Jump to content

Waller just got 51m for 3yr…. Now I know we will never keep Pitts


dragonsyth
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Spongebob said:

Just in time to make that mistake of signing a WR to that kind of money all over again and cripple cap available for defense 

Paying a WR won't necessarily cripple our cap depending on other contract we have. The biggest difference though is we won't be paying big bucks for a QB for the foreseeable future. Marriota won't command a big contract and Ridder just got here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norwood all the way! said:

Paying a WR won't necessarily cripple our cap depending on other contract we have. The biggest difference though is we won't be paying big bucks for a QB for the foreseeable future. Marriota won't command a big contract and Ridder just got here. 

Look at the teams that signed big contracts to WRs, the Raiders and Miami...look who got rid of those players KC and GB...what organizations are run better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on man. We are about to have so much cap space. Pitts is being built into this team like a cornerstone. He's not going anywhere.

This reminds me of when people were saying that we were gonna let Koo and Jarrett walk this off-season.

You don't let a guy like Pitts walk away.

Not that any of this matters for like two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Norwood all the way! said:

Paying a WR won't necessarily cripple our cap depending on other contract we have. The biggest difference though is we won't be paying big bucks for a QB for the foreseeable future. Marriota won't command a big contract and Ridder just got here. 

It's a catch 22 when you prioritize (and potentially) hit on two WR in the top 8 two years in a row, alot of money to be allocated to WR of London and Pitts work out and then defense will be starving. 

It's why successful teams year after year don't do that. Heck, Baltimore isn't even paying the face of their franchise yet. We've prioritized WR position year after year and if they pan out, the opportunity cost is our defense. Then again Atlanta fans don't seem to care about defense or trenches. So who cares

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, uup115 said:

Look at the teams that signed big contracts to WRs, the Raiders and Miami...look who got rid of those players KC and GB...what organizations are run better?

Boy will your face be red if LV and MIA make a serious push for the SB. Lol jk.

It also depends on what you mean by big contracts. If we're talking about highest paid WR in the league, then yeah that's one thing. But if we're talking about paying a middle to higher tier player a decent contract, I got no problem with it. Both KC and GB paid their receivers at one point. They weren't highest in the league type contracts, but they still got new contracts. Just saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Spongebob said:

It's a catch 22 when you prioritize (and potentially) hit on two WR in the top 8 two years in a row, alot of money to be allocated to WR of London and Pitts work out and then defense will be starving. 

It's why successful teams year after year don't do that. Heck, Baltimore isn't even paying the face of their franchise yet. We've prioritized WR position year after year and if they pan out, the opportunity cost is our defense. Then again Atlanta fans don't seem to care about defense or trenches. So who cares

True, but there's also the option of just keeping only one of them when it comes time for a new contract. But this is so far down the road that this is all just hypothetical talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norwood all the way! said:

Boy will your face be red if LV and MIA make a serious push for the SB. Lol jk.

It also depends on what you mean by big contracts. If we're talking about highest paid WR in the league, then yeah that's one thing. But if we're talking about paying a middle to higher tier player a decent contract, I got no problem with it. Both KC and GB paid their receivers at one point. They weren't highest in the league type contracts, but they still got new contracts. Just saying. 

Miami and LV also traded away tremendous equity along with signing big contracts to aging players...they are dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d rather pay Pitts wide receiver money than to overpay a wide receiver who would not be as talented. By the time Pitts is up for a new contract he is going to be the best tight ends in the NFL. He will be just as good as any wide receiver in the league but will have more of a skill set. Outside of quarterback i’m completely fine with him being the most expensive offensive weapon. Outside of maybe Matt Ryan Kyle Pitts will probably be one of the best first round picks the Falcons I’ve made in the last 20 years when it is all said and done. Dan Reeves would’ve had to wash his jeans after the draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this totally different from you... If we can get Pitts for under 20 mil to 20 mil thats a DEAL... Dude will produce and be used as a #1 WR but we are getting him well under #1 WR money.

 

What im interested to see is what happens with Chris Lindstrom and McGary... If Lindstrom balls out im sure we will want to extend him next year.. What happens if McGary bounce back and have a good year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade him now and get 700 first round picks.

10 minutes ago, atljbo said:

I see this totally different from you... If we can get Pitts for under 20 mil to 20 mil thats a DEAL... Dude will produce and be used as a #1 WR but we are getting him well under #1 WR money.

 

What im interested to see is what happens with Chris Lindstrom and McGary... If Lindstrom balls out im sure we will want to extend him next year.. What happens if McGary bounce back and have a good year.

Quenton Nelson just got 4yr - $80 million.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Norwood all the way! said:

True, but there's also the option of just keeping only one of them when it comes time for a new contract. But this is so far down the road that this is all just hypothetical talk.

Ya, London hasn't even played a snap yet haha. It's something I thought of around draft time. 

So much changes in a year. 

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...