FLOWERY BRANCH, Ga. — Well, you asked for it! The Mailbag has made its triumphant return after an offseason hiatus.
If you're new here, welcome. If you've been here, welcome back.
We're revamping The Mailbag for the 2024 season. So, here's what you need to know: The Mailbag will run every Tuesday and Friday morning throughout the season. Responses will be split between Will McFadden and Tori McElhaney. Tori will take Tuesday. Will's day will be Friday.
You can submit questions here, and nothing is really off the table. If you want to know Tori and Will's biggest pet peeves or you want them to create a playlist that represents the team, just ask! The only rules here are that you lead with curiosity and kindness.
So, without further ado, Tori dives into Tuesday's batch of questions.
Jermaine D. from Djibouti, Africa
Hello, greetings from Djibouti, Africa. I'm excited to see this Falcon squad this upcoming season. The roster additions have been great and I believe we can hit our stride at some point in the season. First, defensively, the corner depth is shaky. Barring injury, do you foresee any additions to the corner room?
Secondly, the first four games pose challenges. I project we are 2-2 (3-1 on high end) if we do not get in our own way. How do you see the first four games shaking out?
Tori: I have to say this is the coolest location I've ever received a question from! Thank you for reaching out and submitting a question from the Horn of Africa. That's so cool! Not going to lie: The first thing I did when I saw you were writing from Djibouti was Google how hot it is there. Surprisingly, it's just as hot in Atlanta today as it is where you are. (Perhaps that's not a surprise to anyone except me, but I digress).
Anyways, to your questions!
Re: the cornerback position — I think the outside perspective of this position differs from the internal perspective. I say that knowing full well the Falcons' corner group recently placed 29th in a recent ranking by ESPN. But Raheem Morris and Terry Fontenot have said since February that they really like the group they have, including players like A.J. Terrell (obv), Mike Hughes (who's your starting CB opposite Terrell), Dee Alford (your starting nickel) and Clark Phillips III (depth). But what's been the most interesting through training camp was seeing how players like Antonio Hamilton Sr. and Kevin King developed on the fringes of this group. I think this is actually a group the coaches have a lot of confidence in despite those nationally not feeling the same. So, at this time? I don't foresee significant changes happening with this group unless there is an injury bug that bites.
Re: the first four games — I think 2-2 is probably what I would project, too. You're talking about four really significant opponents in the Steelers, Chiefs and Saints at home and the Eagles on the road for Monday Night Football. The biggest moments of the season very well happen in the first four weeks. There's no hiding with this lineup, and I think if you come out of it with two wins you can work with that, especially if one of the wins is against the Saints in Week 4. That has to be a big priority for what it means in the division. So, 2-2 is far, but if you can get to 3-1? That would really get people talking.
Don F. from Savannah, Ga.
I was watching the podcast with Kay Adams recently and Tori asked her of the big three (Bijan, Pitts and Drake) who stands to benefit the most from having Kirk Cousins in the pocket. Kay said Bijan, which I don't disagree with but I think the better case can be made for either of the other two. Curious your thoughts if I turn the question back around to you.
Tori: First off, thanks for watching the podcast with Kay. That may have been my favorite podcast guest we had this training camp. If you're reading this and don't know what Don and I are referring to, you can watch the Falcons Final Whistle podcast with Kay Adams here.
As for your question, I actually agree with you. Nothing at all against Kay's answer, I think you can pick any of the three and you'll have a solid argument. However, whenever I think about my answer, I always find myself putting Pitts slightly ahead. All three will benefit, in that I have no doubt. It's in Pitts, though, that I think we will see the greatest impact early on. We saw what a healthy Pitts could do with an accurate, veteran quarterback in Matt Ryan. We saw what he could do when he wasn't 100% full-go with a quarterback who wasn't as accurate. Now, Pitts is healthy again, with a pep in his step and a quarterback who has a 66.9% completion rate throughout his 12 seasons in the league. For context, Ryan had a career completion percentage of 65.6%, while current active quarterbacks like Matthew Stafford and Aaron Rodgers land between 63-65.3% over their careers.
When you're talking about Pitts -- who (according to PFF, so take it with a grain of salt) had the worst catchable target rate of any tight end with at least 200 routes (59%) in 2022 -- Cousins accuracy is bound to matter.
David S. from Griffin, Ga.
Hi! Looking forward to the color you provide during the season. And this should be a humdinger of a season, at least on paper.....but then that was what we expected last year. But it's all about what translates to grass/turf and not what's on paper. That said, my question is about the 53-man roster. Please, what is the rational to keeping the squad at 53 men, and a practice squad. Why not 63, or 73? Every year, players looking to catch on to a team are cut who have potential. Is it that a larger squad is less manageable to teams? Do the teams wish it were more? Do the owners decide what the limit is. But mostly, why 53? Why is that the number?
Tori: Well, David, I have to say you stumped me. I have truly never given much thought to your question. That is, until you asked it, and then I couldn't let it go. So, I did some research and here's what I found. HISTORY LESSON!
Before World War II, the league prohibited substitutions. Players often played multiple positions on offense and defense. Even kickers played every series at another position. Kicking was a side hustle. When the war began and there was a shortage of men to play, substitutions were allowed. According to this article I found from the league, the powers that be tried to bring back restrictions in substitutions after the war but the way the game evolved had become so popular that the rules of free substitutions stuck in 1949.
"Players no longer needed to be able to play both offense and defense and could even take the field for just a handful of plays per game," the article explained. "That meant that, for example, coaches could use small and speedy receivers to energize their offenses, since those players would not need the size required to play defense."
With the ability to specialize and rotate in different skillsets and body types, roster sizes grew. By the 1960s and 1970s, "Taxi Squads" were introduced as a way for rosters to be bigger without having players on the roster itself, so think the practice squad and inactives lists of today. By 1993, rosters began morphing into the way we see them today. So, why 53? Well, in essence? That's what's been agreed upon based on how a salary cap can be distributed to field a team. I am not going to bore you with any more history lessons, but here's a look at the most-recent collective bargaining agreement and the rules regarding expanded rosters and sorta kinda why they are the way they are. Hope this helps!
