but lost John Franklin‑Myers; otherwise largely status quo. Small downgrade from the one notable loss.

  • Cincinnati Bengals — About the same / Slightly better (uncertain)

    • Replaced Hendrickson with additions like Boye Mafe and retained other pieces; signed Jonathan Allen and safety help.
    • Outcome depends on younger defenders taking steps; if they do, moves won’t matter as much.

  • Jacksonville Jaguars — Worse

    • Lost playmakers (e.g., Travis Etienne—noted as a loss in discussion) and other veterans; added different role players (Chris Rodriguez) but overall a downgrade.
    • Some losses were expected (salary/market-driven), and draft/other moves could mitigate.

  • Pittsburgh Steelers — Better (for 2024; long‑term questions)

    • Upgrades at corner (Jamel Dean), WR (Michael Pittman), DBs and rotation pieces; improved immediate roster.
    • Many moves are short term; whether they fit a sustainable long‑term push remains unclear (quarterback uncertainty complicates longer horizon).

Cross‑cutting takeaways / themes

  • Many teams used one‑year or short deals to buy immediate competence while preserving draft flexibility (Jets, Steelers, Chiefs to an extent).
  • Position volatility matters: cornerback and interior OL are particularly risky to sign long term—some teams overpaid for perceived floors (Titans corners).
  • Draft capital remains a major lever—teams that traded picks (Chiefs, Bills) or hold many picks (Patriots, Texans, Browns) balanced free agency moves against what they plan to solve in April.
  • Several teams improved in obvious, incremental ways (Raiders, Bills, Raiders’ youth rebuild), but few dramatically transformed themselves in this first wave.
  • Health risk signings (Elijah Vera‑Tucker, others) create upside/downside bifurcated outcomes depending on availability.

Notable insights / quotes from the episode

  • “There are good and bad ways to spend in free agency — and I don’t mind the way the Raiders did it.” — emphasis on buying young/upside talent rather than one‑off veterans.
  • Teams often choose to be “worse today” to be better in the future (Chiefs deliberately gave up current talent for draft capital).
  • Cornerback is a “weak‑link” position: filling each spot with a competent player can be more valuable than one splashy signing.

What to watch next (action items)

  • Draft outcomes: many teams’ final evaluations hinge on early picks (Chiefs, Raiders, Browns, Patriots, Texans).
  • Health updates for key signings (Elijah Vera‑Tucker, other OL additions).
  • How volatile positions (outside corner, linebacker, center) perform in year‑one with new teams—these will decide which free‑agency gambles age well.
  • Follow the remaining free‑agency waves and cuts that create new bargain targets (teams will still tweak rosters).

This episode gives a practical, roster‑level snapshot of the AFC after the initial free‑agency rush: a mix of clear winners (Raiders, Jets, Raiders’ youth investments) and clear losers (Colts, Jaguars), with many teams sitting in the gray zone pending draft and health outcomes.