FalcFans Forums

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/rapid-repo ... t/19028976

Secondary Coach Tim Lewis said S Thomas DeCoud needs to get teammates lined up quicker so he can get in position. “Then, he can see the ball faster and he can make more plays on the ball. [That] is ultimately what we have to get.”

Seems he should have changed this around game 4 of last year!!

He should also make plays when he's in perfect position to make them. I'm still not over that awful ball skills against the Saints when the ball could have been so easily picked off or at least batted down but instead Meachem catches it somehow.

That was not a display of awful ball skills, it was a display of perfect placement by Drew Brees. Both big plays which I'm assuming you're referring to are clinic throws of throwing away from the defender, where only your guy can make a play:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/0 ... 33-yard-TD

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/0 ... 36-yd-pass

I think it was a combo. Brees watched film, and thusly knew where to place the ball. He did it repeatedly, which is even worse.

Fool me once, shame on me. Burn me twice, someone's not 'adjusting'. YMMV

The first one is a bit of an example of not being a playmaker type...in that Decoud didn't get his head around fast enough, and let the receiver completely control where he was going to be.

Both, particularly the second, are great examples of the passes the Falcons should be focusing on, but don't because they find them risky. The second wasn't thrown "on pattern," but it was thrown away from the defender, and depended on the fact that the WR was looking back and the DB wasn't.

I hate seeing WRs adjust to the ball better than ours do when I think we have more talent at the top two. I think NO's WR coach must be quite good, because they take receivers in FA who haven't been great, and they make them much better. I don't mean they look better due to Brees, I mean they make great adjustments on the ball enabling the QB to "throw to an area" when they didn't display that ability with other teams. That guy is worth what he's getting (isn't it the old U of M receivers coach?)

Those are the kinds of plays I like to see...just wish we were making them.

I know Meachem was actually drafted by the Saints, but you see this from all of their receivers, and it makes an offense go SO much better.

In the first one, DeCoud was in property position. He was in front of the receiver, and if Brees had thrown in front of Meachem, he woudl have been in position to make a play. But Brees threw over the top to where only Meachem could make that play. If DeCoud made a play on that ball, it would have required him adjusting to essentially a back-shoulder throw as if he was Jordy Nelson. And people have to remember he's a safety. If he had that level of ball skills, then he would be a wide receiver.

And the 2nd one, I can't blame DeCoud. He's a safety matched up on an island against a starting WR. Contrary to popular belief, there are VERY FEW safeties in the NFL that could handle such a matchup. Nick Collins, Brian Dawkins, Ed Reed, and those type of guys in their primes, but not a whole lot more. Even Michael Jenkins would often dominate safeties (like Darren Sharper) when he was put on an island against them.

DeCoud certainly earns his fair share of criticism, but IMO those two plays weren't good examples.

As for Brees placement/accuracy, I think it stems from years of making those types of throws and building a rapport. Brees has thrown over 3600 passes since joining the Saints 6 years ago. It's called building a rapport, and the Saints offense is predicated on Brees success in completing those passes. So they subsequently put a ton of work into building that rapport during OTAs, training camp, and during the practice week. So that come game day, they are normally operating at top efficiency, and with each week's gameplan building off one another, it's why Brees is typically playing his best football by December. Brees knows the offense rests on him, so it also affects his own prep and approach to the game. That's what is meant when you have a philosophy/scheme/gameplans designed to maximize the QB and the passing game. It's designed for Brees to play his best football each and every week.

That's the main reason why Ryan will never be an elite QB on a level with Brees, because he'll probably never have that under Mike Smith. Not to say that even if the Falcons were like that, Ryan would then be just like Brees. But the point is that if you don't give something room to grow, then you really can't be upset when growth is limited. People say Ryan is just a game manager. And maybe he is, and even with that room to grow, he wouldn't become more than that. But it's hard to be anymore than a game manager, when that is all you're asked and allowed to be...

Pudge I don't understand with Ryan's current experience; and us having a new 0-Coorindator; why you don't think
Ryan will be given a chance..... ???

Mike Smith would have to be stupid to not open up more; and I really don't think Smith is stupid???

I don't fault Decoud on the second one. That's what I was saying, WR will always win that battle. The first one, there was no chance Decoud would intercept it, but if he had recognized what the WR was doing to him, he could have turned and swatted. That's the less important part though, onto the QBs.

I agree it's about the difference in philosophies between Saints and Falcons regarding passing games. However, I think it's more than just "getting used to a guy." There's a fundamental difference between guys getting enough reps to where they're on the same page, versus actually teaching a style of passing that relies on the WR knowing he may have to break off his route, and the QB knowing his WRs can do that. No amount of regular passing will get you in synch that way. It has to be on purpose. WRs will get on the same page as Brees in 1 yr. It's not always guys he's been around forever.

So I agree it's about rapport...but rapport guided within a certain philosophy. And that philosophy is "you wide receivers are not always going to be open, and you the QB are not always going to throw a perfect pass...here's a style of passing that aids both of those issues." Basically, QB...throw it where the defender isn't. WR, keep your speed under you and know that you're likely to have to go up, sideways or back to get to the ball.

It's simply smart passing game, and I hope the Falcons come around to it at some point. It's not quite as amazing as some people think it is. It's a bit more orchestrated. Brees is super accurate, but he looks a lot more accurate on a lot of plays because Colston makes a subtle move inside and goes up to catch the ball. It is pretty much indefensible, so I'd really like to have it on this team.

I don't think Mike Smith is stupid. And I do think Ryan will make progression this year and in ensuing years. But again, at the end of the day Mike Smith has shown overwhelmingly that he wants this to be a physical ground and pound football team. Their gameplan against the Giants was a clear indicator of that.

Changing offensive coordinators won't be the huge dramatic shift that people think it will be, at least it usually isn't. And if this team was intent on going away from the Michael Turner-led offense that it has clearly been the past four seasons, then they would have prioritized adding a good running back rather than a fullback, and probably would not have traded back in Round 3 and just would have taken Bernard Pierce, Robert Turbin or Lamar Miller at pick no. 84.

I just worry about where this team is going to be a year from now. Eight months from now, the rest of the world will realize something that myself and others have realized for the past 8 months in that Michael Turner is done. And then who are they going to turn to? Quizz? How comfortable is Mike Smith going to be with a 196-pound zone-blocking RB leading his attack?

Maybe then the Falcons will embrace the pass-first attack that will give Ryan the room necessary to take that next leap forward. But it's clear that is not the plan as it stands today. Otherwise this team would have followed the pathway that takeitdown has been harping on which is getting a 4th WR and 2nd pass-catching TE rather than focusing on being more physical with their top 3 picks. And even if that were to happen and the Falcons were to embrace Matt Ryan and the passing attack as their salvation in 2013, it would still be an indicator that this team has no direction as they just keep reversing course year after year, being reactive rather than proactive.


I agree. I think playing in the spread also helps you in that regard because it's going to create a lot more 1 on 1 situations for your WRs, and a QB as smart as Brees will know which matchups he can and should exploit. I too think the Falcons could have a similar capability if they first embraced that style of play. I think Ryan definitely has the smarts, and while his arm isn't anything special, I think with a lot more reps he would get in that style of offense would begin to develop more of the gunslinger mentality necessary to make that offense work. Even so, he probably would never be as good as Brees, but I do think it would at least make the Falcons offense one of the more feared out there in the league, which it is not the case right now.

So much of the Falcons under Mularkey was about staying on schedule, not making mistakes, so that it became very difficult to respond to adversity. If you put the Saints in a 3rd & 11 situation, for their offense, it is really no different than a 3rd & 4, at least in how they approach it. It's a "fearless" approach, rather than our more "fearful" one where if you get us in 3rd & l1, we're pretty much screwed unless Gonzo or Roddy bails us out with one of their patented money grabs.

And IMO, changing coordinators isn't going to change this aspect of the Falcons offense...at least not this year...

But Smith would have to be stupid to think Turner can have a big impact on this team. Thomas D. would have to be stupid too. Its just not Turner; but our line is average at best....

I mean I don't know anyone excited about Turner so its just hard to believe Coach Smith thinks Turner will play
a big role in this team....I mean that thinking would really be unnatural (:

Turner aged 5 years in the last 5 games or it sure seemed like he " lost almost everything"!!

The more carries Turner gets, the better. That means we are ahead late in the game and Smitty is running the clock out.
Ryan will have more attempts than last year, but the overall philosophy isn't going to change much. For better or worse I suppose.

You're almost there Cyril, but in order to completely process that notion, you have to first accept that MIke Smith & TD are fallible, and can make mistakes, and can make big mistakes.

See, all the context clues suggest that Turner is going to be the guy that carries this rushing attack, meaning they expect him to have a big impact. Otherwise, he shouldn't be making 5x as much as Snelling and Rodgers combined, right? That sort of salary is only justified if he's the main guy.

The past two years, Turner has been one of the most used Rbs in the league. In 2010, he averaged 20.9 carries per game, 2nd most in the league. Last year, that number dropped to 18.8 carries, 4th most. The problem is that Turner's entire running ability/success rests on his ability to get lots of carries. Because he's no longer that explosive runner, he needs a higher amount of carries to break those longer runs. Because nowadays he's at a point in his career where his rushing is very black and white. He's either getting 2 or 3 yards or breaking a run for 10 or 12 yards. There isn't a whole lot in between. So now you have to constantly feed him so that you can eat up those 2 and 3-yd gains, so that he's more liable to break that 10-yarder that you want.

So it becomes counter-productive to limit his carries. He's not a guy that you only want to give the ball 12-15 times per game. Unlike say a LeGarrette Blount, Shonn Greene, or Beanie Wells who can work with that limited workload because rather than just getting 2 yard gains or 10-yard gains, they are getting a lot of 4, 5, 6, 7-yard gains. At this point in his career, you can't trust Turner to be that. And even if you could that would mean that somebody else would need to get the other 6-8 carries that Turner is giving up. And that's fine, but it doesn't make sense to pay Turner 5x as much as someone else that will be getting a similar workload.

And then the problem becomes if you continue to give Turner the 18+ carries he needs to be effective, compared to the other players that get those high workloads: MJD, Peterson, Foster, Ray Rice, Frank Gore, McCoy, etc., Turner isn't in that caliber of player any longer. Which then you only conclude that if I want to have an 18-carry RB on my roster, then I want him to be a really good 2-down RB (like Peterson or Gore), or for him to be a very good 3-down RB like those others.

And all I'm saying is that if all you wanted him to be is just a player like Blount, Greene, or Wells which is the lead back, but essentially a part-time player, then why are you paying him all that money?

And thus the only way the Falcons can be vindicated for their decision to keep Turner and pay him his current salary is IMO if he is given a bunch of carries and has a season similar to where he was in 2010. I personally do not believe that will happen and I think he's going to be a far cry from the player he was in 2010.

Do you think they've stuck with him due to a fear element? That is, maybe they want to go more dynamic passing offense, etc., but want to have the fallback option in case it doesn't work? If so, they're preventing the offense they want to go to from working, by having the wrong personnel, but it seems to make as much sense as any other explanation for the personnel moves.

I think they have a lot of trouble fully committing to a new direction, in case that one blows up...so they just stick their toe in. This is the same mentality they used to "minimize risk" on offense, leading to subpar performances. I fear it is a them that runs throughout their decision processes. You minimize risk in other ways, but not by straddling.

My honest opinion is that negative, overly pessimistic one, in that they are still committing to Turner because they really don't know any better.

I honestly think the overriding principle/belief that has been in this front office/coaching staff that has influenced their personnel decisions over the past two off-seasons is their core belief that the team was very close to being a Super Bowl winner in 2010. And they concluded that their loss against the Packers was a mere hiccup on that path. They firmly believed that they were as good as their record, and they were the best team in the NFC. They slipped out, got outplayed, whatever you want to say against the Packers, and everything they've done since then has been with the mentality that they were almost there and they just need to tweak it to get over that hump.

While many of us fans believe that the Packers loss was this team getting exposed as not being nearly as good a team as their record indicated, and last year's loss to the Giants only reinforced that opinion.

And I think they believe that they just needed to tweak things. That's why they subbed out Jenkins for Jones, Anderson for Edwards, and the moves they made this off-season, which were more swaps than additions.

As TD has said, their main plan is to retain the core of their team as much as possible. And they keep Turner because he was a core piece of that 2010 team. And I think they believe that with the tweaks and changes they've made in the past two off-seasons, added to the 2010 team would be what gets them over the hump.

For me, if they were looking to keep Turner for a transitional year, that should have been 2011, and then in 2012 they would embrace the opened up, passing offense that seemed like it could have been on the horizon when they traded for Jones and Rodgers. But their decisions this off-season clearly show that when they drafted Jones & Rodgers, they did not intend to build around them. They only envisioned them as complementary players that could help supplement the 2010 team/offense, not core pieces that would become central pieces of their offense in the near future. They may yet still, but if they do, it'll be because their "all in" strategy for 2011 and 2012 failed.