NFL analysts name a fictional “All-Average” roster, spotlighting the market value of players who get overlooked

Two NFL analysts, Nate Tice and Matt Harmon, published a conceptual 2026 “All-Average Team” that takes a different angle on roster building. Instead of stacking highlight-reel talent or chasing ceiling, they identify players they view as “average” at their positions and then ask a practical question: if a roster is built around solid, repeatable production, what does that imply about wins?

The centerpiece of the project is their effort to define what “average” means before they start listing players by role. They argue that average players can be more useful than they are credited for, particularly because the NFL punishes teams when key snaps become inconsistent. In that framework, “average” does not mean bad. It is closer to dependable within a position group, the kind of starter who can be counted on to perform without constant volatility.

Their position-by-position approach includes skill players, offensive linemen, and defenders, along with a quarterback reference tied to an Arizona Cardinals situation. The article also notes at least one repeat name from its previous version, including a tight end who appears again on the “average” team in consecutive seasons, reinforcing that the list is designed to track steady, mid-tier value rather than one-year spikes.

From a team-building perspective, the method is provocative because it challenges the instinct to treat every roster spot as a hunt for “impact.” If Tice and Harmon’s premise holds, an “average” player can be the stable anchor that keeps a unit coherent, especially when opponents are scheming for exploitables. That is a different way to think about roster construction in a league where depth and floor matter as much as peak play.

The Cardinals element matters in part because quarterback valuation has ripple effects. Even when a quarterback is not framed as an elite outlier, teams still have to balance play quality, availability, and what the market expects them to pay. The “contract dispute” reference in the piece underlines that this kind of situation can become a team identity issue, not just a cap or negotiation issue.

Still, it is important to treat the All-Average Team as an analytical exercise rather than a league award. There is no official NFL definition of “average,” and the list is rooted in the authors’ models and judgment. Readers should also expect that fans may disagree on where the line is drawn between average, good, and very good, especially across quarterbacks and positions where schemes can heavily affect perceived performance.

As the 2026 offseason moves toward training camp, the broader question the analysts raise is whether steadier “middle” players are being undervalued. Watch for how teams integrate role-specific starters, particularly in offensive line continuity and defensive front stability, because those are the areas where a floor-driven roster philosophy can show up quickly on film. The most telling evidence will not be whether the “average” label sticks, but whether the teams built around reliability look structurally sound when the season begins.