(04-26-2021, 10:23 AM)Fullrock Wrote: You do realize Chase hasn't played in a year too, right?

(04-26-2021, 08:30 AM)Burma Wrote: Total bullshit article.  Even moronic Florio at PFT is calling it out as such.

Anonymous scouts make one last run at sparking a Penei Sewell slide
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/04/25/anonymous-scouts-make-one-last-run-at-sparking-a-penei-sewell-slide/

(04-26-2021, 04:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: From a Falcons website called The Falcoholic, a lot of scouts see Sewell as overrated and can find many flaws in his game.  


He is only 20, so he has room to grow, and Pollack's a good coach, so that plays in our favor, but do we really want to chance that with our first round pick to protect our franchise quarterback for the next ten years?  

Could he find the motivation here?

With our luck and first round busts, I don't like picking a guy that hasn't played in a year and that experts who are payed a lot of money to make these decisions are having doubts about him.  

I'm completely sold on Chase now or trading down for more picks and taking Smith.  

This definitely has me worried now that we'll make the wrong choice and pick him.

(04-26-2021, 02:51 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: Not worried and predict that Falcons actually draft him and will be thankful

(04-26-2021, 04:46 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: or the falcons trying to get more draft capital. and free up some cap space to move on from an injuried high priced WR when going into a build mode.

They still need a new QB.

(04-26-2021, 09:58 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Our choice at #5 comes down to two players that did not play in 2020, both of whom fill a very big need on our team and would improve the offense drastically.

I know that I've been arguing the Sewell direction for the last few months but if we go Chase, I won't be upset. I'd be nervous about a good player dropping to #38, but I wouldn't be concerned about Chase joining this team.

I do think Sewell has transcended his own value in some circles, however. Slater, for months, was labeled "undersized" almost exclusively because of his arm length. The idea of taking Slater at #5 was scoffed at and Sewell was considered this can't miss OT that we haven't seen in a decade or more.

Then they measured his arms, which showed he was not a flawless prospect but, instead of reconciling this, a lot of people doubled down saying he was so good, he could overcome his arm length just like Joe Thomas.

That was when I knew the hype train had gone off the rails. The thing that prevented some people from grading Slater at the same level as Sewell (his arm length) was now a con for both players, yet Sewell still remained the consensus top pick and excuses were being made for him that never would have been made for Slater.

With all that said, I would still likely take Sewell at 5 if given the chance because historical draft data indicates it's better to draft OTs early and WRs later, as well as some historical data on the success of teams selecting WRs in the top 5 (I remember seeing a statistic that no team that has taken a WR in the top 5 has had significant success when that player was on the roster) and there are far more elite WRs from the middle rounds than there are good OTs from the middle rounds but I am not under the delusion that Sewell is a generational talent.

(04-26-2021, 06:14 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Don't.  Because the need at 38 is OG if we take a WR in round 1.  If we take Sewell at 5 it kicks someone inside.

There will be a top tier OG at 38 if we go WR at 5.

(04-26-2021, 06:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm not too big on taking a pure guard at 38. This team doesn't value guards, so that will be a 4 year contract and then, if he's any good, he'll leave for greener pastures (see Eric Steinbach, Kevin Zeitler, not to mention that we reportedly offered Joe Thuney an insultingly low offer) in free agency.

Not only that, but drafting a guy who can play guard and tackle adds additional depth along the Oline that we desperately need, as our current LT has had two season ending injuries in two seasons in the NFL. If we drafted a guy who can play OT or OG, he can start at RG and then, if Williams gets injured again, Reiff can move to LT, the rookie can move to RT and then XSF can sub in at RG. Not an ideal starter at RG, but he isn't a disaster at least.

For that reason, I think it's critical that, if we're going Oline in the 2nd, it should be a player who can ultimately end up at OT. That list is much, much shorter.

The players that I think can start at guard day 1 and move out to OT in a year or two in this draft:
1. Penei Sewell
2. Rashawn Slater
3. Christian Darrisaw (maybe)
4. Teven Jenkins
5. Sam Cosmi
6. Alex Leatherwood
7. Jalen Mayfield (maybe)

The top 4 will likely be gone by the end of the first round (unless scouts and analysts are way off), so that leaves Cosmi, Leatherwood and Mayfield.

I have doubts about Mayfield starting from day 1 because he only has 1 year plus a few games in a COVID shortened season of experience and some analysts consider him more of a 3rd round prospect. He was apparently a defensive player in high school so that's almost the entirety of his experience on the Oline period, which is concerning and he was never given the LT position which means Michigan probably viewed him as only their second best tackle in 2019 behind Jon Runyan Jr, a 6th round pick last year.

So that means we basically have two realistic and ideal options at 38 in Cosmi and Leatherwood. That means only 2 teams in the bottom half of the first round or beginning of the second round need to have the same need of a guard today, tackle tomorrow for our entire plan to be ruined should we forego Sewell.

Alternatively, you can draft a pure tackle like Liam Eichenberg or Walker Little and move Reiff inside to RG, but that has a little more risk associated with it, as rookie tackles can be hit or miss even if they are talented (like Andrew Thomas last year) and moving Reiff to a position he hasn't played since college (if I'm not mistaken) will inevitably have its own growing pains. I'd prefer the rookie start at guard, as it's a bit more of a forgiving position, especially when we do have Reiff who is an accomplished veteran tackle.

Now, obviously, there are guards that you can take like Wyatt Davis and Creed Humphrey and they'd work...but drafting a guy in the 2nd round that the team will almost certainly let walk in 4 years just feels like a waste of draft capital. Do what you gotta do to make the team work, I guess, but I'd rather spend draft capital on players we plan to keep around if they are successful. And pure guards aren't that.

(04-26-2021, 06:40 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Considering the average career length is 3.3 years, I'm not overly worried about getting a pick that might walk in 4 years.  It's the only way we are going to get a great OG because we sure aren't going to pay one on the free agent market.

Your list is pretty much what I think, except I don't  think Jenkins will be there in round 2 and I don't see Cosmi as a fit at OG.  I also don't think Leatherwood is there as well.  The list of tackles that can play OG isn't great in round 2, I'd rather get a pure interior lineman as that is where our major need is.

(04-26-2021, 06:43 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, if we are targeting pure guards, then I'm not worried about landing a good one in the 2nd round. We'll have to see what the Bengals are thinking in that regard on Saturday (**** it feels so damn far away...).

(04-26-2021, 06:46 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I feel like we have to.  We need a guy that can play immediately with Hopkins coming off an ACL.  The interior line is held together by strings.

One injury and we are really screwed.