It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:54 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2013 10:37 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
http://www.foxsportssouth.com/nfl/atlan ... eedID=4354

Falcons in talks with four-time Pro Bowl tackle Seymour
FOX SPORTS SOUTH STAFF |
Published: Thursday, May 23, 2013, 7:59pm
CheerleaderGallery.jpg
Billick and Jones: Is Matt Ryan worth $20M per year?
By John Manasso, FOX Sports South.com and Alex Marvez, FOX Sports.com

Having already made a major impact in the free-agent market by signing running back Steven Jackson and defensive end Osi Umenyiora, the Atlanta Falcons are continuing to try to beef up their defense in the form of four-time Pro-Bowl tackle Richard Seymour.

FOX Sports.com and FOX Sports South.com has learned that Seymour and the Falcons are currently in contract talks, although the Falcons do not have a great deal of salary cap room at this point.

The 13-year pro and three-time Super Bowl-winner with the New England Patriots is interested in playing for the Falcons, not far from where he played his college ball at Georgia. Presently, Seymour is training in metro Atlanta as he seeks a contract.

Defensive line play has not been a strong suit for the Falcons in recent years and their ranks have grown thinner in terms of experienced players within the last year just as the franchise is seeking to improve upon last season’s appearance in the NFC Championship Game. They replaced John Abraham, whom they cut, with Umenyiora but they also cut ineffective defensive end Ray Edwards in the middle of the 2012 season and lost Vance Walker, who evolved into an effective tackle, to Oakland via free agency.

As a result, the Falcons will rely on a couple of untested young players and rookies drafted no earlier than the fourth round at end while going with Corey Peters and Jonathan Babineaux at tackle with a few other young players in the mix at that spot, as well.

Seymour could represent a big upgrade at the tackle position. The Falcons not only have struggled to defend read-option teams like Carolina, Seattle and San Francisco but also have gotten little in the way of a pass rush up the middle against strong throwing teams like New Orleans. Penetration up the middle from a player like the 6-foot-6, 317-pound









Then the next day....







http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... t-in-talks

Richard Seymour, Atlanta Falcons not in 'serious' talks
24

By Gregg Rosenthal
Around The League Editor
Published: May 24, 2013 at 12:17 p.m.
Updated: May 24, 2013 at 03:10 p.m.

The Atlanta Falcons and free-agent defensive tackle Richard Seymour would be an intriguing match as the Falcons load up for a title run. But a contract isn't expected to happen quickly.

NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reported Friday that the Falcons expressed interest in Seymour a few weeks ago, and have been interested in a while. But the two sides are not in talks at this point, despite reports. Nothing is imminent, and there are no ongoing talks between Seymour's representative, Eugene Parker, and the Falcons.

Perhaps things will heat up after June 1, when the Falcons get salary-cap relief because a large chunk of former Falcons tackle Tyson Clabo's contract comes off the books. Seymour probably is not in a rush to sign on the dotted line to get into organized team activities anytime soon, but this is a marriage that makes a lot of sense. Seymour lives in Atlanta, and Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff was with the New England Patriots at the same time as Seymour.

NFL.com's Steve Wyche reported earlier this month that Seymour wanted to continue his playing career despite some doubts he'd be willing to play for far less money than he made last year with the Oakland Raiders.




SLAM! Oh snap!

Round 2..
Image

Image
FIGHT!

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 12:06 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4377
Location: Vancouver, WA
Given the option of adding Seymour as a rotational option vs. a practice squad scrub or UDFA to fill that hole I'd rather have Seymour. But, as Pudge indicated the big guy is in the twilight of his career and hasn't been a beacon of health.

If Atlanta can get him without breaking the bank then it it is a win for us.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 2:46 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... for-june-1

Richard Seymour, Atlanta Falcons waiting for June 1?
71

By Chris Wesseling
Around the League Writer
Published: May 27, 2013 at 08:13 p.m.
Updated: May 27, 2013 at 08:46 p.m.

The Atlanta Falcons and free agent Richard Seymour might not have jump-started serious contract discussions, but that doesn't mean a deal won't be worked out in the coming weeks.

NFL.com's Ian Rapoport confirmed on NFL Network's "NFL Total Access" on Monday that the Falcons have shown more interest than any other team in Seymour. Although the veteran defensive tackle is willing to "walk into retirement" if the situation is not perfect, per Rapoport, Seymour appears to be reciprocating the Falcons' interest.
Free-agent tracker
NFL free agency is underway. Follow all of the latest player rumors and signings in our free-agent tracker. More...

Atlanta is attractive to Seymour for a number of reasons, not least of which is the proximity to home. Adopted son DeVondre, a big-time college prospect, has committed to play for the University of Georgia, Seymour's alma mater. Throw in a Super Bowl-ready roster and a relationship with Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff from their New England days, and the matchup is a no-brainer.

The hold-up is salary-cap space. The Falcons currently are just $1.8 million under the cap. That number will balloon to $6.3 million once Tyson Clabo's salary comes off the books on June 1.

Don't be surprised if Seymour is under contract in Atlanta by this time next week. With his talent and playoff experience, he could be just the player to finally propel this group of Falcons into the Super Bowl.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 2:49 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
That last sentence is a huge overstatement. Why do people think folks like Steven Jackson and Richard Seymour, who are 60% the players they were 3-5 years ago are going to push the Falcons over the hump? Someone like Geno Atkins who can actually sack/pressure Colin Kaepernick, Russell Wilson, Drew Brees, or Aaron Rodgers is what the Falcons need. Not an old guy like Seymour.

I'm not saying the Falcons shouldn't sign Seymour. He's an upgrade over Jerry. But I'm not sure he's an upgrade over someone like Vance Walker or Corey Peters. And if he is, it's only slight.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 2:23 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4340
I don't understand letting Vance Walker walk. He was getting better!! I like keeping people who are improving.

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:39 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4815
Dimitroff: Falcons are monitoring Seymour's free agent situation
Saturday, June 1, 2013
By D. Orlando Ledbetter

Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff acknowledged that the team is closely monitoring the free agent situation of Seymour, the seven-time Pro Bowler and former University of Georgia standout.

During an interview on PFTtalk Live, Dimitroff discussed Seymour and outlined the team’s philosophy about adding veteran players.

“Richard is a fine football player,” Dimitroff said. “I know him well from his days in New England. He’s a guy right now that there is a lot of discussion about him coming here, but there is nothing new to report on him.

“Again, that’s something that we are just continuing to keep our eye on like many other people in this league. We’ll continue to look at the free agents that are out there. We’re getting to the point where we are wrapping up our roster very soon, so again, there is nothing new to report on Richard. He’s a fine football player and I still believe that he can play.”

Seymour was the sixth overall pick by New England in the 2001 draft. He played eight seasons with the Patriots and has been with the Oakland Raiders for the past four seasons.

Seymour, 33, has 57.5 career sacks. He played in just eight games and finished out last season on injured reserved after suffering a grade two hamstring injury on Nov. 4.

There have been several unsourced reports linking him to the Falcons.

Dimitroff said the Falcons don’t want any veterans to serve a cheerleaders. They want veterans who can still play.

“One of the things leading into Richard is we’ve thought many, many times about making sure that veterans that we do bring in, whether if that’s Tony Gonzalez, whether if that’s Osi Umenyiora or Asante Samuel, whoever it is, we are very conscientious to make sure that we are bringing in veterans that we believe are legitimate starters and can still contribute at a substantial level,” Dimitroff said. “We’ve been very proud about that. We are not just bringing in the veteran talent that ends up being cheerleaders for us at all. We are bringing in guys that are going to be substantial difference makers.

He also touched on a few other topics:

1. Dimitroff wants to get Matt Ryan’s contract done before the season starts.

“I’m very confident that we are going to get this thing done and it’s going to be a smooth deal,” Dimitroff said.

2. On if there will be any money left for Julio Jones.

“He’s sans the diva qualities that may come about in certain players at that position. He’s about making sure that he’s focused on this team. I’m very proud about how he goes about his business. . . .In time, we’ll address that,” Dimitroff said.

3. On the blown leads in the playoffs of 20 (Seattle) and 17 (San Francisco) points.

“We’ve thought many, many times about what happened down the stretch in both of the playoff games with our big leads dwindling,” Dimitroff said. “We need to continue to be more consistent in many ways. Look, we went out in the draft and also in free agency in acquiring Osi and really focused on our defense. We focused on our defensive back position and we added two guys with Trufant and Alford that, to me, are two starting type corners in this league, who are sub-4.4 (40-yard dah) guys, who are very versatile, very driven and very urgent as athletes. ...We added a couple of defensive ends and a couple of safeties. We are looking forward to building this defense with some really good youth.”


Image
Image

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:38 am 
Offline
Playmaker
Playmaker

Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:51 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Estepona, Spain
Pudge wrote:
I'm not saying the Falcons shouldn't sign Seymour. He's an upgrade over Jerry. But I'm not sure he's an upgrade over someone like Vance Walker or Corey Peters. And if he is, it's only slight.


I think that being on the Raiders has skewed your view of how good he still is.

In 2011, #2 by PFF in interior pressures.
In 2012, before injury, was on his way to being near the top of PFF's DT rankings. (Although he wasn't as effective a pass rusher as in 2011)

He might not be the pass rusher he was in 2011 anymore, but if he is 60-70% of the pass rusher he was while maintaining his ability to close rushing lanes (like in 2012), we've got a hell of a starting pair.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 11:12 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
And Ray Edwards was #8 among DEs in 2010 according to PFF.

Watching tape of the Raiders front last year, and I watched quite a bit back in February to scout Desmond Bryant, and Richard Seymour is a solid player, but he doesn't have the burst or explosiveness. I just think injuries have sapped him so much in recent years, that expecting him to produce at the level he was in 2011 or before is foolhardy. Father Time is undefeated.

Seymour is a power player that can overpower weaker C/Gs and press the pocket, but I don't think he can really impact consistently as a pass rusher. Which is the same exact problem that Vance Walker had. 1 on 1 as a power rusher, he was OK against weaker competition, but he's not going to bully Josh Sitton or Alex Boone.

Now the thing I think Seymour can help is vs. the run, because he can hold the point of attack and because of that power is hard to move. That should allow players like Dent and Spoon to not have to take on as many blocks as they did last year and flow to the ball to make more plays vs. the run, which is what they are good at. Dent was terrible at the point of attack last year because he was slow reacting to plays, and then couldn't get off a block to save his life. Hopefully with a year under his belt, he'll show better read/reaction ability to offset his problems getting off blocks. Spoon isn't good getting off blocks either, but because of his instincts/awareness, he can read/react somewhat to offset that.

Seymour can help control the line of scrimmage, and hopefully give Babs reps off on run downs which should make him more effective as a pass rusher. Because unlike anybody else on the Falcons front, Babs still has a good first step off the ball. But he's worn down over the years because so much of his focus has to be keyed on the run, so he can't go 100% every snap. He has to pick and choose his spots.

But if you think Seymour is going to consistently beat opposing C/Gs as a pass rusher, I think you're mistaken. He didn't look like that player last year in Oakland. And while it's easy to say he was hurt, he's been hurt every year for the past 6 years. So what is going to change.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:55 pm 
Offline
Playmaker
Playmaker

Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:51 pm
Posts: 376
Location: Estepona, Spain
Pudge wrote:
But if you think Seymour is going to consistently beat opposing C/Gs as a pass rusher, I think you're mistaken. He didn't look like that player last year in Oakland. And while it's easy to say he was hurt, he's been hurt every year for the past 6 years. So what is going to change.


I do expect him to consistently beat weaker OGs & Centers, while not being entirely shut down by upper-echelon linemen like our other DTs were last year. That in itself is an upgrade over what we had.

We'll see what happens ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:19 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
Maybe.

I bet if Seymour had played for us last year, the 49ers would have been successful on only 55% of their runs instead of the 70% that they were in the NFC Championship Game.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:07 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4340
Pudge Wrote
Quote:
That last sentence is a huge overstatement. Why do people think folks like Steven Jackson and Richard Seymour, who are 60% the players they were 3-5 years ago are going to push the Falcons over the hump?


I don't think any real fans of Atlanta are saying that. Its just having Jackson who can catch a pass is an upgrade over Turner. Seymour would be an upgrade.

I think most are just saying is 5 small upgrades can pay off. The big payoff would be if
our 3-4 year players keep improving; If DeCoud, Moore, Witherspoon, and even Ryan
improve that's what keeps the engine going..... Roddy & Tony G. & Julio need to still keep up their play.

Every season brings bitter frustration to many teams who " expect" to contend again.
I don't believe just one player can make us a Super Bowl team, it takes about most everybody playing their best!!

We're doing some real "hoping" along both lines; and that's where we should be strongest!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:53 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
Let me preface this by saying this is the point in the year (June) where I'm typically the most negative, so this may be a result of that.

But as I said several months ago following the 49ers loss, the problem with this team is that it just doesn't have that much talent.

Look at the 49ers. The 49ers have arguably the best starting OL in the league, and have 3 really good RBs. They are one of the best runnign teams in the league. And they couple that with an explosive, vertical passing attack. They have Vernon Davis, with Antonio Gates on the decline, arguably the league's most explosive TE in the biz. They picked up Randy Moss, A.J. Jenkins, and Mario Manningham last off-season, all vertical threats to go with Ted Ginn, Kyle Williams. Then they have Crabtree, a very good possession receiver but proved to be one of the best receivers after the catch last year. So how do you beat the 49ers? Well, you have to find a way to stop/slow their running game, which again with having one of the most physical OLs in the game and 3 very good (and explosive backs that can kill you on the 2nd level) is very difficult to do. Essentially, if your defense is one of the better run-stopping teams in the league, the chances you can slow/stop them is very difficult. You have to take them out of their element, and force them to be a pass-first team. And that doesn't factor in that Colin Kaepernick is probably the most feared running QB in the league, because again he's liable to take it to the house anytime he scrambles.

And defensively we know they're a good defense. They have several good pass rushers, a pair of LBs that they are comfortable and confident can put on islands in coverage against good WRs and TEs in Willis & Bowman, and they have a DL that is hard to move off the ball, meaning they can stop the run. Their lone weakness defensively is that they aren't great in the secondary. It's not that they are bad in the secondary, it's just that compared to the rest of the defense, it's the closest thing you can find to a weakness.

Now look at the Falcons. They have a good passing attack, but it's not very explosive because their QB is by and large a subpar vertical passer. He's not a guy that is willing to take a lot of deep shots. According to PFF, Ryan ranked 8th in the league last year with his accuracy percentage (completions and not penalizing for drops) of deep passes last year with 43.3%. But he was 22nd in % of shots taken downfield with 10.9%. In 2011, when he was only accurate on 30% of his passes, he attempted 10.6%. The point is that Matt Ryan is probably never going to helm an offense that is centered around throwing the ball downfield. And their OL isn't a very good pass-protecting OL.

They had one of the league's worst running games last year. But they managed to make up for it because the thing that RYan is good at is being very efficient throwing and moving the chains. They have a lackluster defense that couldn't stop the run last year, and while they have a capable secondnary, they have no real pass rush to speak of.

Basically, their biggest "strength" on defense is their DC's ability to win with smoke and mirrors. And we all know with magicians that once you've seen the trick, it's a lot easier to spot the seams and cracks in the illusion it the next time he tries to pull it off.

So how do you beat the Falcons? Well, if you can get pressure on Ryan, he'll start to struggle, espeically if you can give him a few shots in the mouth early in the game, he's going to get a little quicker on the trigger, which makes the Falcons passing attack even more one-dimensional (and less explosive), and thus limiting the only real asset they have.

So basically if you can pressure the QB, not give up big plays to Julio & Roddy, and not turn the ball over offensively, the Falcons are essentially an average team. They don't anything else good enough to really hang their hat on and think they can beat you that way.

I'm not saying these suggesting that the Falcons stink, but I'm making the point that when you are facing the best teams in the league, that are often capable of doing those things, the Falcons are essentially behind the 8 ball.

And the other point is that it's not about becoming better in those other areas, it's about being good in those others. Look, I certainly understand that you can't simply snap your fingers and go from 29th best rushing team to 9th best by any means.

So the key is Steven Jackson can't make the team better at running the ball. Better is being the 22nd best team in the league. But against a team like the 49ers that is still far from good enough. Is Osi Umenyiora going to turn us into a good pass rush, or are we just going to be slightly better, which is still below average? Dunta Robinson was hawt garbage last year, but are a pair of rookies going to be drastically better at creating turnovers and breaking up passes. I think they'll be upgrades, but are they going to be big enough upgrades that they can compensate for the potential lack of pass rush up front?

To me, when you're a GM especially, it's about putting your team in the best possible situation to win games. And that means trying to excel in every possible way you can. And being the 18th, 22nd, or 26th best team in the league at a major phase of the game isn't that.

The Falcons are a team that does 1 thing well: throw the football, but they don't even do that to the highest possible level because they aren't explosive and they don't pass protect particularly well.

And while I keep hearing all this talk among fans about all these intangible aspects of why the Falcons haven't had success in January, and IMO it's very tangible why they haven't had success.

And this is not me saying that the Falcons can't beat teams like the 49ers, but it's unlikely. You're basically hoping 1 of 2 things happen, you're going to play well above your norm when the time is right, which as we see with teams like the Giants is very inconsistent year to year. Or you happen to get the playoff schedule where you happen to be playing the 2 or 3 teams that are as equally flawed as you are, which we know from the Falcons own history are the teams that typically get bounced in the 1st or 2nd rounds.

And until the Falcons make some real strides from a personnel standpoint, I'm hard-pressed seeing them as a team much better than the '08 Cardinals. If Matt Ryan is perfect or close to it, and they get several breaks (like the Chris Clemons injury), they got a legit shot.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 1:51 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4340
Quote:
So basically if you can pressure the QB, not give up big plays to Julio & Roddy, and not turn the ball over offensively, the Falcons are essentially an average team. They don't anything else good enough to really hang their hat on and think they can beat you that way.


Well you changed the subject real quick. Coach Smith didn't have much more talent last year as he does this year. I'm not implying their going to the Super Bowl; and we've shown we will turn the ball over offensively(in the playoffs) even without Ryan getting hit in the mouth.

It was a miracle we got so close to the Super Bowl last year and we blew it!! If you don't want to say we blew it; then we just missed too many opportunities.

I don't expect two miracle's in a row. If you want to compare us to the best on paper we are way off...... Coach Smith has proven to go a long way without much talent.

In fact Coach Smith gets teams to the playoffs that most coaches just wouldn't be able to handle. As you said he takes average teams to the playoffs then takes the blame for not going to the Super Bowl??

What could make it interesting is if Julio just breaks wide open as a receiver

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:10 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
I agree with what you said. We blew it. Last year, was likely going to be the best shot we had. Our 4 best players were playing at elite level. That's not something that is likely to repeat. It's what I've been saying since November. Just look at the Packers. Aaron Rodgers was very good in 2010, but he was even better in 2011. But the Packers defense was much worse in 2011 after being the 2nd best in 2010 (and #1 pass defense), and coupled with their late season lay-off, whatever momentum Rodgers had in the first 15 weeks of the season was lost by the time they played the Giants. They blew it, and they aren't likely to get Rodgers playing at that level anymore. It's not like Rodgers is going to start to suck, but he clearly wasn't close to being as good in 2012. So now the Packers chances of getting back to the Super Bowl really rests on the supporting cast being good enough.

You're right about Smitty. People think the Falcons are underachieving, but they are in fact overachieving is the point I'm trying to make. The Falcons could have easily been 1 and done again in 2012, and could easily be 1 and done in 2013. And people will blame Mike Smith and say he can't win in January. Yet these people don't realize that the Falcons just aren't that sort of team.

I've always thought as this team being marginally better than a team like the Bears. You look at the past 5 years in our head to head games against the Bears. In 2008, at home, Kyle Orton hit Rashied Davis with 11 seconds to go to win the game. The Falcons controlled the game for most of the first 3 quarters, but not to the degree where they could pull away. That should have been a win for the Bears. But Lovie Smith messed up on the KOR, squibbing it after Jerious NOrwood had a big gain earlier in the game, giving Falcons good field position. Then their DB blew a coverage (Mike Brown IIRC), gave up the big completion to Mike Jenkins and Elam hit the game-winning FG. It really was a miracle finish thanks to questionable decisions by Lovie Smith (which IMO is really the difference between the Falcons and Bears, we have Mike, they have Lovie).

Then in 2009 on Monday Night Football, once again in the Georgia Dome the Falcons are up 14-7 in the 4th quarter. Ryan throws a pick, and the Bears drive down the field to score a TD to tie up the game with 6 minutes left. The Falcons get a huge KO return from Eric Weems (clearly the Bears ST is not helping them in these games), which sets up the Falcons to get a quick score to push the lead 21-14. But the Bears get the ball back with 3 minutes left, but drive down the field and get into the redzone with about a minute to go. The defense plays well, but the Bears get the ball down to the 5-yard line for 4th & 1 with 30 seconds left. Then Orlando Pace gets a false start, and Cutler misses Dez Clark in the endzone. And the Falcons win thanks to a goalline stand with the help of several penalties from the Bears (20 penalty yards on them in the final 6 plays).

Then the Falcons go to Chicago to open the season in 2011, and get absolutely destroyed.

The Falcons are marginally better than the Bears at home, but get obliterated on the road. The point is that when you look at that, you should conclude that the Falcons aren't significantly better than the Chicago Bears, who most people consider to be a middle-rung or slightly above NFC team. But if I was to say that the Falcons and Bears are on the same plane, most people would scream and holler and say how I'm crazy wrong, a hater, etc.

But the facts speak for themselves. The difference is that the Falcons consistently play beyond their talent level while the Bears do not.

And the thing that worries me is if the Falcons "regress" to being a team that struggles to win in January in the coming years, the fan base is going to call for Matt Ryan and Mike Smith's head (and they will), and Arthur Blank feeling the pressure to placate the fans as he stuffs PSLs down their throats is going to fire Mike Smith.

And it's all because the majority of the fan base have a very false sense of how good this team really is.

Matt Ryan needs a lot of help, and he has weapons at WR and TE, but Tony is gone in 2014. Roddy is likely gone in 2015. So in the very near future, all Ryan is going to have is Julio Jones and Harry F. Douglas. Steven Jackson is likely gone by 2015. Babs is gone in 2014. Osi gone in 2015. Asante gone in 2015. Willy Mo is done by 2016. DeCoud gone by 2015. Richard Seymour done by 2014. Blalock gone in 2015.

This team is built for short-term success, but they aren't in the class of teams like the Seahawks or 49ers. And thus they have to get lucky to win a Super Bowl in the short-term, and without more continued good drafting, this team is going to quickly revert to an 8-8 team. Especially if players like Peter Konz, Lamar Holmes, Corey Peters, Akeem Dent, Desmond Trufant, and Robert Alford don't turn into better players. The Falcons can't really afford to have all these 2nd & 3rd round picks turn into only above average football players. A few of those guys are going to need to be Pro Bowl caliber players moving forward.

But people will blame Matt Ryan because he's the $120 million QB and saying he's got to do more.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:47 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4815
Pudge wrote:
And the thing that worries me is if the Falcons "regress" to being a team that struggles to win in January in the coming years, the fan base is going to call for Matt Ryan and Mike Smith's head (and they will), and Arthur Blank feeling the pressure to placate the fans as he stuffs PSLs down their throats is going to fire Mike Smith.


Matt Ryan needs a lot of help....
But people will blame Matt Ryan because he's the $120 million QB and saying he's got to do more.


Maybe the 120 million dollar QB doesn't fumble the snap, and were not having this conversation?

Look, I said if we had gone one and out last season, it was time for Smith 'to go'. But, we made 'progress' and finally won a playoff game. But now the 'bar' is set higher. If we go to the playoffs for 3 more years, and keep losing, are you saying Arthur shouldn't be considering making a change? (cue the Cowher/Schottenheimer rebuttal here) :mrgreen: Lets ponder this: lets say we miss the playoffs this year, make it next year and lose in January, and then the next season we miss the playoffs again..Well, the 'logical' excuse is 'look at how far Mike Smith has taken this team', blah blah blah. But froma businessmans standpoint, that is not good enough. It may not be 'fair' but it's 'business'. :ninja:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:01 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
Just to finish another point on the rant, I'll get to your comment in a sec fun gus.

There were easily 4 games that the Falcons relaly had no business winning last year.

They get outplayed by the Raiders, but thanks to a pick six out of nowhere from Asante Samuel they win that game. They get outplayed by Arizona, but because the Cards offense is absolutely inept, they stay in the game. They can barely beat the Saints despite an 11-point swing to start the 3rd quarter and 5 picks by Drew Brees. If Ron Rivera goes for it on 4th & inches instead of punting it, they should have lost the first Falcon game. Cyril said it himself, if RG3 doesn't get concussed in Week 5, then the Falcons probably aren't going to win that game because they were not playing well up until that point. If Peyton Manning doesn't throw 3 1st quarter picks which the Falcons turn into 10 pts, we probably don't win that game.

The Falcons are like 5 plays away from being a 9-7 team. And the point I'm trying to make is how much different the perception is between a team that finishes 9-7 vs. one that finishes 13-3.

If the Falcons were 9-7 as their talent suggests, people would know that this is a team like the '08 Cardinals, '11 Giants, etc. that would need to get hot in January to even have a shot. They would have to overachieve in the playoffs to win games and make a deep run.

But because the team is 13-3, and the perception is that if the Falcons can mantain the status quo, they should be able to beat other playoff teams and thus should be in the NFC Championship every year.

You should not be perceiving the Falcons as your typical 12 or 13-win team, which is typically a dominant football team.

This is not one of those teams. Our 2012 squad was the best we've ever had under Smith, and they still weren't that good. They were a terrible rushing team. No big deal right, so were the SB-winning Packers and Giants teams the 2 previous years. But guess what? Those teams were Top 10 in the league in generating big plays in the passing game, to make up for that. Where were the 2012 Falcons? 29th? It doesn't balance out.

If you can't run with any efficiency, you have to make up for it by being able to generate big plays with your passing attack. The Giants/Packers could generate 4 or 5 big plays which put them in prime scoring position that they're running game cannot. But the Falcons on the other hand, are more like 1 or 2. And when you're going up against a Top 5 or 10 defense in January, like you often find, it's much easier for them to prevent 1 or 2 big plays to Julio Jones and Roddy White, than 4 or 5 to Nicks, Manningham, Jordy Nelson, Cruz, etc. Especially when you have a QB in Atlanta that doesn't like to throw deep, and a pair of QBs in GB & NY that are 2 of the 3 most inclined/productive vertical passers in the game (Flacco is the 3rd).

Most 13-3 teams have good defenses. Not the 2012 Falcons. They were highly opportunistic at home, generating 18 turnovers in 8 home games during the regular season. And they were opportunstic early on the road, generating 9 turnovers in their first 3 road games. But they were only able to generate 4 in their final 5. And you can't sustain those high TO rates when you don't have a pass rush that can affect the QB. Pass rush is one of the key factors in generating TOs. We couldn't stop the run last year. Thus putting more pressure on your ability to generate TOs in order to get stops because any good rushing team is going to be able to move the ball against you.

Everything about this Falcon team screams 9-7. But yet we continue to consitently win more games. That's becasue of Mike Smith. That's because of Matt Ryan.

I'm not saying the Falcosn can't win a Super Bowl. But in order to do that, they'd have to go so far and above themselves that it really isn't that realistic a goal. They have to have ideal conditions. They need Matt Ryan playing at an elite level, which is hard to do when you don't really have much of a vertical element to your passing attack. You need the OL to not suck in order to give Ryan the time to be efficient and judicious with the football. You need a functional running game, whcih the Falcons haven't had for 2 seasons. You also need this team playing at home in the playoffs, so they have to win as many regular season games as possible. Because we don't have a defense that can win on the road. You have teams like the Packers & Giants. Again, the Packers had the #1-rated pass defense in 2010, and the 2nd best defense overall that year. That's a defense that you can take on the road. The Giants had a very good pass rush. That's something you can take on the road.

They need perfect conditions. They have to hope that WEst Coast teams like Seattle & San Fran are groggy to start the game, and have to put up a bunch of points early. Because in reality they aren't good enough to keep scoring non-stop against arguably the 2 best defenses in the league because they can't run the ball, they aren't great at protecting the QB, and they don't excel at generating big plays offensively.

The Falcons can't move the ball against defenses like that. They couldn't do it against the Broncos in Week 2. They scored 17 points after the 1st quarter turnover fest because Julio Jones did squadoosh, and the Falcons had to resort to quick, 3-step drops to protect themselves against Von Miller and the Broncos pass rush. The Falcons generated 67 yards on the ground in that game, and took them 3 plays to run it in from the 1-yard line after Peyton's first INT. If that game is 2 minutes longer the Broncos likely win.

I'm not syaing the Falcons suck. But people need to understand that when they play other 13-3 caliber teams like the Broncos, Seahawks, and 49ers, they don't have the talent to go toe to toe with them for 4 quarters. They basically survive by being able to outplay them for 1 or 2 quarters, and hope that is enough to carry them over for the remaining 2 or 3.

And I keep hearing from folks that it's bad coaching, or subpar Qb play, or lack of killer instinct, blah blah blah. And all that is BS, it's all a red herring to hide what is clearly in front of you if you just pay attention: they struggle because they have a terrible running game, mediocre O-line play, no pass rush, no run defense.

And until the Falcons reach a point that they can do one of those other things at a very high level to couple with their highly efficient (but not explosive) passing attack, then there's really no point why anybody should be disappointed with this team.

fun gus wrote:
Look, I said if we had gone one and out last season, it was time for Smith 'to go'. But, we made 'progress' and finally won a playoff game. But now the 'bar' is set higher. If we go to the playoffs for 3 more years, and keep losing, are you saying Arthur shouldn't be considering making a change? (cue the Cowher/Schottenheimer rebuttal here) :mrgreen: Lets ponder this: lets say we miss the playoffs this year, make it next year and lose in January, and then the next season we miss the playoffs again..Well, the 'logical' excuse is 'look at how far Mike Smith has taken this team', blah blah blah. But froma businessmans standpoint, that is not good enough. It may not be 'fair' but it's 'business'. :ninja:

And guess what will happen when you make that "good" business decision, you're going to hire a Jim Mora-level coach that isn't going to get more out of this football team, and it's going to reveal just how average the talent level of this team really is. And as you're "smart business" is now an 8-8 and 9-7 team that gets bounced annually from the playoffs in the same manner as they did in 2011 vs. the Giants, had you made a good football decision, you'd know to keep the coach and hope the GM can build up the rest of the team in the coming years.

It's unfathomable to me fun gus that if the Falcons lose to the Seahawks with a team that is Bottom 5 in both run offense and run defense, Bottom 10 pass rush, Bottom 15 OL, Bottom 5 explosive plays, and you think the blame rests at Mike Smith's feet against a team that is Top 5 or 10 in at least 4 out of those 5 areas.

It's laughably sad that you think Mike Smith is the problem, when the Seahawks are SIGNIFICANTLY better and by significant I mean LIGHT YEARS better at 80% of the things that make teams good or great.

But that's how you run a business. And that's why there's only a handful of football organizations that have won titles over the past decade. Because those are organizations that understand good football decision making vs. good business decision making.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:39 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4340
Neither Super Bowl teams from 2011 were even in the playoffs last year.?? When all your star players have good seasons why does that raise the bar?

Look everybody wants to win a Super Bowl but only 1 of 32 do. I want to win a Super Bowl but more important to me is to have a season like last year, where we have a chance to win a Super Bowl. Yes its a business and as long as you have close competitive games and win your share " you'll do good business " and maybe get
lucky and get to the Super Bowl.

31 other teams are looking to improve...... What's silly to me is that in 50 years the Falcons have made it to a Super Bowl once. Consistently getting to the playoffs is a big deal; and until Falcon fans understand this we will be constantly disappointed.

Your suppose to love the wins during the season (that's what people pay for ) and winning in the playoffs should make you very very happy; but it seems to me too many are stuck with "you win the Super Bowl or your sick". That means millions will be sick at the end of all seasons!!

Hope is what makes a season so fun & interesting; we can all see how hard it is to get to a Super Bowl; and you never expect it when it happens.

Fun Gus wrote
Quote:
Look, I said if we had gone one and out last season, it was time for Smith 'to go'. But, we made 'progress' and finally won a playoff game. But now the 'bar' is set higher.


We also earned #1 seed so we got a bye. Would it be better to be a wildcard then win two playoff games......?? I just don't see how the bar is raised when we should have been to the Super Bowl last year;(with a bad defense) and the team is not really improved this year??

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:34 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
Cyril wrote:
Your suppose to love the wins during the season (that's what people pay for ) and winning in the playoffs should make you very very happy; but it seems to me too many are stuck with "you win the Super Bowl or your sick". That means millions will be sick at the end of all seasons!!

A year ago, I probably would have fought you on this point. But now I agree.

I guess I'm just approaching it from the angle that when you really take a hard look at this team and its talent level, it really is a testament to the two entities (Mike Smith & Matt Ryan) who receive the majority of the criticism that they were playing in that game last year.

It's laughable to me that you have Falcon fans out there that still think this team lacks killer instinct. Well guess what, this team has won the most game since 2008 that were decided by 1 score or less. If this team had a killer instinct, how much better could they get? This team also is helmed by the QB that has more 4th quarter game-winning drives in his first 5 years than any other Qb in NFL history. But if only he had a killer instinct too, he could somehow be better. :roll:

The old saying that you are what you're record says you are is technically true. If you win 13 games, you've won 13 games (unless you're the Seahawks and you're gifted a win by replacement refs). But it doesn't mean that if you win 13 games, you are comparable with other 13-win teams. As the points I made with talking about the Falcons games against the Broncos, Seahawks, and 49ers last year, it was clear that the Falcons were not the better team on the field on those particular days, despite winning 2 of those 3 games.

What i realized last year thanks to games like those and when fun gus was so gracious as to gift me tickets to the NFC Championship is that this may be the last time for a while where the Falcons will be in this position. Not because they aren't good enough. Despite all my saying this team isn't very good, it doesn't mean they can't catch some breaks and win games (as they did last year vs. SEA) in January. It just means that all things considered, the odds aren't exactly in their favor. And that's not in a general, the odds are no teams favor, but in a very specific, relative to other good teams, the Falcons are behind the 8 ball.

As you say Cyril, it's hard to win a playoff game, let alone enough to go to the Super Bowl. The evidence is obvious. Even a team that is as consistently good as the Patriots can be 1 & done in the playoffs. And the 2012 Falcons, the best Falcon team we've seen since 1998 is probably not better than any of the teams the Patriots have fielded over the past 4 years, and probably only 2 or 3 of the Patriot teams that they've had in the past 12-13 years.

And my point is that if the Falcons are only as talented a team over the next 5 years as they've been over the past 5 years, and they post a 1-4 record in January, they'll be lucky to have that. The one common denominator the Falcons have had in all 5 of their postseason games was subpar defensive performances. That's why they've been clearly outclassed in their 4 losses, and barely squeaked by in their 1 win. And if you think firing the head coach is going to automatically change that, then you're a fool.

If you wanna holler and scream and throw things when the Falcons lose, then that's your prerogative. You're allowed to be emotional because you like me are fans. If there had been a small puppy around me when the Seahawks went up on the Falcons at the end of that game, I know I would have strangled it, set it on fire, and flushed it down the toilet. I'm just trying to help people be able to take a step back and when that emotional reaction subsides, and you can reboot your brain to start working again, you realize it's not as bad as you think it is simply because the team isn't as good as you think it is.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:42 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4815
Pudge wrote:
And guess what will happen when you make that "good" business decision, you're going to hire a Jim Mora-level coach that isn't going to get more out of this football team, and it's going to reveal just how average the talent level of this team really is. And as you're "smart business" is now an 8-8 and 9-7 team that gets bounced annually from the playoffs in the same manner as they did in 2011 vs. the Giants, had you made a good football decision, you'd know to keep the coach and hope the GM can build up the rest of the team in the coming years.

It's unfathomable to me fun gus that if the Falcons lose to the Seahawks with a team that is Bottom 5 in both run offense and run defense, Bottom 10 pass rush, Bottom 15 OL, Bottom 5 explosive plays, and you think the blame rests at Mike Smith's feet against a team that is Top 5 or 10 in at least 4 out of those 5 areas.

It's laughably sad that you think Mike Smith is the problem, when the Seahawks are SIGNIFICANTLY better and by significant I mean LIGHT YEARS better at 80% of the things that make teams good or great.

But that's how you run a business. And that's why there's only a handful of football organizations that have won titles over the past decade. Because those are organizations that understand good football decision making vs. good business decision making.



See, here is where you usually get tripped up , Pudge. I'm not saying your logic isn't sound, it is. And, Ive admitted before that had we lost in the first round, I would have been vocal about getting rid of Smitty, and 'logic' would tell you to not do just that... I understand that argument.

But you are speaking with impunity that had Blank yanked Smith out and installed __________ as coach, the team would have suffered. It's quite possible, in fact probable, but it is not 'definite'. You cannot say with 100% the new regime would not have had a different result. You can assume based on a number of things, but the NFL is not like other sports.

Look at the Eagles, for instance. Andy Reid took that team for four years to January and lost ( 200-2003)..Now if in 2004, he did that again, or did not even make the playoffs ( which they didn't the following year), Jeff Lurie would have been correct in dismissing Reid, but he did not. And he went to the Superbowl that year.That and his past reputation kept him around Philly for years after that... But they still never got a ring, and now he is in Kansas City. I know that Blank isn't Lurie and Smith isn't Reid by a long shot, but in todays NFL it is a 'show me now' business. Smith has a fine rep, but no rings. Owners want and demand immediate gratification. It may not be 'right' but it is what it is.

Smith got a playoff win. That gives him 2-3 more years to me to get that brass ring. This 'process' started out being 3 years...then 5 years....well, we are in year six of the 'process' . But the onus is on him ( and Matt Ryan ) to get it done. If that means making the most of it when you get the breaks (like Eli and Peyton having bad games) because we are not as good as the Seachickens or 69'ers, then that's what they gotta do. That means dont coast after you build up a big lead in January, and don't fumble a snap. Am I expecting perfection? Well, yes. I understand I probably wont get it, but I still expect it. Does that make logical sense? Of course not. But the NFL isn't like baseball: these coaches move alot and are expected to make chickensalad outta chickensh*t. How long do you think Reid will get in Kansas City? If he goes 6 years and repeats the Eagles results, do you think they should keep him around for 5 more years? I dont see that happening... :ninja:



""Andy Reid won the most games of any head coach in Eagles history and he is someone I respect greatly and will remain friends with for many years to come,” said Jeff Lurie. "But, it is time for the Eagles to move in a new direction. Coach Reid leaves us with a winning tradition that we can build upon. And we are very excited about the future.”

Image

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ooh, conflicting reports on Seymour
PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:53 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25552
Location: North Carolina
Ahh, now we get down to it.

However, fun gus, you make a very common mistake.

Look the Eagles weren't doomed to struggle as they did time to time from 2005 on because of Lurie's decision to keep or fire Reid following 2004. It was because they made bad decisions.

We jokingly cite them, but there are no real Football Gods. Teams win games because they have better palyers that play better, and teams lose for the opposite reason.

The Eagles started to lose not because of something that was predestined because Reid would become a lesser coach in the coming years. They lost because the Reid-controlled Eagles made worse and worse personnel decisions. Reid won the power struggle in the front office between himself and Tom Modrak in 2001. Look at the Eagles drafts from 1995 to 2002. Players like Donovan McNabb, Tra Thomas, Bobby Taylor, Jeremiah Trotter, Brian Dawkins, Brian Westbrook were drafted in that time. They signed good FAs like Troy Vincent, Jon Runyan, and Hugh Douglas in that time. Players that were big parts of their success from 2001-04. Look at their drafts from 2003 onward. They aren't terrible, but they have a lot more bust picks like Jerome McDougle, Winston Justice, Danny Watkins, etc. Remember their FA spending after the lockout (Dream Team huh?). Remember they traded for Mark Simoneau a couple years back thinking he was going to be a fixture at LB. Remember they tried and failed to replace McNabb with Kevin Kolb, then Michael Vick, and then Nick Foles.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... /draft.htm

It doesn't rain because God is crying or magic: http://kids.discovery.com/tell-me/curio ... es-it-rain

There is scientific reason why things happen. Some things we have enough knowledge to understand. Many more things we do not. But in football, we have a pretty good understanding of why teams win games and why they lose.

The Eagles lost because they didn't make as many good football decisions. They didn't replace the key players on those 2001-04 teams. Jim Johnson died in 2009 and after 2008 (their last trip to the NFCCG), they could never put together good defenses (see Juan Castillo) to make them a contender. And then with their shoddier and shoddier QB play that came following '08, things began to unravel.

The Falcons will have the same potential problem if they don't start making better decisions. You want to know why the 49ers are better than us? They signed Carlos Rogers, we signed Dunta Robinson. They signed Justin Smith, we signed Ray Edwards. They drafted Frank Gore and Navorro Bowman with 3rd round picks, we drafted Jerious Norwood and Akeem Dent with ours. They found elite players like Patrick Willis and Mike Iupati at the top of the draft, we found players like Peria Jerry and Sam Baker. We trade away our 2nd & 4th round picks in 2011 to move up to get Julio Jones. The 49ers take Aldon Smith a pick later, and get Colin Kaepernick and Kendall Hunter with their 2nd & 4th round picks that year.

Look, no one bats a 1000. But Peter Konz needs to turn into a good center. Lamar Holmes needs to fill or exceed Clabo's void. Osi can't be another FA bust. Desmond Trufant has to become a good starter. Robert Alford can't just be the next Leodis McKelvin.

It's personnel decisions that are the problem here. They are what is holding back the Falcons. We drafted Corey Peters instead of Geno Atkins. We kept Harry Douglas over Laurent Robinson, with Robinson having 26 more catches, 433 more yards, and 10 more TDs in 9 less games since that trade. He decided to sign Robinson & Edwards. He decided to keep Michael Turner a year too long.

I'm not trying to sit here and say that TD is bad. I'm just saying that these personnel moves are why the Falcons aren't quite as far as long overall as a team as many of us would like.

It's scientific, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But every roster decision has ripple effects, whether it's cutting a seemingly meaningless camp body (e.g. Robert McClain), or letting a FA walk (e.g. Brent Grimes), or paying a guy $120 million (e.g. Matt Ryan). Some have bigger ripple effects (e.g. Ryan's deal), but they all add up over time, small to big, and create waves, and ultimately can form tsunamis.

The arguments I've made is that people simply dismiss these moves as causes for why the team is where it's at. There have been plenty of good/great decisions, which helps the team win. And there are enough bad/poor decisions which prevents the team from winning as much as we want. We're going to have to wait and see.

But if the Falcons struggle to win over the next 5 years, it's not going to be because Arthur Blank didn't fire Mike Smith after the 2012 season. It will be because many of the decisions I outlined don't work out for the Falcons, and many more decisions to come don't.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: