Jump to content

chronob

Forum Members
  • Posts

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chronob

  1. The idea that a talent and physical freak like Pitts isn't on the field for third and goal is crazy. I know he's a rookie, but come on. Line him up, send him into the endzone, have him jump really high and catch the ball if Matt throws it his way. At the very least he draws attention away from someone else. Does it have to be more complicated than that?
  2. I think you're correct, and you proved my point. We looked sharp on the first two drives, and after we got past that things broke down. Some real work in the preseason may have helped us keep momentum after we got through the opening script and had to adapt to game conditions. And you're right, 12 passes in one game wouldn't have amounted to much. We should have had our starters in for a half and a quarter in at least one game. That used to be standard operating procedure. Starters get a little work in the first two games, Third game of preseason the starters would play, get through the half, make a trial run for halftime adjustments, and play a couple more series before hitting the bench. That is not the same environment as scrimmages with other teams at training camp. For a team with a completely new staff, new schemes, and a lot of new players it's practically negligent that they didn't do that.
  3. You wouldn’t have gotten any grief from me. I definitely thought the starters should have played, and I don’t like losing the fourth preseason game, either.
  4. I was not happy the Falcons failed to put all their offensive starters on the field in the preseason, and I think that lack of real time work shows today. Penalties, missed opportunities, guys out of sync. It’s like we’re working out the kinks when it counts instead of getting at least some of that done beforehand. Either that, or all the off-season work on offense was thorough and it just didn’t matter.
  5. I disliked those, too. Not because they were new, but because the logo and jerseys screamed overwrought late 90s design. Like I said, some are hung up on the past, and some of us are hung up on good design.
  6. Clean, classic design, and bad-a$$. I'd love to see it on the field. And although I never spend money on jerseys, if they put that one in the store I'd buy it right now.
  7. Wouldn't hate taking a QB in 2, but would rather get best RB available.
  8. The only rule change I cared about - changing the stupid 1 helmet rule so that we can have red helmets again - didn't make the list. I was really hoping when the new uniforms came around that our normal helmet color would change to red, but it looks like we still won't get to switch even occasionally.
  9. If players want to opt out of voluntary workouts there's nothing you can do about that. But can someone explain to me why Covid is an issue for showing up at OTAs now that all adults are eligible for the vaccine?
  10. Won't need him after we draft Harris or Etienne 😉
  11. If Pitts = Tony Gonzalez/Travis Kelce then you'd be totally justified in taking him at 4. But that's the big question, is he one of those guys?
  12. Ah, the scouts are putting skin color ahead of their evaluations, and owners/GMs are getting biased information as a result. Got it.
  13. So, if it is still an issue, I'll ask my question again. Which current/recent owners and GMs are passing on coaches or players because they are more concerned about skin color than who can best help them win a superbowl? Which coach or GM is putting players lower on their draft board based on skin color? Seriously, which ones are putting that over winning?
  14. Does anyone really think that there's a single owner or GM today that cares more about a player's skin color than whether he will help them win a super bowl? If so, which ones?
  15. I'm not going to question their smarts just because they don't pick Pitts. That said, if Fontenot and Smith think Pitts is the next Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce they would be stupid not to take him at 4 just because it is rare to take a TE that high. If he's their guy, they should get their guy. That is the smart move.
  16. Yes, that's what I meant. Honestly, I would love to snag Harris, but now that we have Mike Davis that's less of a concern to me. The question is this, is there a generational talent at 4? People seem to think Pitts is one, and that Sewell is another. If you knew ahead of time that Pitts would be Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce you'd never pass on him at 4, and he'd help you win his first season. And if you think Sewell is a day one starter on the line that will anchor left guard/ tackle that will keep Ryan off the ground right away and for the next 5 years you'd be hard pressed to pass on that, too. Is Harris the next Adrian Peterson or LaDanian Tomlinson? If so, I'd happily take him in the first round, maybe even at 4. I don't get the impression that Harris is one of those guys, though, or that he'd make the same impact day one as some of the other options at 4.
  17. Just that if you don't go QB at 4 you could get a player that would start and have an impact this season, like Pitts or Sewell.
  18. If you're not concerned with being competitive this season, or the idea that our future QB is available at 4, then this is a good scenario.
  19. Why believe anything anyone says at this point? It's all misdirection, anyway.
  20. I absolutely love this mock draft, but you're right, this is a dream scenario. Pitts will be gone by 11 and Harris will be gone by 35.
  21. I like your mock draft, except I'd rather pick a running back early instead of a tight end. If we stay put at 4 and don't pick a QB, getting a generational talent (assuming that's what Sewell is) for the line is fine with me.
×
×
  • Create New...