Some constructive criticism, you guys really need to learn football schemes. A couple of reasons. One, when we're talking about things like CB2 or other positions and we're stating that a player isn't "good" there based on some general evaluation, it loses realism and the average bar set leaguewide. You can't have "name brand" players everywhere. Beyond that, the number of scheme agnostic players in the league are extremely minimal. Most great teams are lucky to have one, maybe two. You see good players fall apart at a new team or poor players flourish at a new team all the time because that is truth, scheme agnostic players are very few. So you need a system or scheme by which players can play to their strengths and hide weaknesses. That applies to the vast majority of players in the league. You look at a player like Ruke when you all complained about him not being a better player by a generic measure than others on the board at the time. But just like they said, he fits what they want to do relative to the other players on the team. And fit is far more important, and you won't understand fit unless you understand scheme. The other reason simply has to do with the cap. The number of "premium paid" positions is growing in the league. At some point, teams have to be willing to do two things. One, accept that you won't be great a certain position group, which has honestly been the standard for years, it's just more emphasized now. Two, find out where you're going to get your edge in team building to address those so called "weaknesses". Some teams, like Baltimore, will invest low commitment contracts in veterans who may be past their prime, low risk/high reward. Falcons have done a bit of that. Or like Baltimore, LA, Green Bay, or the Falcons, play your young and cheap talent and put them in systems that allow them to flourish. There's going to be more Clark Phillips type players who will play for this team, that's just the reality of where the league is and what's necessary. This team is going to veer more towards the draft and develop method of team building to give space for cost control team building, which is a necessity for consistent competitiveness year in and out.
I'm certainly working to learn more about offensive and defensive schemes. No argument here! Part of the problem, however, is we don't actually know what Atlanta's schemes will be. We're limited to guessing and trying to piece together clues from the Rams. So it's hard to speak with much certainty on the matter of scheme until we see at least of few games of this team. On the topic of the salary cap, I understand it very well. I'm not expecting $10M/yr free agents everywhere and am not calling for that. I think it's clear this team COULD be doing more to bring in mid-level veterans to bolster starting positions and depth. The front office has been very conservative with their salary cap and seem very reluctant to touch future year money. Again, that's fine and could be part of their long-term strategy. But it's a choice, and it's too early to tell what that long-term strategy might be.
@@TheFalcoholicLive The scheme part of the discussion is not that big of a problem. The high majority of coaches stick to and relay the schemes they've been using. Sure, they might make a few tweaks or emphasize certain concepts over others. But for the most part, they don't change. Andy Reid is still running the same system he's run for years, Belichick, etc. It's why Koetter failed miserably trying to run Shanahan's scheme, even at its most basic level. So the assumptions made of the players relative to the scheme are not going to be too off base. The front office being reluctant to touch future year money has more to do with roster construction as it currently stands and expected contracts of up and coming young talent on the team. They want the flexibility to sign those players. I think if they were in a situation where they had a strong foundation of young talent who were in the first or second year of their contracts, pushing money for an expected long term vet like a Chris Lindstrom, wouldn't be an issue. But to get to that being an option, you have to hit on young talent. And to hit on young talent, you have to be willing to play them, and lean into a draft and develop strategy. I will say, one thing I've knocked them for over the years is the lack of collecting picks. I believe for this strategy to work, they need a few up coming drafts where they amount of players they draft is in the 10-12 picks range. In terms of signing mid level vets, I was referring to them also originally. Mid level vets still cost money, and they are wanting more security in their contracts than years prior. The Patriots use to make a living of building their roster on mid-level vets. But those were mainly 1-2 year deals of low money, likely because they were shooting for a championship and leaving. They were also older players, and the Patriots devoted a large chunk of their roster to it, not just to shore up a few spots. Signing mid-level vets doesn't escape the original point I was making in that you need to find players who fit what the team wants to do philosophically and schematically. Because again, the amount of scheme agnostic players in the league is extremely minimal. I could understand if the discussion was "we don't think a player like Phillips can play this specific role within the defense" vs " player 'x' who is a mid-level veteran" based on his previous college tape or rookie year tape, etc, etc. But I'm not hearing that granular level of discussion. It's mainly a general consensus of player "a" is better than player "b". When it should be player "a" is better than player "b" at doing "x, y, z" because that's what this defense will ask of him. And honestly, it's the same discussion most coverage of NFL teams have. I guess so we can all show up months later and be "surprised" when a player does good or bad, when really, the starting point will, or rather should, always be the role they're tasked with.
Some constructive criticism, you guys really need to learn football schemes. A couple of reasons. One, when we're talking about things like CB2 or other positions and we're stating that a player isn't "good" there based on some general evaluation, it loses realism and the average bar set leaguewide. You can't have "name brand" players everywhere.
Beyond that, the number of scheme agnostic players in the league are extremely minimal. Most great teams are lucky to have one, maybe two. You see good players fall apart at a new team or poor players flourish at a new team all the time because that is truth, scheme agnostic players are very few. So you need a system or scheme by which players can play to their strengths and hide weaknesses. That applies to the vast majority of players in the league. You look at a player like Ruke when you all complained about him not being a better player by a generic measure than others on the board at the time. But just like they said, he fits what they want to do relative to the other players on the team. And fit is far more important, and you won't understand fit unless you understand scheme.
The other reason simply has to do with the cap. The number of "premium paid" positions is growing in the league. At some point, teams have to be willing to do two things. One, accept that you won't be great a certain position group, which has honestly been the standard for years, it's just more emphasized now. Two, find out where you're going to get your edge in team building to address those so called "weaknesses". Some teams, like Baltimore, will invest low commitment contracts in veterans who may be past their prime, low risk/high reward. Falcons have done a bit of that. Or like Baltimore, LA, Green Bay, or the Falcons, play your young and cheap talent and put them in systems that allow them to flourish. There's going to be more Clark Phillips type players who will play for this team, that's just the reality of where the league is and what's necessary. This team is going to veer more towards the draft and develop method of team building to give space for cost control team building, which is a necessity for consistent competitiveness year in and out.
I'm certainly working to learn more about offensive and defensive schemes. No argument here! Part of the problem, however, is we don't actually know what Atlanta's schemes will be. We're limited to guessing and trying to piece together clues from the Rams. So it's hard to speak with much certainty on the matter of scheme until we see at least of few games of this team.
On the topic of the salary cap, I understand it very well. I'm not expecting $10M/yr free agents everywhere and am not calling for that. I think it's clear this team COULD be doing more to bring in mid-level veterans to bolster starting positions and depth. The front office has been very conservative with their salary cap and seem very reluctant to touch future year money. Again, that's fine and could be part of their long-term strategy. But it's a choice, and it's too early to tell what that long-term strategy might be.
@@TheFalcoholicLive The scheme part of the discussion is not that big of a problem. The high majority of coaches stick to and relay the schemes they've been using. Sure, they might make a few tweaks or emphasize certain concepts over others. But for the most part, they don't change. Andy Reid is still running the same system he's run for years, Belichick, etc. It's why Koetter failed miserably trying to run Shanahan's scheme, even at its most basic level. So the assumptions made of the players relative to the scheme are not going to be too off base.
The front office being reluctant to touch future year money has more to do with roster construction as it currently stands and expected contracts of up and coming young talent on the team. They want the flexibility to sign those players. I think if they were in a situation where they had a strong foundation of young talent who were in the first or second year of their contracts, pushing money for an expected long term vet like a Chris Lindstrom, wouldn't be an issue. But to get to that being an option, you have to hit on young talent. And to hit on young talent, you have to be willing to play them, and lean into a draft and develop strategy. I will say, one thing I've knocked them for over the years is the lack of collecting picks. I believe for this strategy to work, they need a few up coming drafts where they amount of players they draft is in the 10-12 picks range.
In terms of signing mid level vets, I was referring to them also originally. Mid level vets still cost money, and they are wanting more security in their contracts than years prior. The Patriots use to make a living of building their roster on mid-level vets. But those were mainly 1-2 year deals of low money, likely because they were shooting for a championship and leaving. They were also older players, and the Patriots devoted a large chunk of their roster to it, not just to shore up a few spots.
Signing mid-level vets doesn't escape the original point I was making in that you need to find players who fit what the team wants to do philosophically and schematically. Because again, the amount of scheme agnostic players in the league is extremely minimal. I could understand if the discussion was "we don't think a player like Phillips can play this specific role within the defense" vs " player 'x' who is a mid-level veteran" based on his previous college tape or rookie year tape, etc, etc. But I'm not hearing that granular level of discussion. It's mainly a general consensus of player "a" is better than player "b". When it should be player "a" is better than player "b" at doing "x, y, z" because that's what this defense will ask of him. And honestly, it's the same discussion most coverage of NFL teams have. I guess so we can all show up months later and be "surprised" when a player does good or bad, when really, the starting point will, or rather should, always be the role they're tasked with.