JDaveG

Pure Football
  • Content count

    41,210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Everything posted by JDaveG

  1. Cat down the mountain melted theater butter. @Jpowers
  2. This is something that is overlooked. Evaluating prospects is in some ways completely subjective, but you can take a few things away from the process. Imagine you're an NFL GM or talent scout. You know your team needs, you know your scheme fits, and you know what kind of player you want. You also have a reasonably good idea of what other teams are looking for in a player. The way this board approaches things, you would think the Falcons front office is just way out to lunch on a lot of these players, and doesn't understand why someone else is better. But if you're a Falcons FO executive or scout, then you know the work you've put in. You know little details about a guy like his arm length, height, weight, explosiveness, strength, speed. You also know other details like his history, his reputation with his team and teammates. You've watched film so you know how good (or bad) his technique is, how smart he is, what sort of judgment he uses during games. And you can reasonably assume that other teams know these things too. So when you hone in on a guy and you say "this is our guy," and you see other teams ahead of you who have similar needs and scheme fits, you go get that guy, because if you don't, they will. Now, do you absolutely 100% know they want the same guy? Of course not. But you have to reasonably assume they see what you see. That they've also done their homework. That they understand the player the same way you do. That works in reverse too. You know when a team will never look at a guy. Grady Jarrett is an example of that. He's "too short" to play DT in the NFL, according to most talent evaluators, assuming most teams run a certain type of scheme. But not in our scheme. So really, at the time we drafted him, we had to worry about Seattle and Jacksonville, and probably no one else. So we could let him slide and get tremendous value in the 5th round as a result.
  3. I'm sure we will, but we won't do it too much. The reason is you don't want to risk 3 and out on a short clock. Tempo should be used to stress the defense by making them play faster and creating mismatches when you keep them on the field because they lack time to substitute. Just doing it for the sake of it is counter-productive for a lot of reasons. Frankly, I expect to see more of it early, and then a lot more ball control late. If we do it in the 2nd half it will be because we're behind or feeling like we need another score to win. Otherwise, I'd expect a short passing game/heavy run combo in the 2nd half of most games. Certainly in the 4th quarter. This team likes to front run. That works very well, but it requires you to be able to rest your defense late and burn clock. Both of those are inconsistent with a heavy dose of up-tempo no huddle late in the game.
  4. @Dago 3.0, I'm gonna need a ruling here.
  5. For what it's worth, I wouldn't suggest an offense that is merely explosive is a "good offense." I do think our offense in 2016 was a great offense, but like any offense, it had weaknesses, and ability to sustain drives and get short yardage gains were two of them. We could score at will, but we struggled to close it out. We had the first half of the WCO philosophy down, but not the 2nd. What we need to do this season is marry those two concepts. Score early and often, and then go straight ball control and move the chains and burn the clock. And score points. Moving it into the red zone and having your RB whiff on a block causing a sack fumble isn't good enough. Not that I'm bitter about it.
  6. I was summarizing my man.
  7. Also, read this thread: @HolyMoses spelled it out for the haters. And he's 100% right. A good offense is often your best defense. And a good offense starts in the trenches.
  8. It really seems so simple. And so much of the noise is around them not wanting the players the fans wanted, when the fans just don't know what they don't know. The other thing that peeves me is this -- we harp on the o-line, all the time. I complained long and loud about us not picking any o-linemen before the 4th round under Quinn, meanwhile we have selected a couple of RBs higher. We complain about getting patchwork FAs to fill holes (though Levitre and Mack were pretty notable additions to that o-line, both are older). And the team FINALLY invests draft capital at the position, ensuring they get the guys they wanted, and people complain about that. "What about the d-line?" We've invested 2 first round picks on the d-line under Quinn. One of them is solid (Takk). One of them is disappointing (Beasley). The disappointing one has flashed production, but seems to be flagging right now. Quinn is betting he can get production out of his two first round selections. We just signed Grady to a franchise deal of $15 million. We got some patchwork FAs on the d-line and we signed Davison from the Saints. We have a draft pick from last season that shows promise at DT. The o-line is far and away the bigger problem. We went heavy on the o-line and people still complain. Because we didn't draft their favorite corner (or whoever).
  9. The problem is you assume things that just aren't so. Or at least, they are based on what you "believe," which really is nothing at all to base anything on. Whether Lindstrom would have been there in the 2nd or McGary in the 3rd is simply pure speculation on your part. If both were gone, someone (maybe you, maybe not) would be killing us for not addressing the o-line in the draft. Lindstrom looks like a day 1 starter. McGary may (or may not) be more of a project. But they are both solid picks and solidify this o-line for quite a long time if they both work out, and there is no reason sitting here to think they won't. The other thing you falsely assume is the other picks were "high quality personnel" relative to our scheme fits and team needs. And let's be honest, you're basing that on your opinion, likely colored by the "analysts" (read professional journalists who are amateur talent evaluators) and not on the opinions of the people who get paid a lot of money to identify said scheme fits and team needs and select players who meet both. Put simply, there is absolutely no reason to think you and Kiper and D-Led and company are right and the Falcons front office is wrong. So I choose to believe they are right and you are wrong. It's a simple analysis really. On one side we have professional talent evaluators who put thousands of hours into these picks, and on the other side we have amateur talent evaluators who write and stir **** for a living.............oh, and you.
  10. This right here says it all.
  11. I want to address this, only because it's a common refrain that is just plain wrong. It's true, technically speaking, that we did not draft for two entire rounds. But we drafted twice in the first round, and that's worth more than the third rounder we used to take the guy we wanted in the second. We got our guy. Our pick at 31 was the guy we wanted in the 2nd. So sure, we didn't draft for two entire rounds, but we drafted twice in the first, and no one seems to want to account for that. They want their cake and eat it too. I know you aren't saying that, in fact, you're saying the opposite. I just think the language here is important. We didn't trade a 2nd and 3rd for nothing. We swapped our 2nd with their first and it cost us a 3rd to do it. That's the math. We also got a 6th, not for nothing.
  12. Right? Fast is fast.
  13. I need more information. Are we talking some bro country **** or Waylon? It matters.
  14. This is the same board that freaked out when Ryan got picked by Shanny. Meanwhile, the rest of us are over here like:
  15. You only know one tune, but you sure sing the **** out of it........
  16. I got home at 10:30.......missed the pick but saw us take McGary.
  17. Also, before anyone pooh-poohs Hawley, I remember when he was cut and the Board went apoplectic over it, saying it would be a huge mistake. And most of the board was right, since Mike Person became our center, so let's just nip that in the bud. He played 2 more years with TB and was productive.
  18. People don't remember Koetter's first stint here. We all complained about the o-line after we replaced Clabo and Mud Duck with a combo of Brawley, Konz and Holmes, but Hawley was really the kind of guy Koetter likes, only a holdover mid rounder from Mularkey's regime. I'm not sure Koetter, a first year OC with us back then, had as much say in the Konz and Holmes picks, and they were 2nd and 3rd rounders anyway. In any event, Koetter likes guys who are physical and aggressive and play past the whistle. And his offense does best with those guys, witness 2012. This is scheme fit more than Mel Kiper fit.
  19. Dude, I had no idea who this kid was (I knew about Lindstrom, so I was happy with that pick). And then I read his T-Rex arms and bad technique made him a project and wondered why we moved up for him. Then I read this. Holy crap, this dude might be more "upside" than "NFL ready," but his intelligence, physicality and overall meanness are all things that will pay dividends for this team, maybe this season, but certainly in years to come. I went from being a "who? Wait, what?" guy to a fan. Thanks for posting.
  20. I don't know about that, but they definitely changed the rule so you can trade comp picks. At least that's what I heard.
  21. Every single year. And it seems no one ever learns. Thank you.
  22. Well, the first isn’t a place to get an RB in this draft. It’s not as strong a class as the last few years. We could easily get a good one in the 4th, or trade back up. Plus Free might actually stay healthy for a season.
  23. Looks like we plan to go run heavy. That’s one thing.