Jump to content

New Falcons GM Terry Fontenot: ‘It’s never a bad thing to add to a strength’


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What’s funny is that those that want a QB at 4 would have to first admit to Matt Ryan being a strength.

by Will McFadden for AtlantaFalcons.com     Tuesday likely marked the easiest day in Terry Fontenot's tenure as the Atlanta Falcons' general manager, but it's hard to imagine him gettin

GREAT responses on two key points: 1. Talent > Need 2. Don't disclose to the press what you wouldn't want other teams to know  The fact that he referenced Newsome shows he understand

I’ve always longed for a BPA guy, but I’ll have to see it in action before I buy it. It takes large  ones to take a guy like Sewell at 4, for instance, rather than the top defender, whoever that is. 

And what if your board says Smith or Chase are the top guys? No one seriously believes we would draft a WR at 4. 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

No better example of this than Aaron Donald vs Jake Matthews. That’s how you let Hall of Farmers slip through your fingers.

You realize Aaron Donald wasn't widely regarded as even a fit in the NFL, right? I was one of a few people who loved Aaron Donald (there were others but it was sparse at the time) Matthews was regarded as a LT for a Decade, a technician with bloodlines that made him a "can't miss" prospect. Donald wasn't on a lot of team's radar in round 1.

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

No better example of this than Aaron Donald vs Jake Matthews. That’s how you let Hall of Farmers slip through your fingers.

These are the worst takes.  You know most the NFL made the same mistake?  Not to mention every team made the same mistake a couple years later on Grady Jarrett passing on him for four full rounds for the same reason?  

Matthews was the prototype left tackle coming out of college with family perigee.  Donald was ”undersized” and the not the norm at the time.  He changed then position.  

Are our fans really this dense?  

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

You realize Aaron Donald wasn't widely regarded as even a fit in the NFL, right? I was one of a few people who loved Aaron Donald (there were others but it was sparse at the time) Matthews was regarded as a LT for a Decade, a technician with bloodlines that made him a "can't miss" prospect. Donald wasn't on a lot of team's radar in round 1.

This!

This is a worse example than fans saying we should take a QB to sit a year at 4 because GB did it at 26, and that’s the same...

Link to post
Share on other sites

He could have used the Patrick Willis/ Jamal Anderson draft example. We passed up Willis for a need pick in defensive tackle Jamal. Couldn't believe Rich McKay did that as GM. He had no back up plan at that position when he couldn't land his DT in free agency. 

6 hours ago, Rings said:

This!

This is a worse example than fans saying we should take a QB to sit a year at 4 because GB did it at 26, and that’s the same...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GleasonForever! said:

So if Davonte Smith or Chase is available at 4 then they are in play. Julio aging and Ridley in Contract year. It could happen. I personally want defense but would understand the move. And yes we would all collectively lose our sh**
 

Same for Sewell. 

I’ve stated I want a QB but after hearing this from Fontenot I am warming up quick to BPA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the BPA is a WR ?

Do we really want to pay Ridley the money he will command on his new contract?

Is Ridley a true #1 WR capable of replacing Julio straight up if Julio were to be finished soon?

What if we grabbed the best WR at 4 and he was ready to replace Ridley and/or Julio in one to two seasons as the #1?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fired Up said:

You realize Aaron Donald wasn't widely regarded as even a fit in the NFL, right? I was one of a few people who loved Aaron Donald (there were others but it was sparse at the time) Matthews was regarded as a LT for a Decade, a technician with bloodlines that made him a "can't miss" prospect. Donald wasn't on a lot of team's radar in round 1.

All true, but more often than not, players that are thought to be better...are.  

We all can cite examples of players being misjudged, but the over all, NFL evaluators do a good job of identifying talent. 

Drafting for need often times leads to a roster of mediocre players.  Drafting BPA fills the roster with the best talent.  It really is that simple.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, falcons007 said:

This whole BPA talk is pointless when it comes to QB. There is only one starting QB and the rest are backups. Now if you are talking about other positions on trenches, Skill positions. You can always add a starter or upgrade and have them play a big role. I don’t see teams who draft BPA drafting QB every year.

Actually in the Falcons' case there is an aging QB that will not last forever.  A case can be made that if the best player available is a QB, then the draft choice should be QB.

In my opinion, there will be a tier of players of roughly the same level of talent.  In that case, we should draft the player in that tier that either fills a need or does not have a comparable prospect that will available in a later round.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the mind set but the reality is...taking a position that you already have strength while there is a player that can help an area of need is not smart.

The obvious example used here is wr but I would argue taking a LB at 1 would not be the best use of draft capital if we still had holes on the edge and in the secondary.

Unless of course been are planning to runs variation of the 3-4.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, etherdome said:

Actually in the Falcons' case there is an aging QB that will not last forever.  A case can be made that if the best player available is a QB, then the draft choice should be QB.

In my opinion, there will be a tier of players of roughly the same level of talent.  In that case, we should draft the player in that tier that either fills a need or does not have a comparable prospect that will available in a later round.  

So BPA high round pick at #4 as back up? I am not against QB at 4, just trade Ryan for other starters. It’s just dumb to pick top 5 in the draft to be back up player when the team has no starters at multiple positions. That’s why you don’t see teams going BPA even with a QB in late thirties. Let alone 35, which is still young for QB.  That’s how you become perennial losers, stack up first round picks as backups wih rest of roster depleted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, falcons007 said:

So BPA high round pick at #4 as back up? I am not against QB at 4, just trade Ryan for other starters. It’s just dumb to pick top 5 in the draft to be back up player when the team has no starters. That’s why you don’t see teams going BPA even with a QB in late thirties. Let alone 35, which is still young for QB. 

Well he’d compete first year, and if Ryan wins the competition, he’d sit on the bench. That’s the point of drafting a strength with BPA, nobody is safe. 

 

That said, I seriously doubt a QB is the BPA at pick #4 with 2 teams that are very likely to pick QB ahead of us, and one team who could easily trade out to a QB hungry team or replace a rookie QB the locker room ain’t in love with.

 

The years of using the draft to fill out our roster are gone and I love that. You draft potential long term, not rookie year, which takes away the NEED to have a starter out your 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick. You plug with vets.

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

Well he’d compete first year, and if Ryan wins the competition, he’d sit on the bench. That’s the point of drafting a strength with BPA, nobody is safe. 

 

That said, I seriously doubt a QB is the BPA at pick #4 with 2 teams that are very likely to pick QB ahead of us, and one team who could easily trade out to a QB hungry team or replace a rookie QB the locker room ain’t in love with.

 

The years of using the draft to fill out our roster are gone and I love that. You draft potential long term, not rookie year, which takes away the NEED to have a starter out your 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick. You plug with vets.

Let me get this straight, a QB who is counting 40M in cap or a top 4 pick is going to be a back up on a  team with multiple starters missing  at other positions? If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if Arthur Smith and Fontenot end up on hot seat after first year, if the team loses again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, KRUNKuno said:

What’s funny is that those that want a QB at 4 would have to first admit to Matt Ryan being a strength.

If Fontenot considers him a strength, then I'm glad this is his rhetoric because I want a QB.

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

A lot of good stuff here, but this...

 

To create the highest level of competition, nobody can feel safe or entitled to the role they have. Fontenot's belief that no position should be off the table when adding to a roster perfectly syncs with that accountable philosophy Smith adheres to.

Certainly easier to say when no one on the roster is "their" guy.

I can see influx of former NO and TENN players on this team next couple of years

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...