g-dawg Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 I hardly call Matthews a dream scenario. I think he will be there regardless.Dream scenario would be being able to choose between: Clowney, Mack, Robinsonno that is not dream scenario - that is wet fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I hardly call Matthews a dream scenario. I think he will be there regardless.Dream scenario would be being able to choose between: Clowney, Mack, RobinsonMatthews is a very good OT. He's better technique wise than Robinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butudontseeme™ Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think they go a Matthews or Robinson. Or believe it or not Bortles or Bridgewater. I know it sounds crazy but there are reasons:1) Bradford is not fisher and snead's guy2) he's been hurt and /or ineffective despite getting weapons3) their OL is onto bad at all4) dead money for Bradford is less next year and they could let a rookie like Bortles sit for a year5) they're an improving ball club and unlikely to get any top 5 picks again for a whileInteresting take on rams taking a QB. Haven't thought about it like that. You think they would try to trade Bradford next year if they take one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulioisCoolio Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Matthews is a very good OT. He's better technique wise than RobinsonDon't get why people trash on Matthews. It'll be a seamless transition for Matthews to the pros mentally. He's been around it his whole life. There will be no shock and awe over the whole process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Interesting take on rams taking a QB. Haven't thought about it like that. You think they would try to trade Bradford next year if they take one?Don't know. That's an interesting thought, though.Obviously I have zero insight but a number 2 pick is a nice commodity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oztin Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Personally I would love to pick Mack instead, but I am more of a defense minded guy, I will not be mad in the slightest way if we pick up Robinson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g-dawg Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think McShay is wrong though......My guess is - either 1-2 QBs go in top 5 - somebody is going to go against the grain or not like the 3rd QB left over....We just need 2 QBs and Watkins to go in front of us - not as far-fetched as McShay's scenario.Clowney, 2QBs, Watkins, MatthewsorClowney, 1 QB, Watkinssome combo. like that - and we are clear to get either Mack or Greg Robinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Don't get why people trash on Matthews. It'll be a seamless transition for Matthews to the pros mentally. He's been around it his whole life. There will be no shock and awe over the whole process.Me either. I do love Robinson's physical makeup. But part of me would rather matthews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Personally I would love to pick Mack instead, but I am more of a defense minded guy, I will not be mad in the slightest way if we pick up Robinson.I wouldn't be p issed if we got Mack either lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g-dawg Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 Matthews is a very good OT. He's better technique wise than Robinsonno doubt at this point - but Robinson can learn technique - Matthews is not going to wake up tomorrow with his arms 2 inches longer, 30 pounds heavier and faster/stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g-dawg Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 Oddly enough, I would be more concerned if he were an interior lineman and wasn't a polished pass blocker. That's where Ryan needs the most help.That said, if we drafted him, would you start him at LT immediately or let him play RT for a year or two first?already answered but happy to do so again - it was at bottom of 1st page:i really don't think it matters. It would make sense to me for Greg Robinson to play right tackle his rookie year - we are stuck with Baker and Baker is a 6 year vet - Robinson is learning the traditional NFL pass protection schemes - why not let him do so on the right side where there is less pressure while he adapts to the NFL way of doing things. We have to pay Sam Baker either way. Also, the right side is where you traditionally run the ball a little more and Robinson is day#1 ready to dominate in that area.Then in 2015, if Baker looks done, you cut him and move Greg Robinson over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 no doubt at this point - but Robinson can learn technique - Matthews is not going to wake up tomorrow with his arms 2 inches longer, 30 pounds heavier and faster/stronger.Oh don't misunderstand me I love Robinson as well. I'd love to be in the war room at flowery branch discussing those two.I really like Lewan as well as a 3rd option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oztin Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Oddly enough, I would be more concerned if he were an interior lineman and wasn't a polished pass blocker. That's where Ryan needs the most help.That said, if we drafted him, would you start him at LT immediately or let him play RT for a year or two first?Let him get his feet wet at RT so he has some time to learn how to Pass Protect as well as he Run Blocks and then move him over later on in the next year or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEC Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Stupid to pass up Mack for Robinson. TD should be fired if he does this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFanSince1970 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I'd be happy with Robinson. Fits my road grader mantra. Bring him on home Dimi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSalmon Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Stupid to pass up Mack for Robinson. TD should be fired if he does this.No way. That'd be sensible for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butudontseeme™ Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 already answered but happy to do so again - it was at bottom of 1st page:i really don't think it matters. It would make sense to me for Greg Robinson to play right tackle his rookie year - we are stuck with Baker and Baker is a 6 year vet - Robinson is learning the traditional NFL pass protection schemes - why not let him do so on the right side where there is less pressure while he adapts to the NFL way of doing things. We have to pay Sam Baker either way. Also, the right side is where you traditionally run the ball a little more and Robinson is day#1 ready to dominate in that area.Then in 2015, if Baker looks done, you cut him and move Greg Robinson over. Lol. I asked the question before I read through the posts, then deleted my post on accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oztin Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Okay lets say you had to choose between Matthews and Lewan. Who do you pick and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bundini Brown Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Yea I def think we're prepping ourselves to select a tackle at 6. Theres a few to choose from in the event that 1 or 2 get taken prior to our pick (which won't happen)But mannn, do i want a pass rusher. Our past top 6 picks under this regime were offensive play makers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwarzenegger321 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 If we havent addressed most if not all of the offensive line issues in free agency then our entire front office needs to be fired immediately. There is a huge glut of good young free agents that won't kill us cap wise. Defense is much more expensive in free agency.Robinson won't be there at 6 and we wouldn't have a need to draft him (hopefully). I'm hoping no one in our front office is dumb enough to draft Clowney, so it's either Mack or trade back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oztin Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Stupid to pass up Mack for Robinson. TD should be fired if he does this.Not really, both are elite draft picks that everyone is saying can make an instead upgrade to a team. Mack with his defensive versatility, speed, and power. Robinson with his mauler mentality, power, size, and speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 this is probably "best-case" dream scenario for Falcons - 3 QBs and Watkins going before we pick. Can you imagine getting to choose between Khalil Mack, Greg Robinson and Jake Matthews? that is dream scenario. As a matter of fact, if you started getting 2-3 bids wanting to move up, you might could even trade back 2-3 spots and still get one of these guys. I believe I would take Greg Robinson in that situation - but Mack would be tempting.Let's tease this out a bit...QB1, 2, 3 and Watkins go in the top 5 along with Clowney.What would our trade down options be? We could leverage TB given the likelihood they'll want Mack. Maybe we could trade down one spot, snag an extra 3rd or 4th and still grab one of the tackles.Minnesota doesnt seem like a fit because the QBs are gone. Unless they want Carr and even then, they're probably content to let it ride and assume TB wont grab him. Buffalo could want a tackle but that exposes us. If we traded down with Buffalo, we'd probably grab a 2nd or 3rd rounder depending on the situation. They would take one of the tackles. Tampa would take Mack. Minnesota goes?????? If they go with value, they take the other tackle. Now we're looking at Lewan, Donald, etc. I don't know if I'm on board with that. Obviously the ideal would be Minnesota going with Mike Evans or a CB/S so we could take the remaining tackle.I think if this situation happens, we should just cash our chips in, absent a HUGE deal that allows us to take a run at Donald or Lewan around 10-12. But I'd put the floor for such a deal at St Louis' #13, 44 and a later pick in like the 4th. I don't know that they'd give us that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Doktor Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I'm not buying three QBs in the first five. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwarzenegger321 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Let's tease this out a bit...QB1, 2, 3 and Watkins go in the top 5 along with Clowney.What would our trade down options be?We could leverage TB given the likelihood they'll want Mack. Maybe we could trade down one spot, snag an extra 3rd or 4th and still grab one of the tackles.Minnesota doesnt seem like a fit because the QBs are gone. Unless they want Carr and even then, they're probably content to let it ride and assume TB wont grab him.Buffalo could want a tackle but that exposes us. If we traded down with Buffalo, we'd probably grab a 2nd or 3rd rounder depending on the situation. They would take one of the tackles. Tampa would take Mack. Minnesota goes?????? If they go with value, they take the other tackle. Now we're looking at Lewan, Donald, etc. I don't know if I'm on board with that. Obviously the ideal would be Minnesota going with Mike Evans or a CB/S so we could take the remaining tackle.I think if this situation happens, we should just cash our chips in, absent a HUGE deal that allows us to take a run at Donald or Lewan around 10-12. But I'd put the floor for such a deal at St Louis' #13, 44 and a later pick in like the 4th. I don't know that they'd give us that much.Better yet I would trade back to the late first where one of the big DT's are scheduled to go. If we trade back far enough you are looking at us being at the other end of the JJ trade. We give up our 6th for say 25 - 30 and get this years 2nd and 3rd and next years 1st. We still get our DT that we desperately need plus the extra two early picks me we can rebuild our entire defense this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEC Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 No way. That'd be sensible for a change.Yes way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.