Jump to content

Falcons looking more likely to trade down from 4th overall pick after 49ers trade- The Falcoholic


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, hjerry said:

Again, that's based on the assumption that TF and AS likes the QBs in this class

You don't take a QB unless you're sold on him. Otherwise you're just wasting the pick

Very true. The QB, if selected, was the highest guy on their value board. Otherwise, moving right along....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There will be QB’s in next years draft...and the one after...and so on. It’s not now or never 

In all honesty, I have NO idea what we are planning to do.  None.

I think people get wildly enamored with a player or players and get emotional about it.  Maybe it's the corporate monster in me, but people are pieces to use to form a team.  Not names, not colleges b

1 hour ago, coastiemike said:

The #4 QB in this draft likely isn’t going to be on this team 10 years from now, and definitely not 15.

That is precisely the issue.  He is convinced that a QB at 4 is a can't miss scenario.  History shows us that QBs at 4 miss more than they hit.  He has twisted his mind to fit this crooked story and can no longer have a reasonable or logical conversation about it.  The ignore feature is wonderful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, celtiksage said:

Something else to consider in the QB discussion. Tannehill (and Henry if you want to really scrutinize the Titans; maybe you can throw in their TE and WRs too) saw a massive jump in production under AS and was even better his second year.

Due to cap ramifications one would think MR has 2 years remaining at least, but if he follows any sort of trajectory that benefited Tannehill, then in 2 years he might be too good to bench for any QB drafted this year (even if we got Lawrence).

Boom!

Ryan’s window of opportunity to get a ring is extended by having AS running the offense. I could see Ryan here another 5 years. Not predicting it, just saying it’s possible given current situation. 
 

Get Ryan a legitimate running game and pass protection like he last had in 2016 when he won MVP and took us to a Super Bowl with NFLs #26 ranked defense and he has years left playing well above the limited ability of Ryan Tannehill. 
 

And how about getting Ryan a legitimate defense where he doesn’t feel like he has to carry the entire team to a victory in a given game? No QB can do this but he’s always had the weight on his shoulders if we are to win. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NorthGaBoy said:

That is precisely the issue.  He is convinced that a QB at 4 is a can't miss scenario.  History shows us that QBs at 4 miss more than they hit.  He has twisted his mind to fit this crooked story and can no longer have a reasonable or logical conversation about it.  The ignore feature is wonderful.

Emotionally invested.  The cold corporate aspect to my mind says that you draft skillsets.  Which one fits where you want to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, hjerry said:

Again, that's based on the assumption that TF and AS likes the QBs in this class

You don't take a QB unless you're sold on him. Otherwise you're just wasting the pick

And your opinion is based on an assumption that they wouldn’t like any of the QBs that would be left at 4..also that can be said about any position group you drafting from so this is irrelevant in a sense because it’s done with other position groups when the talent is deep enough  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NorthGaBoy said:

That is precisely the issue.  He is convinced that a QB at 4 is a can't miss scenario.  History shows us that QBs at 4 miss more than they hit.  He has twisted his mind to fit this crooked story and can no longer have a reasonable or logical conversation about it.  The ignore feature is wonderful.

Yeah and history showed us that a team going into half time with the lead in the super bowl would most likely win..piss off with your goofy *** logic ..it can be applied to multiple positions  so stop like you some draft guru ..you just another short sighted poster spewing throwing up to fit YOUR narrative 

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

Yeah and history showed us that a team going into half time with the lead in the super bowl would most likely win..piss off with your goofy *** logic ..it can be applied to multiple positions  so stop like you some draft guru ..you just another short sighted poster spewing throwing up to fit YOUR narrative 

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Macknsweetjones said:

And your opinion is based on an assumption that they wouldn’t like any of the QBs that would be left at 4..also that can be said about any position group you drafting from so this is irrelevant in a sense because it’s done with other position groups when the talent is deep enough  

I didn't say they won't like any QBs. I said if they don't then trading is the best choice

Also, it's not irrelevant. It is in fact the core of how and why these decisions are made, and why they so often fail. Picking a player you don't like because you feel like you need to, at any position, is the definition of how franchises fail

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hjerry said:

I didn't say they won't like any QBs. I said if they don't then trading is the best choice

Also, it's not irrelevant. It is in fact the core of how and why these decisions are made, and why they so often fail. Picking a player you don't like because you feel like you need to, at any position, is the definition of how franchises fail

It’s irrelevant in a sense of you bringing it up here because like I said it’s done with any position that’s standard **** you saying. 

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

Bu****** … it’s definitely shortsighted and this whole “their qb” emphasis goes both ways their qb could be in the top 4 range I’m sure it’s more than one they would consider. 

Eh, it’s honestly an equally fair and shortsighted suggestion that Ryan can play another 5 years vs a QB from this class is guaranteed to be successful for the falcons for the next 15 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the first three picks in this draft will be QB's.  It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that picks 1 and 3 will be QB's.  That leaves the Jets at #2.  

They have a new HC and a QB that has talent that was grossly misused.  The smart thing for the Jets to do is to trade down, pick up assets to bolster their OL and provide their QB with weapons....perhaps Pitts or Chase.  

So, we will be sitting at a precipice.  Will another team truly value a 4th QB enough to trade up?  Perhaps, but I certainly don't believe the trade will render much in return.  

If we should trade with the Broncos, they would be crazy to offer multiple picks in this draft, as well as a future first rounder.  However, they can afford to let a prominent defensive starter go in exchange for a move up for their franchise QB.  

In my opinion, the Falcons should consider moving down to #9 for the Broncos' Simmons and a third rounder in this draft.  The Broncos would have their QB and we would have a top-notch FS and leader in the secondary.  We would also have an extra pick in the top 100.

Our first four picks could go something like this:

1.    Surtain - CB

2a.  Wyatt - OG

2a.  Humphrey - OC

2b.  Carter - RB    

It would pain me to miss out on Pitts, but this scenario plays better for the team as a whole.  

Critics would argue that the compensation would not be enough, but consider that we would automatically gain two starters in the secondary and basically have that part of the defense rebuilt.  We would also have a ready-to-go complimentary RB to pair with M Davis and two very solid additions to the interior of the OL.  I think that both Wyatt and Humphrey can out-play Henn, who would be a valuable back up.    

There will also be criticisms that the above draft choices are too Offensive-centric.  I would agree, but you have to take what the draft gives you.  I would have preferred to add a can't-miss pass rusher, but I don't see one. 

We are sitting in a good position to make a deal with a QB-hungry team.  The key will be to NOT GET GREEDY.    

Edited by etherdome
mistake
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JayOzOne said:

Falcons #4 pick is worth 1,800 points. That's more than New England, WFT, Chicago and Minnesota's total draft values. Oakland doesn't even have a first rounder. Denver is 450 points below us in the trade value chart. Their second round choice is worth 500 points but it would cost more than that to get a potential franchise QB. 

If somebody's going to get that pick, they need to package a crap ton of assets, including starting players.

As far as making up the points needed to get the values correct would more likely be along the lines of what the niners did. It would be future picks along with a pretty good portion of this years picks. As some have mentioned, with players come contracts that we cant afford right now.

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

but you have to take what the draft gives you.  

This is another huge factor in my analysis of what we are likely to do.

If there was a pass rusher worthy of a 4th, I’d change the odds to likely we stay put. But there isn’t. If we stay put, Pitts seems to me the likely pick and I’d be thrilled if we got a talent like that for Ryan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Macknsweetjones said:

It’s irrelevant in a sense of you bringing it up here because like I said it’s done with any position that’s standard **** you saying. 

Yes, it's done regularly. It's also a strong reason why the teams who pick a QB at the top of the draft are frequently firing their HC and GM a few seasons later.

Just because it's done regularly, doesn't make irrelevant 

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

You don’t know that 

 

Conditional to that time this is different 

 

They aren’t they are just projected to be as with any other positional group with great college players, and to the second point that would depend on the team you’re trading with why depend when you can just do it now

 

The chance is higher in this draft and that’s what counts. The food was on the spoon you didn’t put it all together to understand that you’re suppose to eat it not look at it 

To you.. sure.

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

The Falcons will obviously not trade with the Panthers for fear of giving a division rival a franchise quarterback for the next 15 years

Yeah, I don't think so. If the Panthers are willing to mortgage their next two drafts on a very big IF, then I can't see TF and company turning that down. I wouldn't. Even if the guy the Panthers draft does turn out to be really good, that won't make much of a difference if the team around him sucks. It's a "risk" worth taking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr.11 said:

Yeah, I don't think so. If the Panthers are willing to mortgage their next two drafts on a very big IF, then I can't see TF and company turning that down. I wouldn't. Even if the guy the Panthers draft does turn out to be really good, that won't make much of a difference if the team around him sucks. It's a "risk" worth taking.

The idea we should avoid doing something that could stack our team with talent to help get us closer to a Super Bowl simply because the trade partner might also benefit, or, it *could* make us look bad is self defeating and nonsensical. 
 

Fear is a terrible decision maker. Afraid of what others might think if it doesn’t work out is even worse. Calculated, strategic moves are the only way to build a team.

We have to get through more than 1 team to get to a Super Bowl for Gods sake. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cole World said:

 ⬇️ 

 

I get that, but even then, why spend the 4th pick on someone who is going to sit for at least 1 year and maybe 2. With how much QBs make, that’s just not very smart to waste ~2 years of a rookie deal on someone who won’t play. 

If we are that set on a QB, wish we would trade back. The QB that’s likely going to be there at 4 doesn’t interest me that much. Think next year’s class is better anyways 

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...