Falcons&Dawgs#1Fan

Let me slow this TOPIC down so the posters who are

98 posts in this topic

Just now, capologist said:

You have no way of knowing that though.  Given the run on OT's in the beginning of the 2nd round, I have my doubts.  Front offices have intel that we nor the "draft gurus" (and I use that term loosely because usually they aren't any more qualified than we are) have about real time picks.  That's the reality of it and  perhaps the OP should "slow it down" to realize that...

You're absolutely correct.... no one knew. I was hypothetically speaking.

I guess I'm going to wear out the word Hypothetically in this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, E. T. said:

You're absolutely correct.... no one knew. I was hypothetically speaking.

I guess I'm going to wear out the word Hypothetically in this topic.

Problem with using a hypothetical though is that we know now the reality was that if we wanted those guys, we had to do what we did so we know for a fact the two first rounders weren't "overdrafted" as the OP stated but still continues with the false premise...

JDaveG and Tim Mazetti like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, E. T. said:

Hypothetically speaking, because many on here were saying Lindstrom could have been had lower than 14. Olinemen didn't start falling unitl almost pick 20.

Apparently, they had info that he would have been taken.   They made the decision to stay put and insure they had the player they were after.    I also believe that if Wilkins had fallen to 14, (without any firm intel of course - just watching the interview with DQ and TD) we would have taken him - then probably tried to trade back up and hope for one of the OL we were after.    Look where he went - 1 team ahead of us.   Would that make you risk losing the player you wanted by moving down?   If you were able to make a deal you wanted, what if he went 1 team ahead?    How far down would they have been able to move where a team was willing to move up and give equal equity?    

We don't have the information that our team had when making these decisions.   Everything we do here is pure speculation without all the knowledge, period.

So, in the end, you can second guess all you want, but it is a done deal - we should move on and see if and how the players improve our team's performance.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


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

Problem with using a hypothetical though is that we know now the reality was that if we wanted those guys, we had to do what we did so we know for a fact the two first rounders weren't "overdrafted" as the OP stated but still continues with the false premise...

I agree. Lindstrom and McGary were on our target board and we got our guys. I'm totally understanding of that.

Drew4719, Tandy and capologist like this

Share this post


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

It was a weak draft class. I don’t even know what would be better. I didn’t even do a real mock

There was a lot of mid tier prospects in this year’s draft. Even when we were in position to be a top 5 pick, I wanted us to trade back and get more picks. This was very much had “add depth” draft. 

That being said I personally believe we reached on both 1st round picks. I think Lindstrom will be a solid player and I’m still on the fence about McGary. I was hoping for Risner but I’m thinking we wanted a more athletic offensive lineman. 

I also don’t think that Sweat is going to be a “Superstar”. I personally think he’s going to be a bust, so I’m glad we passed on him. 

Knight of God likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tandy said:

Apparently, they had info that he would have been taken.   They made the decision to stay put and insure they had the player they were after.    I also believe that if Wilkins had fallen to 14, (without any firm intel of course - just watching the interview with DQ and TD) we would have taken him - then probably tried to trade back up and hope for one of the OL we were after.    Look where he went - 1 team ahead of us.   Would that make you risk losing the player you wanted by moving down?   If you were able to make a deal you wanted, what if he went 1 team ahead?    How far down would they have been able to move where a team was willing to move up and give equal equity?    

We don't have the information that our team had when making these decisions.   Everything we do here is pure speculation without all the knowledge, period.

So, in the end, you can second guess all you want, but it is a done deal - we should move on and see if and how the players improve our team's performance.

Tandy, I understand....its not that serious. I guess I should have been more specific in my original post and said "What if". 

Tandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Falcons&Dawgs#1Fan said:

So as you can see there was plenty of high quality personnel around our selections. Let's go to selection # 14 were gonna regret the day we passed up Montez Sweat at # 14 the dude will be a superstar we could have kept our 2 nd round pick and selected the beloved OG Chris Lindstrom with it he would have been there no one else thought as much about him as we did, as for OG Kaleb McGary he would have also been there in the third round I believe the fourth we will also regret the day we didn't trade ahead of the Giants and select DB outta Georgia DeAndre Baker no TD's allowed in over 2 years in the SEC no receiver had a 100 yard game in his career against Baker in the SEC ... The Falcons blew the he!! outta this draft... But yall just keep patting each other on the back!!!

The problem is you assume things that just aren't so.  Or at least, they are based on what you "believe," which really is nothing at all to base anything on.

Whether Lindstrom would have been there in the 2nd or McGary in the 3rd is simply pure speculation on your part.  If both were gone, someone (maybe you, maybe not) would be killing us for not addressing the o-line in the draft.  Lindstrom looks like a day 1 starter.  McGary may (or may not) be more of a project.  But they are both solid picks and solidify this o-line for quite a long time if they both work out, and there is no reason sitting here to think they won't.

The other thing you falsely assume is the other picks were "high quality personnel" relative to our scheme fits and team needs.  And let's be honest, you're basing that on your opinion, likely colored by the "analysts" (read professional journalists who are amateur talent evaluators) and not on the opinions of the people who get paid a lot of money to identify said scheme fits and team needs and select players who meet both.  

Put simply, there is absolutely no reason to think you and Kiper and D-Led and company are right and the Falcons front office is wrong.  So I choose to believe they are right and you are wrong.  It's a simple analysis really.  On one side we have professional talent evaluators who put thousands of hours into these picks, and on the other side we have amateur talent evaluators who write and stir **** for a living.............oh, and you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Black Francis said:

Dude. Teams draft the players they want. It doesn’t matter where or how they’re picked. It’s the players they want that matters. 

It really seems so simple.  And so much of the noise is around them not wanting the players the fans wanted, when the fans just don't know what they don't know.

The other thing that peeves me is this -- we harp on the o-line, all the time.  I complained long and loud about us not picking any o-linemen before the 4th round under Quinn, meanwhile we have selected a couple of RBs higher.  We complain about getting patchwork FAs to fill holes (though Levitre and Mack were pretty notable additions to that o-line, both are older).  And the team FINALLY invests draft capital at the position, ensuring they get the guys they wanted, and people complain about that.

"What about the d-line?"  We've invested 2 first round picks on the d-line under Quinn.  One of them is solid (Takk).  One of them is disappointing (Beasley).  The disappointing one has flashed production, but seems to be flagging right now.  Quinn is betting he can get production out of his two first round selections.  We just signed Grady to a franchise deal of $15 million.  We got some patchwork FAs on the d-line and we signed Davison from the Saints.  We have a draft pick from last season that shows promise at DT.  The o-line is far and away the bigger problem.  We went heavy on the o-line and people still complain.

Because we didn't draft their favorite corner (or whoever).

Tim Mazetti and Black Francis like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, read this thread:

@HolyMoses spelled it out for the haters.  And he's 100% right.  A good offense is often your best defense.  And a good offense starts in the trenches.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Also, read this thread:

@HolyMoses spelled it out for the haters.  And he's 100% right.  A good offense is often your best defense.  And a good offense starts in the trenches.

Thanks for the mention but if folks ready the post, I hope they understand that it is not as simple as "a good offense is often your best defense."  An explosive offense can actually be a detriment to your defense.  When you score fast, often and early, opposing offenses tend to go hurry up earlier and start throwing down field a lot.  Sure, it helps when a team gets one dimensional, but any success becomes a downward spiral if you can't get the defense off the field.  The pass rushers get gassed and can't get to the QB, the QB has more time to find open receivers, defensive backs have to cover long and get gassed and more guys get open . . . And now you have to do it again and again. 

Gregg Easterbrook used to say that comebacks start with defense and are stopped by offense,  Meaning that a turnover by a defense can't turn around momentum and get a team back in the game.  But an offense that is in the lead that can sustain a drive, score points, and run clock will shut that **** down.  

The Riddley pick made the offense better, but it did not help the defense the way the OL improvements will.  

Tim Mazetti and JDaveG like this

Share this post


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

Thanks for the mention but if folks ready the post, I hope they understand that it is not as simple as "a good offense is often your best defense."  An explosive offense can actually be a detriment to your defense.  When you score fast, often and early, opposing offenses tend to go hurry up earlier and start throwing down field a lot.  Sure, it helps when a team gets one dimensional, but any success becomes a downward spiral if you can't get the defense off the field.  The pass rushers get gassed and can't get to the QB, the QB has more time to find open receivers, defensive backs have to cover long and get gassed and more guys get open . . . And now you have to do it again and again. 

Gregg Easterbrook used to say that comebacks start with defense and are stopped by offense,  Meaning that a turnover by a defense can't turn around momentum and get a team back in the game.  But an offense that is in the lead that can sustain a drive, score points, and run clock will shut that **** down.  

The Riddley pick made the offense better, but it did not help the defense the way the OL improvements will.  

I was summarizing my man.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I wouldn't suggest an offense that is merely explosive is a "good offense."

I do think our offense in 2016 was a great offense, but like any offense, it had weaknesses, and ability to sustain drives and get short yardage gains were two of them.  We could score at will, but we struggled to close it out.  We had the first half of the WCO philosophy down, but not the 2nd.  What we need to do this season is marry those two concepts. Score early and often, and then go straight ball control and move the chains and burn the clock.

And score points.  Moving it into the red zone and having your RB whiff on a block causing a sack fumble isn't good enough.  Not that I'm bitter about it.

No.11 likes this

Share this post


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

For what it's worth, I wouldn't suggest an offense that is merely explosive is a "good offense."

I do think our offense in 2016 was a great offense, but like any offense, it had weaknesses, and ability to sustain drives and get short yardage gains were two of them.  We could score at will, but we struggled to close it out.  We had the first half of the WCO philosophy down, but not the 2nd.  What we need to do this season is marry those two concepts. Score early and often, and then go straight ball control and move the chains and burn the clock.

And score points.  Moving it into the red zone and having your RB whiff on a block causing a sack fumble isn't good enough.  Not that I'm bitter about it.

I am . . . very.

And we need 7 points, because we sure as shine aren't going to get 3 with the off the street retread dago (can I say that?) kicker we've got now since we released Bryant.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


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

I am . . . very.

And we need 7 points, because we sure as shine aren't going to get 3 with the off the street retread dago (can I say that?) kicker we've got now since we released Bryant.

@Dago 3.0, I'm gonna need a ruling here.

Dago 3.0 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Lamborghini is rated above a Tahoe but I don't have much need for a Lamborghini, I couldn't go anywhere I go or do anything I do in one. 

TD and DQ rate players based on what is needed and fits with this team. 

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, E. T. said:

We could have traded back and still had a chance to pick pretty much the same draft.

Either way, They were high ranked and we got em. 

Can you see into my future as well? I'd like to know where I'll be in five years, and if the Falcons win a Super Bowl.

Thanks.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, No.11 said:

Can you see into my future as well? I'd like to know where I'll be in five years, and if the Falcons win a Super Bowl.

Thanks.

Keep reading brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you can't argue is the Falcons get who they want. Put some trust in the front office to get it right. They have been drafting successfully for awhile now.

*TMo* and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 8:23 PM, hjerry said:

Wow, so you couldn't possibly have put this in your pre-existing thread, but had to make yet another thread for your response to everyone else's responses?

 sex
Label given to any person who craves attention to such an extent that they will do anything to receive it. The type of attention (negative or positive) does not matter.
 
You're such a GD attention whore!

You sure do think about whore's a lot you must be around them a lot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 8:26 PM, GeorgiaBoyz said:

2 threads for the same topic .  Have you ever felt the warmth of a woman ? Do you need attention ? You’re welcome . My goodness . <_<

There's some weird phuckers on this board...

Share this post


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

It’s been reported that Falcons Plan A was to stick at 14 and draft Lindstrom.

Clearly Falcons could have traded up for Oliver or Wilkins if that was the goal.

Dimitroff said he knew whom he wanted a week in advance.  It was Lindstrom.

I sincerely hope you don't believe that!

rings639 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, hjerry said:

I'm surprised you actually managed to type this without making another thread

Good Job :)

You know I wanted too...

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