Jump to content

To Those Who Think We Can Cut/Trade Ryan


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We would likely be in that boat if we cut or traded Ryan next year.  Many think it’s easy to do and move on...history says otherwise.  Thought this was very eye opening.  

32m next year as it sits, and the cap should get a massive bump from the new tv deals... https://overthecap.com/calculator/atlanta-falcons/

It's not going to be hard to fix. This is where TF and his crew earn their money via scouting and AS and his crew earn their money via teaching and coaching. Holes will be filled, whether it be with a

3 hours ago, Dr Long Shot said:

I agree, whoever is at the top of our draftboard when the clock starts running that's who we pick. Whether it is QB, Pitts, Sewell, Chase, Surtain or whoever pull the trigger on that guy. TF has said it bluntly he will be picking BPA so there's nothing left to do but trust in his judgment. I also think the only way we trade down is if some team is willing to pay up big time, which is possible but I think 70% we are staying put... just a hunch.

It could be. I honestly think we’re looking to get out of that position to be honest. I also believe we’re more likely to trade down now than in any other season. Right now if I had to select a player it would be in this order OL, WR, QB, then TE. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Architect said:

The future potential is one of the reasons why I personally am leaning QB right now. It isn't because Matt is washed and I think he sucks (I think he's still a top 10 QB), it's because I don't know when the end of the road could be with him. Peyton threw 55TD's /10 Ints and 2 seasons later fell off a cliff.

 

If you feel like one of those guys can come in and produce at the same level or better than Ryan then you make the move. Under Dimitroff we'd too often wait until we absolutely needed to replace a position, I'd rather do it early and be safe rather than sorry.

I agree. My biggest fear is that Smith gets the team where it needs to be; Ryan falls off a cliff, and we have no one to take over for him. Then we’ll be another 2-3 years before we are SB contenders. So it is a viable solution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sidecar Falcon said:

I agree. My biggest fear is that Smith gets the team where it needs to be; Ryan falls off a cliff, and we have no one to take over for him. Then we’ll be another 2-3 years before we are SB contenders. So it is a viable solution. 

Let's say the Falcons trade down for a kings ransom in draft picks...you have a VERY good shot at finding Ryan's replacement when Ryan does fall off that cliff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JD dirtybird21 said:

Let's say the Falcons trade down for a kings ransom in draft picks...you have a VERY good shot at finding Ryan's replacement when Ryan does fall off that cliff.

That's an entirely different type of scenario than anyone has attempted to mention. Kudos to you bringing originality

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ya_boi_j said:

That's an entirely different type of scenario than anyone has attempted to mention. Kudos to you bringing originality

For some reason, a lot of people think QB is now or never...because the pick is 4th overall. If you trade down with a team like Denver or Washington, you could very well have a top 10 pick next season. AND, you'd have so much draft stock that you could actually trade UP to get a QB if you really needed one. QB's come every year. It's never going to stop. They'll always be there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

Let's say the Falcons trade down for a kings ransom in draft picks...you have a VERY good shot at finding Ryan's replacement when Ryan does fall off that cliff.

That’s my first option. Trade back, then back again. Gather everything you need. My options are trade back, OL, WR, QB, then TE at 4. With the first two weighted much heavier. 

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

I’m holding my opinion on Mack.  Mack wasn’t in the scheme he thrived in, don’t be surprised if he looks magically “rejuvenated” playing in Kyle’s scheme this season.  Allen wasn’t good, but he is still better than what is currently on the roster.  The goal isn’t to have stars at every starting position, the goal is to have starter quality players at every position.  

We haven’t had that.  

We have had stars and scrubs for years.  Saints don’t have a roster filled with all pros, but they have very few weaknesses.  Philly in 17 won a super bowl with foles with very few blue chip stars, but again no holes and a ton of depth.  Give me a starting roster filled with b & c players all day than one filled with a’s and then a bunch of d’s & f’s surrounding them.

As far as Mack goes I do think he will rebound some in KS scheme, but he is decling a lot of it is injuries and age. I agree about the stars part and our roster. We definetly need to bring in some talent, but all I mean is if we didn't even add anyone we would do similar than last year if not better due to scheme. 

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

As far as Mack goes I do think he will rebound some in KS scheme, but he is decling a lot of it is injuries and age. I agree about the stars part and our roster. We definetly need to bring in some talent, but all I mean is if we didn't even add anyone we would do similar than last year if not better due to scheme. 

May be right with Mack.  I’ve just heard it a dozen times that player x is on the decline because of age or injury the last two years and it’s always someone who was play in Dirks offense, never the defense for some reason.  So are they actually on the decline or was Dirk just that bad?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

For some reason, a lot of people think QB is now or never...because the pick is 4th overall. If you trade down with a team like Denver or Washington, you could very well have a top 10 pick next season. AND, you'd have so much draft stock that you could actually trade UP to get a QB if you really needed one. QB's come every year. It's never going to stop. They'll always be there.

Get a 2022, 2023 first round Picks from Denver or some hungry team. If they end up in top 3 or 5 pick next year. Falcons can trade down and do another block buster if they don’t want QB next year. With 3 first round picks in 2023, they can move up to number 1 spot to pick a QB. 

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

Get a 2022, 2023 first round Picks from Denver or some hungry team. If they end up in top 3 or 5 pick next year. Falcons can trade down and do another block buster if they don’t want QB next year. With 3 first round picks in 2023, they can move up to number 1 spot to pick a QB. 

Why do you think a team drafting #1 overall would trade the pick? If they need a franchise QB and one is available they will take him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bobby.Digital said:

Why do you think a team drafting #1 overall would trade the pick? If they need a franchise QB and one is available they will take him. 

Why do you think a team picking #1 over all needs a QB? Move to #2 and pick the second best QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

Let's say the Falcons trade down for a kings ransom in draft picks...you have a VERY good shot at finding Ryan's replacement when Ryan does fall off that cliff.

That's basically what I meant with my other post. Folks have tunnel vision on pick 4. Instead of leveraging the value if we get an offer we can't refuse.

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

Why do you think a team picking #1 over all needs a QB? Move to #2 and pick the second best QB.

Of the last 20 #1 picks, QBs have been selected 13 times. So it's more than likely the team drafting #1 would want a QB. 

Also who's to say the #2 QB is even someone we'd want? 

Your scenario involves tons of hypotheticals. All of them out of our control. 

Edited by Bobby.Digital
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rings said:

May be right with Mack.  I’ve just heard it a dozen times that player x is on the decline because of age or injury the last two years and it’s always someone who was play in Dirks offense, never the defense for some reason.  So are they actually on the decline or was Dirk just that bad?  

Yeah I do think Dirk is just that bad and the entire team before Quinn was fired just looked defeated and all looked somewhat bad. After the firing you could see a little more energy and effort. So yeah I think Mack will look better in San Fran, but I think he only has a year maybe 2 in him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, xSICKxWITHxITx said:

Yeah I do think Dirk is just that bad and the entire team before Quinn was fired just looked defeated and all looked somewhat bad. After the firing you could see a little more energy and effort. So yeah I think Mack will look better in San Fran, but I think he only has a year maybe 2 in him. 

I 100% agree.

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

It could be. I honestly think we’re looking to get out of that position to be honest. I also believe we’re more likely to trade down now than in any other season. Right now if I had to select a player it would be in this order OL, WR, QB, then TE. 

I think we really, really like 4, but obviously a trade down for the right price could be just impossible to refuse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dr Long Shot said:

I think we really, really like 4, but obviously a trade down for the right price could be just impossible to refuse. 

I disagree that we “really really” like it. I don’t believe we aren’t married to 4. I think Fontenot and Smith are looking for more picks. No one at 4 really “pops” out as the BPA. The disparity level between the “top tier” talent  isn’t so wide, position to position, that we couldn’t trade back a little bit and still get a great player. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sidecar Falcon said:

I disagree that we “really really” like it. I don’t believe we aren’t married to 4. I think Fontenot and Smith are looking for more picks. No one at 4 really “pops” out as the BPA. The disparity level between the “top tier” talent  isn’t so wide, position to position, that we couldn’t trade back a little bit and still get a great player. 

Honestly, outside of a few teams, I wouldn't think the majority of the league likes drafting top 5 period. It means your team sucked and the potential bust factor is high. Unless your team is in desperate need of that potential franchise QB, trading back and gaining equity is always an amazing option if there's a second party willing 

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

kinda hate that finally when Ryan gets an opportunity to be with a consistent playcaller that wont get hired elsewhere, it's at a time where he is on borrowed time. 

 

Hope he comes with a vengeance this season like Rodgers did after GB drafted a QB

Rodgers didn’t come back because they drafted a QB. Rodgers just like Ryan, Big Ben, Eli Manning and others had career year in second season of Shanny WCO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rings good post. I see the contract re-structure in itself as a sign that Matt is our dude until at least 2023.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/atlanta-falcons/matt-ryan-3983/ Which at age 38, makes a lot of sense. 

One thing folks forget, when they clamor for the shiny new QB toy is that besides the huge dead cap numbers, Matt hasn’t shown signs of decline. This is significant when you consider how antiquated and ineffective the overall DK scheme was. Our running game was atrocious, and the OL was never in a position to succeed, yet Ryan connects for 4600 yds and 28 total TD vs 11 ints. 

We’ve gotten so used to Mahommes’ video game numbers that we forget that is a very good to great year. Add a running game, build up the defense and roll with Matt for 2-3 years. Makes too much sense not too

Stashing a #4 overall QB on the bench and paying him $8 plus Million to do so is counterintuitive to building a competitive roster. Last year’s #4 overall pick (Thomas to Giants) got $32M. A QB and at #4 will be even more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JD dirtybird21 said:

For some reason, a lot of people think QB is now or never...because the pick is 4th overall. If you trade down with a team like Denver or Washington, you could very well have a top 10 pick next season. AND, you'd have so much draft stock that you could actually trade UP to get a QB if you really needed one. QB's come every year. It's never going to stop. They'll always be there.

And if 5 teams draft one as their "future" this year, less teams will be in the running

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...