Jump to content

Hindsight 20/20 as GM


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Mister pudding said:

If the Falcons front office knew of a pending Julio trade and money would be freed up, I find it odd that they did not put a 5th year option on Hurst. I thought it made sense at the time with our cap situation.

Thoughts?

I think that they did not want to tie themselves a Hurst for another year without seeing how he would do in this setup.

Just because we declined his fifth year option does not mean he will not be resigned after 2021.

We just have more flexibility now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could have been the plan all along with Hurst. Trade a 2nd rounder for him with the hopes he would pick up right where Hooper left off and let someone else sign him to a larger contract giving us back a 3rd round comp.  Essentially swapping a 2nd rounder for 2 years of play and a 3rd rounder.

Regardless of what happens in the future, I'm really excited for Hurst this year. He seemed to play really well as the #2 TE in Baltimore and gives us soo much flexibility with play calling. Dirk did him dirty last year by not using his strengths to our advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, UnrealfalcoN said:

They probably don't think he would be valuable by next year with Kyle Pitts' progression. That 7 Mil or whatever can go towards filling in another starting position

I think it was only $5 million, but that's just off memory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mister pudding said:

I think it was only $5 million, but that's just off memory

There abouts 

5.2 or something ike that.

Peanuts for a guy with his ability.

With the cap most assuredly going up and then the big TV money going up even further in 2023 then I could see a scenario where he re-signs here for a decent contract after the season.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mister pudding said:

If the Falcons front office knew of a pending Julio trade and money would be freed up, I find it odd that they did not put a 5th year option on Hurst. I thought it made sense at the time with our cap situation.

Thoughts?

I think it's about hedging our bets on where we want our future money to go. Other than throwing money wildly at FAs, this team has been offense heavy for a long time. Maybe they want to really concentrate on getting our non-QB spending back into some kind of balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I like hurst. he is a great guy I hope he balls out and get a contract worth his value. Sadly he is replaceable especially with Pitts on the team. The thing about TEs is why it is rare to find one who can do all the tasks on a great level you can easily find one who does what you want on a great level and rest of his task on a good enough level. ( Pitts is rare because he is exceptional pass catcher and good enough at everything else)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thanat0s said:

I think it's about hedging our bets on where we want our future money to go. Other than throwing money wildly at FAs, this team has been offense heavy for a long time. Maybe they want to really concentrate on getting our non-QB spending back into some kind of balance.

Balance, the true goal in all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think it's a bunch of things, but mainly that he's replaceable.  Not by Pitts, but by another mid-range TE.  We got Tamme off the FA scrap heap in 2015 -- no one was talking about how coveted he was, and we signed him to a 2-year, $3 million deal with only $400,000 guaranteed.  We rode him as the primary TE to a Super Bowl (though we drafted Hooper and he contributed well as a rookie too).

We can find another TE to fill Hurst's spot, and if he is not a huge FA commodity, we can re-sign him for a team-friendly, player-friendly deal.  No need to pick up a $5 million option when we can likely sign him to a longer-term deal that helps us with our cap, and we can always let him go and replace him with another FA or draft pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thanat0s said:

I think it's about hedging our bets on where we want our future money to go. Other than throwing money wildly at FAs, this team has been offense heavy for a long time. Maybe they want to really concentrate on getting our non-QB spending back into some kind of balance.

I understand that thinking, but I think $5 million is too much of a deal to turn away. Just my opinion though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Honestly, I think it's a bunch of things, but mainly that he's replaceable.  Not by Pitts, but by another mid-range TE.  We got Tamme off the FA scrap heap in 2015 -- no one was talking about how coveted he was, and we signed him to a 2-year, $3 million deal with only $400,000 guaranteed.  We rode him as the primary TE to a Super Bowl (though we drafted Hooper and he contributed well as a rookie too).

We can find another TE to fill Hurst's spot, and if he is not a huge FA commodity, we can re-sign him for a team-friendly, player-friendly deal.  No need to pick up a $5 million option when we can likely sign him to a longer-term deal that helps us with our cap, and we can always let him go and replace him with another FA or draft pick.

Tamme's best year with the Falcons did net 600+ yards, but only 1 TD. 

I suppose you're correct that we could sign him to a longer deal. Perhaps the FO wants to see him in action before deciding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mister pudding said:

I understand that thinking, but I think $5 million is too much of a deal to turn away. Just my opinion though

If he balls out this year, we get a comp pick that can net us another TE of the same caliber at rd 3 or 4 next year. That 5 mil can then go to solidifying the defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UnrealfalcoN said:

If he balls out this year, we get a comp pick that can net us another TE of the same caliber at rd 3 or 4 next year. That 5 mil can then go to solidifying the defense

That's another option for sure.

What they aren't doing is pretending we have to have a guy who we can get anyway if we want him, and who we can easily replace if we don't.  They are playing the long game and keeping all their options open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mister pudding said:

I understand that thinking, but I think $5 million is too much of a deal to turn away. Just my opinion though

Yep. I like Double H a lot. I hope he has a great year and decides to hang with us on a friendly deal rather than leave.

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...