Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't start a lot of topics, I tend to piggy back off of others and either agree or disagree and why.  But I figured I would spell out what I'd like to happen, or not happen, this draft.   What

This is exactly what I don't want.  1) We can't afford to trade up 2) We certainly shouldn't do it for a position that is the least valuable, most replaceable and shortest lifespan in the NFL.  Javont

Harris, while I like him generally, just seems like a waste. As I’ve said before, treat RBs like bic lighters. Once they finish their rookie deal, franchise them a year if they’re great. Otherwise, yo

4 hours ago, Rings said:

I don't start a lot of topics, I tend to piggy back off of others and either agree or disagree and why.  But I figured I would spell out what I'd like to happen, or not happen, this draft.  

What I want us to do.

1) Trade Down.  This to me is the biggest thing we can do in my eyes.  There are very few blue chip players in this draft, the good thing is most of them are QBs and as we have seen so far in offseason trades, teams feel they need one bad and are willing to overpay.  I would honestly prefer multiple trade downs if possible, but we will see how that plays out.  I love the draft and it's exciting to me to have such a high pick for once, it's the silver lining to a garbage season last year.  However, the top of the draft talent wise couldn't stack up any worse from a needs perspective for us vs what it would have in previous years.  There isn't a dominate EDGE, there isn't a lockdown Corner or Safety, there isn't a blue chip DT or even a Nelson type guard (I wouldn't be happy taking a guard at 4 but you get the point).  Because most teams typically have two big boards, one overall BPA and one taking positional value/needs/scheme fit into consideration, it makes perfect sense that someone is going to fall in love with one of the QBs, WRs or Sewell and be willing to move up for them...and we need take full advantage of it.  

2) Address the secondary day one or two...multiple times if it's there.  Terrell is the only known guy we have back there at this point, with Neal's future unknown, Rico cut and other corners struggling/unproven...we need to address it multiple times in the draft.  If trade downs happen, this will give us more chances to find value on day two, early day three to help fill those gaps. 

3) Address the d-line day one or two, again I'd be fine if multiple times.  TD did a lot of things really well in the draft in my eyes, his two biggest flaws were trading up too much when it didn't make sense/never trading down to recoup those picks, and his inability to scout talent on the d-line that translated to the NFL.  I'll give him some props for Grady, but most outlets had him as a late first round pick and he kept falling and falling because of size, and at some point you just have to say "at this point we would be stupid not to take a chance" and it paid off.

What I don't want us to do.

1) Take a QB at 4.  Do I think Ryan will be our QB the next 2-3 years?  Yes.  Will he be in 5?  Probably not.  I'd rather address the problem come 2023-ish, even if they have to sit for a year at that point, but not this year.  When you are this high in the draft and don't NEED a QB right now, you take advantage of someone that does in a strong QB class, trade back and accumulate draft capital...aka more picks.  The biggest upside of moving on from a proven vet to a rookie QB is the cost savings, if you sit that player for the first two years of their career, you are throwing half that away and you close your window to surround them with talent.  The playoff AFC teams were filled with QBs on rookie deals still, Mahomes (new deal hasn't kicked in yet), Jackson, Allen, Mayfield.  When those QBs get paid, and those cap hits hit, they won't be able to stack the team around them and their job gets even harder and not all of them can carry a team with less talent to help.  You have to take advantage of that window, and we are not in a position to move on from Ryan for at least a year or two so this is why I would rather wait to see how he performs in Smith's scheme before pulling the trigger on a new QB.  

2) Take a RB in round one.  I know people love Harris, I get it, he's awesome and we were 30th in rushing DVOA last year.  Smith's scheme alone will make our line look a ton better which will help the running game a lot.  His scheme will also use backs in the passing game...which is a foreign concept to us over the last two years.  Do we need to add a back, or even two in either FA (cheap deal) or the draft?  Yes.  Does it need to be round one, or even two to see a big upgrade?  No. There are a lot of position groups that you rarely hit outside the top 40 picks or so, multiple running backs every year perform at a high level drafted late day two, early day three.  In fact 8/10 top backs this year were not taken in the first round.  This year there are a lot of positions that have huge drop-offs after round one projections, EDGE and Safety come to mind.  The drop off from them to the guys that will go on day two is much bigger and will have a bigger impact than the drop off of us taking a back on day two instead mid first (assuming trade down). 

2018 the Giants took Barkley in round one and Will Hernandez in round two.  I said right after that pick, they got it backwards.  If they wanted to fix their running game, they should have taken Quenton Nelson round one and Nick Chubb round two, who went one pick after Will to Cleveland.  Is Barkley a better back than Chubb when healthy?  Maybe, but at this point debatable.  But there is a HUGE drop off from Nelson to Hernandez, which was obvious pre-draft, this isn't just a hindsight take, I literally turned to my friends within the minute after they picked Will and said that.  The running game is extremely important in today's NFL, but that doesn't mean you need a top 5 talent-wise RB to accomplish top 5 production.

3) Not lock in on positions we NEED.  Yes we want impact starters, yes you want people to compete.  But if you have a list of needs holistically, you should try to address a good chunk of them if you can, but you should never try to do it in a specific order and force yourself to reach just to check a box.  Talent always slips every year, sometimes legit concerns, but other times because other teams don't value a position, they scouted poorly, the have no need for that position, but more often than not it's because they don't fit the type of player they are looking for for their scheme.  A lot of GMs are still stuck in the old school "we don't take tackles with less than 34" arms or our corners have to be 5'10" minimum, no QBs under 6'0",etc".  It's another reason why Grady fell to us, didn't meet teams requirements to what they thought it took to be successful DT.

4) Any type of trade up.  Like I said about why we should trade down and get more picks, this is the opposite, we can't afford to throw away cheap talent anymore.  We need depth and we need competent starters all over the defense side of the ball, running back and could still use upgrades/people to compete on the offensive line.  We aren't a piece or two away to think we can trade up and get "our guy", be patient, multiple good players will make a bigger impact on our defense than one great player.  If you don't believe me look at our defensive line, Grady is great, but if he had any help at all he would be even better because he couldn't be double teamed every snap.

Just my two cents here.... You need to start posts more often. Great read and I really agree with all of your points.

Edited by 408Falcon
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Rings said:

Don’t disagree, but how much of that is scheme?  The last time Dirk had a RB looking good was MJD.

Oh, I think you had it earlier when you talk about guards. We haven't had gap creators in a while, which makes any RB look average.

We're still gonna need to commit to a free agent RB and a decent rookie, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Falcons Fan MVP said:

TF said something about addressing our biggest needs in free agency so he may indeed use the draft for luxury picks such as our future QB or a wide receiver that will eventually replace Julio. Or even Kyle Pitts.

If TF addresses our biggest needs in FA that would be running back, CB and a possible o line or safety.

No pass rush?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post. Couldn't agree more.

We are over the cap, and are probably gonna cut a bunch more people which will leave plenty of holes. It just makes sense to trade down and get a few extra players. 

I also wouldn't be surprised if our move this season is to kinda just roll with what we have, just until next season where we have some more cap maneuverability. Do a trade down and manage the deal so that we get more picks in next year's draft where we'll have more freedom and we'll know better what players already fit the team.

 

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

Again, those examples keep being brought up but they were during the old CBA, it’s apples to oranges to compare the two.  It doesn’t make sense to sit someone that long anymore.

That rookie pay scale was implemented for many reasons.  And one, is to get the most out of a player for the least.  Economics 101.  Sitting a kid for two years makes no sense.  

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

Again, those examples keep being brought up but they were during the old CBA, it’s apples to oranges to compare the two.  It doesn’t make sense to sit someone that long anymore.

Couldn’t afford to sit a high drafted QB in the old CBA either. Not when they had a 5/70M deal right out of college. By high I mean top 5-10, not late round 1 where Rodgers was picked (and Love last year)

great OP BTW...

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 1989Fan said:

Couldn’t afford to sit a high drafted QB in the old CBA either. Not when they had a 5/70M deal right out of college. By high I mean top 5-10, not late round 1 where Rodgers was picked (and Love last year)

great OP BTW...

Correct, but my point was the difference between a vet QB and a rookie QB taken top five in the old CBA was much less than it is now, in fact sometimes it was more, so the savings piece wasn’t really a thing.  

For instance Ryan was the 14th highest QB cap hit, Burrow taken #1 overall this passed year was 28th.

Also, thank you!  Haha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rings said:

Correct, but my point was the difference between a vet QB and a rookie QB taken top five in the old CBA was much less than it is now, in fact sometimes it was more, so the savings piece wasn’t really a thing.  

For instance Ryan was the 14th highest QB cap hit, Burrow taken #1 overall this passed year was 28th.

Also, thank you!  Haha.

I think we both can agree that were on the same page, that you don’t draft a quarterback at number 4 and let him sit. It just rarely ever happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post.

The only point on RB I’ll add is if you actually were a RB away and didn’t have so many other roster needs.

I believe a RB chase like that is desperation, but it’d be great to have a good RB again; and a lot is hopefully a product of the system, as after all RBs do get banged up and you need player fits more than overvaluing a specific player like TD did...but again if we needed just a RB?

I’m game for Najee if we traded down first, but even then it feels awkward over value itself. Could you get production with RBs 4-6 off the board compared to 1-3? While adding a blue chip at a greater position of impact + value combined? Likely the more sound approach. I’m not opposed to trading down, taking another position and then using some of the ammo from the trade down to acquire a RB sooner (not trading up, just luxury pick if it’s there) but again...the LOS players and scheme itself (coaching) matter more than ever these days.

We’re hungry for a running game and production out of RB in pass game. Depends, in part, on how Arthur wants to shape the offense and TF works to facilitate the overall roster shaping.

A lot of Falcon fans are disillusioned due to having such terrible defense at closing games, naturally the desire is an “impose its will, even when they know you want to run it” type of ground game.

I think that sells Ryan short in making throws off of that threat. The root issue is we have not been able to threaten the run or defend a lead/close a game.

It takes more than a RB to get that done but ya a bellcow type would be cherry on the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clark Kent™ said:

I agree with most of that. But if we traded back from 4 and trade back up into the end of round 1 and took Harris, Williams, or Etienne I would not be upset at all. I wouldn't even be upset with it if we traded to the back end of round 1 without trading back from 4. 

One, if not all those backs will be available at 35.  There is zero need to trade up to get a back in the first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mister pudding said:

Unless a team has its sights on a specific qb that is sitting at #4 when we pick, trading down is a good theory on paper, but sometimes we act like it's a given. After that qb run, imo trading down twice will be virtually impossible seeing there may not be those blue chip defensive players to trade up for. If we do gather picks on any trade down, just stay put with those picks.. quality picks (esp rbs) will be available

Thank you ... all this trade down crap ... honestly if anyone trades down it will be Dolphins who are one pick above us and at that point if QBs go 1-3 what leverage will we have to trade down unless somebody wants to pay us a haul to draft Sewell but i highly doubt that happens 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the starting post. If you could trade down with Philli then someone like Denver or san fran and accumulate extra 2-5th round picks. Also the cheap rookie wages help the budget problems .

I've even played around and done some mocks where I have no first round pick and received extra picks this year. Having multiple 2nd, 3rd or 4th round picks solves a lot of issues than one first rounder.

 

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

That rookie pay scale was implemented for many reasons.  And one, is to get the most out of a player for the least.  Economics 101.  Sitting a kid for two years makes no sense.  

Fields will only sit this year 2022 this team will be his after Ryan is moved for a first and some change 

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

I agree with the starting post. If you could trade down with Philli then someone like Denver or san fran and accumulate extra 2-5th round picks. Also the cheap rookie wages help the budget problems .

I've even played around and done some mocks where I have no first round pick and received extra picks this year. Having multiple 2nd, 3rd or 4th round picks solves a lot of issues than one first rounder.

 

Why would these teams be trading up and for who ? Go look at how many teams traded up last year ... not many it takes two to tango 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mister pudding said:

I was with you until i saw franchise tag. I would just keep drafting rbs when the time comes. Franchise tag for rb is 12.4 million. Draft, use, rinse, repeat

Well, I mean if the guy became an all pro and the team is contending for trophies. That’s the only scenario where an added top dollar tag would make sense. 
 

Otherwise, yeah, ditch him and reload.

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...