Flipside: Lance over Fields

[CMarinoNFL]

Fields is going 3 imho. A high ranking coach from NDSU told me that "the GM and HC certainly seemed like they liked him (Lance)" at his pro. Definitely some interesting dots being connected. I think the draft falls:

Jags: Lawrence

Jets: Wilson

49ers: Fields

Falcons: Lance

Bengals: Chase

Falcons are in too good of a position to pass up on a QB. Bad bet to pass on one and say you'll get one later. Never the right move. Adding Pitts doesnt move the needle for us. Darren Waller was a 6th rounder. Kelce was a third. Kittle a fifth. Gronk, a second. Waller didn't move the needle for the Raiders despite being elite in his own right. Neither did Kittle. 6-10 with a lackadaisical QB but a stud weapon. Regression is regression and having a regressive QB defeats the purpose of adding weapons. Weapons can only get you so far if you cant support THEM. Lance makes sense for us from a pro-ready/offensive similarity standpoint where his playcaller has been on NFL rosters before. Team clearly likes him and his fit in Arthur's scheme. The truth is simple: The Falcons will have a ton of talent with Pitts on roster and will have a ton of talent without him. They need a hybrid-flex TE, but other than that, I question Pitts' opportunity in the system. Him being the replacement for Julio is DUMB. He'll be an injury machine if thats the case. Think they settle with Lance who fits to a T and add a guy like Hunter Long in early day 3..  

Edited April 19, 2021 by CMarinoNFL

[JDaveG]

See, I could see us taking Fields if he falls to 4 based on positional value and because I still have him as the 2nd best QB in the draft.

But I don't see us taking Lance at all.  He's easily the 4th best QB (arguably 5th best), he is a project, and while he has elite upside, literally no one knows how he is going to work out in the NFL.  

Hard pass.  If Fields is gone, I'll be stunned if we take a QB at 4.  And I'll be mildly surprised if we take one if Fields is there.

[8ball N M.J.C.]

My man Kyle Pitts is a unicorn. It’ll be hard to pass on him. 

 

[Aluminafalcon]

What worries me is that people are getting desperate looking at these qbs. They are convincing themselves they must have an because of Matt Ryan age. They aren’t watching the film they aren’t seeing the flaws. They just hear mel and Todd and parrot opinions. There are serious concerns in lance, Jones fields and even Wilson. Picking Qb just pick qb is a mistake

[falcons007]

Y all better get on the Pitts train if Falcons are picking at 4.

[falcons007]

8 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

See, I could see us taking Fields if he falls to 4 based on positional value and because I still have him as the 2nd best QB in the draft.

But I don't see us taking Lance at all.  He's easily the 4th best QB (arguably 5th best), he is a project, and while he has elite upside, literally no one knows how he is going to work out in the NFL.  

Hard pass.  If Fields is gone, I'll be stunned if we take a QB at 4.  And I'll be mildly surprised if we take one if Fields is there.

To me it is very simple. If these guys are can’t miss generational QB talents, there would be many teams bidding to trade up to #4. Also a guy sitting for 2 years for #4 pick sounds ridiculous. You better be blue chip player at 4 not a project. 

[Mister pudding]

Kittle missed 8+ games last year

[Cole World]

One less QB on the market

 

[JDaveG]

1 minute ago, Cole World said:

One less QB on the market

 

His comeback story is amazing.  I wish him the best.

[falcons007]

12 minutes ago, Kung Fu Kenny said:

My man Kyle Pitts is a unicorn. It’ll be hard to pass on him. 

 

He is true BPA outside of Lawrence. You ain’t finding another Kyle Pitts any time soon. 

[falcons007]

13 minutes ago, Aluminafalcon said:

What worries me is that people are getting desperate looking at these qbs. They are convincing themselves they must have an because of Matt Ryan age. They aren’t watching the film they aren’t seeing the flaws. They just hear mel and Todd and parrot opinions. There are serious concerns in lance, Jones fields and even Wilson. Picking Qb just pick qb is a mistake

Its called reaching for a need to draft QB, coz you think you won’t find a QB outside top 5 or pick again in top5. 

[Aluminafalcon]

3 minutes ago, Cole World said:

One less QB on the market

 

I’m always curious what his legacy will be. He really isn’t a bust for a number 1 pick but never lived fully up to status either. He is warrior to have made it this long when it looked like in year 2or 3 he was a goner

[SavvyFalcon89]

22 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

See, I could see us taking Fields if he falls to 4 based on positional value and because I still have him as the 2nd best QB in the draft.

But I don't see us taking Lance at all.  He's easily the 4th best QB (arguably 5th best), he is a project, and while he has elite upside, literally no one knows how he is going to work out in the NFL.  

Hard pass.  If Fields is gone, I'll be stunned if we take a QB at 4.  And I'll be mildly surprised if we take one if Fields is there.

I see where you are coming, but couldn't you say the same about any prospect coming out of the draft? Measurables\ Intangibles are one thing, but we have seen many times in the past that some of those "projects" turn out to be really good players, and those that were deemed the more "polished" project end up not living up to their draft status. 

If a coach/front office feels as if a player can help them, regardless of position or status, you take them. If it's Pitts, fine. If it's Fields, if it's...etc... then fine. But I never liked the someone is a project, technically they all are in a sense.  

 

Not picking on you or anything btw

[falcons007]

11 minutes ago, Cole World said:

One less QB on the market

 

 

6 minutes ago, Aluminafalcon said:

I’m always curious what his legacy will be. He really isn’t a bust for a number 1 pick but never lived fully up to status either. He is warrior to have made it this long when it looked like in year 2or 3 he was a goner

He is an elite game manager. I don’t mean it in a negative way. If you want a guy who is good enough to not lose the game and help you win. That’s Alex Smith. He had terrible coaches in SF and was decent with good HC in Harbaugh. 

Funny they bring up drafting Mahomes with Alex Smith on the roster. But conveniently forget Alex Smith was 3500 yard and 15 TD guy when Mahomes was drafted.

[JDaveG]

3 minutes ago, SavvyFalcon89 said:

I see where you are coming, but couldn't you say the same about any prospect coming out of the draft? Measurables\ Intangibles are one thing, but we have seen many times in the past that some of those "projects" turn out to be really good players, and those that were deemed the more "polished" project end up not living up to their draft status. 

If a coach/front office feels as if a player can help them, regardless of position or status, you take them. If it's Pitts, fine. If it's Fields, if it's...etc... then fine. But I never liked the someone is a project, technically they all are in a sense.  

 

Not picking on you or anything btw

No player is complete, that is true.  The problem with Lance is he has a very small sample size, and the sample size tells us there are issues with his game.  That doesn't mean they can't be overcome, but for example Pitts' knock is he isn't an elite blocker.  But he won't be asked to be an elite blocker and if he turns into one he could easily be the GOAT at the TE position.  Sewell might have to kick inside for a year or two.  Fields has issues holding onto the ball too long, but he has dominated against elite competition and you've seen enough to know what he's capable of at the next level.  Same with Lawrence.

Lance is a great prospect, no doubt.  But he's a bigger gamble than a whole lot of other players at 4.  I'd take Parsons or Surtain over him at 4, and most people here think both of them are a reach at that draft slot.

[CraigSmackDaddy]

27 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

See, I could see us taking Fields if he falls to 4 based on positional value and because I still have him as the 2nd best QB in the draft.

But I don't see us taking Lance at all.  He's easily the 4th best QB (arguably 5th best), he is a project, and while he has elite upside, literally no one knows how he is going to work out in the NFL.  

Hard pass.  If Fields is gone, I'll be stunned if we take a QB at 4.  And I'll be mildly surprised if we take one if Fields is there.

Agreed.  Don’t want a QB at 4 but I could understand taking Fields at least.  Taking Lance at 4 would make no sense to me though.  You don’t take the 4th or 5th QB at 4 when you can take the best non QB who I might add will sit on the bench for at least a couple of years.  

[Aluminafalcon]

1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

No player is complete, that is true.  The problem with Lance is he has a very small sample size, and the sample size tells us there are issues with his game.  That doesn't mean they can't be overcome, but for example Pitts' knock is he isn't an elite blocker.  But he won't be asked to be an elite blocker and if he turns into one he could easily be the GOAT at the TE position.  Sewell might have to kick inside for a year or two.  Fields has issues holding onto the ball too long, but he has dominated against elite competition and you've seen enough to know what he's capable of at the next level.  Same with Lawrence.

Lance is a great prospect, no doubt.  But he's a bigger gamble than a whole lot of other players at 4.  I'd take Parsons or Surtain over him at 4, and most people here think both of them are a reach at that draft slot.

Don’t get me started on Parsons lol 😂 man is an elite run defender and 10-20 years ago his skills would be an elite value but The modern game requires things he just hasn’t shown on film yet

[etherdome]

I simply do not like taking Lance at #4 because he does not have enough College experience to properly evaluate him.  He will need to sit for two seasons and hope that he is the successor.

In my opinion, Mills is a better value in the second round.  He will sit for two, but in the meantime, he can be a legitimate backup QB to Ryan.  
 

Pitts or Sewell appear to be the logical targets, if we remain at #4........my opinion.

[wnyfalconfan]

25 minutes ago, Aluminafalcon said:

What worries me is that people are getting desperate looking at these qbs. They are convincing themselves they must have an because of Matt Ryan age. They aren’t watching the film they aren’t seeing the flaws. They just hear mel and Todd and parrot opinions. There are serious concerns in lance, Jones fields and even Wilson. Picking Qb just pick qb is a mistake

The QB'S have made them prisoners of the moment and that's why they can't see flaws in them. It's basically take a QB at 4 or this regime has failed

[g-dawg]

34 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

See, I could see us taking Fields if he falls to 4 based on positional value and because I still have him as the 2nd best QB in the draft.

But I don't see us taking Lance at all.  He's easily the 4th best QB (arguably 5th best), he is a project, and while he has elite upside, literally no one knows how he is going to work out in the NFL.  

Hard pass.  If Fields is gone, I'll be stunned if we take a QB at 4.  And I'll be mildly surprised if we take one if Fields is there.

I like Fields better as I just believe the risk is less - much like you.

However, I do like Lance - it is a riskier pick for sure - but did you hear the quotes from Louis Riddick the other day on "Get Up" ?  He basically equated the NDSU offense to Arthur Smith's offense when he was the OC at Tennessee Titans - and said he watched the first Trey Lance Pro-Day next to AS and TF and unequivocally said "oh yeah, they like him".    If AS likes him and TF likes him - that is halfway to him being the pick.   If AS looks at it as a "hand in glove" fit between the offenses and Trey Lance's skillset - then the concerns over sample size and level of competition may be easier for AS and TF to stomach.

One thing I will say for sure - much like Matt Ryan was in 2008 - Trey Lance, from all these interviews and stories I have seen on him - he does have a great personality and disposition.   That should never overrule talent but it does matter.    In that regard,  I would give Trey Lance an edge over Justin Fields -   Fields is a good guy but his public persona isn't as charismatic for sure.

[Herr Doktor]

40 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

See, I could see us taking Fields if he falls to 4 based on positional value and because I still have him as the 2nd best QB in the draft.

But I don't see us taking Lance at all.  He's easily the 4th best QB (arguably 5th best), he is a project, and while he has elite upside, literally no one knows how he is going to work out in the NFL.  

Hard pass.  If Fields is gone, I'll be stunned if we take a QB at 4.  And I'll be mildly surprised if we take one if Fields is there.

Lance athletically might be the fourth best.  I'd argue that football wise, Mac Jones is a fundamentally better QB at this time.  Lance is very much a project.

[Draftnut57]

WEll, I kind of hope Fields does go at 3,, To take the temptation away for our pick 4,, I do not want a QB,, I want players we don't have.. like the two top DEs in this draft.. if this happens ,, I will be a happy fan.. or at least take 2 DEs in the first two rounds.  Two great DEs can make a D# like 30% better. And that is a lot. 

[g-dawg]

1 minute ago, Draftnut57 said:

WEll, I kind of hope Fields does go at 3,, To take the temptation away for our pick 4,, I do not want a QB,, I want players we don't have.. like the two top DEs in this draft.. if this happens ,, I will be a happy fan.. or at least take 2 DEs in the first two rounds.  Two great DEs can make a D# like 30% better. And that is a lot. 

What DE's do you want in this draft?   Yuck - terrible DE class.

[falcons007]

18 minutes ago, g-dawg said:

I like Fields better as I just believe the risk is less - much like you.

However, I do like Lance - it is a riskier pick for sure - but did you hear the quotes from Louis Riddick the other day on "Get Up" ?  He basically equated the NDSU offense to Arthur Smith's offense when he was the OC at Tennessee Titans - and said he watched the first Trey Lance Pro-Day next to AS and TF and unequivocally said "oh yeah, they like him".    If AS likes him and TF likes him - that is halfway to him being the pick.   If AS looks at it as a "hand in glove" fit between the offenses and Trey Lance's skillset - then the concerns over sample size and level of competition may be easier for AS and TF to stomach.

One thing I will say for sure - much like Matt Ryan was in 2008 - Trey Lance, from all these interviews and stories I have seen on him - he does have a great personality and disposition.   That should never overrule talent but it does matter.    In that regard,  I would give Trey Lance an edge over Justin Fields -   Fields is a good guy but his public persona isn't as charismatic for sure.

Arthur smith offense is basically 95% KS offense. AS is running the same offense ML installed in TN. If Lance is best fit  in that offense, Shanny will get a first shot at Lance.  

[Drunken Minotaur Zebra]

55 minutes ago, CMarinoNFL said:

Fields is going 3 imho. A high ranking coach from NDSU told me that "the GM and HC certainly seemed like they liked him (Lance)" at his pro. Definitely some interesting dots being connected. I think the draft falls:

Jags: Lawrence

Jets: Wilson

49ers: Fields

Falcons: Lance

Bengals: Chase

Falcons are in too good of a position to pass up on a QB. Bad bet to pass on one and say you'll get one later. Never the right move. Adding Pitts doesnt move the needle for us. Darren Waller was a 6th rounder. Kelce was a third. Kittle a fifth. Gronk, a second. Waller didn't move the needle for the Raiders despite being elite in his own right. Neither did Kittle. 6-10 with a lackadaisical QB but a stud weapon. Regression is regression and having a regressive QB defeats the purpose of adding weapons. Weapons can only get you so far if you cant support THEM. Lance makes sense for us from a pro-ready/offensive similarity standpoint where his playcaller has been on NFL rosters before. Team clearly likes him and his fit in Arthur's scheme. The truth is simple: The Falcons will have a ton of talent with Pitts on roster and will have a ton of talent without him. They need a hybrid-flex TE, but other than that, I question Pitts' opportunity in the system. Him being the replacement for Julio is DUMB. He'll be an injury machine if thats the case. Think they settle with Lance who fits to a T and add a guy like Hunter Long in early day 3..  

 

The entire crux of your post relies on Matt being "regressive". 

 

Which is probably the dumbest thing I'll read all day.