DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

Administrators
  • Content count

    15,628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry last won the day on June 8 2016

DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry had the most liked content!

About DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

  • Rank
    Pro Bowler

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

11,523 profile views
  1. The problem is that this is all interwoven, right? Big networks pay big money to leagues for the rights to carry their content. But the money game is tipping the wrong way there. So you're going to see fewer dollars given to those networks which means less revenue for the teams which means either/both increased prices to the consumer or a fundamental change in the player model. I always wanted an a la carte menu for television content...if anything, thats the biggest engine of my cord cutting. But with the numbers at play for bigtime sports, a la carte access has the possibility of being really expensive. And thats before we get into the fallout of periphery jobs and industries. I dont know how quickly its going to happen but I dont think people truly understand the impact things like this can have on their lives. Maybe it wont be next year but ten years from now, do you feel confident that you could accurately describe what the content market will look like? I don't.
  2. That's done. This is the rapidly-accelerating fallout from people like you and I relying on non-traditional avenues for our programming. And I'll be honest, it's pretty sad. And it has some serious implications for the future. I think people celebrating things like this are missing the bigger picture. This evolving content market can go a few different directions but I think the more likely result will be that its going to cost us more to consume the content we like.
  3. No, thats how WE interpreted what he wrote. "I expect the Falcons to sign Freeman" means exactly that....Vaughn thinks that the Falcons will sign Freeman. Its conjecture. Valuable for letting us know where the FO was looking but not definitive.
  4. As some have mentioned in this thread, mock drafts are all over the place this year. Which is indicative of a deep and diverse talent pool. Although the league values guys like Reddick highly, its certainly possible that he could drop into our range. Remember, "lock Top 15" guys from last year fell into the 2nd. There's no way of knowing how teams value these guys. Aside from maybe two or three players, I think its possible that any player could drop to 31.
  5. Hooper wasnt a world beater (although I'd argue that he was better than some are giving him credit for) but anyone you draft is almost certainly going to be in the same position. Rookie TEs are not quick transition guys. Rookie TEs are not productive players. I'm fine looking to add a TE but people are talking about the position in a way that does not reflect the reality of the history of the position.
  6. All the love.
  7. The point you were "originally addressing" remains the same.....you're talking about using high value draft assets on an insurance policy for a position that wasn't a focal point of the offense. The goal posts havent moved at all, its the central logic of your own argument. Again, if the value forces your hand, do it. But its relatively far down the priority list for us. We have an opportunity to grow a young, fast, dominant defense. The financial benefits and cascading effect that could potentially come from spending early draft capital on continuing to beef that unit (which still remains the most needy unit on the team BTW) is superior to the effect of adding another TE early in the draft. And theres always the option of simply resigning Tamme after the draft.
  8. Because Reed and Clayborn are nice complimentary pieces unlikely to be on the team for multiple seasons playing significantly more important positions. And its still pretty clearly the spot on the team that needs to most help. And it also happens to be the spot where we've pooled notable young talent together. To continue to do so has the added benefit of providing +++ returns at positions which are expensive to obtain in FA. You also have to weigh the snaps and actual production. Not only is there no guarantee our TE offense looks the same this year as it did under Shanahan, you're still talking about a pretty small slice of the pie for a move TE2. Look at the snap counts and targets. Its not like there's a gaping hole that was left by Tamme leaving. The TEs made some big plays last year for sure, but this isnt exactly a fundamental cornerstone of the offense so much as its a wrinkle to use to take advantage of certain looks. And we still have the players that produced those big plays in those looks. I think the likelihood that the TE value will be such that you should pick a TE at 31 isnt all that high. It gets higher as you move through the draft, sure. But given this player pool, the depth at the different positions, I just have a difficult time envisioning a scenario where using 31 on TE is the right move.
  9. He's getting a ton of positive press the last few weeks. Not surprised.
  10. I'd love it if Carolina were to give up draft equity to draft a Top 3 RB. Sign. Me. Up.
  11. As a society, it would seem that we're largely incapable of even discussing these sorts of events. Doesnt do anyone any good.
  12. This argument can be used to support drafting almost any position. The loss of Matt Ryan leaves us with a washed up, veteran QB with a dead arm. The loss of Matt Bryant leaves us with no kicker, forced to hope for the best on the FA market. Etc. Depth is nice. We currently have that. However, depth is not sufficient reason to support drafting a player. If the value is there, fine. But TE is no higher than 4th on the priority list. We should draft accordingly.
  13. There's a difference between liking an idea and committing resources to that pursuing that idea. I like the idea of drinking Dom Perignon every day but I can't reasonably prioritize my interest in that idea over my interest in paying my bills, buying food, etc. Tight End shouldnt be off the table this week. I completely agree. But it also shouldnt be a priority. Does the idea of adding another piece to an offense with ~7 credible threats sound better than adding another talented F7 piece to a young defense? IDK...I don't really think so. Is that TE going to produce marginal gains to offset the possibility of another strong pass rusher or movable DL?
  14. Except that the 2016 offense included a greater sample of non-Tamme games than games with Tamme.....with no drop in effectiveness. That's the important point you're missing. Tamme's presence or absence had no effect on the offense's production or efficiency.