Jump to content

Atlanta Falcons will have more success finding a QB when Matt Ryan retires


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, vel said:

But if we're making blanket statements like:

Then Vick sitting for a whole year was a bad draft move. It being 20 years ago shouldn't matter. You have a direct example from the Falcons themselves taking the #1 overall pick and sitting him for a year essentially. Either it's a bad draft move or not. That quote didn't provide any other caveat/context. 

the thought that the rookie player drafted in 1st round has to come in and be a STAR the first year or it's a bad pick is the way many judge picks.  I remember in 2008 when Falcons drafted Matt Ryan - back then the rule was more that rookie QBs didn't start the first year and how much of an anomaly it was that Matt and Flacco both came in and started.   

While getting a rookie QB and getting immediate production in the rook year is nice - when you take one of these guys early - you hope he is your team leader and triggerman for 10 years or more.   Worrying that it's a bad pick if he sits the first year is just bad analysis.   Falcons aren't winning a SB in 2021 and whether a rookie QB rides the bench won't matter with the perspective of history.   If Falcons draft Fields or Lance and he's good for a decade-plus and leads us to a SB (or more) no one with hindsight will say "yeah but he didn't play his rookie year."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, g-dawg said:

last year we had all 5 starters as 1st round draft picks - three drafted by the Falcons - and an UFA Center paid top dollar.   Matt has ALWAYS had the best receivers and has ALWAYS had a good TE since Tony got here.    Matt has had more toys than just about any other QB - and good RBs every year except the last 1-2yrs.

Actually, you are giving us a great example of why one should not assume a high-drafted pick (including QB's) is going to be good.

Matthews is a good OT but not really All-Pro, McGary really needs a strong year 3 to prove his worth, Hurst probably is still below what R3 Hooper did, and Gurley was not at his R1 form in 2021.

Nevertheless, Ryan's clear problem in 2020 was above him and maybe that has been resolved this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

very well thought out and articulated, Vel.   No matter which side you come down on w/ regards to QB or not QB at #4 - you cannot argue w/ the way you put this forth.  Kudos to  you, my friend.

Thanks. I see all sides of the argument. We'll see where TF/AS fall very soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PuppyMonster said:

I don't disagree. I would say that it doesn't look great for the Packers. Rodgers put up an obscene season and now he's going to make the Packers either commit to him with another huge contract or make them move on from him when he looks like the best QB in the league again. 

Not a super enviable position.

At all. I mean even Belichick tried to trade Brady in 2017, the year he won the MVP and a year after winning the SB.

You gotta stick to your guns. Was Belichick wrong for that? No. Yea Brady won with TB. Tell him do it again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, vel said:

This is the most comprehensive argument I've seen and don't disagree with it. My point of push back is, if you believe a good, solid QB in AS's system can produce a SB, and they think who is there at #4 is better than a good, solid QB, it's gotta be on the table. Matt is only under contract for three more years, so we can only talk about Matt for 3 years in real terms without making assumptions. 

I think Matt is that vet QB that gets traded to a stable situation in a few years instead of him being that guy for this team. I know that's not popular, but this is a brand new regime. I think the same is coming for Aaron Rodgers too. We can argue whether that is a good idea or not another time, but I think that's what's realistic. New GM/HC pairs don't build around the previous regimes QB if they are 35+. It just doesn't happen. 

I do agree if there is a QB sitting at 4 that the front office feels is highly likely to be a good fit it has to still be on the table.  I don’t think that is the case but if they feel it is I’d support the pick. 
 

i really would rather wait for a pure pocket passer with high intelligence while Ryan does his thing. If that player is there next year, even if he needs an extended time to develop, I’m good with getting him abs then trading Ryan at the point out newbie is ready.  So your point is one that is absolutely part of the mix, we can pass on QB this year abs still pull trigger anytime over next few years on a QB when the right one is in striking distance and still trade Ryan a couple of years from now. I’m good with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, g-dawg said:

last year we had all 5 starters as 1st round draft picks - three drafted by the Falcons - and an UFA Center paid top dollar.   Matt has ALWAYS had the best receivers and has ALWAYS had a good TE since Tony got here.    Matt has had more toys than just about any other QB - and good RBs every year except the last 1-2yrs.

This is where I sit with Matt. I like Matt but hes done less with more.

His best season was with an offensive wizard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gazoo said:

I do agree if there is a QB sitting at 4 that the front office feels is highly likely to be a good fit it has to still be on the table.  I don’t think that is the case but if they feel it is I’d support the pick. 
 

i really would rather wait for a pure pocket passer with high intelligence while Ryan does his thing. If that player is there next year, even if he needs an extended time to develop, I’m good with getting him abs then trading Ryan at the point out newbie is ready.  So your point is one that is absolutely part of the mix, we can pass on QB this year abs still pull trigger anytime over next few years on a QB when the right one is in striking distance and still trade Ryan a couple of years from now. I’m good with that.

The bold part is always the part I have issue with. Because it's very easy to say, but no guarantee it pans out. If that player is Sam Howell and the team picking #1 isn't moving, like the Jags aren't moving off Lawrence, then you're left waiting again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, vel said:

The bold part is always the part I have issue with. Because it's very easy to say, but no guarantee it pans out. If that player is Sam Howell and the team picking #1 isn't moving, like the Jags aren't moving off Lawrence, then you're left waiting again. 

yes, it isn't easy to be "in position" to get a top guy.   Forget for the moment that we even have Matt now.   We have had some really disappointing years and in 2021 - it's the first time the Falcons have really even been in a position to take a top QB - the last two years have been awful and we were drafting like what #13 and #16?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt is a great QB but he is old.Also, he went 7 9 7 9 and 4 2 the last three years. And the way the roster is set up no I don’t think we are winning too much next year. The window to build around him has closed. It’s time to look to the future with a heir and reload. We can reload similar to Chandler to Vick. Get a young QB in to shadow Ryan and start to build around him and hit the ground running. This is probably one of the best QB classes I’ve seen. Let’s set ourselves up for the future 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dapanch420 said:

or we could end up like the browns and jaguars and be in search for a qb for the next 20 years. you just never know.

Or the Broncos Dolphins Jets Buffalo Rams others .... hey man franchise QBS just fall off trees and you grab one. Oh by the way - you can win consistently with bad ones. Just get a good coach and OL that’s all you need to win a SB. You can find a franchise QB any day of the wk.😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's multiple ways to win in this league. The most assured way is with a great QB. On the flip side, if you draft the wrong one that is also the most assured way to fail and typically sets your franchise back for 5+ years.

There's multiple ways to approach this draft and this pick in particular. I honestly don't think any way is more appropriate than the other because everybody can pull multiple examples of each going wrong.

Philosophically speaking I prefer to have a team that can lean on 22 instead of 1. Vel talked about odds earlier in relation to QBs. Well odds are higher that the non-QB pick in the top of the round will be successful than it is for a QB picked in the top of the round. I think that a missing piece of seeing all perspectives.

So for me since I think Matt can be a top 10 QB for 3 years, then I would rather build up the rest of the team for those 3 years and use this top pick for a higher percentage of success, which is non-QB, then START, not guaranteed, to look for our QB of the future next year. 

If we don't get it, then we still have Matt for at least another year for us to continue to have a top QB, while continuing to build the team. So we're not hoping for a miracle, of which I agree with Vel, to find a QB in one year. The team is giving themselves options. That's how I see it.

The next part of that is now we have a built up team that we can continue to pay because we have that rookie QB on a rookie contract without the pressure of playing hero ball on a zero team.

Again my philosophy is that I rather lean on 22 than 1. If we get the QB now, then we lose 2 years of that rookie contract, especially with the restructure. If a QB is drafted, then I'll support it. It's not major for me, but I just see the benefit in building the team first before making that big move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vel said:

The bold part is always the part I have issue with. Because it's very easy to say, but no guarantee it pans out. If that player is Sam Howell and the team picking #1 isn't moving, like the Jags aren't moving off Lawrence, then you're left waiting again. 

Yeah, there is no guarantee anywhere along the line when talking about drafting a QB. Risk is always present, it’s risk mitigation I’m most about. 
 

I suppose I find the athletic QBs everyone falls in love with, with short resumes to be exceptionally risky, where I find grabbing a college pocket passer, or one that has shown this ability and is intelligent to be far less of a risk. It seems the boring QBs like Brady and Ryan were in college get nowhere near the hype these college QBs  that can scramble get.

The urgency this year to use such a high pick as the 4th given what we could yield in a trade down just isn’t there for me. But, if there was a guy at 4 sitting there this year with the same resume and skill set Ryan had in 2008 I’d grab him in a heartbeat.

I like to use the Buffalo Bills move to snag Allen. They moved up to #7 and got their guy. Other teams clearly didn’t know what they were passing up on or Allen would have been picked sooner. Many other franchise QBs are picked later in round one. So we have 5 years to make it happen in my view, no rush or urgency as so many feel is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ATLFalcons11 said:

There's multiple ways to win in this league. The most assured way is with a great QB. On the flip side, if you draft the wrong one that is also the most assured way to fail and typically sets your franchise back for 5+ years.

There's multiple ways to approach this draft and this pick in particular. I honestly don't think any way is more appropriate than the other because everybody can pull multiple examples of each going wrong.

Philosophically speaking I prefer to have a team that can lean on 22 instead of 1. Vel talked about odds earlier in relation to QBs. Well odds are higher that the non-QB pick in the top of the round will be successful than it is for a QB picked in the top of the round. I think that a missing piece of seeing all perspectives.

So for me since I think Matt can be a top 10 QB for 3 years, then I would rather build up the rest of the team for those 3 years and use this top pick for a higher percentage of success, which is non-QB, then START, not guaranteed, to look for our QB of the future next year. 

If we don't get it, then we still have Matt for at least another year for us to continue to have a top QB, while continuing to build the team. So we're not hoping for a miracle, of which I agree with Vel, to find a QB in one year. The team is giving themselves options. That's how I see it.

The next part of that is now we have a built up team that we can continue to pay because we have that rookie QB on a rookie contract without the pressure of playing hero ball on a zero team.

Again my philosophy is that I rather lean on 22 than 1. If we get the QB now, then we lose 2 years of that rookie contract, especially with the restructure. If a QB is drafted, then I'll support it. It's not major for me, but I just see the benefit in building the team first before making that big move.

This. All of this. A lot of these scenarios assume the very best case scenario happening, instead of looking at the odds for a baseline successful outcome while only looking at the very worst case scenario of the option they oppose. It just doesn't work that way. 

But I'll say if they stay put at #4 and take a non-QB player, that'd be the biggest waste of time. If you aren't taking a QB to ensure you have continuity there, trade down. It's literally the Falcons price. Not getting multiple firsts for the pick if you are prioritizing building the rest of the roster over a QB would be a MASSIVE missed opportunity. That's why, after the Niners trade, #4 will be a QB picked. Whether it's the Falcons or another team is what we don't know. I like Pitts a LOT. But Pitts by himself wouldn't be better than going back to say #9 and getting two future firsts and taking Rashawn Slater. Like you said in the beginning, the NFL is a QB dominated game now. Either you have a great one you can win with or you're trying to get one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gazoo said:

Yeah, there is no guarantee anywhere along the line when talking about drafting a QB. Risk is always present, it’s risk mitigation I’m most about. 
 

I suppose I find the athletic QBs everyone falls in love with, with short resumes to be exceptionally risky, where I find grabbing a college pocket passer, or one that has shown this ability and is intelligent to be far less of a risk. It seems the boring QBs like Brady and Ryan were in college get nowhere near the hype these college QBs  that can scramble get.

The urgency this year to use such a high pick as the 4th given what we could yield in a trade down just isn’t there for me. But, if there was a guy at 4 sitting there this year with the same resume and skill set Ryan had in 2008 I’d grab him in a heartbeat.

I like to use the Buffalo Bills move to snag Allen. They moved up to #7 and got their guy. Other teams clearly didn’t know what they were passing up on or Allen would have been picked sooner. Many other franchise QBs are picked later in round one. So we have 5 years to make it happen in my view, no rush or urgency as so many feel is the case.

That kind of QB isn't the QB mold any more. There hasn't been a good version that kind of QB drafted since.... Goff? The game has changed. The mobility part has become massive. Guys like Goff, Darnold, and Rosen aren't the mold. Pocket passing is still preferred, but QBs who can move and create are what wins unless you are Tom Brady, the black swan of QBs. Matt Ryan is the last great pocket passing QB that has been drafted. Don't believe me? Go look. It's just different now. 

You keep saying 5 years. Matt is only under contract for 3. So it's not 5 years. Until he's extended, that number just isn't true. And if we use the Bills moving up to snag Allen, we can't ignore it was the Bills who traded down with the Chiefs the year prior so they could take Patrick Mahomes. The Bills turned those picks into Josh Allen, Tremaine Edmunds, and Zay Jones. I'd much rather one Patrick Mahomes over that haul, and Allen turned into a dam good QB. 

I get the urgency and not feeling it. The only reason I lean towards taking the QB is because of the scheme/HC we have in place and just how hard it is to get this right. If Lance is their guy, there is no guarantee they'll have a chance at another "their guy". The next three drafts could be like the 2013-2015 NFL Drafts. The only first round QBs from those classes are Jameis, Mariota, Bortles, Manziel, Bridgewater, and EJ Manuel. That happened and can be what you're putting yourself in position to solve your QB hole with. That is frightening to look at. The NFL scouts have way more info than we do and I just don't think it's a coincidence EVERYONE is trying to get one of these QBs this year when they can always wait for next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, vel said:

That kind of QB isn't the QB mold any more

That might be for college, but in the NFL the only type of QBs I’ve seen that have had a sustained track record of success are pure pocket QBs.  Again, if they can also scramble that’s fine like Allen in Buffalo or Rodgers in GB, but what QB in NFL who had average or below average intelligence, was mediocre from the pocket but could dazzle the fanbase with explosive runs ever had sustained success in the NFL?  

I think in the long run the scrambling QB trend will burn out. The one thing that has always stood the test of time is the true pocket QB that can read defenses and hit the open man standing tall in the pocket. And there have got to be some in some of the colleges despite what the current trend is. In the end, for me, it’s like trying to bring the option play to the NFL or the run and shoot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gazoo said:

That might be for college, but in the NFL the only type of QBs I’ve seen that have had a sustained track record of success are pure pocket QBs.  Again, if they can also scramble that’s fine like Allen in Buffalo or Rodgers in GB, but what QB in NFL that was mediocre in the pocket but could dazzle the fanbase with explosive runs ever had sustained success in the NFL?  
 

I think in the long run the scrambling QB trend will burn out. The one thing that has always stood the test of time is the true pocket QB. And there have got to be some in some of the colleges despite what the current trend is. In the end, for me, it’s like trying to bring the option play to the NFL or the run and shoot. 

Pocket or dual, a QB’s success is more predicated on the team you build around them. Everyone wants the next Mahomes, but he lucked into a great situation being drafted by a great team with a HOF coach. 
 

Watson, Murray, Prescott,  Lamar et al are all fun to watch, but what have they won? 
 

Dual QBs are also way more prone to injury, so you better have a good backup plan.....Wentz/Prescott/Burrow all just coming off serious injuries this past year.
 

31 minutes ago, vel said:

That kind of QB isn't the QB mold any more. 

Which QB keeps winning Super Bowls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gazoo said:

That might be for college, but in the NFL the only type of QBs I’ve seen that have had a sustained track record of success are pure pocket QBs.  Again, if they can also scramble that’s fine like Allen in Buffalo or Rodgers in GB, but what QB in NFL who had average or below averse age intelligence, was mediocre from the pocket but could dazzle the fanbase with explosive runs ever had sustained success in the NFL?  

I think in the long run the scrambling QB trend will burn out. The one thing that has always stood the test of time is the true pocket QB that can read defenses and hit the open man standing tall in the pocket. And there have got to be some in some of the colleges despite what the current trend is. In the end, for me, it’s like trying to bring the option play to the NFL or the run and shoot. 

I'm not saying a scrambling QB. But the pure pocket guy isn't being pumped out. Rodgers and Allen aren't Matt and Brady. That's why I agree passing from the pocket will always be the preferred trait first. 

I don't think trends are a matter of preference, but a matter of the talent that is being produced. That's why I pointed to the lack of QBs like Matt Ryan being drafted and succeeding like him. He's literally the last version of that guy. I'd say Joe Burrow maybe is the only other one. That's 13 years. Plus, Arthur Smith has had a clear preference to more mobile guys. His love for Russ when he was at UNC. Turning Tannehill into a baller at QB. The scheme needs a mobile QB for the boots and run threats. But they aren't running QBs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vandy said:

Pocket or dual, their success is more predicated on the team you build around them. Everyone wants the next Mahomes, but he lucked into a great situation being drafted by a great team with a HOF coach. 
 

Watson, Murray, Prescott,  Lamar et al are all fun to watch, but what have they won? 
 

What QB keeps winning Super Bowls?

Thing is , vel knows his stuff so I’m definitely interested in understanding his openness to a the new style QB.  
 

For me, for decades I’ve watched the trends of new fads that come and go,  it the one thing that can never be properly defensed is a highly intelligent defense reading, accurate pocket passer who can release the ball quickly, provided he has reasonable protection. They have stood the test of time for decades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vandy said:

Which QB keeps winning Super Bowls?

Tom Brady. It's literally not even a "which QBs". It's one. Because Mahomes is the anti Brady. He's the mobile, off script arm maestro. Brady is just a guy who stands in the pocket and does the same thing over and over again and keeps the team on track. 

Brady is a black swan. Using him as the barometer for anything is praying for another black swan event at QB. Can we stop acting like it's anything more than picking the most significant outlier at QB in the NFL? The last five years, the SB has been Tom Brady versus the next challenger. If your strategy is drafting the next Tom Brady... Lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, vel said:

Tom Brady. It's literally not even a "which QBs". It's one. Because Mahomes is the anti Brady. He's the mobile, off script arm maestro. Brady is just a guy who stands in the pocket and does the same thing over and over again and keeps the team on track. 

Brady is a black swan. Using him as the barometer for anything is praying for another black swan event at QB. Can we stop acting like it's anything more than picking the most significant outlier at QB in the NFL? The last five years, the SB has been Tom Brady versus the next challenger. If your strategy is drafting the next Tom Brady... Lol 

LOL at declaring pocket passers are dinosaurs when a pocket passer is who keeps winning Super Bowls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vandy said:

LOL are declaring pocket passers are dinosaurs when a pocket passer is who keeps winning Super Bowls.

So it was Brady being a pocket passer that caused the Falcons to blow a 28-3 lead and not just kick a FG? Or the Seahawks throwing a pick instead of running Lynch? Cuz that's what you're saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, gazoo said:

Thing is , vel knows his stuff so I’m definitely interested in understanding his openness to a the new style QB.  
 

For me, for decades I’ve watched the trends of new fads that come and go,  it the one thing that can never be properly defensed is a highly intelligent defense reading, fairly accurate pocket passer who can release the ball quickly, provided he has reasonable protection. They have stood the test of time for decades. 

Well, I believe it would be foolish for falcons to expend their valuable draft capital on a QB this year, dual or pocket, unless a mid-round developmental one. They may do it, but I don’t think it’s the wise course to take. 

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...