It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:39 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 4:49 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6149
Location: Planet Claire
Stop being such a dumb MFer, Robert! :wink:

Heavily moderated forums suck and suck big time. I have never put anyone on ignore as in some computer driven function. Some people you just sort of ignore like in real life. Some people can dish it out but can't take it and some people will just say anything. I don't agree with the notion that it is all just words on a screen. Real people type those words but just like in a football game you can play rough with the guy across the line but there is no need to get personal or take cheap shots, however, what defines these things varies from person to person.

Wease, you are talking about PB21. He was pretty over the top though every once in a while he would nail something pretty good. Birdman and Birdbrain both really make some salient points and know the game pretty well but their "war"--primarily continued by the former and somehow unignorable by the latter got beyond tiresome. Really liked Bill and he brought a lot of knowledge and fun to the board but he was a little on the paranoid and obssessed with alliances and allegiances side. Funny as hell when he wanted to be. Would have loved to hear his take on this season.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:14 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:51 pm
Posts: 4861
Location: New York
Wease wrote:
I only ignore the truly ignorant that add nothing to the discussion. I relish those that disagree with me because that is how I Iearn. Bad snark, not understanding the game while believing one does, and/or simply being a troll? I am too old to put up with that idiocy. The others are the one pump chumps (do people still rant about Brooking(s)?) or trolls/stalkers.

Emmitt has come so so far since he first started. I now really enjoy reading his posts. He should go back and re-read the recaps that I savaged him and told him why it was not very good, when everyone was saying good job. I think he would savage the old Emmitt as well.

Just my thoughts, I could be wrong

W


Thank you. I just don’t can’t take weekly comments that are so foolish. How can anyone say Washington is in better shape than Atlanta right now? Then going to the extent of saying Matt Ryan isn’t really that good and is a game manager? You always have to respect someone’s opinion, unless it’s proven to be weekly biased crap. Pudge can be over critical at times, but he calls it even. The same goes for most of you, who post great stuff.

My issue with MF is that he’s admitted to not watching games this season, such as the Miami game and relies on stats to make his own judgements. That’s what angers me and I had to prove a point by making him an example. As someone who loves this forum, I don’t ever want to do that. Just got to the boiling point, where I needed to expose him.

My old recaps did stink from 2009-2010, since it relied a lot from stats. Most stats are overrated, remember when Falcons allowed the least amount of sacks at one point this year? It’s all about watching the game and analyzing as much as possible. That’s what I’ve learned and that’s why people enjoy my podcast with Pudge on a weekly basis. I haven’t forget Wease about your criticism. I used the word “as” almost every other sentence. Horrible haha.

_________________
Image

R.I.P 2013 season


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:13 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
Thanks BnB ...... I love Emmitt's posts and I read every bodies when I make time.

Yea the capital letters is a bad habit when I hit "I" then sometimes forget to go back to small letters. That's on me, Its just an excuse but sometimes its just not worth it to go back and change it.

TWO major points I want to make. Like with Emmitt (hope you don't mind me using you as an example) The first thing is two fold; obviously nobody will be right about everything regardless
how they may never admit it.......

1) The better your posts the more you'll find disagreement. Its a compliment!! When your posts
are short and shallow you'll find one liners perhaps hitting you; not your posts.....when Pudge
writes 15 paragraphs, you know he's on the ropes.

2) I'm probably as guilty as anyone as making something personal. It takes a strong emotional person to talk about the Falcons and not Just go off sometimes. So its not right;
but you learn a lot from the person attacked. I have formed some of my best respect to those who acknowledge nicely I'm being a jerk. I read their posts more carefully and get use to their posting style which may just be as insightful but said in a different way.....

BTW-----oh my grammar is 10 times better than 10 years ago. BnB BEING THE CLASS A. gentlemen; use to instant message me to help out....... Its use it or lose it. I had a secretary for years just take my dictation and make it right!! When she left even Mavis Beacon couldn't help me!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:46 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
Robert Wrote
Quote:
I do have a line in the sand, however. When the discussion shifts from football to personal attacks, that's when the line has been crossed. I believe it happened in this thread, and it has happened to me a couple of times in the past few months. You guys really need to be careful with that. We are a small community, and people will not tolerate that kind of stuff for very long. Matter of fact, that's the reason I'm here.


Well your one of the people who I thought was a troll until you handled my slightly personal attacks & some not so slight. Those replies showed me you are also a class act..... The fact that this board is not so big that you can confront someone is not all bad. Its takes thick skin to be a regular poster anywhere; and usually hard feelings mount up over small things said a long time ago. We are all fans but those who JUST use stats don't always get the big picture.

Not being a season ticket holder this year since I WAS 25 has given me a better feeling for what I see on T.V. but what I SAW OFF T.V. is priceless to my memories. Crap we all know who we think we will Sunday but none of us are 100% positive.

I especially like where Wease said he liked some disagreement with his posts. That's where I learn too. The game changes a lot over a lifetime and I've got to keep up!! I have posted here then not come back for 2 days because I'd blow up over what I thought was coming....

Its never as bad as it seems; its a great place to learn football and express your thoughts on this crazy franchise!! Your point is taken but human nature and football sometimes does not make for perfect conduct (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:16 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
Quote:
Pudge has made the statement that the OL is overrated. While I still believe that's crazy talk, I don't think Pudge is a dumb mfer for saying it


No he was just misguided at that moment (: I love ya Pudge; thanks for having this board and the tremendous time you put into it!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:37 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25773
Location: North Carolina
A few points…

backnblack wrote:
Wease, you are talking about PB21. He was pretty over the top though every once in a while he would nail something pretty good. Birdman and Birdbrain both really make some salient points and know the game pretty well but their "war"--primarily continued by the former and somehow unignorable by the latter got beyond tiresome.

1. To be honest, I enjoyed the BirdBrain-Birdman beef, it made for some very entertaining posts. It's why I never intervened in it. Not to mention, at least on this board both gave it as good as they took it, so it was hard to step in without seeming like I was taking a side. I obviously agreed with BB's viewpoint on most of their arguments (seeing how they were anti-Vick), but I didn't think it was right to step in and be like "Birdman you gotta leave" and have the perception be that I booted someone for disagreeing with me.

It's one of the reasons why I let the PB21 thing linger. But then I was prepped to warn him for his trolling, and realized it was the 8th time he had received a warning (for basically the same thing) over 4 years, and I figured if that wasn't enough to boot someone, then what would be? So he got banned.

On the friends/foe list, it's a nice feature. But the thing I think you discover is that someone who you may disagree with now, is someone that 6 months or a year from now, you may absolutely agree with. You don't grow by ignoring someone.

Emmitt wrote:
My issue with MF is that he’s admitted to not watching games this season, such as the Miami game and relies on stats to make his own judgements.

2. I sort of bristle at the idea of "Well, you don't watch the games, so therefore you don't know what you're talking about…"

That sort of attitude was essentially what compelled me to stop posting at the Roost, because a few boisterous individuals seemed to attack my posts because of that.

It's a straw man argument, and I don't like it. Obviously if someone watches all the games, they probably are more informed, but it doesn't mean that if they do not, their opinions are invalid.

The other thing is that MF1 may have not watched one game, but proceeded to post something about it just from looking at the box score. And you may assume that he hasn't watched any other game, when in fact he has, therefore the "You don't watch the games so you don't know what you're talking about!" attitude is less informed than his opinion from that 1 game.

Cyril wrote:
RobertAP wrote:
Pudge has made the statement that the OL is overrated. While I still believe that's crazy talk, I don't think Pudge is a dumb mfer for saying it.

No he was just misguided at that moment (:

3. I still want to clarify this issue. I think OL play is overrated by people on this board. Because I think there has been this attitude on this board that the Falcons can't win games because they have a bad OL, and that is BS. If that was the case, then how can we explain the Falcons going 25-10 over the past 2 seasons with an equally bad OL?

But when I say that, people automatically, say, "No Pudge, our OL was better in 2011 and 2012 than it is in 2013."

And I say "No friendo, it wasn't." You only perceive it to be because the team won in those years. Your perception is that the OL was good enough because the team won. Now the perception is that this OL is "terrible" or whatever because suddenly the team is losing.

My point isn't that the OL doesn't matter. But the perception of some on this board is that it's the deciding factor to why/how the team wins or loses, and it's not. That's why it is overrated by those individuals.

Something worth considering…If you combine sacks, pressures, and hurries allowed in games, then here are how the Falcons games rank:

1. vs. Bills - 19 (34 offensive points scored)
2. vs. Rams - 17 (24 points scored)
3. vs. Patriots - 16 (23 points scored)
4. vs. Saints (week 1) - 14 (17 points)
4. vs. Cardinals - 14 (13 points)
4. vs. Saints (week 12) - 14 (13 points)
7. vs. Seahawks - 11 (10 points)
7. vs. Buccaneers (week 11) - 11 (28 points)
9. vs. Jets - 8 (28 points)
9. vs. Packers - 8 (14 points)
11. vs. Dolphins - 7 (23 points)
12. vs. Bucs (week 7) - 5 (24 points)
13. vs. Panthers - 5 (10 points)

There's really no trend to suggest that the worse the Falcons OL plays, the worst the offense gets if we're judging by points scored. In fact, there is actually a very minor positive correlation, in that the more times Ryan is hit/pressured, the more points the offense scores.

It's just easier for people to write off this season due to bad OL play, poor decisions in the past in regards to OL, rather than really look at the issues that have changed from previous years, which really boil down to turnovers and the fact that this offense can't function unless it has two or more Pro Bowl caliber WRs/TEs healthy and playing well. If you're going to boil things to 1 or 2 issues, those are the big 2.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:33 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
Pudge here's my thinking on the line. At the start of the season L. Holmes was struggling like crazy, G. Reynolds looked very uncomfortable; I thought Konz was also struggling at center.
Baker was just terrible before he was hurt.

I agree we can win with a less than average line like as you pointed out we did it for the last two years. So the losing was only directed at the line for the first 8 games or so.

However I think the line is looked better with Hawley at center, Holmes has made incredible strides at left tackle; and even Reynolds seems to have gotten a little better than from the start of the season. In summary I think our line is starting to getting a little better after Holmes was moved to left tackle and Backer went on injured reserve.

We have 3 games left to play and last year we gave up 29 sacks, and this year already 27. With the sacks come extra hits in my opinion. We've averaged about 3.7 yards a carry both years......so we don't really have a running game either year.

First impressions are lasting and it was at the start of the season that I was so vocal about our Offensive line. I've not said much lately except 6 sacks is way too many. Perhaps our line is today as good as last year, no one can be proof positive one way or the other. The problems at the start of the season is on Coach Smith, he should have figured this out in summer practice.

Where I think our line really hurts us is in the rushing game. No rushing game hurts and may be the difference in us going to the Super Bowl last year, but our + 13 on turnovers was the biggest thing.

Your right, its the turnovers that are killing us. We've gone from +13 to losing 11!! That just can't all be put on the line. Your right our receivers being out has killed us and we can even see how Roddy moves the chains.

We've had 32 touchdowns this year with three games remaining vs. 46 last year. Perhaps that's on Ryan, and the offense in general. However you can't always expect a + 13 in turnovers.

I just think that your O-line should produce better than it has; rushing the football the last two years. Yes last year we won anyway with our + 13 in turnovers but I think that stat made our team look better than it was.

Sure some teams can make it without a running game but Ryan can't. He did it last year without adversity; but having a balanced attack makes your team so much stronger!!

I just don't think your offensive lie can be underrated but neither can your receivers,
defensive line, linebackers or secondary.

I understand there is really no right or wrong; and I agree you can win with a below average
0-line; but just like on defense it sure makes it easier to play the game when your lines are solid!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1798
Location: Los Angeles California
My problem is this, when someone decides that all that is bad in their lives revolves around you there is no reasoning with them. Emmitt, for whatever reason, has decided that I'm his whipping boy and instead of refuting my opinions of the Falcons he really just wants to insult me personally. I don't really get that, but it seems to be his new obsession.

I could attempt to explain his 'you don't watch the games statement', but when someone like him has a bone, he's not going to let it go. I watched my first Falcons game in 1978, when I was 7. I've had NFL Sunday Ticket since 1996 just to watch the Falcons, and have NFL Game Rewind so I can watch the game after watching it live. When I say, 'I didn't watch the game' is was because I have high blood pressure and when the Falcons of late have a habit of going up big and then letting games slip away, I get so upset I fear for my health, thus I have to turn it off and watch it on Monday. This way, I protect myself [and my family] from the person I become while watching this brand of bad football.

I've been posting here since 2005, when I came here with DBNW, and I've long ago lost the will to fight with people who think personal attacks have a place on this forum, unless you are friends, which Emmitt and I are not. Personally, I like Emmitt's posts, and he's come a very long way, even if he is the ultimate cheerleader for the team and seems to see no wrong with the organization. He is a smart and passionate kid who loves the Falcons, and there are far too few of those in this world, but I can't waste my time having him attack me, it just takes my personal enjoyment of my beloved Falcons and stains it. Thus ignore...

_________________
"I am certainly not afraid to have Brian Finneran on the field. Has he ever not made plays? He just makes plays. He is one of those guys that just makes plays. He is dependable."

J. Mora JR.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:29 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25773
Location: North Carolina
Cyril wrote:
We've had 32 touchdowns this year with three games remaining vs. 46 last year. Perhaps that's on Ryan, and the offense in general. However you can't always expect a + 13 in turnovers.

I just think that your O-line should produce better than it has; rushing the football the last two years. Yes last year we won anyway with our + 13 in turnovers but I think that stat made our team look better than it was.

I agree 100% with your last statement. This year, the Falcons are -37 in point differential off turnovers, with 38 points scored off takeaways, but giving 75 points off giveaways. That ranks 28th n the NFL.

Last year, the Falcons ranked 5th with a +52 TO point differential, with 101 points scored off turnovers, while giving up only 49.

Cyril wrote:
At the start of the season L. Holmes was struggling like crazy, G. Reynolds looked very uncomfortable; I thought Konz was also struggling at center.
Baker was just terrible before he was hurt.

I agree we can win with a less than average line like as you pointed out we did it for the last two years. So the losing was only directed at the line for the first 8 games or so.

However I think the line is looked better with Hawley at center, Holmes has made incredible strides at left tackle; and even Reynolds seems to have gotten a little better than from the start of the season. In summary I think our line is starting to getting a little better after Holmes was moved to left tackle and Backer went on injured reserve.

Again, I think that's an "argument of convenience."

The Falcons weren't losing at the start of the season because the OL stunk. Lamar Holmes stunk vs. the Saints, but if Steven Jackson or Tony Gonzalez catch those passes in the end zone, the Falcons start the season 2-0. The Falcons early season struggles could be largely blamed on their inability to execute in the red zone. Was the OL somewhat culpable in that? Yes, absolutely. But IMO, it had a lot to do with Matt Ryan missing reads and throws (see MIA & NE games), dropped passes (see NO & NE game games), questionable play-calling (see NE & NYJ games), etc. Not to mention the breakdowns by the defense, giving up a ton of big plays vs. the Patriots, letting the Dolphins & Jets drive down the field in the final minutes to win those games. As well as their mediocre at best pass rush.

Now you say that the OL has improved over the course of the season and I agree with you. Yet, the offense has stunk over the course of that 5-6 week span despite that improvement. How do we explain that, if the play of the OL is so important?

We can't, thus what I mean by an argument of convenience. It's convenient to blame the OL for much/most of the Falcons problems this year, when it really doesn't fit.

Yes, it's very hard to win games with an OL as bad as the Falcons have. But they've done it the past two years, and won 71% of their games over that span.

And that was because they could get stops on defense due to turnovers, they didn't turn the ball over much themselves, they got good QB and WR/TE play, and it was able to compensate for having a weak OL. But you take away most/all of those things, and this team is left with little.

And my beef is I think the coaching staff has done a very poor job adjusting to that. This team has done a poor job handling that adversity. And it's hard for me to continue to back this coaching staff when they have utterly failed. It's one thing if you try and fail, but IMHO this coaching staff hasn't even tried.

Two years ago I pondered whether Mike Smith was too conservative for his own good, and based off their play in 2012, I thought that question had been answered with a resounding NO. But after watching this year, and a team that needed to be more aggressive that got much more conservative, that question lingers.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:55 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1798
Location: Los Angeles California
As I watched the Saints go to and win the Super Bowl I kept saying 'one of these days they will stop getting these timely turnovers'. Well, they didn't and they won the SB, but the next year they were not the same team, losing to a 7-9 division winning Seattle team in the first round of the playoffs. You can't depend on TOs to fuel your team, and we were great last year until the playoffs, thus we lost, and this year, much like that Saints team, the TOs didn't come and it heavily contributed to our abismal record [when coupled with our injuries and OL play].

_________________
"I am certainly not afraid to have Brian Finneran on the field. Has he ever not made plays? He just makes plays. He is one of those guys that just makes plays. He is dependable."

J. Mora JR.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
Quote:

Now you say that the OL has improved over the course of the season and I agree with you. Yet, the offense has stunk over the course of that 5-6 week span despite that improvement. How do we explain that, if the play of the OL is so important?


I explain it by we've sucked less. Ryan has not played well without his receivers, and the line has him a little shell shocked thus the tiny passes. I still really think our line is not as good as last year; but just by a little. Ryan again has that lasting impression from the start of the season and the 6 sacks are just not forgotten by a Qb.

I'm sorry their is just no way I will ever believe your offensive is not affected by your O-line a lot!! ITS
BASIC and its true. No running game is a huge thing for the Falcons, and Ryan is hurrying all his passes. You may have the last word because we've beat this to death!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:27 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
MF1, JUST HANG IN THEIR..... i've read all your posts and their's plenty worth reading..... I can't understand anyone getting so upset about a guess on a game.... The Redskins had 7 turnovers and lost by 1. I'd hate to argue Falcons Vs. Redskins, and I bet Emmitt will be more careful with any attacks on you. I've done it plenty myself, and as I mentioned it usually starts a lot earlier, and when its addressed usually i don't change my arguments but really try to lay off an opinion of another.

I've also had it done to me and its just an occasional part of posting. I love to talk football but it still takes thick skin, but its worth it. Your posts are not stupid or anywhere close, but with this many people some will take exception. The personal attacks won't last long because a board has a way of policing itself. I'd read what everyone says; like I've mentioned you and I can learn from everyone!!

Thanks for the insite on your blood pressure, I've had that too but figure if I'm going to go; I
DESERVE if for living and dying on the Falcons. (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:32 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1798
Location: Los Angeles California
Thanks Cyril, I mean, I know people might not like my posts, I just don't understand not liking me for posting them :wink:

I would have called conspiracy on Shanahan today for the failed 2-point conversion but the Redskins don't even get the draft pick so whatever. Still, I think we didn't much deserve to win that game.

_________________
"I am certainly not afraid to have Brian Finneran on the field. Has he ever not made plays? He just makes plays. He is one of those guys that just makes plays. He is dependable."

J. Mora JR.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:13 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
I really agree!! I don't think Shanahan wanted to be out their any longer. The two point conversion is not a percentage play. Watching the end of the Green Bay game they went for two for a great reason, that wouldn't cost them the game, and they didn't make it..... That made them 0-3 on two point conversions, for the year!!

My guess is its about a 35% success rate in the NFL. Anybody can say what's the harm; but they we're moving the ball on us and our offense only really scored 7 points.

Looks like I hate Shanahan when he wins & when he loses, so I'm not exactly open minded on him!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:02 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25773
Location: North Carolina
No conspiracy, Shanahan just doesn't give a s*** anymore.

Cyril wrote:
Ryan has not played well without his receivers, and the line has him a little shell shocked thus the tiny passes.

I agree with this. But my complaint towards the coaching staff is that they seem resigned to this. They have done nothing to try and correct this issue (thus my earlier point about not trying). My beef is that if the coaching staff calls plays that make the WRs run 15-18 yard runs as opposed to 8-12 yard routes, Ryan is going to be forced to shrug off his "fear" and throw the ball downfield.

And I know most people's reaction/response to that is that only exposes Matt Ryan to more hits and increases his risk of injury.

And my response to that is So? :so:

And this is where me and fun gus butt heads, because I don't understand this fearful attitude in regards of injuries. They happen all the time, and try as you might you cannot eliminate them from the game. You can only try to minimize their effect/impact by adding good depth.

But the issue the Falcons have faced this year, is that if you adopt a strategy that tries to minimize the risk of Ryan suffering a major injury, you're also adopting a strategy the lowers your chances of winning football games. If you adopt a strategy that tries to increase your chance of winning games, then you increase Ryan's risk of injury. Due to the front office unwillingness/inability to make good changes to their roster during the course of the season to improve their depth, as well as their offseason mistakes to secure said depth, the Falcons find themselves in a situation where Ryan's health and winning games are mutually exclusive things. You can't have both. And IMO, the choice they made was the wrong one.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:56 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
Heck I'll agree to that!! My only thought is perhaps its a Matt Ryan thing, again we saw today where he could have run for a first down and inexplicably tossed the ball incomplete. Its also
easy to say the coaches are not responding to adversity; but what about Ryan??

I believe you thought at one time everyone would blame Ryan for losses. No one has done that, but he's looking a far way away from "Matty Ice"?

I have stated that I'm not worried about him getting hurt either; but I don't think he's showing much mental toughness or leadership. I know others think he's being brave for just going out there, but for 100 million I think its him afraid of throwing interceptions; more than the coaches. Its impossible to know because we aren't in his head..... He seems best when everything around him is going good!! It seems he checks down before a play ever starts. You'd think he'd occasionally audible to a long pass if the coaches aren't sending them in!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:45 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4191
With regards to Ryan's toughness, I have to throw that right back on Smith. Since Ryan has been here, Smith has coached scared. We are a team that preaches mistake free football. When our players make great plays, the coach immediately gets in their face to tell them what they did wrong. Matt Ryan has been quoted as saying, "Long is never wrong," which was taught to him by Smith/Mularkey.

Smith's philosophy is extreme, to the point that it's negative. It resonates through the whole team. Why don't we put the pedal to the metal when we get a lead? Because we have to protect that lead. Why don't we take more shots down the field? Because our defense needs to rest or they will be worn out at the end of the game. It's always about, "playing it safe."

As I said in another thread, I believe that Dimitroff should go before Smith, but I also believe that Smith is not a very good head coach at this point in his career. He was better in years past, but at this point, he seems to have gone into a shell. These past couple of games have been absolutely pathetic, and there's just no reason that this team should be this bad. If you get 7 turnovers in a game and win by one point, there's something seriously wrong with you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:42 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25773
Location: North Carolina
Cyril wrote:
I believe you thought at one time everyone would blame Ryan for losses. No one has done that, but he's looking a far way away from "Matty Ice"?

You're right, I did say this. I'm actually shocked with the level of immunity Ryan has received from the majority of the fan base. Besides his slide against the Saints, he has faced relatively little scrutiny this season.

RobertAP wrote:
Matt Ryan has been quoted as saying, "Long is never wrong," which was taught to him by Smith/Mularkey.

My recollection is that Ryan said he learned that long before he joined the Falcons, so blaming Smith/Mularkey for that one appears to be a stretch.

Cyril wrote:
but I don't think he's showing much mental toughness or leadership

I don't disagree with this.

Cyril wrote:
I think its him afraid of throwing interceptions; more than the coaches. Its impossible to know because we aren't in his head…..

We aren't in his head, but we do have access to game film which IMO sheds more light on this than simply guessing. And I think part of it is Ryan, and the other part is indeed coaching. The Falcons play design is very conservative and vanilla, bordering on the same level of vanilla-ness that Mularkey's offense was often accused of being. The Falcons stopped running the complementary routes, and went back to their tried and true "man beaters" which largely rely on their receivers to win 1 on 1 match ups, particularly with Roddy back close to form.

How much of it is Ryan vs. coaching is obviously a matter up for debate. But I think it's 60% coaching, 40% Ryan. And just like I said following the Giants Fiasco of 2011, I think it's on the coaching staff to build a "platform for success." It doesn't work the other way around, especially when the team basically eliminated no-huddle from their offense for 6 weeks. The coaches have to take that first step and be the trend-setter so that the QB can follow. It doesn't work the other way around.

If Matt Ryan is playing "soft" but the scheme isn't asking him to play it any other way, why would you expect him to be able to rise above it? I'm critical of Ryan and I think within the scheme Ryan could play a lot better. But I think there's a firm glass ceiling on how good this offense can be. And while I'm not for the firing of Mike Smith, I'm also not against it because I don't think this team will break that glass ceiling without a change on the sideline.

What will be interesting to watch is how this team handles the departure of Tony Gonzalez. Because if this team plans to go into next year with an offense that is Matt Ryan, Julio Jones, Roddy White, Harry Douglas, and Steven Jackson with Levine Toilolo or another middling TE in the mix, this is setting up to be another mediocre offensive season for the Falcons. And without real upgrades on the defensive side of the ball, we're looking at 8-8 in all likelihood rather than 12-4.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:44 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6149
Location: Planet Claire
My worm is turning on this too, Pudge. I'm not for blowing the whole thing up but not against it. Call it the Process, call it consistency, whatever but doing the same thing and expecting dif results is also called insanity. Ryan is stinking it up and at $1.6 mil per game that is unacceptable. I fear his mates have lost faith in him. You can believe in a company man when the company is solvent but it gets harder when it is going bankrupt. The lack of creativity the team in general has showed in this free fall has been conspicuous. I had to laugh when they sent Assante into the game for the very last play. Did he play at any other point? I only listened on radio but it sounded like Motta and Alford got schooled all day. It will be an interesting off season. They have some really serious problems and I am unsure as to where they start and end.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:32 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 4910
Pudge wrote:
Shanahan is trying to get fired boys. That's why he's benching RG3.



wait. why do I keep hearing this refrain? Tell me, do you think RG3 would have played better then Cousins yesterday?

Is it at all possible that Rg3 is so bad, and dinged up, that maybe starting Cousins was not such a bad idea?



In 28 games, RG3 has won exactly 2 games in which the 2 following facts were true:



(1) He threw for more than 30 attempts, and

(2) They passed more than they ran (only counting non-RG3 runs, to be fair) 8-)



The first was against Tampa Bay last year, which was an overtime win via field goal against a QB who looks like he will be out of the league next year. The other was against Oakland this year against a backup QB. Other than those 2 games, he has never won games in which they statistically relied on him to win with his arm (i.e. a shootout).



In 2 starts, Cousins has thrown an average of 41 times per game and in both games has dominated the other team through the air for large stretches of the game. He won the Cleveland game in a landslide victory, and would have won the game against US with a successful 2 point conversion (which arguably would not have been called had they been in the playoff hunt). By all appearances *SO FAR*, Cousins looks like the kind of QB that wins games in the playoffs - when the elite defenses come down and shut down the run, he looks like a guy you can trust to get in a shootout and have a reasonable chance of winning. Now maybe he craps up the joint next week, but from my cheap seats, I think playing Cousins was the better choice. Yes, you CAN actually bench your franchise QB if you want to... 8-)



In my opinion, unless Cousins has a huge dropoff over the next few games, it might be a good idea to keep him around another year just in case R2D2 is a bust.



think about this,before the game, it was already expected that Cousins could be worth a 2nd round pick. Dr Evil, I mean Shanahan, said :

“If he lights it up, hey, maybe we can bring a first-round draft choice back to this organization, and say hey, who are we gonna take in the first round?” Shanahan said of Cousins (via Dan Steinberg of the Washington Post). “And I think by him playing and Robert not playing, it gives us a chance to have a few options for our organization that we wouldn’t normally have, and the safety of our quarterback going into the offseason is preserved….And we’re still getting a chance to see a guy that we’ve got a lot of confidence in go out there and play. And his value can only go up. It cannot go down. It can only go up.”


http://nfl.si.com/2013/12/14/mike-shana ... -in-trade/


so he's just 'trying to get fired' alone? This whole thing is just to piss off Snyder? Look at Cousin's box score:

64.4 /381yds/ 3TD/ 2INT % 94,8 !!!!! Not bad for a backup. :roll:

I heard people saying the going for the 2 point conversion was another 'example' of the guy trying to get fired. Really? I would have made that decision even if I did not want to get canned. Try to punch it in against our weak a$$ D and avoid coughing up the rock in OT? Makes sense to me....

Most everyone seems to take the line that Shanahan is at fault in this situation. I have my doubts about Shanahan. Remember when he had Elvis Grbec throw a football at Al Davis' head? So I get it, he is not exactly 'even tempered'...But other than Gibbs, no coach has left the Redskins on good terms under Snyder. Shanahan sent out a distress signal via ESPN suggesting he wasn’t really in control of the team because of the owner’s relationship with the quarterback.

In preseason the team looked good with Cousins under center. The RG3 'game one' stuff was a marketing ploy–a successful one, but not really a football decision. It was all about selling jerseys. Which in the end is what Snyder confuses with success. Jersey sales and hype are a leading indicator of his team’s likely success. How smart is that?

This is similar to the end of Spurrier’s tenure with the team. Snyder gave the ball coach a huge contract, but at the end, bullied the ball coach to quit and forfeit the remainder of his deal. Shanny has more of a backbone than Spurrier does and wont give up his $7 million without a battle.

Look for a negotiated end of this contract – a negotiation that may drag on.

Maybe he is trying to get fired. Or maybe, he might be making the 'right' decisions. :ninja:

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25773
Location: North Carolina
You make fair points fun gus about there being some valid football reasons why Shanahan has made his decision. The problem of course stems from how disingenuous Shanahan has been in this situation and throughout his tenure in Washington.

If the real reason for benching RG3 is so he can increase Kirk Cousins trade value, then come out and say that. If you think RG3 has played poorly and Cousins gives you a better chance of winning them come out and say that. But saying things like, "We're saving RG3 for the offseason" is just silly and stupid. It's the same thing that happened 3 years ago with McNabb when he benched him because he lacked the "cardiovascular endurance to run the 2-minute offense."

And this is why Shanahan doesn't get the benefit of the doubt that maybe he was making a sound, football decision because he comes out in these press conferences and feeds BS to the media, and when the media doesn't lap up that BS, then the next day there's another reason, and then the day after that it's another reason. You can't feed BS to the DC media and think you can get away with it. It's a town that is thrived off filtering BS.

But if you're also implying that this situation in DC is comparable to the Falcons, it is not. Kirk Cousins is a legit NFL quarterback with starters upside. I had him graded as the 5th best QB in that draft class (a notch below Wilson) ahead of Brandon Weeden and Nick Foles. Cousins has real trade value with the potential to net a Day 2 pick for the Redskins.

These do not apply to Dominique Davis. Davis was probably at best the 15th best QB in that same draft class, and doesn't have starters upside. He barely has No. 2 upside. And his trade value isn't even a conditional 7th round pick. Even if he got to start the last 3 games and played well, he still might only merit a 7th round pick.

The other issue is that because RG3 is operating on a low-level rookie deal (about $21M) there is the possibility that he is not a permanent fixture as the Redskins starting QB in the near future. Matt Ryan is being paid $100M and the Falcons are locked in for at least the next 3 years.

Cousins spent the entire offseason working with the #1s, and thus if you believe the whispers is that Mike and Kyle Shanahan trust him more than RG3 who sat out the offseason and simply did not play well for most of the year. And thus now they have the QB they want all along if you believe the whispers that RG3 is "Snyder's guy" moreso than "Shanahan's guy." Now the fact that they used a #4 pick on Cousins in the same draft they took RG3 makes a lot more sense if you buy into that.

That doesn't apply in Atlanta. Davis isn't anybody's guy nor has he spent 4 months working with the starters. Cousins is/was in a position to succeed because of his inherent ability, experience, and upside. None of those things apply to Davis.

The closer equivalent to Ryan getting sidelined in favor of Davis, is if RG3 was benched for Pat White, not Cousins.

RG3-Cousins have a Vick-Schaub dynamic, something that Ryan-Davis will never have. But even if Mora ever thought about benching Vick in favor of Schaub, he wasn't stupid enough to lie about it and think he could get away with it.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:58 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6149
Location: Planet Claire
Wasn't there a rumor at one point that Mora said he wanted to start Schaub and Blank instructed him not to?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:14 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3094
Not that I've ever heard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Washington is horrible, but...
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:49 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4475
I heard it loud and clear in Blank's office which i HAVE BUGGED (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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: