I think that’s possible. It may be a reason why bird ancestors were able to compete and survive while pterosaurs did not.
Pterosaurs are also thought to have had some sort of filamentous integumentary covering (i.e., they weren’t naked-skin reptiles as often portrayed). Pterosaurs weren’t outcompeted by birds (birds and pterosaurs co-existed for around 85 million years, after all); they, like so many other groups, just fell victim to the confluence of unfortunate events that characterized the end of the Cretaceous.
Here it is. DOI: 10.1126/science.1203344
And they later looked at a piece of feathered tail in amber. DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2016.10.008
Well, there’s a new study proposing to shake up the traditional classification:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/science/dinosaur-family-tree.html?_r=0
The relevance to your remark is that under this new computer cladistic analysis, the theropods are joined with ornithsichia into a new grouping – Ornithoscelida – so the birds may indeed have come from the “bird hipped” (or “bird hipped and lizard-hipped”) branch (as opposed to the “Sauropods and Herrerasaurs” branch).
Remains to be seen if this new analysis will gain traction, but it does strike me that it finally addresses that old conundrum, “how come birds don’t come from the “bird-hipped” branch?”
Just to clarify, I’m not saying birds out-competed pterosaurs, just that they weren’t out-competed by pterosaurs who preceded them and able to maintain their niches. But something allowed them to survive when pterosaurs didn’t, possibly their niche was in forests and more were vegetarians (no idea if there were vegetarian pterosaurs) or perhaps better adaptability to changing climate. Or just dumb luck, a factor of varying proportions in the survival of any ancient species.
It’s been proposed that the birds that survived the KT event were seed-eaters. While I’m not sure this research definitively establishes this, I’m not aware of any seed-eating pterosaurs.
It never bothered me, maybe because i am not a scientist? but i just found it one of natures quirks.
Invent (so to speak) something one place, phase it out, reinvent it in something later that is totally unrelated to the first.
Kind of like mice sprouting wings with little precedent (I know, i known bats are not even rodentia)
I think nature makes everything from the same box of tinker toys 
It has been speculated that some Tapajerid pterosaurs (e.g., Sinopterus) may have been seed-eaters and/or frugivores.
What do you think on that though?
Megapaloelodus Anatalavis Qianshanornis Gastornis Australornis are all birds that are supposed to have lived shortly after the KT extinctions at various times that are thought to be birds of prey?
Of course the fossil record is so terribly complete that animals seem to always magically appear out of thin air, one day Dimetrodon, then POOF T-Rex, like magic (kind of)
Several of those are not birds of prey, and they are all millions to tens of millions of years after the KT event, which is enough time to have evolved new feeding habits.
Not sure, i was trying to look at birds overlapping the event that hunt or fish, but no two people quite agree on exactly when something is living and such.
What i read on Australornis has him right on the edge at 64.5mya, i thought he may be a good candidate 
Wiki says 60.5 to 61.6 million years ago, so over 4 million years after the extinction event.
This thread had me thinking about theropods. It’s my understanding that, out of the terrestrial true dinosaurs (no dimetrodons or pterosaurs, etc) only the theropods were carnivorous or even really omnivorous. And all the theropods were some form of carnivorous (meat, insects, eggs, fish, etc).
This sounds “weird” to me when I think about modern mammals where you have canines, felines, ursines, mustelids and others (even some primates including us) making up the carnivorous side of the ecosystem. What feels, to me, like a much larger spread than what existed on the dinosaur side. Plus, all the theropods seem roughly the same in structure – larger back limbs, smaller front limbs that often acted as arms, long tails, similar skull shapes – compared to either the range of shapes and sizes on the herbivore side (you wouldn’t confuse a silhouette of an iganodon with that of a brachiosaurus) or among modern mammalian meat-eaters.
But… is it unusual that all the theropods seem so similar? Is there something that I’m missing? Just one of them things?
Theropods are more diverse than you imply here. For example, Therizinosaurs were advanced theropod herbivores with somewhat different body shape. Ornithomimosaurs were also at least somewhat different (long legs, long necks) and are believed to have been largely plant-eating.
Another interesting piece of the puzzle. The problem is we’re missing so many pieces of this jigsaw. At least with the bird puzzle we know what the portion of the puzzle picture showing modern birds looks like. What’s not clear is if the findings show that the extinction survivors show these characteristics because they were seed-eaters or simply because the seed-eaters we can examine now descended from the extinction survivors.
In fairness, it’s more like “more diverse than you know” which is why I’m asking 
I forgot that Ornithomimosaurs were a thing or, more accurately, didn’t remember what they were called to see if they were a theropod. But this sort of plays into my question of all the dinosaur carnivores being similarly-shaped (if not sized) theropods even if not all theropods were carnivores.
You may be limiting yourself by which cladistic levels you are comparing. Is it more appropriate to treat mammals and dinosaurs as equivelent groups, or would it be better to compare mammals and archosaurs, for example? Look at the level archosaurs, and you get lots more forms and lots more lineages of predators. And the mentioned canines, felines, ursines, and mustelids all fit within a single clade and are broadly pretty similar to each other. (And even the extinct carnivorous hoofed ungulates are still broadly pretty similar in appearance to carnivores, at least compared to, say, a bat or a pangolin.)
I guess that’s my question that I don’t know enough to answer myself (or understand the answer via casual personal research). Is the answer “you’re not comparing equivalent groups”? Do theropods compare more broadly or narrowly than I assume? Are “dinosaurs” not really equivalent to “mammals”? I’m just a guy who read some dinosaur books in the 70s when I was six.
Well, I included insectivore theropods under the broad “carnivore” heading. Seems only fair to include insectivore mammals.
That’s kinda my point–level of division is more a matter of opinion than strict science. Was a carnivorous T-rex more or less closely related to a carnivorous Quetzalcoatlus than a carnivorous sperm whale is to a carnivorous thylacine?
Keep in mind that here you are comparing “theropods” to “all the other dinosaurs”. Theropods, as a group, were, of course, pretty similar to one another, but then, sauropods were all pretty similar to one another, stegosaurs were all pretty much similar to one another, ceratopsians were all pretty similar, hadrosaurs were all pretty similar, etc. So, Iguanadon may not have looked much like Brachiosaurus, but it did look pretty similar to, say, Hadrosaurus.
Also, keep in mind that, while you wouldn’t confuse a theropod with a sauropod, you also wouldn’t confuse a Tyrannosaurus with Velociraptor or Gallimimus or Oviraptor, any of those with each other. Within-group diversity was pretty high, as well.