Sidecar Falcon

Todd McShay Draft 1.0

73 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, jidady said:

With the depth of quality defensive linemen this season, I'm right there with you.

People talk about the benefit of losing out to get a better draft pick. My comment is that if the Falcons had done one game worse, we could have picked #2 overall. That would have been a disaster, as we were talking an OL. We might have ended up with total bust Greg Robinson instead. 

What could have been great is if we'd dealt that #2 pick, moved back to #6, and wound up with Jake anyway. THAT is the type of move that's possible with a top three draft pick. So, that's the outcome I favor. We need high-quality linemen. One player isn't going to be the magic bullet that solves everything. Picking up more second and third round picks is the way we fix an issue I didn't realize was so significant until the season started. 

Excellent point. Falcons seem to always wind up in the point in the draft order where all the “elite” prospects are taken and right around the time that it isn’t advantageous for other teams to trade up. 

I know people are shouting for Williams but if we end up with a top 3 pick, I think we should trade back a few times. We aren’t a “Quinnen Williams” away from being in the hunt. He’s looks good but this  draft could set us up for the next 5 years if done right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1989Fan said:

Not nearly enough to move up. Add their first next year and maybe...

Is that just how you feel, or by the actual point system they have? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Atlantafan21 said:

I’d be pissed if we drafted Lawrence at 5. He’s a one trick, nose tackle pony. I’d take 20 other players before I even think of taking Lawrence. 

Sounds like our #6 pic. Fawkk 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sidecar Falcon said:

Excellent point. Falcons seem to always wind up in the point in the draft order where all the “elite” prospects are taken and right around the time that it isn’t advantageous for other teams to trade up. 

I know people are shouting for Williams but if we end up with a top 3 pick, I think we should trade back a few times. We aren’t a “Quinnen Williams” away from being in the hunt. He’s looks good but this  draft could set us up for the next 5 years if done right. 

Good luck with Dimi trading down. That would be rare. He's done it what once or twice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sidecar Falcon said:

Excellent point. Falcons seem to always wind up in the point in the draft order where all the “elite” prospects are taken and right around the time that it isn’t advantageous for other teams to trade up. 

I know people are shouting for Williams but if we end up with a top 3 pick, I think we should trade back a few times. We aren’t a “Quinnen Williams” away from being in the hunt. He’s looks good but this  draft could set us up for the next 5 years if done right. 

Nope. Unless it's a trade like the Rams and Snead made and we net future 1st rounders with it, you take Quinnen or whoever you think is the best defender at #3. We aren't a Quinnen Williams away from contending. We are a healthy Debo, Neal, Rico, LG, RG, and Devonta away from contending...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vel said:

Nope. Unless it's a trade like the Rams and Snead made and we net future 1st rounders with it, you take Quinnen or whoever you think is the best defender at #3. We aren't a Quinnen Williams away from contending. We are a healthy Debo, Neal, Rico, LG, RG, and Devonta away from contending...

I disagree. If Bosa and Williams are gone, you should trade back and get as many players as possible. Depth is a huge issue for us. This is a defensive draft, and a d@mn good one at that. We need oline help, that should be addressed primarily in FA. Debo and Neal are the players we need to be healthy on defense to be viable. If we do trade back we can upgrade Rico with Thompson and have a true centerfield FS. Freeman is another story. Love him but we need find another RB in the draft that can take over if he goes down, Ito by himself isn’t going to cut it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Falconsin2012 said:

With the 5th pick in the 2018 NFL draft, we have a trade.

Falcons trade the #5 pick to Oakland for picks #25, #26 and #35

I wouldn't go down that far d try and manipulate it so. Can still get the guy I want while only moving down a few spots and get another 2 or 3.

So if I could get to about 8,9,10 and still land a Simmons or the OT from Bama and get that 2 or 3 and double dip in the 2nd round on oline or dline dependent on who I got with that first pick would be my ideal.

Falconsin2012 and Smiler11 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sidecar Falcon said:

I disagree. If Bosa and Williams are gone, you should trade back and get as many players as possible. Depth is a huge issue for us. This is a defensive draft, and a d@mn good one at that. We need oline help, that should be addressed primarily in FA. Debo and Neal are the players we need to be healthy on defense to be viable. If we do trade back we can upgrade Rico with Thompson and have a true centerfield FS. Freeman is another story. Love him but we need find another RB in the draft that can take over if he goes down, Ito by himself isn’t going to cut it. 

I disagree. Depth isn't an issue. Losing Pro Bowl caliber players will tank any unit. Key word is players. As in plural. Trading down and not getting a future first is not that valuable. Look at what Mack did to the Bears unit. He's one player but made them the Monsters of the Midway again.

And why are yall so obsessed with upgrading Rico? Did you not see his value once he went down. Using a first on a FS just to turn around and complain about the lines again? 

kiwifalcon and vitaman like this

Share this post


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

I disagree. Depth isn't an issue. Losing Pro Bowl caliber players will tank any unit. Key word is players. As in plural. Trading down and not getting a future first is not that valuable. Look at what Mack did to the Bears unit. He's one player but made them the Monsters of the Midway again.

And why are yall so obsessed with upgrading Rico? Did you not see his value once he went down. Using a first on a FS just to turn around and complain about the lines again? 

Quality depth is an issue. There was considerable drop off in terms of play between our first and second stringers. Complement that with lack luster playcalling on both sides of the field and it’s a recipe for disaster.

Bears defense is loaded with talent. Hicks, Jackson, Smith, Floyd, Amos and Trevathan are all quality players. Not to mention the addition of Fangio as their defensive coordinator made a world of difference. So it wasn’t only Mack that made them a good defense, they were already good and Mack put them over the top. Again, one player can’t do it alone. 

Again, no one is saying we ignore the tranches. It fact it’s quite the opposite, trade back and pick up multiple trench players and pick up the best FS as well. 15/32 players in this mock are defensive line players. Trading back and picking up multiple good defensive line players is not ignoring the trenches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sidecar Falcon said:

Quality depth is an issue. There was considerable drop off in terms of play between our first and second stringers. Complement that with lack luster playcalling on both sides of the field and it’s a recipe for disaster.

Bears defense is loaded with talent. Hicks, Jackson, Smith, Floyd, Amos and Trevathan are all quality players. Not to mention the addition of Fangio as their defensive coordinator made a world of difference. So it wasn’t only Mack that made them a good defense, they were already good and Mack put them over the top. Again, one player can’t do it alone. 

Again, no one is saying we ignore the tranches. It fact it’s quite the opposite, trade back and pick up multiple trench players and pick up the best FS as well. 15/32 players in this mock are defensive line players. Trading back and picking up multiple good defensive line players is not ignoring the trenches. 

Yall say that like it's not an issue for every team. There is a drop off from a Pro Bowler to a second stringer. There is one Keanu Neal. Tell me what player you're drafting that isn't a top 100 pick that will be able to give you what Keanu gave you coming off the bench? 

Coaching matters more than yall give credit. When guys go down, the coach has to understand his back up's limitations and strengths and deploy them as such. That's why losing Wentz didn't tank the Eagles, because Foles was a decent QB (nowhere near Wentz) but Pedersen tailored the offense to Foles and won with it. That's the benefit of a Vic Fangio and why Manuel not adjusting to his injuries is an indictment on him as well. 

The Bears defense was talented. They were 14th in DVOA. They already had Fangio. They added Mack and Smith and it went nuts. Those aren't depth players. The Bears didn't trade back to add depth. Add a guy like Quinnen and a real DC and get all our guys healthy and we could make a move to around 14th DVOA, which would be a huge jump. 

But Hicks was a free agent add. Eddie Jackson was a mid round steal (something we've hit on before). Smith was the #8 pick (no trade back). Floyd was the #9 pick. Trevathan was a free agent. Amos is solid (no better than Rico). Again, it was FA additions and top ten picks. Not trading back and collecting a bunch of guys. 

But imagine if Mack went down, Smith went down, and Amos and Jackson went down. That's a totally different defense. You can't replace those guys with back ups. No team has a Mack on the bench or a Roquan on the bench or two starting quality safeties on the bench. Trading back sounds good because it means "more players" but that doesn't mean better all the time. Ask the Browns if they'd rather Julio or the players they took from their trade down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vel said:

Yall say that like it's not an issue for every team. There is a drop off from a Pro Bowler to a second stringer. There is one Keanu Neal. Tell me what player you're drafting that isn't a top 100 pick that will be able to give you what Keanu gave you coming off the bench? 

Coaching matters more than yall give credit. When guys go down, the coach has to understand his back up's limitations and strengths and deploy them as such. That's why losing Wentz didn't tank the Eagles, because Foles was a decent QB (nowhere near Wentz) but Pedersen tailored the offense to Foles and won with it. That's the benefit of a Vic Fangio and why Manuel not adjusting to his injuries is an indictment on him as well. 

The Bears defense was talented. They were 14th in DVOA. They already had Fangio. They added Mack and Smith and it went nuts. Those aren't depth players. The Bears didn't trade back to add depth. Add a guy like Quinnen and a real DC and get all our guys healthy and we could make a move to around 14th DVOA, which would be a huge jump. 

But Hicks was a free agent add. Eddie Jackson was a mid round steal (something we've hit on before). Smith was the #8 pick (no trade back). Floyd was the #9 pick. Trevathan was a free agent. Amos is solid (no better than Rico). Again, it was FA additions and top ten picks. Not trading back and collecting a bunch of guys. 

But imagine if Mack went down, Smith went down, and Amos and Jackson went down. That's a totally different defense. You can't replace those guys with back ups. No team has a Mack on the bench or a Roquan on the bench or two starting quality safeties on the bench. Trading back sounds good because it means "more players" but that doesn't mean better all the time. Ask the Browns if they'd rather Julio or the players they took from their trade down. 

I’m not saying it isn’t, I agree. I’m not expecting a back up player to give the same level of play as a Keanu Neal or a Deion Jones, that’s dumb. But to lack in basic fundamentals, such as tackling, is another. That should be something you should be able to do fairly well, that wasn’t the case. Quality depth doesn’t mean superstar players, and no one is suggesting that. Coaching plays a huge role in how our quality of depth players is as well. It was evident that we needed better play from certain positional upgrades in season and nothing was done. 

I realize all this. My second team is the Bears, watched nearly every game last season. Their offense was awful and couldn’t keep their defense off the field. And where and how they got them wasn’t the point of me listing them. It was to retort you saying that Mack did it all on his own, which is inaccurate. 

Again this is a fallacy. We aren’t trading back to get “more players” this is an incredibly deep and talented defensive line class. 15/22 players mocked are Defensive players. And if I recall correctly both Kiper and McShay said that 22/29 of their topped ranked players were defensive line. That can be a huge benefit to us if we can stock up not just depth but actually good players we can use if someone goes down. 

And again, the defensive starters going down wasn’t the stance I was taking. It was the play of the backups. Which for the most part was bad.  You’re saying our defense sucked because we lost starters and I agree that played a part, but so did coaching, depth and their lack of fundamentals. The defense sucking is a nuanced issue, it’s not only because we lost starters. 

The Bears last season lost a few starters (none the caliber of a Debo/Neal) . They lost 3 linebackers, one of them which was Floyd, their starting Safety, and and still managed to place 10th in total defense and 9th in ppg. That’s on top of a rookie Jackson and having two corners that weren’t starters at the beginning of their season. They had multiple players step up and play solid football and it was because  they had the depth to do all that. There was no “elite” talent on their team. Just good players and a good DC. Mack coming in was the icing on the cake.

Comparing any team to the dumpster fire the Browns were at that point is a poor comparison. Give any decent GM those picks and see the outcome. Dorsey came away with Mayfield, Ward, and Chubb this year. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sidecar Falcon said:

I’m not saying it isn’t, I agree. I’m not expecting a back up player to give the same level of play as a Keanu Neal or a Deion Jones, that’s dumb. But to lack in basic fundamentals, such as tackling, is another. That should be something you should be able to do fairly well, that wasn’t the case. Quality depth doesn’t mean superstar players, and no one is suggesting that. Coaching plays a huge role in how our quality of depth players is as well. It was evident that we needed better play from certain positional upgrades in season and nothing was done. 

I realize all this. My second team is the Bears, watched nearly every game last season. Their offense was awful and couldn’t keep their defense off the field. And where and how they got them wasn’t the point of me listing them. It was to retort you saying that Mack did it all on his own, which is inaccurate. 

Again this is a fallacy. We aren’t trading back to get “more players” this is an incredibly deep and talented defensive line class. 15/22 players mocked are Defensive players. And if I recall correctly both Kiper and McShay said that 22/29 of their topped ranked players were defensive line. That can be a huge benefit to us if we can stock up not just depth but actually good players we can use if someone goes down. 

And again, the defensive starters going down wasn’t the stance I was taking. It was the play of the backups. Which for the most part was bad.  You’re saying our defense sucked because we lost starters and I agree that played a part, but so did coaching, depth and their lack of fundamentals. The defense sucking is a nuanced issue, it’s not only because we lost starters. 

The Bears last season lost a few starters (none the caliber of a Debo/Neal) . They lost 3 linebackers, one of them which was Floyd, their starting Safety, and and still managed to place 10th in total defense and 9th in ppg. That’s on top of a rookie Jackson and having two corners that weren’t starters at the beginning of their season. They had multiple players step up and play solid football and it was because  they had the depth to do all that. There was no “elite” talent on their team. Just good players and a good DC. Mack coming in was the icing on the cake.

Comparing any team to the dumpster fire the Browns were at that point is a poor comparison. Give any decent GM those picks and see the outcome. Dorsey came away with Mayfield, Ward, and Chubb this year. 

 

 

 

All in all we agree. I just don't agree that trading down somehow is worthwhile when you can add premier talent. That 2011 draft or the 2016 draft or the 2018 draft. Look at those top tens. You could have accidentally found a stud. Why trade down? This roster isn't devoid of talent. Depth can be added, but my primary goal in an offseason isn't "We need depth". NFL teams when because of top tier talent, not the guys behind them. The "we need depth" crowd would have loved taking Jimmy G, just for him to sit behind Brady his entire rookie contract. Wasted second round pick. That's what picking "depth" gets you instead of picking the very best players possible. 

And I blame coaching more because we still had our DL starters and our CBs intact. Deploying a very passive scheme doesn't work with back ups. Fangio didn't blink when guys when down and they responded. But they responded because the players that didn't go down were studs still. Hicks is a beast. Fuller is a dog. Floyd went down after 10 games, not one. Trevathan still played 12 games. They still had the physical pieces for Fangio to work with and he worked with them. That's not losing Debo after one game, Neal after one game, Rico after three games. It's like losing Grady for two games. 

We've had solid players step up. Foye is a good LB. Kazee showed he's the ball hawk we all expected. Even Oliver is showing improvement and has more plays on the ball in less game action than the starters ahead of him. Even Senat has shown he can be Eddie Goldman-esque. The difference is when you lose Pro Bowl caliber players for the season and you have a coordinator who is more reliant on his players doing the heavy lifting in the scheme and not actually gameplanning and tailoring. Give Fangio this group that we have right now and I bet you they aren't the worst defense by a mile in the NFL. They aren't the least talented group in the NFL right now, but you'd think they are based on their performance. That's Manuel, not depth. 

kiwifalcon likes this

Share this post


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

I disagree. Depth isn't an issue. Losing Pro Bowl caliber players will tank any unit. Key word is players. As in plural. Trading down and not getting a future first is not that valuable. Look at what Mack did to the Bears unit. He's one player but made them the Monsters of the Midway again.

And why are yall so obsessed with upgrading Rico? Did you not see his value once he went down. Using a first on a FS just to turn around and complain about the lines again? 

You make a lot of good points in this thread but one thing I would respond is trading down is not always about getting lesser players. Sure, you're not going to get Khalil Mack or Roquan Smith trading down, but let's say you trade down and pick Jawaan Taylor and he's the next Shawn Andrews or Cody Ford and he's the next Alex Boone. Shawn Andrews and Alex Boone in their primes were about as good at what they do as Khalil Mack. There's still value in that. 

Sidecar Falcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vel said:

All in all we agree. I just don't agree that trading down somehow is worthwhile when you can add premier talent. That 2011 draft or the 2016 draft or the 2018 draft. Look at those top tens. You could have accidentally found a stud. Why trade down? This roster isn't devoid of talent. Depth can be added, but my primary goal in an offseason isn't "We need depth". NFL teams when because of top tier talent, not the guys behind them. The "we need depth" crowd would have loved taking Jimmy G, just for him to sit behind Brady his entire rookie contract. Wasted second round pick. That's what picking "depth" gets you instead of picking the very best players possible. 

And I blame coaching more because we still had our DL starters and our CBs intact. Deploying a very passive scheme doesn't work with back ups. Fangio didn't blink when guys when down and they responded. But they responded because the players that didn't go down were studs still. Hicks is a beast. Fuller is a dog. Floyd went down after 10 games, not one. Trevathan still played 12 games. They still had the physical pieces for Fangio to work with and he worked with them. That's not losing Debo after one game, Neal after one game, Rico after three games. It's like losing Grady for two games. 

We've had solid players step up. Foye is a good LB. Kazee showed he's the ball hawk we all expected. Even Oliver is showing improvement and has more plays on the ball in less game action than the starters ahead of him. Even Senat has shown he can be Eddie Goldman-esque. The difference is when you lose Pro Bowl caliber players for the season and you have a coordinator who is more reliant on his players doing the heavy lifting in the scheme and not actually gameplanning and tailoring. Give Fangio this group that we have right now and I bet you they aren't the worst defense by a mile in the NFL. They aren't the least talented group in the NFL right now, but you'd think they are based on their performance. That's Manuel, not depth. 

 

We somewhat agree. I think given the circumstances and the plethora of talent that is available in the draft, trading down and picking up multiple players can improve our trenches exponentially more than a single player. Not to mention a FS like Thompson will allow us to play a true Quinn scheme. His speed is will allow him to play closer to the LOS and play the run while still maintaining the single high coverage, that’s something Allen can’t do. Allen is good and I think we should keep him but at a position that maximizes his skill set like nickel corner. Being able to add two of the top 29 dlineman and the top FS would do considerably more to strengthen our defense as a whole.

Comparing any other position to QB is a bad comparison. And using Garappollo is a bad example as well. They believed Brady was towards the end of his career and drafted a good QB towards the end of the 2nd Round. Then they did have to play him during a season where Brady was suspended. He impressed and got them enough wins to keep them in the first seed and have a bye. If Brissett started they more than likely would have started 0-4. Leaving them at 11-5 and no first round bye . They then were able to parlay those starts he had into another second round pick via a trade with the 49ers. So it actually did pay off. 

I agree that coaching was more to blame. The passive scheme did not work. However with the scheme being passive, you would expect there to be better tackling as you aren’t actively trying to be aggressive, that didn’t happen, the reverse happened. This falls on coaching and players shoulders.

Foye, Kazee, and Senat were all good pick ups. And they have improved the most out of everyone. However two of those players aren’t trench players. Adding a single player to our dline doesn’t really address the trench problem, not even a Williams. If hypothetically we do manage to get him and he gets hurt, we’re back to square one with the dline.

We don’t get anywhere near as much pressure on the QB as we should. Adding two quality dlineman and a FS that can give help in the run and pass, in theory, should. For our team, three good players are better than one great one at this point.

Regardless there needs to be a massive cleansing of our coordinators. Injuries I can forgive and understand, lack of fundamental teaching and innovative gameplanning I can’t  

 

Edited by Sidecar Falcon
vel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 6:39 AM, vel said:

All in all we agree. I just don't agree that trading down somehow is worthwhile when you can add premier talent. That 2011 draft or the 2016 draft or the 2018 draft. Look at those top tens. You could have accidentally found a stud. Why trade down? This roster isn't devoid of talent. Depth can be added, but my primary goal in an offseason isn't "We need depth". NFL teams when because of top tier talent, not the guys behind them. The "we need depth" crowd would have loved taking Jimmy G, just for him to sit behind Brady his entire rookie contract. Wasted second round pick. That's what picking "depth" gets you instead of picking the very best players possible. 

And I blame coaching more because we still had our DL starters and our CBs intact. Deploying a very passive scheme doesn't work with back ups. Fangio didn't blink when guys when down and they responded. But they responded because the players that didn't go down were studs still. Hicks is a beast. Fuller is a dog. Floyd went down after 10 games, not one. Trevathan still played 12 games. They still had the physical pieces for Fangio to work with and he worked with them. That's not losing Debo after one game, Neal after one game, Rico after three games. It's like losing Grady for two games. 

We've had solid players step up. Foye is a good LB. Kazee showed he's the ball hawk we all expected. Even Oliver is showing improvement and has more plays on the ball in less game action than the starters ahead of him. Even Senat has shown he can be Eddie Goldman-esque. The difference is when you lose Pro Bowl caliber players for the season and you have a coordinator who is more reliant on his players doing the heavy lifting in the scheme and not actually gameplanning and tailoring. Give Fangio this group that we have right now and I bet you they aren't the worst defense by a mile in the NFL. They aren't the least talented group in the NFL right now, but you'd think they are based on their performance. That's Manuel, not depth. 

Trading down.I’ve seen so much written.You have to have a boatload of holes to regain the value in doing it and hence why the Julio trade was good for them.It just didn’t pan out is all.

I agree if you’ve done your due diligence and a difference maker is there I say screw to trade down.

Popular opinion round here that there are holes all over the place and perspective goes out the window.When in all reality get all the injured back plug in more talent and we are back on the radar.

Even funnier too me is I believe more can be done off the field to improve the team this year than on it.We get a couple of key people in the coaching spots I think we can be right back in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 9:55 AM, vel said:

I disagree. Depth isn't an issue. Losing Pro Bowl caliber players will tank any unit. Key word is players. As in plural. Trading down and not getting a future first is not that valuable. Look at what Mack did to the Bears unit. He's one player but made them the Monsters of the Midway again.

And why are yall so obsessed with upgrading Rico? Did you not see his value once he went down. Using a first on a FS just to turn around and complain about the lines again? 

So true.  We can not lose focus on the LOS.  There will be a lot of tempting hood ornaments, come draft time.  I sure hope our FO stays focussed on the real problems of this team.   Let's fix the lines and look forward to the fully recovered returns of Deion, Rico and Neal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about the game to honestly criticize coaching.  I simply have not studied the game to that depth.  

However, I am truly appalled (not a typical word used in a football forum) at how poorly our players are blocking and tackling.  You would think that after a few seasons, our coaches would have the players in better form.  Heck, Quinn came into the organization talking a lot about the way he planned to teach tackling.  To date, I have to say that he has done a poor job of that.    

vitaman likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now