It is currently Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:48 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:29 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
I think the argument boils down to this. While Jones provided a lot of big plays for the Falcons offense in 2011, much more so than Jenkins. And that big play ability also opened up more big play opportunities for others, particularly Gonzo and Douglas. But the drawback was that the Falcons missed the consistency that Jenkins was able to provide in terms of moving the chains. The 2010 offense was predicated on ball control, and that was a style of play that Jenkins was particularly good at, which was why he was better able to move the chains than Jones was. Ultimately, I think it makes both guys impact a relative wash. The Falcons were the league's least explosive offense in 2010, but they were relatively efficient due to their ability to sustain drives with a high 3rd down conversion rate. The team was more explosive in 2011, but as far as explosiveness go, they were still a middle of the road team. And their ability to convert third downs, while still better than most teams was not as effective as they were in 2010.

Ultimately it proves to be a wash, especially when you look at the impact on the QB (Matt Ryan), when you don't see this great leap forward from Ryan as a passer. He was better in 2011, but not by a huge degree. Which again reiterates the point that while Jones was an improvement, it wasn't as night and day as people often portray it as.

And this research only firms in my mind that the Falcons made a mistake by not keeping Jenkins last summer. This team would have been a better team had they had those two players working in conjunction rather than substituting one for the other. The team would have been better positioned to reap the benefits of both players had they worked them into the lineup together. Jenkins could have continued to help move the chains, while Jones could have provided the big plays, and you would have seen the team get the best of both worlds. But this team lacks vision when it comes to offensive football. The decision to cut players like Jenkins & Ovie are clear indicators that this team does not strive to maximize its offensive capacity. :roll:


But anyway, if you want to just look beyond the receptions, yards, and touchdowns for some more in-depth analysis of the two players, here are teh interesting stats:

Here are their receiving numbers normalized over 64 quarters worth of play. Remember that Jones played 49 quarters in 2011, and Jenkins played 44 in 2010.

Jones: 70.5 catches, 1253 yards, 10.4 TDs, 44.4 1st downs, 555 YAC, 124 targets
Jenkins: 59.6 catches, 734.5 yards, 3 TDs, 42.2 1st downs, 134 YAC, 106 targets

You also have to factor in that Jones went out for passes on 484 plays during the 2011 season, while Jenkins only went out for 387 plays in 2010. So if you were to normalize that to about 600 plays (roughly about what Jones would have done if he had played 16 games), then you see that the number of times they were targeted:

Jones: 19.63% of his pass plays targeted
Jenkins: 18.86% of his pass plays targeted

That basically means for every time they ran a pattern, over the course of a 16-game season, Jones would have gotten open about 4 more times than Jenkins.

So this notion that Jones got open a lot more than Jenkins isn't accurate. At least there is very little hard evidence to support it.

You also have to factor in that its harder for the eye to discern the "little plays" versus the big play. The big 80-yard touchdown is easy to see to all eyes, but the 13-yard gain on 2nd & 11 isn't. And in the case of the Falcons ball control offense in 2010, that 13-yard gain would have a lot more value because the offense then was built off sustained, long drives as opposed to the big play.

That's why Jenkins and Jones WPAs (Win Percentage Added) are roughly equal from one year to the next. Jones had a WPA of 1.08 in 2011, and Jenkins was 1.09. The big play factor is more easily seen in the Expected Points Added. But the difference still isn't huge, with Jones added 0.40 points per play, while Jenkins added about 0.31 points.

You also see their DVOAs aren't night and day. Jones was higher at 10.6%, which ranked 32nd in the league in 2011. But Jenkins 5.8% in 2010 ranked 35th in the league.

Also look at the factor that both were targeted downfield roughly the same amount. According to Pro Football Focus, Jones had 22 targets where the ball was thrown 20 yards or more, about 22.2% of his total 99 targets (includes playoffs). Jenkins was targeted on deep throws 16 times out of 77 targets, which amounts to about 20.8% of the time. Again, the idea that one had to be respected as a deep threat and the other did not really doesn't work out. Especially when you realize Jones caught about 36.3% of his deep passes, and Jenkins 31.3%, again not a huge disparity.

You also want to look at how each season's offense operated when either player was out of hte lineup. Here are Matt Ryan's numbers from when Jenkins and Jones were in and out of the lineup in 2010 and 2011 (includes playoffs):

Matt Ryan w/ Jenkins
423 attempts, 268 completions, 2726 yards, 22 TDs, 8 INTs, 18 sacks, 137 yards

Matt Ryan w/o Jenkins
177 attempts, 109 completions, 1165 yards, 7 TDs, 3 INTs, 10 sacks, 58 yards

Matt Ryan w/ Jones
474 attempts, 289 completions, 3388 yards, 24 TDs, 7 INTs, 23 sacks, 155 yards

Matt Ryan w/o Jones
133 attempts, 82 completions, 988 yards, 5 TDs, 5 INTs, 5 sacks, 34 yards

So here are the interesting numbers.

Completion %
w/ Jenkins: 63.4%
w/o Jenkins: 61.6%

w/ Jones: 61%
w/o Jones: 61.7%

Average Per Attempt
w/ Jenkins: 6.44
w/o Jenkins: 6.58

w/ Jones: 7.15
w/o Jones: 7.43

TD Percent.
w/ Jenkins: 5.2%
w/o Jenkins: 3.95%

w/ Jones: 5.06%
w/o Jones: 3.76%

INT Percent
w/ Jenkins: 1.89%
w/o Jenkins: 1.69%

w/ Jones: 1.48%
w/o Jones: 3.76%

Sack Rate:
w/ Jenkins: 4.08%
w/o Jenkins: 5.35%

w/ Jones: 4.63%
w/o Jones: 3.62%

Passer Rating:
w/ Jenkins: 91.2
w/o Jenkins: 86.9

w/ Jones: 93.4
w/o Jones: 81.3

Adj. Net yards Per attempt:
w/ Jenkins: 6.05
w/o Jenkins: 5.95

w/ Jones: 6.84
w/o Jones: 6.01

What do you take from all that? Well, comparing the Falcons offense with Jenkins or without him, Ryan completed more passes, threw more touchdowns, and took less sacks when Jenkins was in the league. But he did throw for less yards per attempt, threw a slightly higher amount of interceptions.

For Jones, Ryan threw more touchdowns, less interceptions, but he also didn't complete as many passes, throw for as many yards per attempt, and took more sacks when Jones was in the lineup.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:32 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4641
Quote:
"Pudge Wrote"
What do you take from all that?


That your a nut case!! (: Not for any of your positions but trying to guess how Jenkins would have done here last year?

BTW --- I think I just saw an unidentified flying saucer outside my window; let me get you the stats on that (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:22 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Sorry, I don't quite understand where the "nuttiness" comes in.

The bottom line still remains that Jones is capable of making the big plays, which are eye-popping and very sexy. Just like the deep ball is for a QB. And those are the things that get etched in our brain. But with Jenkins, he made a lot of the "little" plays that extend drives, and while a 13-yard reception may not match up to a 40-yarder on its own, three of those 13-yarders together more than surpass that single play. That is what is forgotten about Jenkins in his 2010 performance.

The fact is that people look at Jones big plays in some games and think he was a game-changer. But in a lot of those games, he was very quiet outside 1 or 2 plays. And what it works out to be is that he's the cherry or the whipped cream topping the sundae. But the ice cream is the critical ingredient, and Julio JOnes has yet to prove he is ice cream. He could in the future, but that day hasn't arrived.

The first BUcs game and second Panthers game last year were perfect examples of this "phenomenon." For 3 quarters of that game Julio Jones was practically a non-entity. But then in the 4th quarter vs. the Bucs he starts to rack up production because the Falcons offense became one-dimensional. And you look at the final stat sheet and you see he has 6 catches for 115 yards, and you think he had a great game, or that his performance in that game would eclipse anything Michael Jenkins would do on a typical 3 catch, 50 yard day that he commonly had as a Falcon. Not really the case.

Take the 2nd Panthers game, and Julio gets the points for his 17-yard score to start the 4th quarter for the Falcons to take the lead, but it's Michael Turner's two big 1st down runs, Roddy's 26-yard gain on 3rd down, and Tony's 3rd down conversion and 18-yard grab to put the team in the redzone that are the key to those drives. Jones is just the cherry on top.

And then after the Falcons make a key 3rd down stand in their own redzone 2 drives later, and Olindo Mare misses the FG, then 2 plays later Ryan hits Jones for that big 75-yard score. A great play on the part of Julio and he deserves plenty of credit for sealing the win for the team with that play, but the defense should also get a ton of credit for the stand they made a few plays earlier that make such plays possible.

These are the profound aspects of the game that most fans/people miss by only watching a game once live (in person or on TV) or are cheated out of by only paying attention to the boxscore.

I believe that Julio Jones has more than enough talent to be the game-changing player that I think he needs to be to live up to this trade. But he isn't that player yet, and he's not going to be if the Falcons continue to predicate their offensive and overall team success on the back of Michael Turner as they did last year and are seemingly setting themselves up to do this year.

Until the day happens that Julio Jones is not only capable of breaking that 75-yard score, but also capable of making those 26 and 18-yard grabs that set up his teammates for glory, then he's not the game-changer he needs to be. And therefore, the gap between him and Michael Jenkins will not be as big a gulf as it says on the stat sheets.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:50 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4641
Please go back and find me all these glowing comments and posts you've made on Michael Jenkins (in the past)

I'm letting this go; lets see how good Julio becomes and let me forget about Jenkins. Actually I've almost forgot but if
you talk about him every day maybe he'll go in the FalFans "Hall of Fame" (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:55 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6235
Location: Planet Claire
http://www.linkedin.com/company/flying-saucer/insights

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 10:53 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Cyril wrote:
Please go back and find me all these glowing comments and posts you've made on Michael Jenkins (in the past)

Ask and you shall receive...

viewtopic.php?p=97831#p97831
Pudge wrote:
I've always "seen the light" on Jenkins. I've just never prescribed to the notion that Jenkins was somehow holding Ryan back from being a good passer, or that he was keeping us from having a good offense.


viewtopic.php?p=96533#p96533
Pudge wrote:
I've defended Jenkins because I think he gets a bad rap from Falcon fans at large because of his former status as a No. 1 pick that I think people have a tendency to hold against him. I think he has his moments and this has been one of his better years. Drops have been a non-issue for the first time in his career, and the fact that he made SEVERAL clutch grabs this year speaks to his value.


viewtopic.php?p=95620#p95620
Pudge wrote:
By what standards is Jenkins an underachiever? If you had seen Jenkins play at Ohio State, I don't think you would consider him an underachiever. As a 1st round pick? Sure. But he never should have been a 1st round pick, just like several other WRs in that draft class (Reggie Williams, Lee Evans, Michael CLayton, and Rashaun Woods). Had he been taken where he should have gone, around where Devery Henderson went at #50, then people wouldn't be saying he's an underachiever.

You've said before Cyril that Jenkins is an underachiever based on the Roddy standard. But I've said before, that Roddy if he has 5 years like he did his previous 5, will wind up with career numbers on par with HOFers like Charlie Joiner and Michael Irvin, so the fact that Jenkins doesn't measure up to Roddy doesn't make him an underachiever. It's much more of an argument that makes Roddy an overachiever.

You've stated before that you think Roddy is Roddy because he has the "want to" and Jenkins is Jenkins because he doesn't. And while that is a factor, it's oversimplifying the difference. Roddy is more naturally physical and athletic than Jenkins, and thus that's a big part of why Roddy is better as well.

Now, I don't think Jenkins is a good No. 2. He's average. He'd be in the bottom third if you were to rank all 64 starting receivers in the NFL. But that doesn't make him an underachiever. He does what we ask him to do. And he's not going to give you a lot more than that. Which is what I mean by people not looking at what he is, instead focusing on what he is not.

But he's made some nice highlight reel catches this year, made some money grabs in the clutch and while he's had a few drops, he certainly has not been dropping the ball anywhere in the same realm as he did last year.

Everybody excepts Finneran for what he is, but some just refuse to do the same with Jenkins.



viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14412
Pudge wrote:
Not an impact player, but he's playing well. He's steadily been making some good catches over the past month.

Remember a year ago, when I said if/when Ryan plays well, Jenkins will play well...

Pudge wrote:
I don't think anybody is forgetting how much he dropped last year, which is why I mentioned how well he's catching the ball this year.

And he caught the game-winning TD a week ago. Whoever thought Michael Jenkins would ever catch a game-winning TD?

Dude has had 5 highlight reel-worthy catches/plays this year.

Nobody sane is going to put him on their Pro Bowl ballot, nor do I think anybody would begrudge the Falcons if they wanted to upgrade the WR position this off-season with a high pick. But he's doing his job well. Not excelling, but doing what we ask him well.


viewtopic.php?p=91289#p91289
Pudge wrote:
I don't think the lack of Jenkins really hurts the offense a lot, nor do I think the presence of him adds a whole lot, but I at least think it gives Mularkey and the offense more looks it can give the defense, and at least puts other players (namely Douglas) in situations where they can better take advantage of their skills.

So while I don't think Jenkins is really going to do much more than his typical stat line of 2 or 3 catches this week, it probably gives HD, Gonzo, and Roddy a few more opportunities to make things happen.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:10 am 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:01 pm
Posts: 952
Pudge wrote:
Cyril wrote:
Please go back and find me all these glowing comments and posts you've made on Michael Jenkins (in the past)

Ask and you shall receive...

viewtopic.php?p=97831#p97831
Pudge wrote:
I've always "seen the light" on Jenkins. I've just never prescribed to the notion that Jenkins was somehow holding Ryan back from being a good passer, or that he was keeping us from having a good offense.


viewtopic.php?p=96533#p96533
Pudge wrote:
I've defended Jenkins because I think he gets a bad rap from Falcon fans at large because of his former status as a No. 1 pick that I think people have a tendency to hold against him. I think he has his moments and this has been one of his better years. Drops have been a non-issue for the first time in his career, and the fact that he made SEVERAL clutch grabs this year speaks to his value.


viewtopic.php?p=95620#p95620
Pudge wrote:
By what standards is Jenkins an underachiever? If you had seen Jenkins play at Ohio State, I don't think you would consider him an underachiever. As a 1st round pick? Sure. But he never should have been a 1st round pick, just like several other WRs in that draft class (Reggie Williams, Lee Evans, Michael CLayton, and Rashaun Woods). Had he been taken where he should have gone, around where Devery Henderson went at #50, then people wouldn't be saying he's an underachiever.

You've said before Cyril that Jenkins is an underachiever based on the Roddy standard. But I've said before, that Roddy if he has 5 years like he did his previous 5, will wind up with career numbers on par with HOFers like Charlie Joiner and Michael Irvin, so the fact that Jenkins doesn't measure up to Roddy doesn't make him an underachiever. It's much more of an argument that makes Roddy an overachiever.

You've stated before that you think Roddy is Roddy because he has the "want to" and Jenkins is Jenkins because he doesn't. And while that is a factor, it's oversimplifying the difference. Roddy is more naturally physical and athletic than Jenkins, and thus that's a big part of why Roddy is better as well.

Now, I don't think Jenkins is a good No. 2. He's average. He'd be in the bottom third if you were to rank all 64 starting receivers in the NFL. But that doesn't make him an underachiever. He does what we ask him to do. And he's not going to give you a lot more than that. Which is what I mean by people not looking at what he is, instead focusing on what he is not.

But he's made some nice highlight reel catches this year, made some money grabs in the clutch and while he's had a few drops, he certainly has not been dropping the ball anywhere in the same realm as he did last year.

Everybody excepts Finneran for what he is, but some just refuse to do the same with Jenkins.



viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14412
Pudge wrote:
Not an impact player, but he's playing well. He's steadily been making some good catches over the past month.

Remember a year ago, when I said if/when Ryan plays well, Jenkins will play well...

Pudge wrote:
I don't think anybody is forgetting how much he dropped last year, which is why I mentioned how well he's catching the ball this year.

And he caught the game-winning TD a week ago. Whoever thought Michael Jenkins would ever catch a game-winning TD?

Dude has had 5 highlight reel-worthy catches/plays this year.

Nobody sane is going to put him on their Pro Bowl ballot, nor do I think anybody would begrudge the Falcons if they wanted to upgrade the WR position this off-season with a high pick. But he's doing his job well. Not excelling, but doing what we ask him well.


viewtopic.php?p=91289#p91289
Pudge wrote:
I don't think the lack of Jenkins really hurts the offense a lot, nor do I think the presence of him adds a whole lot, but I at least think it gives Mularkey and the offense more looks it can give the defense, and at least puts other players (namely Douglas) in situations where they can better take advantage of their skills.

So while I don't think Jenkins is really going to do much more than his typical stat line of 2 or 3 catches this week, it probably gives HD, Gonzo, and Roddy a few more opportunities to make things happen.


I was one of those saying Jenkins was holding back the offense. I just wanted to get a guy who could adjust to the ball in traffic, though (they are about 4M/yr), not trade 4 starters for one.

This offense would never be great with Jenkins as the 2. It can be with other receivers. But there were many other ways to get these receivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:14 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
takeitdown wrote:
I was one of those saying Jenkins was holding back the offense. I just wanted to get a guy who could adjust to the ball in traffic, though (they are about 4M/yr), not trade 4 starters for one.

This offense would never be great with Jenkins as the 2. It can be with other receivers. But there were many other ways to get these receivers.

Going into 2010, I didn't think WR was that big a need. But after that season, it was clear this team needed to get more explosive and needed to make a move at that position. But I just didn't get the decision to invest so heavily in Jones and then to cut Jenkins. As I said numerous times last summer, if this team was about building the most explosive offense it could, there was no possible way they could think that Eric Weems or Kerry Meier acting as the 4th WR instead of Jenkins would provide them that. And so when they cut Jenkins, it told me that the goal wasn't really being as explosive as possible, it was to be the same offense you were, just to be a little bit more explosive, and thus why they way overpaid for Jones.

That decision right there was the first clear indicator that started to turn me against this front office and realize how much they settle for mediocrity. And this is why the decision to cut Ovie bothers me so much, because it's the same basic move. Anytime they take a step forward, they take a step backward. You can't convince me this team is better with a rookie starting at FB, and their 5th RB being Antone Smith, Robbie Frey, Dimitri Nance, or Mike Cox than they would be if Ovie was starting that Ewing was in that role. And there's always some financial reason for it. With Jenkins, it was to free up enough space to sign Ray Edwards (and that's worked out brilliantly so far :roll: ). With Ovie, it was to free up enough space so we can sign our rookies.

And IMHO, a good smart and creative GM is going to be able to find ways to move around money without having to hurt your team from a football standpoint to do so. And so it's pardon me if I happen to hold our Vegan Jesus to a higher standard.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:11 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 5033
Image

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:32 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:01 pm
Posts: 952
Pudge wrote:
takeitdown wrote:
I was one of those saying Jenkins was holding back the offense. I just wanted to get a guy who could adjust to the ball in traffic, though (they are about 4M/yr), not trade 4 starters for one.

This offense would never be great with Jenkins as the 2. It can be with other receivers. But there were many other ways to get these receivers.

Going into 2010, I didn't think WR was that big a need. But after that season, it was clear this team needed to get more explosive and needed to make a move at that position. But I just didn't get the decision to invest so heavily in Jones and then to cut Jenkins. As I said numerous times last summer, if this team was about building the most explosive offense it could, there was no possible way they could think that Eric Weems or Kerry Meier acting as the 4th WR instead of Jenkins would provide them that. And so when they cut Jenkins, it told me that the goal wasn't really being as explosive as possible, it was to be the same offense you were, just to be a little bit more explosive, and thus why they way overpaid for Jones.

That decision right there was the first clear indicator that started to turn me against this front office and realize how much they settle for mediocrity. And this is why the decision to cut Ovie bothers me so much, because it's the same basic move. Anytime they take a step forward, they take a step backward. You can't convince me this team is better with a rookie starting at FB, and their 5th RB being Antone Smith, Robbie Frey, Dimitri Nance, or Mike Cox than they would be if Ovie was starting that Ewing was in that role. And there's always some financial reason for it. With Jenkins, it was to free up enough space to sign Ray Edwards (and that's worked out brilliantly so far :roll: ). With Ovie, it was to free up enough space so we can sign our rookies.

And IMHO, a good smart and creative GM is going to be able to find ways to move around money without having to hurt your team from a football standpoint to do so. And so it's pardon me if I happen to hold our Vegan Jesus to a higher standard.


The Mughelli one doesn't bother me as much, though I see the reasoning. You and I were both writing up a storm about keeping Jenkins (even though I didn't like him, he's at least a legitimate receiver) AND Julio AND HD in order to have a versatile passing game.

Not having a legit 4th receiver/tall slot, not acquiring a 2nd TE (who will become 1st when TG leaves), and not acquiring a legit versatile back who can run or catch (who would become first when Turner left) are the 3 moves that have strained my confidence in the FO. Mostly because all 3 of those are cheap moves in FA, or cheap in the draft (3rd rounders).

We need an elite DE, and a good LT. The FO needs to find them, but I recognize those are very difficult to find and very expensive positions. You can't just get one whenever you want one. 3rd/4th WR, 2nd TE, 2nd RB...you CAN get those anytime you want, and so not acquiring them is much more egregious.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:57 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
takeitdown wrote:
We need an elite DE, and a good LT. The FO needs to find them, but I recognize those are very difficult to find and very expensive positions. You can't just get one whenever you want one. 3rd/4th WR, 2nd TE, 2nd RB...you CAN get those anytime you want, and so not acquiring them is much more egregious.

And it's really sad to think that this team has been in prime position to get a LT in each of the last two drafts had they not traded for Jones (Carimi in '11 and Reiff in '12), and could have gone after the best DE in Mario Williams that could have been talked about in the same breath as Chuck Smith, Claude HUmphrey, Chris Doleman, and John Abraham as the greatest pass rushers to ever suit up for the Falcons in team history. Which is not to mention that Oher and Bulaga were within their grasp in '09 and '10.

Every decision, big or small has consequences. And I think the consequences of the Jones move will be the Falcons continue to have issues at LT and with their pass rush in the coming years. And while Jones will make the big flashy plays in the meantime, he won't be able to cover up for those glaring flaws.

And I know people are high on Lamar Holmes, Massaquoi, Sidbury, and Ray Edwards bouncing back from injury, but I just don't see any of those moves or events having anywhere near the sort of impact that a Carimi/Reiff/or Mario could/would have had.

But we'll see how it plays out... :so:

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 12:09 am 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:01 pm
Posts: 952
Pudge wrote:
takeitdown wrote:
We need an elite DE, and a good LT. The FO needs to find them, but I recognize those are very difficult to find and very expensive positions. You can't just get one whenever you want one. 3rd/4th WR, 2nd TE, 2nd RB...you CAN get those anytime you want, and so not acquiring them is much more egregious.

And it's really sad to think that this team has been in prime position to get a LT in each of the last two drafts had they not traded for Jones (Carimi in '11 and Reiff in '12), and could have gone after the best DE in Mario Williams that could have been talked about in the same breath as Chuck Smith, Claude HUmphrey, Chris Doleman, and John Abraham as the greatest pass rushers to ever suit up for the Falcons in team history. Which is not to mention that Oher and Bulaga were within their grasp in '09 and '10.

Every decision, big or small has consequences. And I think the consequences of the Jones move will be the Falcons continue to have issues at LT and with their pass rush in the coming years. And while Jones will make the big flashy plays in the meantime, he won't be able to cover up for those glaring flaws.

And I know people are high on Lamar Holmes, Massaquoi, Sidbury, and Ray Edwards bouncing back from injury, but I just don't see any of those moves or events having anywhere near the sort of impact that a Carimi/Reiff/or Mario could/would have had.

But we'll see how it plays out... :so:


I agree with most of these points (though I likely still wouldn't have gone for Mario.) But do you agree with the larger (or more pertinent now) assessment that it's forgivable to not be able to find a dominant DE or LT in the next couple of years, but there's absolutely no excuse not to find the RB tandem, the 4th WR, the 2nd TE?



Just as an aside, without the Julio deal/if there was an offseason first, I think the team looks like:
Carimi, Cobb, FA WR, FA Sproles (sign Carimi knowing you can drop Clabo to RG and have a good pass blocking RG if Carimi can't be an LT and has to man RT)
Decastro (if Carimi was able to man LT), Vinny Curry or Dwayne Allen, then I have no idea from 3 on (because Holmes wouldn't have been taken, and likely would have looked toward TE, etc.)

That would have been a pretty strong haul, and isn't really revisionist, because it's the guys the Falcons either said they were going to take (Carimi, Sproles) or the guys they were scouting heavily at need positions, and I had in the draft last year.

The OL would be pretty much rebuilt, though we'd still question OT. The WR corps would be deep but without a superstar. DE would have been addressed a bit earlier. I think that would have been a better team, but still only if they were deployed properly, which goes back to MM, etc. I think it's a team a good OC could really win with...whereas now, we still need that tall 4th WR, that 2nd TE, that versaback, for an OC to truly be multiple.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 2:47 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Knowing the Falcons, if they would have drafted Carimi, it would have meant not re-signing Clabo, and I would be complaining about this team letting him walk instead of Blalock. Your picks are in fact revisionist because this team would have never drafted Curry or Allen, or signed Sproles. I never once heard this team was interested in Sproles.

This team has systemic problems with properly evaluating their own roster as well as a lack of vision schematically. They embrace mediocrity, and even if they never made the Julio Jones trade, that would still be an issue.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 3:27 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:01 pm
Posts: 952
Pudge wrote:
Knowing the Falcons, if they would have drafted Carimi, it would have meant not re-signing Clabo, and I would be complaining about this team letting him walk instead of Blalock. Your picks are in fact revisionist because this team would have never drafted Curry or Allen, or signed Sproles. I never once heard this team was interested in Sproles.

This team has systemic problems with properly evaluating their own roster as well as a lack of vision schematically. They embrace mediocrity, and even if they never made the Julio Jones trade, that would still be an issue.


I actually read back after the draft/FA period that the Falcons had Sproles at the top of their list had FA occurred before the draft. They were thinking he would make a huge difference on explosiveness (likely seeing what a lesser back in Norwood was able to do here.)

Otherwise, I would never have put him in there, because it surprised me at the time. It seems they went with...well, we don't know if we're going to get FA, so lets go all in in the draft for an explosive guy. You're right with Carimi they may have dropped Clabo. I was thinking at his price, it's way better to keep him and have a very solid RT or a guy who can drop down and play very solid RG while you work your rookies...but I've often thought similar things only for them to drop the guys.

It's all mildly revisionist (especially this year, because it would hinge on a year we didn't have) but, as I said, it's the guys they said they were going to take last year (or were scouting heavily, at those positions.) There was no way last year they weren't going to get a WR after all the explosive talk.

I do get mildly concerned that they think "we'll get Sproles, and that'll fix the explosiveness issue," or "we'll get Julio, and that's that" instead of realizing it's an offense wide deal, not a single player deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:07 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Maybe on the Sproles thing. I never heard that, but I guess it is possible that if FA had proceeded the draft they would have targeted Sproles and not wound up drafting Rodgers.

takeitdown wrote:
I do get mildly concerned that they think "we'll get Sproles, and that'll fix the explosiveness issue," or "we'll get Julio, and that's that" instead of realizing it's an offense wide deal, not a single player deal.

Exactly. Not to say that the players don't matter, but it becomes more about the scheme than this team seems to realize. You don't need great players to be an explosive offense. Just look at the passing attacks of the Panthers, Raiders, and Dolphins last year, which BTW ranked 1st, 3rd, and 4th last year in terms of big plays (20+ yarders) generated per pass attempt.

And it again goes back to one of the bigger complaints I have about this front office/coaching staff is that they haven't figured out how to marry personnel with scheme quite to the level where each enhance the other. As has been said numerous times, if this team was trying to build a scheme ideally suited for its current personnel, it would be focusing more on a horizontal spread attack than a condensed vertical attack. And if this team was truly committed to a condensed vertical attack, then it would get better personnel than they currently have.

When those paths overlap, then this team is going to be something special. But until they do, there is always going to seem to be a big chunk missing or a big gap between us and the top teams. Now, I'll admit by bolstering the O-line they have made some strides in being more of a vertical offense. But we'll see how the utilize Jones, and whether or not Ryan has improved as a vertical passer. And then we'll also see how much Turner and Gonzo have left in the tank to see if they can do their part to really make that offense work (I don't think they can, but I've been wrong before). And then we'll really see what this team does next off-season when they have a full draft and if/when they can make the hard decisions to dump some of the veterans that have been fixtures here over the past 4 years, and if they can find suitable replacements...

They didn't do after 2010, and they didn't do it after 2011. Let's hope they (i.e. Smitty & TD) finally figure it out after 2012.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The problems of drafting for need
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 12:41 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4641
Pudge Wrote in describing Jenkins
Quote:

After that, we have a fast guy who builds speed and doesn't get separation or fight for the ball.


Thanks (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: