It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:51 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:32 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4655
Its embarrassing to say the least. Our line showed us today why they are so terrible!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:10 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:16 pm
Posts: 1342
Location: Macon, GA
Embarrassing, Awful, Terrible, etc; every adjective fits. :beef: :down:

_________________
John O'


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:55 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:16 pm
Posts: 1342
Location: Macon, GA
Cyril, I'm sure you remember when Ted Turner was so disatisfied with a Braves losing season that he tried to force his GM to suit up as the manager and then he tried to be the manager. Of course the League said Hell No.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Arthur suited up TD in every preseason game as the QB and forced him to play behind the OL he put on the field. 8-) :twisted: :lol:

_________________
John O'


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:19 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Los Angeles California
I hope Hardy sends the Falcons O-line a check, because they just made him another 20 million dollars in his upcoming contract. :dance:

_________________
"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: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:38 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
Are you adding the past 2 home games the Falcons have played against the Panthers?

How do you factor in that in the 2 road games the Falcosn have played since then, they only gave up a combined 3 sacks?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:47 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4655
I'm counting the two games we played this year. 7 sacks in game one and 9 sacks yesterday.

Even if there weren't 7 sacks in game one; you've lost this debate by a landslide. No one believes
the O-line didn't kill our offense. No running game and the 9 sacks yesterday seals the deal....

Since you won't admit it lets give it up!! The season is over.......!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:05 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
The Falcons gave up 6 sacks to the Bills. 5 sacks to the Saints in their 2nd game this year, and 9 sacks to the Panthers in the season finale. In their other game against the Panthers, they gave up 1 sack. There was no game in which the Falcons gave up 7 sacks. The only game in which you could possibly be suggesting they did was the 1st game the Falcons played against the Panthers last year in the Georgia Dome, where they gave up 7 sacks. Yet the Falcons won that game? How, oh wait because they hit a deep pass at the end that set up a game-winning field goal. :ninja:

Image

In fact, in the 13 games that weren't against the Bills, Saints, and Panthers in the 2nd half of the season, the Falcons gave up just 24 sacks, which when you do the math is a sack rate just above their normal over the previous 5 seasons. That is a sack rate of 4.3%, when Matt Ryan's career average (which is among the best In NFL history) prior to this year was 4.1%.

What does that mean? Well, it suggests that for at least 75% of the season, the Falcons OL was no more capable of "killing our season" than it was in 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008. And isn't it interesting that the Falcons arguably looked their most competitive in those 3 bad OL games over their final 6.

But of course if I use stats to make my argument, you'll say the stats lie or I'm manipulating them (which I am) to make my case. But it doesn't change that there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that the OL isn't as bad as you say it is when you take all 16 games into context. The OL did cost us the game yesterday, as they gave up 2 late sacks at a key point and botched a snap. But that was 1 game. The OL didn't cost us any of the other 15.

Cyril wrote:
No one believes the O-line didn't kill our offense.

Well, in general people are easily duped. :so:

And because of yesterday's game and their own misguided perceptions, people will choose to believe that it was the OL that killed our season, when it fact it was the injuries at WR (if you're going to blame 1 thing) that killed our season.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:05 pm 
Offline
Playmaker
Playmaker
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:46 am
Posts: 495
Location: Vacaville, CA
Pudge wrote:
Well, in general people are easily duped. :so:


:beef:


No one is arguing that the injuries to the WR (and starting FB, and starting linemen) aren't major contributors to a severely disappointing season; however, that is not mutually exclusive from the line being an obstacle to success, nor is that a reason to condescend to your opponents.

Three of the five OL (and four of the five preseason starters) have been replaced. With two, the most immediate issue is an absolute tendency towards injury; with the other two, they simply cannot play. You don't need to look at stats for this: it stares you in the face every game. "Whoa, Holmes is blocking no one while Gonzalez gets torched 1-1." "Whoa, Konz completely air-balled that block." "Yep Schrader's a rookie."

Are there teams that can overcome this? To some degree, sure, but not to the extent that ATL takes it to. It's not that both Green Bay and ATL's lines get an "F" grade; it's that ATL has a 24% and that GB has a 46%.

We had the same argument last year when discussing whether it was the line or Turner, and it's still the line. Turner was a big problem; the injuries to the WRs were a big problem; the line was always the problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:28 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
One plus to Gonzo retiring is that we may actually get some pass/run blocking from the TE position.

Whether or not better blocking is > receiving ability remains to be seen.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:19 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
And I'm not arguing against the notion that our OL is bad. But there is a difference between saying our OL sucks and contributed to our terrible season, and saying our OL sucks and caused our terrible season, which is ostensibly what I keep hearing from some folks on this forum.

That is the issue I disagree with. Because the evidence to the contrary is staring you right in the face.

In the first 5 games of this season with a healthy Julio Jones, the Falcons averaged 24 points per game, Matt Ryan had a passer rating of 100.9, and the team allowed 1.8 sacks per game.

In the middle 6 games of this season without a healthy Jones or Roddy White, the Falcons averaged 17 points per game, Matt Ryan had a passer rating of 79.3 and allowed 2.5 sacks per game.

In the last 5 games of the season with a healthy Roddy White, the Falcons averaged 25 points per game, Matt Ryan had a passer rating of 88.9 and the team allowed 4.0 sacks per game.

*Drops mic*
"Your honor, the defense rests."

There's nothing else to say.

If you want to blame 1 thing for what tanked the season, the evidence is abundantly clear that the injuries to WR should be that 1 thing. It's very clear that the rise/fall of Matt Ryan is more strongly linked to the play/quality of his WRs than the play/quality of his blocking. That may fly in the face of conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom is often false and evolves and changes over time as more information becomes known.

Again, call it nitpicking (and I won't deny that I am), but I'm not arguing with anyone that suggests that the OL needs to be improved. But if you're saying that the play of the OL is the primary cause for this team's success (or lack thereof), then you sir, are overrating OL play because you are simply wrong. I apologize for the condescending tone, but it's hard not to be when you see people wallowing in ignorance.

Image
:wink:

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:52 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4655
Your not being ignorant but just changing your tune!!

I stated at the start of the season we had too many open positions to have a good team. I was counting all rookies and all veterans that have failed before or given chances and not made any impact. In other words I saw the depth as to shallow; and my guess was about 6 players on defense wouldn't all work out; 2 rookie corners; 2 free agent linebackers and 2 linemen from somewhere.

Then on offense I saw McClure had no sure replacement, right guard we had no clue; right tackle Johnson who has been hurt with every opportunity; had a broken leg; we had to hope on an often injured Baker.....so 4 players on the offensive line we're all hopes!!

I was just playing the percentages when I SAID 6-10..... No sooner had we started losing and it was obvious the O-LINE was our weakest area; you turned and blamed all the coaches after the other injuries. The other injuries dragged us down a lot.

Then you changed the discussion to we could always win some game with a bad offensive line? ( I never said you couldn't in fact we won 4 of them and it could have been more ) Then you called those guy upfront underrated??

Then you started challenging me that it wasn't our positions nor our injuries; it was the coaches.... You said specifically the positions on the line had no reason for our terrible team.

Well the offensive line affects every other player!! The QB and the receivers and the running backs. You were so intent to make this all about how you changed to blame the coaches; that common sense went out the window with you; as it sometimes does when you try to make
easy connections into some algebra for football.

Yes we would have done better without the injuries maybe even 8-8, but you need luck to go into a season without a stable team and hope that anywhere from 6-9 positions will all work out!!

Its hard to play winning football with a bad offensive line; or a bad defensive line and we had both!!

Then both lines sucked in preseason and I seemed to be the only ones saying YES preseason does count for something.... In this case a lousy season; which you totally disregarded then too. So you did the ignorant thing and just blamed all the coaches......The team was never going to be good; and the injuries killed us. Yes the franchise went into the year in pretty bad shape but Thomas D's poor choices came back on us all at once and killed us in many ways!!

Ps. Ypu weren't really being ignorant, just safe; but lets stop throwing that word around..... Their are not many ignorant here. Maybe all of us once in a while; but none of us all the time!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:55 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6236
Location: Planet Claire
The Emporer never realized he was naked in the story either, did he, Pudge. To borrow one of your favorite expressions, look, you are not going to concede anything here but it's fairly obvious that your opinion has been all over the board about the season and now it seems you have shifted from coaching to WRs as the primary culprit. It doesn't really matter as it isn't any one thing. It's all things combined. If you want to single out a single player that was the coup de grace then, sure, Julio is your guy. It also fits your absurdist narrative that the tipping point in the season and in Smitty's reign in ATL was signing Robiskie. But, at the end of the day, we had even when healthy a team that was perhaps fast but weak. Good Forum Emporer, have you ever heard the tale of the tortoise and the hare?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:02 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
The coaching issues and the problems with the WRs are linked. The issues at WR were exasperated by poor coaching decisions. The issues on the OL just stem largely from subpar talent and poor personnel decisions dating back 3 years.

The Falcons coaches faith in Harry Douglas, Drew Davis, and Brian Robiskie was misguided and only exasperated the dearth of quality receivers, because the coaches got minimal production out of those guys (minus HD). But HD's production came usually in games when the Falcons were far behind in games, which made his numbers hollow, 58 catches when the team was behind and if you put any faith in the "cute stats" done by AdvancedNFLStats, his 0.05 WPA is absolutely pathetic.

My opinion remains the same (in regards to the change after the midseason) and hasn't been scattershot, you guys just don't quite grasp the link between the two issues. And again, I never said the OL wasn't a problem. And my issue wasn't that the Falcons were losing games. My issue was that the Falcons weren't competitive for that long stretch of games in the middle of the season, and that was linked directly to their inability to field a competent passing game, which the evidence clearly shows had way more to do with the play/quality of WRs than it did with the play/quality of the OL.

In past years, the play of the WRs masked the problems with the OL. This year, when you removed that element from the offense, the problems up front got exposed. My issue with the coaching is that they didn't either realize this was going to happen or simply were incompetent when it came to staving off this problem. Had they targeted a "real" NFL wide receiver and adjusted their play-calling, they had a CHANCE to try and not get the offense exposed as much as it was and thus maybe been able to score 1-2 more times in that middle stretch when we were getting beat by 20+ points, thus making more competitive games. Even if they had failed in that regard, I would give them credit. But I do not give credit for them not even trying.

It's a matter of our coaching staff being ignorant of the impending problems that were looming in light of Julio Jones injury, or they were incompetent in terms of addressing them. More than likely it was a combination of both. And that to me is a MUCH more glaring issue for the future of this team than the OL. You can fix the OL with just drafting/signing better players. A relatively simple (if not easy) fix. It's not so simple when you have a coaching staff that is what they showed themselves to be this year.

I have never said the problems are ALL on the coaching, nor have I said that the OL weren't a major problem, but the OL issues are a red herring to the underlying problems that this organization is facing in the future if the coaching doesn't get better.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:06 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02 pm
Posts: 6598
Location: Indianapolis IN
I agree with Pudge once again.Honest Pudge doesn't pay me to post here. :lol: I still believe DEFENSE is our no1 problem. Offense the off line and another quality receiver is needed.No I don't think Douglas is a quality receiver. It gets back to poor coaching, not having enough talented players and Falcon management should look further than themselves. I get a sense of complacency with TD and Smith. A fan who watches the game can see the problems yet these highly paid professionals can't?

_________________
Sometimes running the Mularkey offense makes me feel like I'm in a prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:10 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6236
Location: Planet Claire
Pudge wrote:
The coaching issues and the problems with the WRs are linked. The issues at WR were exasperated by poor coaching decisions. The issues on the OL just stem largely from subpar talent and poor personnel decisions dating back 3 years.

The Falcons coaches faith in Harry Douglas, Drew Davis, and Brian Robiskie was misguided and only exasperated the dearth of quality receivers, because the coaches got minimal production out of those guys (minus HD). But HD's production came usually in games when the Falcons were far behind in games, which made his numbers hollow, 58 catches when the team was behind and if you put any faith in the "cute stats" done by AdvancedNFLStats, his 0.05 WPA is absolutely pathetic.

My opinion remains the same (in regards to the change after the midseason) and hasn't been scattershot, you guys just don't quite grasp the link between the two issues. And again, I never said the OL wasn't a problem. And my issue wasn't that the Falcons were losing games. My issue was that the Falcons weren't competitive for that long stretch of games in the middle of the season, and that was linked directly to their inability to field a competent passing game, which the evidence clearly shows had way more to do with the play/quality of WRs than it did with the play/quality of the OL.

In past years, the play of the WRs masked the problems with the OL. This year, when you removed that element from the offense, the problems up front got exposed. My issue with the coaching is that they didn't either realize this was going to happen or simply were incompetent when it came to staving off this problem. Had they targeted a "real" NFL wide receiver and adjusted their play-calling, they had a CHANCE to try and not get the offense exposed as much as it was and thus maybe been able to score 1-2 more times in that middle stretch when we were getting beat by 20+ points, thus making more competitive games. Even if they had failed in that regard, I would give them credit. But I do not give credit for them not even trying.

It's a matter of our coaching staff being ignorant of the impending problems that were looming in light of Julio Jones injury, or they were incompetent in terms of addressing them. More than likely it was a combination of both. And that to me is a MUCH more glaring issue for the future of this team than the OL. You can fix the OL with just drafting/signing better players. A relatively simple (if not easy) fix. It's not so simple when you have a coaching staff that is what they showed themselves to be this year.

I have never said the problems are ALL on the coaching, nor have I said that the OL weren't a major problem, but the OL issues are a red herring to the underlying problems that this organization is facing in the future if the coaching doesn't get better.

Everything is linked, however, putting it all on the coaches is kind of like blaming the economy on the President. Coaching matters but talent matters also...as does mindset. When your O is weak and you are fighting for yards in 3 yard increments a shot down field on first down can--more often than not--mean 3 and out and your shoddy D back on the field. Probably Smitty's outlook. you mentioned CAR taking six shots down field early in the game Sunday. Sure did not accomplish much for them as they had to hang on by their nails to beat, in your words, one of the five worst teams in the league despite being handed a pick six. If we had a decent running game (OL) then an occasional whif on first down would not be quite so critical. In the description of the season's collapse earlier this year, P, you had said it was the D and I would tend to agree here. But, long and short, the battle at scrimmage--just as Smith described in the post season presser--is where the season was lost. Not the shiny hood ornaments....though losing JJ drove the final nail in the coffin.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:53 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4318
The LINES are the primary issue with this team, and they have been for the past several years. It's both lines. For whatever reason, our front office/coaching staff has done a poor job of fixing the problems on the lines. As far as I'm concerned, after the QB, the lines are the lifeblood of the team. We have been able to mask the issues on the offensive side of the ball for two reasons. Our QB is an elite QB who can read a defense and get the ball out faster than just about anyone else in the league, and we have had top receivers in Julio Jones, Roddy White, and Tony Gonzalez for our QB to throw to.

If you fix the offensive line, then we should end up with a better run game, and our QB should be able to allow routes to develop down field, perhaps with lesser receivers, assuming that we run such routes.

On defense, EVERYTHING keys on how well the defensive line performs. The defensive line is the key to stopping the run, and they are the key to generating consistent pressure in the passing game. When other teams can run at will, that opens up their passing game. When other teams QB's can sit back and wait for routes to develop, they can pick us apart.

Now keep in mind that Mike Smith's philosophy is to be a ball control offense. You can't do that if you can't run the football. This is what blows my mind about our approach to talent acquisition for the past several years. If we want to run a ball control offense, why blow three draft picks on a WR? Why not focus on developing the offensive and defensive lines? It seems to me that Dimitroff and Smith are polar opposites in terms of what they want/need this team to be. As such, at least one of them should have been shown the door this off-season.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:36 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6236
Location: Planet Claire
Can't argue with that, Robert. I'd say that we blinked at some point. Kind of reminds me of Auburn in reverse. AU wins a NC with a spread O and then see Bama accomplish same with a power pro set O and rather than go with what we were successfully doing they decide that they too will run the power pro set. Malzahn departs and soon after Chizik has arguably the worst season in the history of AU and gets fired.

We get trounced in playoffs by "explosive" GB and decide if we wanna run with big boys we have to do this too and seem to have forsaken what got us up with the big boys which was a tough minded run O. All things in moderation.....

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:44 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:16 pm
Posts: 1342
Location: Macon, GA
Thi OL sucked and is the number 1 priority for 2014 considering the damage to the team if Ryan goes down with a serious injury. Ryan and the receivers are the our number 1 weapon and if you take Ryan out of the equation, Season OVER!

Even Roddy agrees:

http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2013/12/31 ... st-improve

_________________
John O'


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:57 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4655
Pudge wrote:
Quote:

And this is why I have switched from supporting Mike Smith wholeheartedly to trashing him because to me when you are trying to win this way, you have to be a incompetent idiot to think that can be successful.


Sure sounds like its all on Coach Smith.

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:23 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
backnblack wrote:
Everything is linked, however, putting it all on the coaches is kind of like blaming the economy on the President.

I'm not putting it on the coaches. I'm saying the aspect of the team that the coaches control (which is largely the gameplans, scheme, personnel, and play-calling), they have done a very poor job doing this year.

It's not anything like that. You're right, it's silly to blame president for bad economy, but it is right to blame the coaches for doing the above things poorly.

Cyril wrote:
Pudge wrote:
Quote:

And this is why I have switched from supporting Mike Smith wholeheartedly to trashing him because to me when you are trying to win this way, you have to be a incompetent idiot to think that can be successful


Sure sounds like its all on Coach Smith.

You're holding to me a quote I made just after Week 11, at the height of the Smith ineptitude. Things got better starting in Week 12, when the team started attacking a bit more (Corey White, Bills game, etc.). I will admit my vitriol has slackened somewhat given that I have 6 more games to evaluate and assess.


backnblack wrote:
When your O is weak and you are fighting for yards in 3 yard increments a shot down field on first down can--more often than not--mean 3 and out and your shoddy D back on the field.

That my friend is exactly how you describe a conservative offense that RobertAP has been talking about. An offense that plays not to lose (we call our plays so we don't get a 3-and-out, as opposed to we call our plays so that we can score a touchdown). But I understand what you're saying. But you're basically operating under a principle that says, "We're probably going to fail, so there's no point trying." And I'm sorry, that sort of mentality isn't what you want your head football coach to have. And that's what you guys seem to be triumphing.

backnblack wrote:
you mentioned CAR taking six shots down field early in the game Sunday. Sure did not accomplish much for them as they had to hang on by their nails to beat, in your words, one of the five worst teams in the league despite being handed a pick six.

I'm sorry Bnb this is a reach. You're essentially saying that because Cam Newton was sailing his passes, that throwing deep doesn't really matter? Sure it didn't work for Carolina because Cam was missing passes, Trufant was blanketing LaFell, Ginn isn't good. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't work for the Falcons, assuming they had gone out and found a competent WR that can make those plays instead of the ones the coaches decided to stick with. And it's 1 game. Nobody is saying that if we had thrown deep vs. Seattle, we would have won that game. But a 1-score game vs. Carolina in Week 9 thru 50 minutes or 1-score game vs. TB in Week 11 for the first 20 minutes, etc.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:33 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4655
If we'd have given up a #2 for someone who was better than average; you'd have bitched the most, see this 2014 season comes next and if you spend on
players you already have you'll be short the ones you don't have.....

You'll never win an argument when you don't have the facts, even when you write ten pages of BS.

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:43 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6236
Location: Planet Claire
Not going to post any more in this after this one because I think it's just devolved into a sort of Capitol Hill pissing match but my point about CAR throwing deep is that throwing deep in and of itself guarantees nothing. Their situation is quite different than ours in that they have a stronger OL and a QB who is a bit more sack resistant. And before you put up numbers about Cam being sacked a lot what I mean is that he can shirk tacklers and has a stronger arm that doesn't require him quite so much to step into his throws...possibly the cause of the sailing. I get what conservatism is and where it comes from. You can be like Michael Spinks fighting Mike Tyson and say, "Well, I'm probably going to lose anyway so I'm gonna go toe to toe and take my shot." You will likely wind up knocked out on the floor in under half a minute. Or you can box and give yourself a chance to win.

We got much better last year with the deep passes and we would have this year but we really just didn't have a weapon to get open or the protection to afford many attempts. The draft strategy that has been going on lately does not strike me as conservative friendly (players closest to ball). I would love to see us be more "explosive." (Remember that was buzz word #1 a couple years ago). The more things change the more they stay the same. You may complain we don't attempt more deep passes. My complaint is we don't run enough to sell play action, etc.

But, whatever....five blind men and an elephant.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:45 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
Cyril wrote:
If we'd have given up a #2 for someone who was better than average; you'd have bitched the most, see this 2014 season comes next and if you spend on
players you already have you'll be short the ones you don't have.....

You'll never win an argument when you don't have the facts, even when you write ten pages of BS.

If you're saying that if we had given up a #2 for a player that was an above average player (e.g. Golden Tate), then yeah of course I would have bitched. Had we given up a #2 for a player that had the upside to be a great player and only turned into an above average player (i.e. Josh Gordon), then there would have been considerably less bitching. I'm going to bitch most of the times (to varying degrees) anytime the Falcons miss on a pick or a player. If you're going to give up a #2 pick for a WR, it better be someone with the capacity/potential/ability to be a No. 1 receiver, a go-to target that can potentially be targeted 8-15 times a game, like all true No. 1 receivers are. If you're giving up a #2 for a guy that only has the capacity/potential/ability to be a No. 2 receiver (roughly 5-8 targets/game), then you're overspending.

Had it been me in their shoes, I wouldn't have given up a #2 for Gordon, because on principle I don't agree if/when teams trade those picks, unless it's for a sure thing (or about as close to that as you can get) or a franchise-changing player (e.g. Revis). I would have given up a #3 and the kitchen sink to Cleveland to get that deal done however. Had Cleveland balked at that, I would have moved on. Potentially calling Jacksonville for Cecil Shorts or Oakland for Denarius Moore, two prime young candidates that could have become very good Roddy replacements long-term and also been able to do what we needed them to do in the short-term (replace Julio). Would J-ville or Oakland done those deals? I don't know. It's speculation (although both teams are 2 that are hurting for more picks in order to rebuild).

But the issue still remains that you specifically Cyril insinuated or outright said that the Falcons didn't have any options to sign when Julio went down. And that is simply not true. They had plenty of options. What exactly all those options were, I can't sit here and enumerate them all although I've already named at least a dozen names, yet you still seem stuck on this trading the 2nd round pick for Gordon as if it's the only one I mentioned, but again the real issue here is that the option they chose was signing Brian Robiskie. And given the needs of the team, there is without a doubt the fact that they signed him was the wrong move.

But had they wound up giving up a #2 for Gordon, I wouldn't have complained that much. Because he definitely had the potential to be worth it as we've clearly seen over the past 8 weeks in Cleveland. Like I said back in October, he's Julio Jones Lite. You may think I'm off the mark on other issues, but that I was 100% right on that fact. And I'm right on this one too, you just don't know it yet, just like nobody knew that I was right about the fact that Michael Turner was done a year in advance either.

How ironic that you speak of facts in a thread you started where you are basically tried to state a fact that was factually wrong. :lol:

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:04 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
backnblack wrote:
You can be like Michael Spinks fighting Mike Tyson and say, "Well, I'm probably going to lose anyway so I'm gonna go toe to toe and take my shot." You will likely wind up knocked out on the floor in under half a minute. Or you can box and give yourself a chance to win.

But you're not giving yourself a chance to win because of the deficiencies of this team (Bottom 5 OL, Bottom 5 defense), you can't outbox. He has you beat in speed, stamina, and power and if you just sit there and try to punch-block-counter and wait for an opening, you're not going to find it. You're only chance is to be aggressive early in the fight and try to get him on his heels. He can't use his superior abilities if he's just blocking your punches. You have to land the first blow, and hope that when you do it blows up their plan.

"Everybody has a plan until they get hit."

backnblack wrote:
my point about CAR throwing deep is that throwing deep in and of itself guarantees nothing.

I understand that. But you guys know that this team wasn't built for long drives. You know that because they didn't have the playmakers at WR and because they had a bad OL. They didn't have a sustaining offense. The issue I had is the Falcons seemingly went out of their way to avoid the deep ball. It wasn't that they were below average, they were essentially a statistical outlier. Pretty much every NFL team is throwing the ball deep 15-30% of the time, with the average being somewhere between like 18-22%. The Falcons OTOH, were down in the 10-12% range, significantly lower than even the second worst team.

Look at the numbers I pointed out in this post. The gap between the Jaguars (the next worst) who had a comparable OL is significant. Just on 1st & 10, the gap in those percentages of deep passes thrown is about 13 attempts over the course of the season. When you have a QB that completes 40% of his deep passes, that is about 5 big plays that you left on the field just from play-calling alone. The gap between us and Arizona (who also had a comparable OL) is about 28 passes, and again with a 40% passer, that's about 11 big plays. And when you see the link between big plays and scoring for this Falcon team, it's a no brainer that they should be trying to generating more big plays.

The Falcons had 50 plays of 20 or more yards last year, on 46 separate drives. On those drives, they scored a total of 217 points, about 60% of their season total. That's an average of 4.7 points per drive.

That means the Falcons scored 136 points on their other 133 possessions, an average of 1.02 points per drive.

The Falcons had 49 drives to the red zone this year, 29 of them of included 20+ yd plays, roughly 60%. That means that on the 46 drives in which we made a big play, we would make it to the red zone about 63% of the time. On the drives where we didn't get a big play, we made it to the red zone about 15% of the time.

Essentially the Falcons were 4 times as likely to reach pay dirt and going to score 4 times as many points from successfully completing big plays. This is all the incentive you need.

And if you factor in that 11 big play difference between us and the Cardinals, that's 51 points that we could potentially had added to our season total that was left on the field. That's roughly 3 more points per game. And the difference between a team that averages 22 points per game (as we did) and a team that averages 25 points per game (as we could have if we were as aggressive as Arizona) is the equivalent of about 1 win per season. And that's ONLY considering 1st & 10 plays.

Just a handful more shots down the field could be the difference between a handful of wins in a season. This is what Bruce Arians understands and why he's been very successful in his last 3 stops despite having very porous OLs in each because he understands that a 6-yard sack here and there isn't enough of a detractor to avoid the incentitve of trying to attack an opposing defense with a 35-yard play.

That's why Carolina taking 6 shots early in that game, even if they weren't be completed is worthwhile.

And a big part of my beef with our coaching staff is that as I'm watching the tape and reviewing the stat books, I'm seeing this correlation/link between big plays and us scoring touchdowns as clear as day. But the coaching staff made little to no adjustment, and in fact went the opposite way and got more conservative. So apparently they weren't able to see it or simply ignored it. And that's why I've thrown around words like incompetent when describing their performance this year.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 16 sacks Given up to Panthers in thier 2 season games.
PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:16 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4655
Quote:
If you're going to give up a #2 pick for a WR, it better be someone with the capacity/potential/ability to be a No. 1 receiver, a go-to target that can potentially be targeted 8-15 times a game, like all true No. 1 receivers are. If you're giving up a #2 for a guy that only has the capacity/potential/ability to be a No. 2 receiver (roughly 5-8 targets/game), then you're overspending.


So you go crazy after an injury, and think we can just steal a good player!! Most teams with the players are trying to win and why give us anything when they know we need it??


You've been so desperate this whole season when Ryan couldn't do anything on his back!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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: