Jump to content

Many will cry initially...


Recommended Posts

This is a comment I posted lastnight after all you Easterners were in bed:

"if that detroit rumour is true i'd be shocked if it's not pitts, sewell, or chase.

reason being that detroit was gonna move up for chase, cincy and miami will take pitts and sewell, and if we were gonna take anyone else he'd still be there at 7 and we'd have more draft capital to work with.

esentially, if we're picking anyone but those 3 we could have gained some more draft picks and still taken our guy at #7.

tbh, for that reason if we take anyone outside of those 3 at #4 after turning down detroit's trade i'm not gonna be feeling too good about things."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When we don’t draft a QB Kyle Pitt welcome to Atlanta.... But those tears will be tears of joy after a few games... Enjoy the draft, boys and girls!.... @Rings @JD dirtybird21 and @VTC

Kyle Pitts or trade down.

Yep, why in the hayell would a new regimes first pick be a QB that will sit the bench for 3 seasons wasting 75% of his rookie contract sans option year.  We have a viable, durable, high level future H

Just now, supremedarius said:

That is total amount, not per year. I just think this allows a year to groom him and have him ready for next year. I want Pitts, I just dont know when we are in this situation to draft another QB this high, thats all that makes me second guess Selecting Pitts and taking Lance

So this has been talked about and explained a few times.  I have even broken it down by QB's in the league right now or in the last 3 to 5 years that were good or bad.  The best grouping of QB's in the league was from 10th or later in the draft where teams let the talent fall to them and didn't reach in the top 5 just because they needed a QB or had to have one.   So the smart move would be to not reach now for a guy like Lance or Mac who both aren't worth top 5 picks and are only there because of their position and team needs.   They both are at best the 15th player in this draft as to where they sit right now talent wise.   So you 100% don't need to be top 5 to draft a good QB if anything thats turned out to be the worst case over the last 10 to 15 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rings said:

Really it’s 75%, fifth year option for a QB isn’t near the savings it used to be.

Yeah. I think last years #4 pick (Andrew Thomas) got 4 yrs 32M . He was a non-QB. So you’re looking at what 35 to 35M for 4 years? And the 5th year option starts at Baker Mayfield’s $18M plus. Considering we have Matt for at least 2 years that’s a great deal of money setting on the bench.

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

True, it would be 3/4 not 3/5 since the 5th year is an option year. My bad.  Which as you pointed out makes the notion to draft one to sit for 3/4 of their contract even more bat guano crazy. 

Yup.  Fifth year used to be a big savings, now it’s basically the transition tag (average of top ten at position).  So for a QB, you are paying them as of now 23mil, by then likely over 30mil.  So we would pay our QBs well over 30 mil in 21, 22, 23 & 25 if that was the case.  Only savings would come in 24 when rookie is here and Ryan would be off the books.  People think anyone against taking a QB is a “Ryan Lover” and in reality most just realize it’s bad timing and financially doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, falcons007 said:

Most Rookie QB are looking for extension after year 3. Watson, Mahomes, Goff and Wentz all signed extension after year 3. Lamar Jackson and Josh. Allen are negotiating and Browns didn’t rule out talks with Mayfield in coming months. So you basically have 2-3 years to evaluate a QB and decide the future. Sure you can push in year 4 or 5 but things can get messy. 

I agree but, what if that rookie QB has not had one snap in 3 seasons?  I would be very hesitant to go for the extension not knowing what you really had since the player has never been thrown into the fire at game speed. Which is all the more reason not to draft a QB (in our situation) at #4. 

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

Yup.  Fifth year used to be a big savings, now it’s basically the transition tag (average of top ten at position).  So for a QB, you are paying them as of now 23mil, by then likely over 30mil.  So we would pay our QBs well over 30 mil in 21, 22, 23 & 25 if that was the case.  Only savings would come in 24 when rookie is here and Ryan would be off the books.  People think anyone against taking a QB is a “Ryan Lover” and in reality most just realize it’s bad timing and financially doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Yep, and many of those same people complain about our cap too.  Talk about having your cake and eating it too?  That's what happens to some adults when you bring the shiny new toy around. 

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

This is a comment I posted lastnight after all you Easterners were in bed:

"if that detroit rumour is true i'd be shocked if it's not pitts, sewell, or chase.

reason being that detroit was gonna move up for chase, cincy and miami will take pitts and sewell, and if we were gonna take anyone else he'd still be there at 7 and we'd have more draft capital to work with.

esentially, if we're picking anyone but those 3 we could have gained some more draft picks and still taken our guy at #7.

tbh, for that reason if we take anyone outside of those 3 at #4 after turning down detroit's trade i'm not gonna be feeling too good about things."

Good post. IF we wanted either Fields or Lance we could have traded back w/ Detroit, drafted one and picked up a pick or two. Cincinnati and Miami aren’t trading back and neither needed a QB.

I think for us to trade back it’ll be from 9-15 (Denver or NE) and it’s for a king’s ransom. If we go back that far, I’m expecting Surtain or Horn to be a Falcon. But that haul would have to be akin to what San Fran gave up IMO

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

Yup.  Fifth year used to be a big savings, now it’s basically the transition tag (average of top ten at position).  So for a QB, you are paying them as of now 23mil, by then likely over 30mil.  So we would pay our QBs well over 30 mil in 21, 22, 23 & 25 if that was the case.  Only savings would come in 24 when rookie is here and Ryan would be off the books.  People think anyone against taking a QB is a “Ryan Lover” and in reality most just realize it’s bad timing and financially doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Bingo! Mayfield just got $18M plus on a fifth year option.

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

I agree but, what if that rookie QB has not had one snap in 3 seasons?  I would be very hesitant to go for the extension not knowing what you really had since the player has never been thrown into the fire at game speed. Which is all the more reason not to draft a QB (in our situation) at #4. 

That was my point. Even if the guy plays in third year, it’s too risky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people really believe Matt Ryan will not start 0-5 again to start the year.  The reason you draft a Lance or QB to actually put pressure on Matt Ryan is so Matt actually wins.  If Matt doesn't win, what do we do?  Just make excuses for him and stay status quo?  This whole universe to revolve around a guy who went 4-12 last year should not be happening. 

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

A lot of people really believe Matt Ryan will not start 0-5 again to start the year.  The reason you draft a Lance or QB to actually put pressure on Matt Ryan is so Matt actually wins.  If Matt doesn't win, what do we do?  Just make excuses for him and stay status quo?  This whole universe to revolve around a guy who went 4-12 last year should not be happening. 

I seriously don't think a QB pushing Ice is and never was the reason for the 0-5 start or the past three seasons.  Dude is a team player, a winner, and strives to be the best.  Saying to draft a QB to put pressure on Ice is kind of insulting to a future HOFer imo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, FalconFan13 said:

What i don't understand is if we do draft a QB.  Fontenot has to be one of the dumbest people ever to restructure Ryan screw his own cap space up for 3 more years.  When he could have left Ryans contract alone and got out of it next year letting the rookie QB sit for 1 year and helping his cap space going forward.   Not having the rookie QB sit for 3 years on a big cap hit as well and only having him start 1 year then have to pay him big money.     He literally could have restructured Julio's contract instead of ryans and kept Julio for the rookie QB and been free of Ryans contract after 1 season.     It makes no **** sense at all to do what he did if he was planning on taking a QB at 4.  It's the complete opposite of what you should do in that situation for your future.

Dont threaten these people with logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ryanvalz said:

A lot of people really believe Matt Ryan will not start 0-5 again to start the year.  The reason you draft a Lance or QB to actually put pressure on Matt Ryan is so Matt actually wins.  If Matt doesn't win, what do we do?  Just make excuses for him and stay status quo?  This whole universe to revolve around a guy who went 4-12 last year should not be happening. 

 

So by your logic, a rookie QB will make Matt want to carry both the offense and defense and call plays and make game time situational calls? 

I say this respectfully, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, FalconFan13 said:

What i don't understand is if we do draft a QB.  Fontenot has to be one of the dumbest people ever to restructure Ryan screw his own cap space up for 3 more years.  When he could have left Ryans contract alone and got out of it next year letting the rookie QB sit for 1 year and helping his cap space going forward.   Not having the rookie QB sit for 3 years on a big cap hit as well and only having him start 1 year then have to pay him big money.     He literally could have restructured Julio's contract instead of ryans and kept Julio for the rookie QB and been free of Ryans contract after 1 season.     It makes no **** sense at all to do what he did if he was planning on taking a QB at 4.  It's the complete opposite of what you should do in that situation for your future.

Yup. Good post.

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...