Jump to content

Sounds like DQ likes GA Guard Isaiah Wynn


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, D.B.N. said:

I think Wynn would provide good value in rounds 2-3. Depending how the board falls I would like to take a DT in the first and draft a G in rounds 2-3.

Probably what’s gonna happen, D.B.N.....I prefer they stay patient ...no trading up....and draft BPA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Vandy said:

Probably what’s gonna happen, D.B.N.....I prefer they stay patient ...no trading up....and draft BPA. 

Agreed. A mild trade-up a few spots, ala the Takk trade, wouldn’t be too bad though depending if someone falls to say 20. Just all depends how to board falls. It’s super early, but my hope is that one of either Vea or Payne should be there at 26. Chances are Roquan doesn’t make it past 15... it would be crazy if he made it past 10 IMO. But if for some crazy reason Roquan falls to 20 I would be down to trade up. Otherwise, stay patient and go BPA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MSalmon said:

Ha ha do you feel threatened? I mean a grown man said that he was going to treat you like a child after all:bang:

As you know, TAFT offseason always get :ninja: weird my man. And scary part is it’s just getting started. 

I’d be happy with:

(1) DT Payne

(2) OG Wynn

(3) FS Whitehead....he had a disappointing year but I love his speed. Sit back and learn from Manuel/Rico  for a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MSalmon said:

That’s rodney Hudson size. The wingspan is pretty good. He’s average to below average size for many teams. Our team? Yeah, we have Levitre who’s comparable in size. 

Levitre had bigger hands (9.5) and shorter arms 32.5. What’s wynns explosion metrics and bench press projecting at?

and, like it or not, he’s undersized compared to our last two draft picks on interior OL(Schweitzer and Harlow).

 

 

Explosion metrics wont be known until the combine. And we're just going to have to disagree on semantics here. I don't consider average to below average size as being worthy of an "undersized" label. In fact, average is by definition inherently not undersized, since it's exactly in the middle. Regarding being smaller than our last two draft picks, I gotta say, so what? That doesn't mean a single thing to me, and probably not to the Falcons either. Let's clarify something too, Wynn, at 6 feet and 2 and a half inches is only an inch and a half shorter than both Schweitzer and Harlow who are both 6'4". But he's also 8 pounds heavier than Schweitzer and 3 pounds heavier than Harlow.

So I ask once again, can we dispense with this errant myth that Wynn is somehow an undersized guard. He's an under-height OT, but he's perfectly within the normal parameters of an OG. No team is going to pass on him because of his size.

This is all probably going to be a moot point anyway. I don't want him at #26, and he may be gone by the time our 2nd round pick comes up. And I darn sure don't want to burn draft picks to move up and draft a guard.

Edited by RandomFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea ... In our scheme I think his size help him ... He is athletes enough to get to the second level which is HUGE in our scheme... The guy is 308 ... and at 6'2.. low man wins in the trenches

 

 

I wanted lamp last year because I saw this coming (with Jake about to get paid we need cheap labor at guard but we need good play) ... I like Wynn more then I like lamp tho... Ive seen Wyn deal with speed and power players from this best conferebce and lock them down.. plus I think he could fill in on every position on the O-Line

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MSalmon said:

Does mos-quoting posters and being a general all round contrarian and lying when confronted count as being grade schoolish? 

Ive noticed that you butt your way into threads, throw a bunch of non-substantiated data around and then get mad.

i feel like you’ve threatened me.

i might tattle on you

These are public threads open to any poster, if you want to be exclusive you can get privacy with your TATF bf elsewhere. Also if you feel threatened with your stupid egoist opinion go take it up with DQ and not me. He is the one actively scouting college RGs while you seem to think we are fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Knight of God said:

You guys talk as though we are a lineman away from greatness. OL is the magic bullet mentality. Its like more picks in the draft myths and and a ton of other fallacies.

More picks in the draft isnt a myth...its basic economics. 

But your ultimate point, which I take to be "pick the right players and build a strong team" rather than "this one piece will fix everything" is spot-on, dude. 

This team isnt any one player away from greatness. Not a guard, not a WR, not a TE, not a DT (well...maybe like three of them). 

It's always going to be about how the pieces are developed and utilized. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MSalmon said:

The Steelers took a G in 2012 DeCastro and Pouncey (Center) in 2010

The Seahawks took Ifedi in 2016 at #31

the Eagles took a bust G , named Danny Watkins in 2011

thats hardly a ringing endorsement for interior OL in the first as a baseline of success in the recent NFL era.

BTW, in what shape , form or fashion does going back to 1993 have Dittly squat with the current success of the teams you mentioned?

there were 12 rounds in the draft as recent as 1992.

kinda of a weird argument.

Im not saying that the interior OL has become more of a premium position, but it’s still clearly an area that can be addressed outside the first round.

BTW the Cleveland browns probably have more OL picks in first three rounds than any team, to include a first on Alex Mack (09) and a #3 overall for a future HOFer in Joe Thomas.

hows that hyper focus on OL working out for them?

 

 

 

 

Worked well for Dallas too....1st round G and 1st round Center in consecutive drafts turning a questionable OL into the best OL in the league for 3 seasons. 

Washington took a guard in the Top 10 three seasons ago....and he's played very well. 

Saints took a guard in the Top 15...worked well for them. 

Yall need to work on isolating the signal from the noise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

This is clearly untrue. 

I exaggerated a little bit but it's a limited pool, and some of those guys take a while to develop. Take a look at the previous drafts on Wikipedia, the number of notable undrafted players linger's around 10 to 11 players.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_NFL_Draft

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Worked well for Dallas too....1st round G and 1st round Center in consecutive drafts turning a questionable OL into the best OL in the league for 3 seasons. 

Washington took a guard in the Top 10 three seasons ago....and he's played very well. 

Saints took a guard in the Top 15...worked well for them. 

Yall need to work on isolating the signal from the noise. 

Warmack and Jonathan Cooper both in top 10 were big busts. Drafting OG in first round is like playing lotto. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, falcons007 said:

Warmack and Jonathan Cooper both in top 10 were big busts. Drafting OG in first round is like playing lotto. 

Your conclusion does not follow from your original premise. 

Here's the reality of the NFL draft: its filled with uncertainty. Players can fail or succeed for all sorts of reasons. But that doesnt mean its a "crap shoot" or a "lottery." 

We can look at the strong NFL programs and isolate the things those teams have done well with respect to player acquisition and roster building. We can identify things that tend to be well correlated with successful programs and allow that to influence the way this team is built. 

That doesnt mean the analysis is as simple as "Cowboys drafted a G and he was great so we should do the same thing" or "Cooper was a bust so dont waste a pick on a 1st round OG" Those are irrational lines of thought. 

It seems the real problem here is that people want simple answers. As @Knight of God said, they want "magic bullets" But thats not how the league works. Its way more complex than that. 

So if you get to pick 26 and the coaching and scouting staff dont believe that Schweitzer/Garland have "starter" potential AND theres an OG prospect that they feel is a great fit with our needs AND there arent other great fits at other positions, then maybe they should take the guard. But thats an awful lot of pieces working together. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, osiruz said:

I exaggerated a little bit but it's a limited pool, and some of those guys take a while to develop. Take a look at the previous drafts on Wikipedia, the number of notable undrafted players linger's around 10 to 11 players.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_NFL_Draft

You can get different things from UDFAs. Sometimes, you find legitimate top notch players. Other times, you find valuable depth. For some positions, UDFA is the most efficient way to acquire talent (Kickers and FBs). 

That doesnt mean you rely on UDFAs to fill needs, but our philosophy toward UDFA should always be focused on finding undervalued talent. Because there are + starters at pretty much every position across the league that went undrafted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Worked well for Dallas too....1st round G and 1st round Center in consecutive drafts turning a questionable OL into the best OL in the league for 3 seasons. 

Washington took a guard in the Top 10 three seasons ago....and he's played very well. 

Saints took a guard in the Top 15...worked well for them. 

Yall need to work on isolating the signal from the noise. 

Washington drafted him as an OT that they had to move to guard. And it's not like it's really worked out well for Dallas or Washington either. They haven't been good teams, especially not Washington. The not drafting 1st round OGs isn't because you wont find good OGs there; it's because you don't find good value there, even if you hit on one. And that is what is meant by the old saying smart teams don't draft 1st round guards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Your conclusion does not follow from your original premise. 

Here's the reality of the NFL draft: its filled with uncertainty. Players can fail or succeed for all sorts of reasons. But that doesnt mean its a "crap shoot" or a "lottery." 

We can look at the strong NFL programs and isolate the things those teams have done well with respect to player acquisition and roster building. We can identify things that tend to be well correlated with successful programs and allow that to influence the way this team is built. 

That doesnt mean the analysis is as simple as "Cowboys drafted a G and he was great so we should do the same thing" or "Cooper was a bust so dont waste a pick on a 1st round OG" Those are irrational lines of thought. 

It seems the real problem here is that people want simple answers. As @Knight of God said, they want "magic bullets" But thats not how the league works. Its way more complex than that. 

So if you get to pick 26 and the coaching and scouting staff dont believe that Schweitzer/Garland have "starter" potential AND theres an OG prospect that they feel is a great fit with our needs AND there arent other great fits at other positions, then maybe they should take the guard. But thats an awful lot of pieces working together. 

I know its not that simple, which is why I want them to get a decent-good draft in FA like Pugh or others. Trading picks or moving up in draft to pick a G is not something I Hope falcons don't do. There are other pressing needs to start throwing away picks coz you fall in love with a player. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RandomFan said:

Washington drafted him as an OT that they had to move to guard. And it's not like it's really worked out well for Dallas or Washington either. They haven't been good teams, especially not Washington. The not drafting 1st round OGs isn't because you wont find good OGs there; it's because you don't find good value there, even if you hit on one. And that is what is meant by the old saying smart teams don't draft 1st round guards.

 Scherff was drafted as a general OL but was permanently placed at guard by the time training camp rolled around. He wasnt drafted as a tackle and then had to be converted because he failed. And since he was drafted, their OL has been good+ and their offense, in general, has been good. Not his fault the defense has struggled. 

As for not working out for Dallas.....I'm not really sure how you can say that. They've had a dominant offensive line for 4 seasons, have two double digit win seasons, were a review replay away from a championship game appearance. That in the context of a pretty poorly coached team with less offensive talent than it gets credit for. 

I understand the value argument....the problem is that the "old saying" ignores the possibility that guards can represent significant value while still in the first round. So when Pittsburgh gets to snag David DeCastro in the 20s despite the fact that hes a better prospect at his position than pretty much everyone drafted in front of him, he's still representing great value. The Steelers added a multiple time All Pro talent for a fairly low cost. Thats what its about....finding good players. Most positions in the NFL are important enough to prioritize finding good players to man them. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, falcons007 said:

High first round G  picks have one of the  higher bust rates in draft genius. How about provide data or go look up stats GENIUS. 

 

12 minutes ago, falcons007 said:

I know its not that simple, which is why I want them to get a decent-good draft in FA like Pugh or others. Trading picks or moving up in draft to pick a G is not something I Hope falcons don't do. There are other pressing needs to start throwing away picks coz you fall in love with a player. 

I'd be willing to bet that the guards drafted in the first two rounds over the past 10 years or so have been significantly more effective than the top of the market guards signed to big deals have been. 

If it comes down to drafting a good guard prospect at 24 and paying him ~$2m a year for four years or giving Justin Pugh $7-9m a year for 3-5 years, sign me up for the draft option. Justin Pugh is "fine." You don't pay market prices for "fine" players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...