Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TheDirtyWordII

A TDWII Observation: Why Are We Mad at How Round 1 Went?

52 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, TheDirtyWordII said:

Even with the trade up...DVC wise, we gave 645 to get 610.  So when we hear complaints about not trading down for Lindstrom...I would suspect that we don’t want to ‘clearance sale’ the #14 pick...and given we didn’t see any trades between #10 & #20...it’s likely our part of the draft wasn’t coveted, unlike #21-#31 when the trading frenzy started in earnest.

Yeah, once Devin Bush came off the board at pick #10 in the Pittsburgh/Denver trade-up, there were no more players to trade up for.  Listening to the Post Draft Press Conference, watching Falcons not making move up to #8 for Ed Oliver or somewhere later for Christian Wilkins - then adding the comment that Dimitroff knew a week ago who they were taking - Lindstrom was "the guy" - he was the intent.

Further, Falcons traded up for McGary when both Cody Ford and Jawaan Taylor were still available - tells me a few things - at least 5-10 teams in the back half of the 1st round could have taken Ford/Taylor and no one did - so maybe their draft stock was overinflated by the sports media.      It also means the Falcons really liked McGary -  I believe we liked Tytus Howard as well and he could have been the pick had he slipped.

Share this post


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

I guess. I don’t think we could have done both with the resources available and our obvious desire to deepen the OL. I wanted a defensive guy at one or two myself btw. But I can see goodnesses In this strategy

You don't think we could have done both? We practically had, until trading up for McGary. That'd still be investing heavily in 4 guys to compete on the OL in FA and a 1st rounder, even without any defensive FAs. It'd be a little different if we put some more money on the defense in FA. But now, we have zero money in defensive FAs (outside of arguably Clayborn, and that's not revolutionary, less than 2mil) and zero Day 1 or Day 2 picks for the defense. Our defense is arguably worse when you consider our losses compared to gains. The only gain is DQ as a DC. He's hitching his wagon to his ability to turn this defense around with little to no influx of talent.

PS @g-dawg it was a trade up with Denver for Devin Bush and the Packers took Gary. Doesn't change the meaning, just know someone is going to hop on you if you don't edit. I also think we probably wanted to trade up for Howard. Kinda makes the Gary pick even more irritating. Feels a bit like the Sam Baker deal.

g-dawg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple - why spend $20+mm in free agency just to draft two rookies. Extremely poor execution by these boneheads 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Francis York Morgan said:

You don't think we could have done both? We practically had, until trading up for McGary. That'd still be investing heavily in 4 guys to compete on the OL in FA and a 1st rounder, even without any defensive FAs. It'd be a little different if we put some more money on the defense in FA. But now, we have zero money in defensive FAs (outside of arguably Clayborn, and that's hardly revolutionary) and zero Day 1 or Day 2 picks for the defense. Our defense is arguably worse when you consider our losses compared to gains. The only gain is DQ as a DC. He's hitching his wagon to his ability to turn this defense around with little to no influx of talent.

On DQ, he’s been given much draft capital on defense. He got his players. Time for them to execute or he’s gone. I believe that. At DT the idea of giving up on Senat would be ludicrous.

i do believe that this strategy of investing in OL is long overdue and a possibly brilliant strategy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Francis York Morgan said:

Don't know how you could read my post and not understand that I believe that same thing. I even talk about being happy we drafted OL. I can be happy we drafted OL and unhappy we completely neglected the defense in FA and the draft. It's not an either/or situation.

Here's the thing though, we haven't neglected the defense.  Facts are we supplemented what we've built with veterans and expect the investments to pay off. Kazee is, in effect, moving to corner and will be the starting nickel.  We signed depth at safety. Run stuffing DT's are traditionally found in the 4th and 5th rounds with great success.  If Shede has his mind in the right place, he can make an impact. 

Adding 4th and 5th round picks can be very impactful as well, don't discount those...

 

octoslash, ukfalc, MSalmon and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion protecting Matt Ryan and fixing the running game is much more important than adding a defensive tackle, and that's what we did last night.

Share this post


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

That’s my thing: we have put so much in defense already. That point gets lost. Yet, we’ve trotted our garbage and makeshift OL. Ryan got sacked 42 times, we’ve had trouble converting short yardage. It’s not a bad strategy to invest in a physical and deep OL finally

And if you convert on 3rd and short and your QB gets sacked less, the Defense stays rested. 

People underestimate Davison on D.  He is the big body run defender.  I think the Aints had a top ranked run D last year and he was a big reason why. 

MSalmon likes this

Share this post


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

And if you convert on 3rd and short and your QB gets sacked less, the Defense stays rested. 

People underestimate Davison on D.  He is the big body run defender.  I think the Aints had a top ranked run D last year and he was a big reason why. 

I agree. I do think we need a bigger and stronger rb that inflicts punishment to add to rotation. I’d love to get Miles Sanders. The ability to grind out on offense, wear down defenses is huge 

and we just drafted Senat in the third! 

Share this post


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

I agree. I do think we need a bigger and stronger rb that inflicts punishment to add to rotation. I’d love to get Miles Sanders. The ability to grind out on offense, wear down defenses is huge 

and we just drafted Senat in the third! 

Devonta is strong and Ito is money but yeah, we need a short yardage mauler.

ShadyRef likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thamill said:

Devonta is strong and Ito is money but yeah, we need a short yardage mauler.

Yeah, I’m not saying dump free. We just need another banger to round rotation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keanu Neal is a good run defender but is just average in coverage. Could have traded down a few picks to grab him just like we should have done with Lindstrom and could have stayed put for McGary.

Share this post


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

So realizing that after Day 1, we could reasonably only assume that we would exit it with one player, OL was always on the table.  Was Lindstrom a surprise @ 14?  Sure...but I remind myself that I’m just some MB schmuck, not a pro scout/coach.  So I have to defer to their judgment/evaluation with regard to the player.  Doesn’t mean they are always right, but I can’t claim they’re wrong now.

I never understood the Day 1 (or even Day 2) clamoring for CB.  If the Falcons believe in Oliver, then he and Trufant will not leave the field.  And with Trufant only providing a little less than $5M in cap savings if we cut him in 2020...chances are, we are set at outside CB for the next two seasons.  Are we thin depth wise? Yes...but it doesn’t affect Matt Ryan.  OL depth affects Matt Ryan...hence the priority.

I was on the DT train...I get it.  My heart fell when Wilkins was picked.  It fell some more when Dexter went #17.  But the Falcons were always going to have to ‘scotch-tape’ certain areas of their game day 53.  And what we know now is that they were unwilling to do that at OL.

And I can’t argue with that rationale really.

My primary gripe is trading up for McGary when we could have kept our 3rd, stayed at #45 and picked between Ford, Taylor, Kaleb, Risner...whoever was there.  

Bottom line, Kaleb likely ends up inside because of his sluggish feet.  Strong anchor but not quick enough out wide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Francis York Morgan said:

You don't think we could have done both? We practically had, until trading up for McGary. That'd still be investing heavily in 4 guys to compete on the OL in FA and a 1st rounder, even without any defensive FAs. It'd be a little different if we put some more money on the defense in FA. But now, we have zero money in defensive FAs (outside of arguably Clayborn, and that's not revolutionary, less than 2mil) and zero Day 1 or Day 2 picks for the defense. Our defense is arguably worse when you consider our losses compared to gains. The only gain is DQ as a DC. He's hitching his wagon to his ability to turn this defense around with little to no influx of talent.

PS @g-dawg it was a trade up with Denver for Devin Bush and the Packers took Gary. Doesn't change the meaning, just know someone is going to hop on you if you don't edit. I also think we probably wanted to trade up for Howard. Kinda makes the Gary pick even more irritating. Feels a bit like the Sam Baker deal.

I did think so...I even documented it.  I wanted the Falcons to go DT at #17 (predicted a trade down) and then go back up into Round 1 with the 2nd/3rd round pick to secure RT (my pick was Cody Ford).

When I saw we traded up...and looking at DT, there was nothing left - it had been picked clean.  I hated the idea of trading up for CB...so figured OL was still on the table.  AT the end of the day...can I quibble with the strategy to take a low cost rotational (Davison, Hageman, Clayborn) strategy along the DL that eats up about 1000 snaps in 2019?  Sure...

But with Grady @ 750 snaps, Takk @ 600.  Boost Senat to 450 and assume Beasley will be more situationally used @ 500 snaps...that's 2300 snaps right there which doesn't include Jack Crawford who I assume could be good for 500.  So the plan moving forward is viable if lacking in sex appeal.

g-dawg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Falconsin2012 said:

My primary gripe is trading up for McGary when we could have kept our 3rd, stayed at #45 and picked between Ford, Taylor, Kaleb, Risner...whoever was there.  

Bottom line, Kaleb likely ends up inside because of his sluggish feet.  Strong anchor but not quick enough out wide

Experience has taught me that my scouting eye and preferences are amateurish.  I don’t think we did much with Risner, Taylor’s drop seemed health related...and whether you preferred Ford/Kaleb...it’s reasonable to assume both could have been gone by #45.

Plus...don’t underestimate the impact of getting that (cheap) 5th year option...another reason why getting McGary in Round 1 v Round 2 was prudent...

MSalmon and GhostofGritz like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TheDirtyWordII said:

I did think so...I even documented it.  I wanted the Falcons to go DT at #17 (predicted a trade down) and then go back up into Round 1 with the 2nd/3rd round pick to secure RT (my pick was Cody Ford).

When I saw we traded up...and looking at DT, there was nothing left - it had been picked clean.  I hated the idea of trading up for CB...so figured OL was still on the table.  AT the end of the day...can I quibble with the strategy to take a low cost rotational (Davison, Hageman, Clayborn) strategy along the DL that eats up about 1000 snaps in 2019?  Sure...

But with Grady @ 750 snaps, Takk @ 600.  Boost Senat to 450 and assume Beasley will be more situationally used @ 500 snaps...that's 2300 snaps right there which doesn't include Jack Crawford who I assume could be good for 500.  So the plan moving forward is viable if lacking in sex appeal.

agreed.  If DQ can get a little more out of Vic and Takk - say 20% more production from those guys - and with Clayborn/Crawford helping w/ passrush duties and Davison/Senat sharing run stopping duties - we should be OK there if we can stay relatively healthy.  Who knows? maybe Hageman re-ignites his career and develops - maybe we get lucky there.

Next year,  both Defensive Line and Cornerback will be positions of need most likely - maybe Linebacker as well.   I fully expect Quinn/Dimitroff to unearth at least ONE more really good player with our remaining picks - just look at Foye, Kazee, Campbell and Grady - that is a nice resume' of Day#3 picks turned into viable NFL starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheDirtyWordII said:

Experience has taught me that my scouting eye and preferences are amateurish.  I don’t think we did much with Risner, Taylor’s drop seemed health related...and whether you preferred Ford/Kaleb...it’s reasonable to assume both could have been gone by #45.

Plus...don’t underestimate the impact of getting that (cheap) 5th year option...another reason why getting McGary in Round 1 v Round 2 was prudent...

Two 5th year options is around 26 million when they come due.  Hardly cheap when there are two.

But watch this tape and tell me his ability to seal the edge isn’t concerning.  9 holding penalties last year.  He is a project we traded up for at the expense of a 3rd round pick

Watch #58

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/video/washington-ol-vs-auburn-2018/vi-BBTu1NZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Francis York Morgan said:

It's already been neglected imho. Yes, we spent on Beasley and Takk. Yes, we've spent heavy on defense in the past. This isn't about the past to me. It's about spending all of our money in FA on OL, then our Day 1 and 2 picks on OL, all despite having one of the worst defenses in the league last year.

And people can blame injuries all they want - we lose a couple guys this year and it's likely going to be more of the same. I'm happy we drafted OL. I'm just unhappy the defense is being neglected in the draft. You can have both. This feels like one of those years we're "taking off" so that we can go heavy defense next year...well, there might not be a next year for DQ. Just think it's a big risk.

Top run game and defense. They need it or heads will roll. I'm rooting for em.

Injuries were an issue.

Coaching was more of an issue though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

 I fully expect Quinn/Dimitroff to unearth at least ONE more really good player with our remaining picks - just look at Foye, Kazee, Campbell and Grady - that is a nice resume' of Day#3 picks turned into viable NFL starters.

Absolutley, I have zero concerns about finding a good defensive player or two on day 3. They have been doing it since 2015.

Drew4719 and g-dawg like this

Share this post


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

Absolutley, I have zero concerns about finding a good defensive player or two on day 3. They have been doing it since 2015.

I’m banking on this as well. With 7 day three picks we can surely find 2-3 starting/rotational level players.

octoslash likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Falconsin2012 said:

Two 5th year options is around 26 million when they come due.  Hardly cheap when there are two.

But watch this tape and tell me his ability to seal the edge isn’t concerning.  9 holding penalties last year.  He is a project we traded up for at the expense of a 3rd round pick

Watch #58

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/video/washington-ol-vs-auburn-2018/vi-BBTu1NZ

I think that might be a bit of miscalculation.

Justin Pugh had his 5th year option picked up in 2016...he made $8.821M.
Taylor Lewan had his 5th year option picked up in 2017...he was scheduled to make $9.341M before he signed an extension, a 5.8% increase.
Andrus Peat had his 5th year option picked up last year for $9.625M...a 3.04% increase.
Laremy Tunsil just had his picked up last week and is scheduled to earn $9.7M...

Point being, projecting out 4 years from now...let's assume what amounts to a compound annual growth rate of 4%...that comes out to $11.35M ($22.7 for two).  I'll bet that figure will pale in comparison to what you'll be seeing FA G's/T's go for on the open market in 2023.

And I have to think that the Falcons did much more film work on KM than a 10 min clip from UW's 2018 season opener.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, g-dawg said:

Yeah, once Devin Bush came off the board at pick #10 in the Pittsburgh/Denver trade-up, there were no more players to trade up for.  Listening to the Post Draft Press Conference, watching Falcons not making move up to #8 for Ed Oliver or somewhere later for Christian Wilkins - then adding the comment that Dimitroff knew a week ago who they were taking - Lindstrom was "the guy" - he was the intent.

Further, Falcons traded up for McGary when both Cody Ford and Jawaan Taylor were still available - tells me a few things - at least 5-10 teams in the back half of the 1st round could have taken Ford/Taylor and no one did - so maybe their draft stock was overinflated by the sports media.      It also means the Falcons really liked McGary -  I believe we liked Tytus Howard as well and he could have been the pick had he slipped.

I think of myself having a pretty decent eye for prospects and couldn’t split a hair between Taylor or Ford.This is it for me I was so far off it wasn’t funny.What I put it down to is an outsider looking in.Those small details that the FOs around the league have that I or fans aren’t privy to.

I’m shocked at the McGarry trade up but I’m even more shocked at the Tytus Howard pick by the Texans.Theyll be livid the Eagles jumped them for Dillard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, this is an offense driven league now. Look how easily the NFL caved to the Aints crying. The rules are tipped towards offense. The NFL does NOT want a repeat of the Superbowl bore. 

We put our team into position to score more points, control the ball, and give the fans what we lacked last year... Points and excitement. 

Rise Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, g-dawg said:

s traded up for McGary when both Cody Ford and Jawaan Taylor were still available - tells me a few things - at least 5-10 teams in the back half of the 1st round could have taken Ford/Taylor and no one did - so maybe their draft stock was overinflated by the sports media.  

It sounds like Taylor's medical wasn't great. I'd still straight up prefer him over McGary, especially given the fact that McGary doesn't have a clean medical, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted Wilkins so initially I was disappointed. Obviously he was already taken so there's nothing that can be done about that. I was baffled by the Falcons taking OL, then trading up for more OL. Obviously the front office thinks highly of them. Hopefully they become dominate players for many years to come.

ATLFalcons11 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I appreciate you guys. I really do. The problem is that in every one of these "Why are you upset?" posts it is always incorrect as to why people are upset.

The players are fine for most people so need for highlights or stats. The place they were chosen is fine so need for more Keanu Neal comparisons or Sam Baker for that matter. The investment into the OL is fine so no need for stats about sacks or Matt Ryan destroys the offense when he has time.

The biggest consistent issue that I've seen between those like myself is.

The free agent capital and long term investments made towards the OL prior to the draft. This made this doubly an issue when lost our 3rd round pick in the process. Along with that we have a lack of long term investment made towards the DL. We literally only have Senat and Takk past this year. Meanwhile we have Carpenter, Brown, Ty, Fusco, Wes, and now Lindstrom and Kaleb as contractual long term investments.

At the same time we are depending on 2 year removed Hageman, an old Clayborn, an anomaly in Beasley, and a bunch of other backups to help out Grady who is also on a 1 yr contract.

It feels like a wasted free agency if we were going to make this move. I'm cool with one OL pick but two and lose a 3rd. 

GhostofGritz 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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0