Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, SavedByGrace1221 said:

Wilson all day long . But apparently the Ryan Homers are against this pick . They keep thinking we have a playoff bound team next year. Tear it done folks . REBUILD .. stop setting yourself up for a great letdown . We Are Rebuilding 

You rebuild when you are gutting contracts, you can’t cut Ryan or Julio yet.  So it’s pointless to start the rebuild until you can take advantage of cap savings, which won’t happen for another year or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm pretty sure most people would be pissed if we drafted Harris at 4. It would be a colossal waste of that draft position. If he is your guy, you find a way to trade down, gather more picks, and then

that would be THE WORST move possible.  RBs have the shortest shelf life of any position player in all of sport.   When drafting in the top 10, you want a player that you feel good about giving a 2nd

I've never understood this train of thought. If a player is "your guy" that means you believe in the potential for him to benefit your team for years to come. If that's the case, it's almost a CERTAIN

1 hour ago, Ergo Proxy said:

One of the reasons you trade down is you want more picks & you don't value a particular player so much at 4 that you take them instead of a couple other players you grade similarly. (Obviously this requires a trade partner otherwise stay put)

RBs can be had lower than round 1. This has been proven. Get a better run scheme/offense and YES we need a RB. Are we just Najee away tho? No. If we take him, it'll need to be round 1 but at 4? For this roster? That's just dumb. I'm sorry.

Don’t apologize.  Sport center and fantasy football will keep people from ever comprehending this.  Maybe we should mandate PPR leagues to help the movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking him at 4 would be horrible. Even Saquan, who was a much better prospect than Harris, was a terrible pick at #2. 

NFL teams are getting smarter and are starting to understand that the RB is one of the least impactful positions, easily replaceable and extremely prone to injury. 

I'm pretty confident Harris will be available in the 2nd with reasons stated above and also considering he won't blow up the combine.

Edited by Bobby.Digital
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rings said:

Yes.  Peterson is an awesome back.  He’s been in the league 14 years and his teams have one playoff win in that time.  It’s stupid to take a back that high because they are the least impactful position in football.  Even the best ones only make teams marginally better.  You are much better addressing other positions.

How bout a good football player my argument has got zero to do about position but more along the lines of picking good players.

I think a lot pigeon hole the position argument is all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t care if the RB was the next Barry Sanders. You can’t make that pick at 4. A pick at 4 is someone you should be planning to build around for the next 10 years not the next 3-4. You’re also basically paying an RB drafted at 4 top RB money. Personally if we’re not going QB I’d like to see Sewell as the pick. 

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

How bout a good football player my argument has got zero to do about position but more along the lines of picking good players.

I think a lot pigeon hole the position argument is all.

That’s fair. I think the point is it depends on the team. If the defense was already loaded, take a “can’t miss RB” at 4. But you would likely be best drafting another than to re-sign him. Is that worth 4? Or a second? Usually you want a top 10-20 even to be a cornerstone. Top 5 is overkill. For this team. For the bodies it needs and cap situation. Even though I’d love Najee to be a Falcon.

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

Nope

he has the benefit of running behind an NFL OL, 3 elite WRs taking pressure of him and a potential round 1 QB. 😁

We've had the benefit too and it still didn't work out (I wouldn't say 3 elite WRs but still). 

I wouldn't do it simply for the fact that you are investing the 4th pick in the draft for what? 5 years of production? Look at how that's worked for the Giants. Barkley is an absolute game changer but can't stay on the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rings said:

 It’s stupid to take a back that high because they are the least impactful position in football.  Even the best ones only make teams marginally better.  You are much better addressing other positions.

I'm not so sure.  A huge part of the early success for Ryan/Smith/Dimitroff was directly attributable to Michael Turner.  If he didn't inspire fear in opponents he certainly generated anxiety.  You could see guys that didn't want to tackle him.  

Granted, we gave Turner a lucrative contract instead of using a high draft pick, but if there's a surefire talent in running back at 4 that could give us three to four years of intimidation against opponents and take the pressure off the QB I don't see that as a stupid pick.  Might not be the right pick or the best pick, but its not without merit.   It's not the exact same situation, but In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to get Gurley's best years with that No. 8 pick instead of 5 years with one good season with Beasley?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kiwifalcon said:

How bout a good football player my argument has got zero to do about position but more along the lines of picking good players.

I think a lot pigeon hole the position argument is all.

I agree not drafting and reaching for need, 100%.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, chronob said:

I'm not so sure.  A huge part of the early success for Ryan/Smith/Dimitroff was directly attributable to Michael Turner.  If he didn't inspire fear in opponents he certainly generated anxiety.  You could see guys that didn't want to tackle him.  

Granted, we gave Turner a lucrative contract instead of using a high draft pick, but if there's a surefire talent in running back at 4 that could give us three to four years of intimidation against opponents and take the pressure off the QB I don't see that as a stupid pick.  Might not be the right pick or the best pick, but its not without merit.   It's not the exact same situation, but In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to get Gurley's best years with that No. 8 pick instead of 5 years with one good season with Beasley?

Is the run game important?  Yes.  Do you have to take a back high to have a really good rushing attack?  No.  In fact the opposite is normally true.  Arguably top three rushers last two years are Cook, Chubb and Henry, none went in the first round.  Use high picks on offensive linemen and day two or early day three picks on running backs and you will have a better run game than the other way around.

I may have been the biggest critic of Beasley on here, I was the one complaining about him in 16 when most were praising his 15.5 sacks.  That said, Beasley was still the right pick.  With Fowler off the board, who hasn’t done anything either, You take a top pass rusher prospect 10 out of 10 times over the top back when drafting in the top 10.  If that edge player becomes dominate it changes your defense, and franchise, for a decade.  RBs you can get studs in the second and third.  Very few dominate pass rushers come outside of round one, a ton of really good backs come in rounds 2 & 3.  It’s easy to look back now and say it was a bad pick, but drafting is all about playing the odds and which will give you the biggest lift as a team.

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

If your biggest worry about trading down is if a RB will still be there, you’re looking at the draft completely wrong.  This isn’t a fantasy draft.

You're missing my point, which is: you can't just say "trade back and take Harris."  It's not that easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 10:43 AM, chronob said:

Good point.  I wasn't a big fan of Jamie Dukes, but he made a good point about the draft.  It may have been in reference to when traded so much to draft Julio.  He said if so-and-so is your guy, then you go get your guy.  Period.  

If the incoming regime thinks Harris or some other RB is the next Tomlinson or Peterson, then they should pick him.  Is Harris, Etienne, or some other back one of those guys?  Probably not, but Harris looks talented enough to me that if the next GM says they were drafting for their RB of the future at 4 with him I'm okay with that.  

Problem is, nobody is going to think that he is Tomlinson or Peterson, so he's not going to ANYBODY at #4. Taking him at #4 is STUPID, and if we do, I am going to be pissed. I LOVE a good running game, because I believe it helps your whole team. Taking a RB for this team, in that spot, is not the right move.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boise Falcon Fan said:

Problem is, nobody is going to think that he is Tomlinson or Peterson, so he's not going to ANYBODY at #4. 

Never underestimate the ability of a general manager or coach to fall in love with the wrong player.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Boise Falcon Fan said:

That's the whole problem. He will not be the BPA at 4.

It’s an example mate.What if Devonta Smith is there and he’s BPA do we take him with Julio and Ridley on the roster as another example of do we go 3rd or 4th best QB.

Its why the whole BPA thing is a myth for the most part.

What say we take Najee at 36 but there’s better players left on the board do you take Najee or the BPA as another example.

See where you take a certain guy matters for naught for the most part if he’s your guy you’ve done all the due diligence you take your guy every single time not necessarily what the board and value has left you or says what or who you should take.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gtech1 said:

You're missing my point, which is: you can't just say "trade back and take Harris."  It's not that easy.

I wouldn’t take Harris in the first round period.  If he’s there in the second, fine.  But no way I’m taking any RB at 4th overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Wristtwitch said:

Our running backs are decent, but nothing to write home about. Our line also can’t block so it while it would be nice to have an upgrade, who knows how it would work out.

Don't blame our OL for Koetter's failings. We have some maintaining to do on the OL this year at LG and OC, but they as a group, are better than this year's results. Koetter's system just puts insane stress on the OL, and he'll never commit to the run.

 

On topic- I'd be happy with Harris in the 2nd, but I would be perfectly happy with Williams if we miss Harris or Etienne. While talented, the exposure of those Clemson and Alabama guys pushes them more than a few spots up the draft boards because they are household names.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would absolutely love it. Everybody says they'll be upset about reaching but haven't the falcons reached in the first round several times and it's worked out great? Ryan, Julio (not a reach but plenty of people were upset at what was given up), Neal, Mcgary and Terrell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...