Will 2019 finally be the year Dimitroff trades down in 1st round?

[g-dawg]

Looking at this draft and the many Falcons needs on both sides of the LOS and possibly needing to add another corner if DQ/TD decide to part ways with Alford (not saying it will happen) - this is a fairly deep draft for the Top 100 (Days 1&2).

Right now the Falcons have the #14 overall pick where they should be able to pickup an interior Defensive lineman.

Falcons needs in order:

1) RT

2) OG

3) DT

4) CB

5) EDGE

I don’t want to get in too big of a debate about my rankings above but, suffice it to say the Falcons have a lot of holes and areas where depth is needed.   I know many want to address RT & OG in free agency and that might happen.  Usually the best of those guys aren’t free once tags are applied and you end up overpaying for guys like Fusco and Levitre who aren’t even really good - forget that.  We need to save free agent dollars for taking care of Grady Jarrett this year and Deion Jones next year.  For purposes of discussion here I am assuming no major FA signing.

 

DRAFT TRADE & CHART

Looking at the chart, by dropping from #14 down to #20(or lower), the Falcons could expect an early 3rd round pick or late 2nd rounder. We have tradeable comp picks this year as well.  If the first 13 picks wipe out DT-Ed Oliver, DT-Jeffrey Simmons and OT-Jonah Williams then I believe bugging out of the pick to add another Day 2 pick would be advantageous.

Guys that could possibly be had in the 20’s:

1) Christian Wilkins,DT-Clemson (40/60% chance available at #20)

 

2) Jawaan Taylor, OT-Florida (50/50% chance available at #20)

3) Cody Ford, OG-Oklahoma (70/30% chance available at #20)

 

4) Dalton Risner, OT/OG-Kansas St (80/20% chance available at #20)

5) Chris Lindstrom, OG-Boston College (90/10% chance available at #20) 

6) Yodny Cajuste, OT-West Va (90/10% chance available at #20)

 

I would love to see the best combo of OT, DT, OG, CB with our first four picks and not married to the order in which they are selected.   Some of the players listed above might could slip to 2nd rd but doubt any fall to our mid 2nd.

Some intriguing guys I saw at Senior Bowl that are likely Day#2 picks are Chuma Edogma (OT), Bradbury (C), Khalen Saunders(DT), Charles Ominhue(DT/DE), Jonathan Ledbetter (DT/DE), etc.

We need another Top 100 pick.

 

[⚡Slumerican⚡]

We could have easily been in the top 10 and not have to worry about this.. So imo we made our bed.. 

[g-dawg]

3 minutes ago, ⚡Slumerican⚡ said:

We could have easily been in the top 10 and not have to worry about this.. So imo we made our bed.. 

“Your honour, move to strike as non-responsive.”

[MAD597]

Well the team decided to win 3 non meaning games and now we have a middle of the round pick which does not have much value, I doubt we trade down, what would we go from 14 to 32 and pick up an extra 3rd rounder? Woopdee freakin doo

If we had a top 5 pick we could easily trade that to mid first round and pick up another 1st rd pick.

So no we won't trade down cause our current pick doesn't have a ton of value

[Hashbrown3]

Tankers = Quitters

Not cool at all.

[g-dawg]

1 minute ago, MAD597 said:

Well the team decided to win 3 non meaning games and now we have a middle of the round pick which does not have much value, I doubt we trade down, what would we go from 14 to 32 and pick up an extra 3rd rounder? Woopdee freakin doo

If we had a top 5 pick we could easily trade that to mid first round and pick up another 1st rd pick.

So no we won't trade down cause our current pick doesn't have a ton of value

Probably correct that the pick doesn’t have value but it only takes one team to value the pick.  Typically it would be a team looking for a QB or has a specific targeted player that the GM has his heart set on.

[g-dawg]

Just now, HASHBROWN3 said:

Tankers = Quitters

Nit cool at all.

Besides you and me, a few guys that must of had pee in their Cheerios this morning, Hash.

[Hashbrown3]

12 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

Besides you and me, a few guys that must of had pee in their Cheerios this morning, Hash.

It’s a defeatist mentality unfortunately 

[rugger8]

4 minutes ago, HASHBROWN3 said:

It’s a defeatist mentality unfortunately 

It's the long game.

[MD-FalconFan13]

18 minutes ago, HASHBROWN3 said:

Tankers = Quitters

Not cool at all.

I don't think sitting you starting QB for meaningless games is really tanking. That would have been the move for me. Not purposely losing but just not playing our best players. 

In response to the OP, there would have to be a REALLY good CB prospect that I'm in love with to deviate from the OL or DL in the first 2 rounds. We picked up a CB last year in the 2nd when players like BJ Hill and Nathan Shepherd were available. Now I'm not upset as this year's crop of DL are better to me, but to do it again with the level of talent available would be upsetting.

[g-dawg]

Peeps are just pissed because now with the later spot  we sit in, OL May be the smart move and TATF absolutely abhors OL in 1st round.

[Falcanuck]

36 minutes ago, HASHBROWN3 said:

It’s a defeatist mentality unfortunately 

It’s quite literally the opposite. It’s a “how do I make sure to not lose moving forward” mentality. 

[vel]

Trading down from #14 is pointless unless a first comes with it. The Packers got a future first out of the Saints to let them take Davenport while the Packers still landed a stud in Alexander after trading back up to #18 and essentially only losing a 3rd rounder. 

If this is what happens, then TD will have struck gold. Having two 4ths and 5ths, losing a 3rd in that scenario to gain a future first is magic. 

Personally, I am not for TD trading down. Maximize the pick unless you get a great offer. I'd say look at trading up with the 4ths/5ths we have and find a faller in third instead. 

[Monolith2001]

31 minutes ago, rugger8 said:

It's the long game.

No, that's fan fantasy.  The long game is to not be tell your guys to lose games for some unknown college messiah.  I still have not heard a single tanker explain how you actually tank.  Who do you tell not to do their job and when?  Would people be okay with just forfeiting and not even having a game?

[FalconsIn2012]

14 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

Peeps are just pissed because now with the later spot  we sit in, OL May be the smart move and TATF absolutely abhors OL in 1st round.

Selecting an OT in the top-10 has just been a crap shoot for the entire NFL.  It’s why I’d address it in FA.   

1. Recent history is very ugly. In the past 10 years, there have been five tackles chosen either first or second overall. Above-average starting tackles today among those five: zero. Jake Long (2008) is a backup in Atlanta now after two major knee surgeries. Jason Smith (2009) failed with the Rams, in part because of a severe concussion, and is out of football. Eric Fisher (2013) is improving, but was Pro Football Focus’ 39th-rated tackle last year; Luke Joeckel (2013) continued to struggle in Jacksonville and was rated 52nd. Greg Robinson of the Rams (2014) was 73rd of PFF’s 76 rated tackles last fall.

2. The odds of picking even a good tackle very high are long. Of the 17 tackles picked in the top 10 since 2005, only three were ever first-team all-pro. Cleveland’s Joe Thomas and Dallas’ Tyron Smith are the only current starters who have been so honored, while Jake Long earned one first-team nod in Miami. Now, obviously only one left tackle per year can be named first-team all-pro, and when you draft one of these players high you expect him to be a blind-side protector on the left side. But only four of the 17 ranked in PFF’s top 20 of tackles for the 2015 season play on that side: Smith, Thomas, Trent Williams of Washington and Jake Matthews of Atlanta. Lane Johnson in Philadelphia is a good player. D’Brickashaw Ferguson was very good in mid-career but has fallen off some now. Russell Okung likely will be allowed to walk in free agency by Seattle after a mediocre run.

3. The modern top-pick tackles can’t match the quickness of the perimeter rushers.

A couple of points to consider about judging tackles. Because most colleges are playing pretty simplistic spread schemes in which the linemen don’t have to do much adjusting or reading, the tackles entering the NFL have an adjustment period that’s longer than it used to be. One team studying tackles last year said the top tackle on their board had, essentially, one man to block on every passing snap—unless that man stunted to a spot two gaps away. Basically, this tackle had the wide guy on every pass-rush. Sometimes in the NFL, obviously, it’s not that simple.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Falconsin2012

[g-dawg]

9 minutes ago, Falconsin2012 said:

Selecting an OT in the top-10 has just been a crap shoot for the entire NFL.  It’s why I’d address it in FA.   

1. Recent history is very ugly. In the past 10 years, there have been five tackles chosen either first or second overall. Above-average starting tackles today among those five: zero. Jake Long (2008) is a backup in Atlanta now after two major knee surgeries. Jason Smith (2009) failed with the Rams, in part because of a severe concussion, and is out of football. Eric Fisher (2013) is improving, but was Pro Football Focus’ 39th-rated tackle last year; Luke Joeckel (2013) continued to struggle in Jacksonville and was rated 52nd. Greg Robinson of the Rams (2014) was 73rd of PFF’s 76 rated tackles last fall.

2. The odds of picking even a good tackle very high are long. Of the 17 tackles picked in the top 10 since 2005, only three were ever first-team all-pro. Cleveland’s Joe Thomas and Dallas’ Tyron Smith are the only current starters who have been so honored, while Jake Long earned one first-team nod in Miami. Now, obviously only one left tackle per year can be named first-team all-pro, and when you draft one of these players high you expect him to be a blind-side protector on the left side. But only four of the 17 ranked in PFF’s top 20 of tackles for the 2015 season play on that side: Smith, Thomas, Trent Williams of Washington and Jake Matthews of Atlanta. Lane Johnson in Philadelphia is a good player. D’Brickashaw Ferguson was very good in mid-career but has fallen off some now. Russell Okung likely will be allowed to walk in free agency by Seattle after a mediocre run.

This is really stupid argument.  I can name busts in mid 1st round for any position you wanna name.

Go ahead, name a position.

[FalconsIn2012]

6 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

This is really stupid argument.  I can name busts in mid 1st round for any position you wanna name.

Go ahead, name a position.

I actually think the bust rate is 50% in the 1st round.  But it doesn’t change the argument that college football and it’s move to spread have not prepared Offensive Lineman to contribute quickly in the NFL.  You are better off going with a known commodity via FA

 

This was telling from the article I posted

A couple of points to consider about judging tackles. Because most colleges are playing pretty simplistic spread schemes in which the linemen don’t have to do much adjusting or reading, the tackles entering the NFL have an adjustment period that’s longer than it used to be. One team studying tackles last year said the top tackle on their board had, essentially, one man to block on every passing snap—unless that man stunted to a spot two gaps away. Basically, this tackle had the wide guy on every pass-rush. Sometimes in the NFL, obviously, it’s not that simple.

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Falconsin2012

[Falcanuck]

16 minutes ago, Monolith2001 said:

No, that's fan fantasy.  The long game is to not be tell your guys to lose games for some unknown college messiah.  I still have not heard a single tanker explain how you actually tank.  Who do you tell not to do their job and when?  Would people be okay with just forfeiting and not even having a game?

Nobody wanted coaches or players to be directed to lose on purpose. This has been explained hundreds of times. 

[vel]

11 minutes ago, Monolith2001 said:

No, that's fan fantasy.  The long game is to not be tell your guys to lose games for some unknown college messiah.  I still have not heard a single tanker explain how you actually tank.  Who do you tell not to do their job and when?  Would people be okay with just forfeiting and not even having a game?

Sashi Brown got fired for tanking because the analytics told them to do so. It led to them landing the #1 pick and several draft picks stock piled. Four picks in the top 4. Finished 3rd in the AFC North with several close games that if bounced in their direction, could have landed them in the playoffs.

It's not about finding a "college messiah" when you have a franchise QB neither. This team should never be drafting top 5. The Chargers should never have a chance to draft a Joey Bosa, but they did and nobody is whining about them going 4-12 in 2015 right now... 

[Monolith2001]

Just now, Falcanuck said:

Nobody wanted coaches or players to be directed to lose on purpose. This has been explained hundreds of times. 

Sorry I missed those explanations and ultimately none of them would change that you're trying to lose to be the first to pull on the draft slots. 

[rugger8]

16 minutes ago, Monolith2001 said:

No, that's fan fantasy.  The long game is to not be tell your guys to lose games for some unknown college messiah.  I still have not heard a single tanker explain how you actually tank.  Who do you tell not to do their job and when?  Would people be okay with just forfeiting and not even having a game?

I don't know that I'm a tanker, per se, but there was a time in this season that it made more sense to me to play some guys we weren't seeing during the meaningful portion of the season for the purposes of: limiting wear on minorly injured players; developing less experienced players; and evaluating players in-game who we may or may not want to keep next year.

IMO, those activities were more important after week 10 or 11 or whatever than winning games that weren't going to get us into the playoffs. But I would have tried to win with those players I was trying to evaluate/develop.

[vel]

In the grand scheme of things, "tanking" aligns with the concept of Pyrrhic or hollow victories. Lose the battle but win the war. Ask the Japanese if their "win" at Pearl Harbor really was worth it? 

Of course, this isn't war and the stakes aren't that high. But conceptually, that's where is aligns. Hollow victories set you back more than losing that battle. That's all I'll say on this never ending topic. Either you understand this concept or you don't. Either you see the concept as valid at times or not. It's really that simple. 

[Hashbrown3]

 

41 minutes ago, MD-FalconFan13 said:

I don't think sitting you starting QB for meaningless games is really tanking.

 

17 minutes ago, Falcanuck said:

It’s quite literally the opposite. It’s a “how do I make sure to not lose moving forward” mentality. 

We see things in a completely different light fellas.

you’ve both found ways to convince yourselves that laying down & quitting can be justified.  Once you’ve gone there a few times the habit of giving up gets easier I would think.  Or at least that thing in the back of your mind that tells you some things just ain’t right begins to dim more each time you lay down.  

Falcons ain’t laying down.  They won’t tank.  I admire that.  It gives me hope & confidence.  You can throw words out there but they just won’t cover up a quitter mentality no matter how eloquent your phraseology might be.

[Monolith2001]

Just now, rugger8 said:

I don't know that I'm a tanker, per se, but there was a time in this season that it made more sense to me to play some guys we weren't seeing during the meaningful portion of the season for the purposes of: limiting wear on minorly injured players; developing less experienced players; and evaluating players in-game who we may or may not want to keep next year.

IMO, those activities were more important after week 10 or 11 or whatever than winning games that weren't going to get us into the playoffs. But I would have tried to win with those players I was trying to evaluate/develop.

Even I supported us playing reserves and finding out what we had.  DQ did exactly that.  The guys just outplayed the competition but the bellyaching continues.  No we didn't roll out Schaub or bench Julio but tons of guys got playing time that normally would not have in win-or-bust mode.  I am referring to people who felt that the team should actively try to lose to improve the draft spot.

[vel]

3 minutes ago, rugger8 said:

I don't know that I'm a tanker, per se, but there was a time in this season that it made more sense to me to play some guys we weren't seeing during the meaningful portion of the season for the purposes of: limiting wear on minorly injured players; developing less experienced players; and evaluating players in-game who we may or may not want to keep next year.

IMO, those activities were more important after week 10 or 11 or whatever than winning games that weren't going to get us into the playoffs. But I would have tried to win with those players I was trying to evaluate/develop.

Exactly. Playing Oliver more than 50% of the snaps isn't tanking, but looking to the future in a lost season. Senat being inactive is detrimental to his long term development when there was nothing to lose playing him as much as possible. 

I don't call that tanking. It's accepting that once you have been eliminated from the playoffs, focusing on the future. Don't be short sighted. It's not saying "don't try to win" but more play the guys more than you would if it was earlier in the season.