It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 7:40 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: we need to sit Roddy White
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:28 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6149
Location: Planet Claire
fun gus wrote:
RobertAP wrote:
I just want to be clear, I'm not using this thread to build an agenda against Smith. I already have my case, and you know what it is. You happen to disagree with it, that's fine.

Fun Gus said earlier in this thread that he isn't looking to fire Mike Smith, he's just tired of seeing the same stuff happen over and over.

In this case, I don't think that we are all in agreement that playing Roddy was a mistake. Some people seem to be saying that it was not a mistake. If they agreed with Fun Gus, I doubt that we'd have 3 pages of discussion. Maybe I'm reading some of these posts wrong. <shrug>

Sweet Jesus if I was not in north Georgia in leiderhosen getting ready Tplay polkas I would ap aww f****

Son, to quote my great, great grandma, "You's about f**** up as a football bat."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: we need to sit Roddy White
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:42 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:16 pm
Posts: 1337
Location: Macon, GA
He's out for the first time:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/wr-roddy-w ... --nfl.html

_________________
John O'


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: we need to sit Roddy White
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:01 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25783
Location: North Carolina
RobertAP wrote:
Fun Gus said earlier in this thread that he isn't looking to fire Mike Smith, he's just tired of seeing the same stuff happen over and over.

Yet less than a week after making those statements, he starts a thread that suggests that Smitty be fired if the Falcons lose their next two games.

And you're always building your case. Thus why the "beef" with the "excuse-making." :so:

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: we need to sit Roddy White
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:03 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4914
Pudge wrote:
RobertAP wrote:
Fun Gus said earlier in this thread that he isn't looking to fire Mike Smith, he's just tired of seeing the same stuff happen over and over.

Yet less than a week after making those statements, he starts a thread that suggests that Smitty be fired if the Falcons lose their next two games.
:wink:
And you're always building your case. Thus why the "beef" with the "excuse-making." :so:


untrue. I said if we lose twice to the Buccs and Panthers. Its already a foregone conclusion were going to lose twice to the Saints. And I also said not if the reason we go 0=6 is due to Ryan injury...

Pudge says the thing that would make him consider firing Smith is if he lost the team. If we cant squeak out one win against this Buccs team, he has 'lost' them. But if we go 0-6, and I suggest firing Smitty, I am absolutely certain Paudge will find another excuse 8-)

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: we need to sit Roddy White
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:05 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4914
backnblack wrote:
fun gus wrote:
RobertAP wrote:
I just want to be clear, I'm not using this thread to build an agenda against Smith. I already have my case, and you know what it is. You happen to disagree with it, that's fine.

Fun Gus said earlier in this thread that he isn't looking to fire Mike Smith, he's just tired of seeing the same stuff happen over and over.

In this case, I don't think that we are all in agreement that playing Roddy was a mistake. Some people seem to be saying that it was not a mistake. If they agreed with Fun Gus, I doubt that we'd have 3 pages of discussion. Maybe I'm reading some of these posts wrong. <shrug>

Sweet Jesus if I was not in north Georgia in leiderhosen getting ready Tplay polkas I would ap aww f****

Son, to quote my great, great grandma, "You's about f**** up as a football bat."


Iphones and German beer do not mix well :lol:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: we need to sit Roddy White
PostPosted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:26 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25783
Location: North Carolina
fun gus wrote:
Pudge wrote:
RobertAP wrote:
Fun Gus said earlier in this thread that he isn't looking to fire Mike Smith, he's just tired of seeing the same stuff happen over and over.

Yet less than a week after making those statements, he starts a thread that suggests that Smitty be fired if the Falcons lose their next two games.
:wink:
And you're always building your case. Thus why the "beef" with the "excuse-making." :so:


untrue. I said if we lose twice to the Buccs and Panthers. Its already a foregone conclusion were going to lose twice to the Saints. And I also said not if the reason we go 0=6 is due to Ryan injury...

Pudge says the thing that would make him consider firing Smith is if he lost the team. If we cant squeak out one win against this Buccs team, he has 'lost' them. But if we go 0-6, and I suggest firing Smitty, I am absolutely certain Paudge will find another excuse 8-)

The Falcons stink this year. Losing to the Bucs doesn't mean that Smitty has lost the team. It just means that the Falcons are a worse team than we thought. We've been operating under the assumption for the past few weeks that the Falcons are a bit better than their record indicates because they've been very close to winning all 4 of their losses. All of which came against teams with winning records. But if the Falcons lose to the Bucs, then they are simply a bad team.

It doesn't mean that Smitty has lost anybody. Especially when the Bucs despite being winless have a Top 5 defense, just like the Jets defense that we played in Week 5. But the Falcons are much more depleted offensively than they were vs. the Jets. Thus the team will need the running game and the defense to step up. If they don't this week, it doesn't mean that Smitty has lost them. The Falcons run defense was 29th last year, and is 26th this year. Their defense was average last year thanks to being healthy and opportunistic. Now they are beat up and not creating very many turnovers, and thus they are getting exposed as bad.

To beat the Bucs, the Falcons have to play uncharacteristic football than what we've seen thus far this year. If that doesn't happen, then Smitty hasn't lost the team. When they face the Panthers, they'll face another Top 5 defense, with one that can dominate our weak OL with their dominant front 7. And if the Falcons let Cam Newton do the things he has normally done against our defense, then there's no way the Falcons win that game.

They could have easily gone 0-6 in the division last year, and they are a MUCH WORSE football team this year!

It's not about losing the team, it's about whether Mike Smith is a good enough coach to get this team to circle the wagons and play above their talent level for the rest of the year. If he's not, then I know there are plenty of people around here that believe that the Falcons must go out and find someone that is. But frankly, I'm sure that there is a coach that is capable of that outside Massachusetts. There's always next year. And maybe this terrible season leads to teh Falcons front office opening up their eyes that their complacency the past two off-seasons was the wrong approach, and instead of adding a little to supplement the roster, they really get back into the trenches and opt to significantly revamp this roster.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail