Let’s Talk About Lamb

Harry

ASFN Consultant and Senior Writer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
10,745
Reaction score
22,514
Location
Orlando, FL
Wow! I keep seeing the oddest things being posted. Frankly any of the 3 top receivers help the offense. I’m not, for the purpose of this post, arguing he’s a better pick than Simmons or a RT. I’m saying Lamb is the best choice among the receivers. Let’s start with speed. I believe in what I see. This is not a speed offense. It’s more a catch & run. I’m certain people will argue that Murray didn’t have enough time to throw deep. I’m saying even when he had time he often threw 10-12 yard passes. He can throw deep and had 2 speed receivers but they were seldom targets and even then not on deep throws. This is a YAC offense. I thought Murray was only moderately accurate in terms of ball placement. Lamb’s ability to catch most anything he reaches makes him the perfect WR for a young QB. Ruggs dominates in one area, speed. He probably could spread the field, but envisioning him running numerous deep routes is not a likely scenario. Jeudy is the best route runner, which means he gets more separation. That only applies if he can run most of the route. When you compare both Ruggs & Jeudy the fact that is that Sabin built the passing game around Smith & Jeudy, not Ruggs. Compared to Ruggs, Jeudy had nearly twice as many receptions, twice as many yards and more TDs. Ruggs is a fine receiver who will help a team, but he’s not the best in this group. Jeudy is also a fine receiver but he won’t be as productive as Lamb in this offense. Put him on the Pats, he’d be awesome.

Lamb unquestionably played against easier defenses, but he didn’t just succeed, he dominated. His YAC numbers were the best in college ball. He spent the 2019 offseason building strength when he realized that would enhance his skillset. It showed in his play and also demonstrated a level of self-awareness rarely found in a young player.

Finally, in this case familiarity breeds success. There is no substitute for QB-WR rapport. This includes reading which way the receiver will break on a route with options; judging the receiver’s speed accurately when leading them to an open space or simply knowing where they likes the ball depending on the coverage. All these elements lead to a higher degree of passing success. Adding another dangerous receiver to the passing pattern greatly stresses the defense. How many teams have 3 good cover corners. If Kirk steps up how do defenses cover the 4 receiver patterns? If you want to improve the defense, keep them off the field with longer Murray drives. Lamb may not be the best answer of who to take at 8, but he’d be a sound choice and really add to Murray’s confidence. Here’s a link to a decent comparison of the receivers.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft...ed-by-trait-route-running-yac-speed-and-more/
 

Finito

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Posts
20,906
Reaction score
13,586
I usually don’t trust WR that come from offenses like that. Usually just get to run wide open never face press coverage.

Lamb, Juedy or Ruggs all are alright but none are spectacular none of them are Fitz, Julio, Megatron.
 

CardinalCovfefe

Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2020
Posts
114
Reaction score
91
Location
Portland
I usually don’t trust WR that come from offenses like that. Usually just get to run wide open never face press coverage.

Lamb, Juedy or Ruggs all are alright but none are spectacular none of them are Fitz, Julio, Megatron.


There is also a very real possibility that they are all so-so in their 1st year pro. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. A lot of these folks that are wanting those guys imagine them looking the exact same in the NFL as they were in college.... Maybe. In 2021.
 

Chris_Sanders

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
37,610
Reaction score
26,247
Location
Scottsdale, Az
The issue is just as it was with Rosen, sunk cost fallacy

We made investments and thus we must see return on investments before making similar investments.

Its one of the hardest things for people to get over. I believe that the more conservative you are by nature, the more tied you are to sunk costs.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
10,973
Reaction score
11,582
Location
Las Vegas, NV
I like Lamb, and think he's very talented. Before we acquired Hopkins, I would have been very excited about adding him to this offense. Of course I can see the allure of having four bonafide WRs, but the fact of the matter is, I can't possibly endorse it when there are glaring trouble spots.

Added in to all of that is that it's not like Lamb is a sure thing. None of the WRs are. It'll be laughable if we draft Lamb/Jeudy/Ruggs, and they turn into Corey Davis, Mike Williams, or John Ross, while our defense and offensive line continue to get exploited in a division tailor-made to rush the passer and run the ball.
 

Jetstream Green

Kool Aid with a touch of vodka
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Posts
29,459
Reaction score
16,598
Location
San Antonio, Texas
I usually don’t trust WR that come from offenses like that. Usually just get to run wide open never face press coverage.

Lamb, Juedy or Ruggs all are alright but none are spectacular none of them are Fitz, Julio, Megatron.

But the folks at Bama say Jeudy is on par if not better than Julio and they did not say that about Ridley in the draft :)
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
10,973
Reaction score
11,582
Location
Las Vegas, NV
The issue is just as it was with Rosen, sunk cost fallacy

We made investments and thus we must see return on investments before making similar investments.

Its one of the hardest things for people to get over. I believe that the more conservative you are by nature, the more tied you are to sunk costs.
It's not even about sunk costs, it's just about building a balanced roster. As @Finito says, these WRs aren't Fitz/Julio/Megatron. We're not talking about clearly transcendent talent. These guys are nice-to-haves in a world where we have major needs.
 

Finito

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Posts
20,906
Reaction score
13,586
But the folks at Bama say Jeudy is on par if not better than Julio and they did not say that about Ridley in the draft :)

NO THEY DO NOT.

Julio Jones was a monster a 6’3 220lbs and ran 4.39. The package was 5 picks including the following years 1st for Jones so the Falcons could move up and take him.

nobody on earth is giving that for Juedy who’s 6’1 193 and ran a 4.45

I don’t think you understand how good Julio Jones was or what kind of physical freak he was and I hate using that word
 

az jam

ASFN Icon
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Posts
12,913
Reaction score
5,024
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Good stuff Harry always enjoy your analysis. I like Lamb and if they do go WR, he would be my first choice. None of us have any idea on what they will do in the draft. They will let it come to them at #8 as you just don't know who will fall. Keim did a very good job in free agency plugging up many of the holes that we had so in the draft he really has many options including a trade down for more picks. I'm just glad that they are keeping the draft on schedule.
 

Jetstream Green

Kool Aid with a touch of vodka
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Posts
29,459
Reaction score
16,598
Location
San Antonio, Texas
NO THEY DO NOT.

Julio Jones was a monster a 6’3 220lbs and ran 4.39. The package was 5 picks including the following years 1st for Jones so the Falcons could move up and take him.

nobody on earth is giving that for Juedy who’s 6’1 193 and ran a 4.45

I don’t think you understand how good Julio Jones was or what kind of physical freak he was and I hate using that word

Don't get riled at me, scream at the guys at Bama who threw that out there prior to all this draft talk really got rolling. One does not forget such exclamations haha. Trust me, I agree he just can't be another Julio (again my brother is a Falcon fan) so I am not buying what they are preaching or shoveling but it does make one think that his route running and ability to catch passes might carry some merit to being special enough though and speed is not everything while one can only look at Fitzgerald and Rice for proof... Jeudy does not have to be Julio Jones to warrant drafting in the top ten
 

Finito

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Posts
20,906
Reaction score
13,586
Don't get riled at me, scream at the guys at Bama who threw that out there prior to all this draft talk really got rolling. One does not forget such exclamations haha. Trust me, I agree he just can't be another Julio (again my brother is a Falcon fan) so I am not buying what they are preaching or shoveling but it does make one think that his route running and ability to catch passes might carry some merit to being special enough though and speed is not everything while one can only look at Fitzgerald and Rice for proof... Jeudy does not have to be Julio Jones to warrant drafting in the top ten

mans he might not even be top ten. he ain’t Fitz either not by a long shot.
 

Dan H

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
4,747
Reaction score
3,051
Location
Circle City, IN
Kirk is still a question mark. Can he stay healthy?

Fitz is year-to-year. Lamb has to be the pick in my mind.

Fitz over Gallery when we already had Boldin was the right call then, and Lamb over OT is the right call now.


(I know Gallery went two but we spent MONTHS debating Fitz/Gallery/Rivers/Roethlisberger beforethat draft.)
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,031
Reaction score
37,086
Location
UK
The issue is just as it was with Rosen, sunk cost fallacy

We made investments and thus we must see return on investments before making similar investments.

Its one of the hardest things for people to get over. I believe that the more conservative you are by nature, the more tied you are to sunk costs.

It's nothing about sunk cost. It doesn't even apply here. Sunk cost relates to trying to get value out of a failed investment but actually incurring more costs in doing so.

We just traded a 2nd round pick and will invest $18-$20m in cap space for Hopkins. Who has 4 years remaining on his contract.

Nuk hasn't had a season with less than 150 targets in 5 years. There's only one ball on offense. Why would you invest your premium draft pick in a guy that at best will be WR2 and get 100 targets a year? You give him any more than that and Hopkins sees his targets drop to 120-130 and he's going to be pissed.

This isn't Madden where you can make a fantasy team full of superstars and nothing matters.

If you are drafting a guy knowing he's going to be WR2 why would you use #8 and not a pick further back in a very deep draft class?

Why would any FO with a team with so many holes use their 1st round and 2nd round pick on 2 WR1's while leaving huge holes elsewhere? It's like having a house thats falling down and buying 2 cars when you can only drive one at a time.
 

Finito

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Posts
20,906
Reaction score
13,586
Kirk is still a question mark. Can he stay healthy?

Fitz is year-to-year. Lamb has to be the pick in my mind.

Fitz over Gallery when we already had Boldin was the right call then, and Lamb over OT is the right call now.


(I know Gallery went two but we spent MONTHS debating Fitz/Gallery/Rivers/Roethlisberger beforethat draft.)

that stuff needs to stop oh Fitz over Gallery was the right call like you said Gallery wasn’t even there!!

but what was not the right call is Fitz over Phillip Rivers or Big Ben when we had a Josh McCown and Jeff Blake playing QB.
 

Dan H

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
4,747
Reaction score
3,051
Location
Circle City, IN
that stuff needs to stop oh Fitz over Gallery was the right call like you said Gallery wasn’t even there!!

but what was not the right call is Fitz over Phillip Rivers or Big Ben when we had a Josh McCown and Jeff Blake playing QB.

Denny was on the record that Fitz was #1 on our board, we weren’t taking a QB unless he was gone.

I don’t think we can complain too much. That draft set up up for our Super Bowl run.
 

Finito

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Posts
20,906
Reaction score
13,586
Denny was on the record that Fitz was #1 on our board, we weren’t taking a QB unless he was gone.

I don’t think we can complain too much. That draft set up up for our Super Bowl run.

And who won it? Big Ben.

we’ve been looking for a QB for 15 years. I mean yes we got a hall of famer and that’s super hard to knock but I’ll take the hall of fame QB over the hall of fame WR everyday
 

Garthshort

ASFN Addict
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Posts
9,001
Reaction score
4,860
Location
Scarsdale, NY
Harry, all I would add to your analysis about our offense, last season, was that our game plan was based on quick release passes. So even when KM WASN'T running for his life, he EXPECTED to be running for his life, hence the ball came out sooner than it had to. That is why I think that our offense will look different this year. JMO.
 

Chris_Sanders

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
37,610
Reaction score
26,247
Location
Scottsdale, Az
It's nothing about sunk cost. It doesn't even apply here. Sunk cost relates to trying to get value out of a failed investment but actually incurring more costs in doing so.

We just traded a 2nd round pick and will invest $18-$20m in cap space for Hopkins. Who has 4 years remaining on his contract.

Nuk hasn't had a season with less than 150 targets in 5 years. There's only one ball on offense. Why would you invest your premium draft pick in a guy that at best will be WR2 and get 100 targets a year? You give him any more than that and Hopkins sees his targets drop to 120-130 and he's going to be pissed.

This isn't Madden where you can make a fantasy team full of superstars and nothing matters.

If you are drafting a guy knowing he's going to be WR2 why would you use #8 and not a pick further back in a very deep draft class?

Why would any FO with a team with so many holes use their 1st round and 2nd round pick on 2 WR1's while leaving huge holes elsewhere? It's like having a house thats falling down and buying 2 cars when you can only drive one at a time.

I have already explained how picking a WR at #8 enhances your future cap flexibility instead of restricting it.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
534,874
Posts
5,247,006
Members
6,274
Latest member
G-PA
Top