Jump to content

Philosophical Question - Do you draft for current or future needs? 


ramonezy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Simple enough question but after looking at several mocks I find more and more drafting seems to be towards current needs rather than future forcing talented rookies into starting roles with swim or sink consequences. 
 
Before the Fusco signing the consensus for our 1st pick was an OG like Wynn; but after Fusco the leaning seems to be more towards DTs like Hurst/Bryan.
 
I'm happy for the signing but fail to see how OG is still not our biggest need with Mack and Levitre on the wrong side of 30 and Levitre with an upcoming contract situation next year. Wouldn't signing a prospect like Price/Daniels still be the best decision for continuity going forward? Both could fill in for Levitre next year freeing $5m in cap space while learning from one of the best in his prime Mack. Who himself will need to be replaced in about 3 years. 
 
My 2nd biggest need is WR1/WR3... but that's for a different thread. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joking aside, if you’re talking about first/second round talent, you’re expecting them to contribute early, meaning you typically draft for immediate need. There are of course cases of drafting early for the future (see Aaron Rodgers), but typically your first round selection is a starter/early contributor, makes sense to plug them in a spot you are weak on talent. 

Mid/late round picks are where you look to fill depth and pick raw talent players that you believe you can mold and develop to be long-term solutions. You likely have vet talent there that can help that maturation process, and the rookie can hopefully take over for the vet in a few years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good question.  I would think the answer has something to do with whom you're talking about.  In other words, Cleveland is probably looking at drafting long-term because they have literally nothing to lose.

Meanwhile, Atlanta is solidly sitting in a super bowl window and should be looking for immediate improvements from certain positions, because that window closes more and more with every passing season.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every position other than QB and OL, you can do both at the same time.

You have a RB with a contract in a year?  Get a young RB, and if he's ready from the jump, he eats snaps and both RBs are better.  If he needs a year you provided it.

One of your DE's with a contract next year?  Same Deal.  Get a early round rookie and you can rotate them.  None of those guys will just ride the pine.

This is the same for WR, RB, TE, DL, secondary, LB.

Really the only place people don't rotate is OL and QB, so you don't necessarily want to take a 1st rounder who is just going to sit the bench for a year or two.

 

But it all the other spots...there's no problem, you can get everyone their snaps and let the youngun learn on the job.  It's why your sure up some of your low areas in FA, so you can take WR, or DE in the draft to improve your rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NeonDeion said:

Both. 1st should have clear path to starter role. After that can be early starter or groomed. But feet to the fire is really the only way to develop. Something Smitty never understood. 

I hear this narrative ad nauseam on TATF. What a crock.

SMITTY DRAFTED PLAYERS WITH 5 OR MORE STARTS AS A ROOKIE

  • Matt Ryan
  • Sam Baker
  • Curtis Lofton
  • Chris Owens
  • Sean Weatherspoon
  • Corey Peters
  • Julio Jones
  • Peter Konz
  • Desmond Trufant
  • Jake Matthews

Plus several others got significant snaps as rookies: Robert Alford, Kroy Biermann, Shembo, Hageman, Freeman, Lolo, Vance, Quizz, Douglas and Chevis. So just stop bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can never really go wrong drafting BPA (non QB if you have one). Injuries happen and players develop so it’s hard to know what kind of needs you’ll have in a years time. We have a thread talking about all the people we need to sign next year but things change drastically if someone like Beasley or Deion Jones suffer a burner. Going BPA provides you the most options in dealing with whatever contingencies arise. Best case you have young cheap quality depth. Worst case you have talented backups ready to step in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I look at the draft honestly, is that each team must have an identity and a way to win... so if we're a passing team, focus on enhancing that strength every draft. The premise of a "balanced" team being better is more idealistic than practical in my opinion. We are an offensive juggernaut... apart from the obvious gap at DT, I would go straight offense... I'd rather pick a kicker over another DE at this point.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ramonezy said:

How I look at the draft honestly, is that each team must have an identity and a way to win... so if we're a passing team, focus on enhancing that strength every draft. The premise of a "balanced" team being better is more idealistic than practical in my opinion. We are an offensive juggernaut... apart from the obvious gap at DT, I would go straight offense... I'd rather pick a kicker over another DE at this point.... 

Based off of this past year, I think we’re starting to see a shift in the opposite direction actually. The defense carried this team for a majority of the season, and while the offense is still awfully potent when it is firing on all cylinders, the team identity is going to be very defense-oriented. If you need convincing, just look at who our head coach is 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FalconFanSince1970 said:

I hear this narrative ad nauseam on TATF. What a crock.

SMITTY DRAFTED PLAYERS WITH 5 OR MORE STARTS AS A ROOKIE

  • Matt Ryan
  • Sam Baker
  • Curtis Lofton
  • Chris Owens
  • Sean Weatherspoon
  • Corey Peters
  • Julio Jones
  • Peter Konz
  • Desmond Trufant
  • Jake Matthews

Plus several others got significant snaps as rookies: Robert Alford, Kroy Biermann, Shembo, Hageman, Freeman, Lolo, Vance, Quizz, Douglas and Chevis. So just stop bro.

And how many sat on the bench behind crap vets? Sjax....cough cough 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeonDeion said:

And how many sat on the bench behind crap vets? Sjax....cough cough 

 

1 hour ago, FalconFanSince1970 said:

Free had 95 touches, 473 yards and 2 TDs as a rookie playing behind SJax.

Falcons had 1081 total snaps that season.  

Freeman played 234 snaps which is 21.65% of the total snaps. Of Freeman’s snaps he had 65 touches and 38 targets, which a total of 103 opportunities. 

Jackson played 420 snaps which is 38.85% of the total snaps. Of Jackson’s snaps he had 190 touches and 27 targets which is a total 217 opportunities. 

Rodgers played 350 snaps which is 32.38% of the total snaps. Of Rodgers’ snaps he had 129 touches and 40 targets which is a total of 169 opportunities. 

Smith played 93 snaps which is 8.6% of the total snaps. Of Smith’s snaps he had 23 touches and 15 targets which is a total of 38 opportunities.

Of the total 407 touches. Here’s the percentage breakdown. 

Freeman: 15.9%

Jackson: 46.6%

Rodgers: 31.6%

Smith: 5.6%

Of the total 120 targets. Here’s the percentage breakdown. 

Freeman: 31.6%

Jackson: 22.5%

Rodgers: 33.3%

Smith: 12.5%

 

So yeah, Freeman sat behind both Jackson and Rodgers that season. And wasn’t played nearly enough.

Smith brought stability to the franchise. However towards the end of his tenure here, he was hot trash as a coach. 

Edited by Sidecar Falcon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Sidecar Falcon said:

 

Falcons had 1081 total snaps that season.  

Freeman played 234 snaps which is 21.65% of the total snaps. Of Freeman’s snaps he had 65 touches and 38 targets, which a total of 103 opportunities. 

Jackson played 420 snaps which is 38.85% of the total snaps. Of Jackson’s snaps he had 190 touches and 27 targets which is a total 217 opportunities. 

Rodgers played 350 snaps which is 32.38% of the total snaps. Of Rodgers’ snaps he had 129 touches and 40 targets which is a total of 169 opportunities. 

Smith played 93 snaps which is 8.6% of the total snaps. Of Smith’s snaps he had 23 touches and 15 targets which is a total of 38 opportunities.

Of the total 407 touches. Here’s the percentage breakdown. 

Freeman: 15.9%

Jackson: 46.6%

Rodgers: 31.6%

Smith: 5.6%

Of the total 120 targets. Here’s the percentage breakdown. 

Freeman: 31.6%

Jackson: 22.5%

Rodgers: 33.3%

Smith: 12.5%

 

So yeah, Freeman sat behind both Jackson and Rodgers that season. And wasn’t played nearly enough.

Smith brought stability to the franchise. However towards the end of his tenure here, he was hot trash as a coach. 

Thanks for proving my point. Jackson was toast, Rodgers was average, and Smith wasted away on the bench until his last year with us. In fact, we might have won a title had we used smith in 2012 NFC ship.

Not hating on Smith’s ability to bring us stability. He saved us. But he was a lot like Mark Richt. He’ll get you there, but won’t get you over the top. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is going to depend on a lot of variables. if there aren't overwhelming current needs then you can do both. if you have lots of current needs, probably not as likely but you could still sneak a mid or late round pick for developing if there is an interesting talent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeonDeion said:

Thanks for proving my point. Jackson was toast, Rodgers was average, and Smith wasted away on the bench until his last year with us. In fact, we might have won a title had we used smith in 2012 NFC ship.

Not hating on Smith’s ability to bring us stability. He saved us. But he was a lot like Mark Richt. He’ll get you there, but won’t get you over the top. 

Yup. Problem with Smith was that he kept trying to hammer a square peg through a round hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ramonezy said:

How I look at the draft honestly, is that each team must have an identity and a way to win... so if we're a passing team, focus on enhancing that strength every draft. The premise of a "balanced" team being better is more idealistic than practical in my opinion. We are an offensive juggernaut... apart from the obvious gap at DT, I would go straight offense... I'd rather pick a kicker over another DE at this point.... 

I have to completely agree with this logic. I wish we had money for a FA DT just so we could go straight offense. If Ridley falls that far I think you have to no brainer take him over a DT anyway. The separation between RB (outside of Barkley), WR, and TE this year is negligible. Take a shot at all 3 this draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When considering the first pick of this draft, does it not make sense to draft a DT in the first so that we can extend Jarrett and have a top rated DT next to him for the next 4 years with an option for a 5th without having to pay them both huge amounts at the same time?  Or draft another position with the same idea seeing as we really don't have too many positions that we really need our first pick to play right away

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...