Jump to content

Possibility of a Kyle Trask-Kyle Pitts Reunion in ATL?


Recommended Posts

Just now, irrevelantfalconsfan said:

That'd also be good. Main reason I chose Kyle Trask was because of the chemistry the 2 already have, and the comedy of a Kyle-themed first 2 rounds.

Yeah I got it. I'm also not against it. Trask and Jones both intrigue me, but I'll be the first to admit I have no eye for how college QB talent translates to NFL QB talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Geneaut said:

Yeah I got it. I'm also not against it. Trask and Jones both intrigue me, but I'll be the first to admit I have no eye for how college QB talent translates to NFL QB talent.

Neither is Mel Kiper, yet he still has a job.

Edited by irrevelantfalconsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pitts is a luxury player. While he maybe an absolute game changer TE isn’t  valued highly as a positional value pick (qb, corner, edge , left tackle) That being said the way this draft pans out we are in position to pick a luxury as reaching for qb isn’t optimal , we just picked a great corner, there are no elite edges and Jake is still serviceable. I prefer we trade down but if Arthur smith sees Pitts as star to build a scheme around like he did with Henry I say make the pick

Edited by Aluminafalcon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aluminafalcon said:

Pitts is a luxury player. While he maybe an absolute game changer TE is valued highly as a positional value pick (qb, corner, edge , left tackle) That being said the way this draft pans out we are in position to pick a luxury as reaching for qb isn’t optimal , we just picked a great corner, there are no elite edges and Jake is still serviceable. I prefer we trade down but if Arthur smith sees Pitts as star to build a scheme around like he did with Henry I say make the pick

Not to mention how Arthur's scheme depends so much at TE...

 

People are saying this kid is the next Kelce or Kittle. If that's true, we could be LETHAL in the red zone again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, irrevelantfalconsfan said:

Neither is Mel Kiper, yet he still has a job.

I remember that famous 1994 draft deal where he absolutely roasted the Colts for not drafting that stud known as Trent Dilfer. That was brilliant because the Colts GM went off and said his mailman knows more about the NFL than Kiper. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AUTiger7222 said:

I remember that famous 1994 draft deal where he absolutely roasted the Colts for not drafting that stud known as Trent Dilfer. That was brilliant because the Colts GM went off and said his mailman knows more about the NFL than Kiper. Lol

Apparently he was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, irrevelantfalconsfan said:

I think, obviously, we wouldn't take Pitts at 4, but if we trade back, he could be one of our first targets. Kyle Trask, in my opinion, given time, could grow into a really good quarterback. He would be a good pick at 35, or a later second from a tradeback. What you think?

 

UF QB Kyle Trask, TE Kyle Pitts named to coaches' All-SEC first team -  Orlando Sentinel

I think Pitts at 4 would be just fine every day of the week buddy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aluminafalcon said:

Pitts is a luxury player. While he maybe an absolute game changer TE isn’t  valued highly as a positional value pick (qb, corner, edge , left tackle) That being said the way this draft pans out we are in position to pick a luxury as reaching for qb isn’t optimal , we just picked a great corner, there are no elite edges and Jake is still serviceable. I prefer we trade down but if Arthur smith sees Pitts as star to build a scheme around like he did with Henry I say make the pick

You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth in the beginning of your post. You say he’s a luxury pick. Yet  the next sentence you say he’s a game changer.  Welp, a game changer is what you want at 4. 
Then you say TE isn’t valued highly in the NFL as other position groups. Welp, I’m looking around the NFL & it’s clear to me that it is indeed. And the teams smart enough to grab game changing TE’s are daring very well.  Gronk & Kelce come to mind.  I won’t belabor the point.

So at the end of your OP, you come back around full circle & state what your heart knew all along...Pitts would be amazing in our O.  Just being over analytical here boss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, irrevelantfalconsfan said:

See-

If we stay at 4 and pick him, I wouldn't be upset, but if we are going to get him, I would prefer a trade.

Problem is you can’t get too cute & run the risk of losing him.  
If it works out where we can drop just a couple places & know what those team needs are that we’re passing on the way down, sure, maybe. But the guy will be sought after I bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, HASHBROWN3 said:

You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth in the beginning of your post. You say he’s a luxury pick. Yet  the next sentence you say he’s a game changer.  Welp, a game changer is what you want at 4. 
Then you say TE isn’t valued highly in the NFL as other position groups. Welp, I’m looking around the NFL & it’s clear to me that it is indeed. And the teams smart enough to grab game changing TE’s are daring very well.  Gronk & Kelce come to mind.  I won’t belabor the point.

So at the end of your OP, you come back around full circle & state what your heart knew all along...Pitts would be amazing in our O.  Just being over analytical here boss. 

A luxury player would be a player a team can afford to jump over because other positions are high valued. A position value is determined by two things 1.) contribution to winning 2.) how difficult position is to find a starter at.  RB for example has a very low value as while it’s contributions are important is incredibly easy to find a replacement. Starter quality tight ends aren’t rare( Pitts is a freak and might be n exception) you can find them easily throughout round 3-7. That why Pitts is a luxury.( Kelce per your example was a third rounder kittle was a 5th). Does him being a luxury mean we shouldn’t take him? No of course not but it does mean you have to look at the higher valued positions and question if they are better moves. My post displayed why I didn’t think they necessarily were

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...