g-dawg

Falcoholic/Peter King: Falcons Tried to Trade Up to #10 but were outbid

99 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, vel said:

I agree but they've got so much more experience than usual rookies. Most rookies haven't been starting since their freshman year. Both Lindstrom and McGary have. That helps them more than most. We've seen rookie OL come in and hit the ground running. It's not unheard of. Like you said, Conklin did. Ramczyk was an All Pro rookie. McGlinchey was good for SF. HeIl, Jake did until he got his ankle rolled up on. 

This reminds me of when we took Tru and Alford and people were nervous about starting two rookie CBs at "one of the hardest positions to translate" and they both hit the ground running. There will be a speed adjustment, but I don't foresee that taking a full season. Having 5 preseason games helps a ton. I think McGary beats Sambrailo out the gate and we put some training wheels on early vs MIN and PHI, if not through the HOU game week five then let him roll. If they're going to play him this year, he needs to get real game action well before going to NO week 10. That gives him a bye week to settle down, lick his wounds, watch his losses and bounce back. 

Mentioned it in another thread Chris Morgan’s got a job to do to bring this group up to speed quickly.Mack has a huge part also in how quickly these guys can get up to speed like the above.

g-dawg and vel like this

Share this post


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

Assuming Lindstrom was around at the end of round 1, he could theoretically have been the trade up target instead of McClod or whatever his name is...then taken an OT later if TD still wanted one.

What OT would you have taken later? Would love to hear it so it's out in the open. 

Vandy likes this

Share this post


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

Mentioned it in another thread Chris Morgan’s got a job to do to bring this group up to speed quickly.Mack has a huge part also in how quickly these guys can get up to speed like the above.

Given he had no issue taking to Howard Mudd, Morgan should have a lot of fun coaching McGary. Seems very coachable but also a "If my technique fails, I'll just kick his ***" type of guy. It's not pretty, but he had several games where his guy didn't touch the QB and that's all that matters. 

FalconsIn2012 likes this

Share this post


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

He quoted someonecwho asked what our draft would look like had Wilkins feol to 14

 

actually he quoted someone who said i wonder how different the draft would look if we moved up for wilkins.

Share this post


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

If we moved up for Wilkins I wonder how different our draft looks.  

Would've missed out on our OL targets if it was for a defender. That's why TD and DQ said they stuck to the plan in the 1st round presser.

The rub here is not being able to secure enough of 'your guys' and so the 'stay at 14' crowd won out. Not really feasible; despite being shorter jumps.

We were gonna go with a defender approach if we got the right guy or Lindstrom at 14 like we did? Complete the OL overhaul long-term or get another cornerstone defender?

I agree with vel on what we did but you have to think them knowing Lindstrom is the OL option by staying, they would have liked to get a defender if it was the better option.

Yet, that probably means we miss on trading up for the OT we want and have to skip OT in round 2; go CB DL or OG in round 2 vs maybe a 3rd round OT to develop?

Yeah, we'd come out the draft one less year 1 possible OL and a better DL or CB prospect.

However, we have enough talent on Defense and got some targets by holding onto our capital; even gaining a 6th going up for McGary that let us use our original 6th to secure those other targets in round 4.

You can only really optimize the draft so much one way or another. I'm glad we didn't trade up if the cost for what we were getting in return wasn't enough to hurt our draft more than the trade up from #45 did; just #79.

Would've gotten 'our guy' ahead of 14 instead of at 31; ahead of 45. Likely costs more than just 79 and could've even cost our pick 45...and judging by the noise that cost was just too high for moving up? I'm glad we stayed. Boy, I'm glad we stayed.

g-dawg and FalconsIn2012 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FalconBlood said:

We have never invested in Matts safety and opening running lanes quite like this offseason during Matts career with us.

Much needed. The OL was rebuilt this off-season. Thank you.

Schwarzwald and FalconBlood like this

Share this post


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

Wilkins

McGary

Sheffield

Comminsky

Gaillard

The Washington DB

Qadre Ellison(later)

 

not that different.   Sub Gaillard late for Lindstrom early

We wouldn't have McGary because we would've had to give up the 2nd and 3rd or at least this year's 2nd. Wilkens and then an OL or CB surely.

Share this post


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

We wouldn't have McGary because we would've had to give up the 2nd and 3rd or at least this year's 2nd. Wilkens and then an OL or CB surely.

yes, you are third person to point this out - and you are correct kind sir.

However, I did point out a way we could still have both - but it would have costed an extra 4th rounder this year and a 3rd next year - to do both those trade-ups.

Schwarzwald likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, falconidae said:

Teams explore trading up and back the whole draft. TD's explorations get more attention because of the Julio trade.

TD said in the presser teams were the ones calling the Falcons. :shrug: Of course, he didn't say if they were return calls. :tiphat: 

I mean, we were one of those teams EXPECTED to move up. I'm glad Pitt moved up. I'm glad JW went ahead of us. We got the OL solved and would've likely missed on our ideal OL targets in the draft by paying more than #79 for RT. #45 wasn't gonna have one if you look back at the draft. Not sure how drafting Lindstrom ourselves vs Vikings instead of Bradbury would've changed an OT falling to #45 but seeing how that panned out? We got THE best OG and the 4th OT taken off the board.

Vs in Wilkins case the #3DT and the 6th overall DL taken. As long as DQ gets a good performance out of the DL this year; one that relies on rotation more than OL(!!!!), then we can address long-term DL needs next offseason.

VB is too bi-polar a topic; it's still a contract year regardless

BUT do not count out:

Senat year2 & Davison upgrading 1T from a year ago

Grady entering his prime

AC back as a RELIABLE pressure man

Takk with a chip on his shoulder

Crawford another year as a pass rusher

Means in a larger role over a season vs Reed's production drop

Cominsky the Darkhorse and Hageman, the prodigal

To me, if we get enough out of the collective group with Allen/Neal/Debo playing and year 2 IO, Foye...our Defense will be at least top 15...top 10 if everyone is on all cylinders firing

Edited by Ergo Proxy
g-dawg, falconidae and vitaman like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Osiruz said:

Thank God we didn't win that trade if true (I doubt it). Wilkins is going to be a good player but Lindstrom fills a huge hole in our OL. I think Lindstrom was the pick all along, we've been enamored with him since his campus workout. 

I love Lindstorm but it’s too early to tell who would’ve been the best pick or better player 

Share this post


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

Mentioned it in another thread Chris Morgan’s got a job to do to bring this group up to speed quickly.Mack has a huge part also in how quickly these guys can get up to speed like the above.

I’m surprised Morgan survived the purge.  

We should have thrown 1.5 mill at Nicholas Mudd to forego Indy and come to the ATL

Share this post


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

Whatever happened caused us not to draft Rashan Gary, and for that we should all be thankful.

I’m glad we didn’t take Gary, but it absolutely would not surprise me if he is a Pro Bowl player

Schwarzwald likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really good with the draft.. the only thing is I we were exploring our options to go up.. it was for Jonah Williams and he would be our RT... so maybe we would have address another need in the second or third and not to go ahead and give our 3rd for our for our RT of the future and address OG with a develpmental guy... but I like this scenario better... we can go all DEF next draft, we are not going to have many needs at all in our Offense in the near future... maybe C... 

Schwarzwald likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially was really disappointed that we didn't address DT in a draft that was supposedly very very deep at the position. But recently I've been rewatching our 2016 playoff games and this defense was holding teams to 0 points till the 4th quarter. It was pretty much the same dang D line that we have now. If anything, our line looks better now. 

 

The truth about this team, even though we have a defensive minded coach in DQ, is that we are an offensive team. Whether it happened on purpose or because that's the way the cards fell, it's for the best that we drafted 2 O linemen in the first. If you give Matt time in the pocket, there is no defense that he can't carve up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was for Bush. Peter King reported last year we wanted the LB from Bama that the titans took before us. I also believe if Devin White was there we would have traded with Detroit.

But that’s just what I believe.

Schwarzwald likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

57 minutes ago, Fernando C. said:

I am really good with the draft.. the only thing is I we were exploring our options to go up.. it was for Jonah Williams and he would be our RT... so maybe we would have address another need in the second or third and not to go ahead and give our 3rd for our for our RT of the future and address OG with a develpmental guy... but I like this scenario better... we can go all DEF next draft, we are not going to have many needs at all in our Offense in the near future... maybe C... 

And the point you make at the end? Lindstrom may solve C. So, best case scenario is Lindstrom can replace Mack if it saves any capital or FA money on replacing him. That means that Carpenter and Brown might play out their contract here; and not need to be cut after 2 years.

Carpenter is a shorter-term fix anyway given his age. So, we either will need a Guard or a C in 2-3 years, but not before BARRING any major injury setbacks.

It will be interesting to see Ty's fate if McGary works out. Stays as 3rd OT; not sure what his cap hit becomes if he isn't getting the playing time incentives from his deal...otherwise, an easy out after 2019. Good news is OL should be saving money for us a bit more % toward to cap by 2021 season. Mack is gone by then and Carpenter as well. That's significant cap recouped to help us invest in the D; which will become more of a need the older Ryan gets more likely.

Smart to give the strength; our offense, the fix it needed to maximize it's window with Ryan and Julio still in their prime years. :) 

I really hope it works out with DQ as the DC being a big difference. That alone and the veterans like Debo/Neal/Allen for a season; plus a more competent NFL OC and grouping of coaches; to utilize the improved OL? Let's go!

Edited by Ergo Proxy
Fernando C. and g-dawg like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is who would you rather have. Wilkins, Brown, and McGary. Or Davison, Lindstrom, and McGary? As we see McGary would probably still be the pick. But I like Lindstrom and Davison.

Share this post


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

TD said in the presser teams were the ones calling the Falcons. :shrug: Of course, he didn't say if they were return calls. :tiphat: 

I mean, we were one of those teams EXPECTED to move up. I'm glad Pitt moved up. I'm glad JW went ahead of us. We got the OL solved and would've likely missed on our ideal OL targets in the draft by paying more than #79 for RT. #45 wasn't gonna have one if you look back at the draft. Not sure how drafting Lindstrom ourselves vs Vikings instead of Bradbury would've changed an OT falling to #45 but seeing how that panned out? We got THE best OG and the 4th OT taken off the board.

Vs in Wilkins case the #3DT and the 6th overall DL taken. As long as DQ gets a good performance out of the DL this year; one that relies on rotation more than OL(!!!!), then we can address long-term DL needs next offseason.

VB is too bi-polar a topic; it's still a contract year regardless

BUT do not count out:

Senat year2 & Davison upgrading 1T from a year ago

Grady entering his prime

AC back as a RELIABLE pressure man

Takk with a chip on his shoulder

Crawford another year as a pass rusher

Means in a larger role over a season vs Reed's production drop

Cominsky the Darkhorse and Hageman, the prodigal

To me, if we get enough out of the collective group with Allen/Neal/Debo playing and year 2 IO, Foye...our Defense will be at least top 15...top 10 if everyone is on all cylinders firing

Yeah, at the end of the day,  the reason it makes more sense to take OL over DL in the 1st round is - if the OLineman earns the starting job, he is playing 90-100% of the snaps - the offensive line has to be the most cohesive unit on a team - hand in glove.

While getting a defensive lineman is sexier,  especially a passrusher,   at best even the star players are part of a rotation and the guys that play the most typically still aren't in the game 25-30% of the time.

All of you know I was crazy about Quinnen Williams and Ed Oliver.....really wanted them.   However, at the end of the day, I like what we did - we stayed home and we drafted two guys that aren't band-aids on the OLine - they are hopefully permanent/long term starters that protect Matt the way he should be protected and open up running lanes and allow us to be more balanced between run/pass and convert at  a much higher clip on short yardage situations.   If Lindstrom/McGary picks accomplish those things - then it is totally 100% worth it.

falconidae and Schwarzwald like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, Francis York Morgan said:

I think it was for Bush too, tbh. And I get it. Bush is going to be special in this league. Lindstrom is great too, no doubt, but I think Bush + Debo would have been the best linebacker tandem in the league.

Trading up to 10 doesn't make as much sense for other players. The Bengals were going to take Bush if Denver didn't. Jonah had to be their plan B.

Bush is so fast. 4.4 speed at line backer. He attacks the line with ferocity. Hard to gain anything against him. Someone said it on espn and I agree: pound for pound best player in draft. 

Edited by VTCrunkler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, R_The_Great said:

And the football gods finally blessed us and kept us from drafting a defensive tackle.  Who exactly were we relying on to protect Matt Ryan again?  Ty Sambrilo, Jamon Brown?  Yeah we needed someone to come in and take that spot. 

Agreed sir. Well said

Share this post


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

I’m surprised Morgan survived the purge.  

We should have thrown 1.5 mill at Nicholas Mudd to forego Indy and come to the ATL

He’s in the hot seat now.

The FO have given him some new toys.

He will no doubt be history if that oline doesn’t produce.

Share this post


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

Given he had no issue taking to Howard Mudd, Morgan should have a lot of fun coaching McGary. Seems very coachable but also a "If my technique fails, I'll just kick his ***" type of guy. It's not pretty, but he had several games where his guy didn't touch the QB and that's all that matters. 

More worried about Morgan getting the group to get into sync quickly.

Francis York Morgan 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