It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:44 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:55 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
Not sure the Falcons looked any different today than they have over the past 4 years when playing the Saints. Had plenty of opportunities to win this game, but they kept shooting themselves in the foot and lost the game, which seems to sum up the other 6 losses suffered at the hands of the Saints under Mike Smith.

I know the reaction of many is going to be, "C'mon guys, it's just 1 loss. No need to make a big deal."

And you're right. It's just 1 loss. But I am really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really tired of losing to the Saints especially in the fashion that we always seem to do which is failing to take advantage of opportunities given to us.

And especially this year when the Saints have a 2nd string head coach with the league's worst defense, to have our offense get inside the 5 yard line against the defense 5 times, and only score 3 TDs is very disappointing.

Does any other division rivalry between two supposedly close teams so lopsided?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:06 pm 
Offline
Playmaker
Playmaker
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:26 pm
Posts: 463
Location: The Kingdom
Couldn't agree more. There's no excuse for this. It reminded me if last year's team. I mean, no pressure on the qb and our qb was under pressure all game. Drew Brees did whatever he wanted to this defense and when we made stops, we couldn't capitalize. Not to mention, we were stopped in short yardage situations. Embarrassing loss imo.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:01 am 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:55 am
Posts: 999
Location: Fayetteville, GA
Totally agree! The play we saw today is not the sort of play that wins playoff games! If nothing is done to address the issues that contributed to today's loss, then it won't be just one loss for very long! I love this team, but this loss today was unacceptable!

_________________
The Falcons are rising!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:45 am 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 5029
I dont care what anyone says, last year when the Saints spanked us on December 26th, I am certain A Blank read the entire coaching staff the riot act. Before they left the Superdome locker room, on the way to the charter. On December 27th, Brian Van Gorder and Mularkey started opening thier rolodex and looking down the road. They may have 'gameplanned' the Jan 1st Bucs win, and the Jan 8th Giant Fiasco(tm) but I am 100% in the belief that both our former coordinators had put the wheels in motion concerning thier next employer. Maybe they win out, and there is no 'need' for an escape plan, but believe this: they had one.

Why does it matter? Because sh*t rolls downhill. Players can sense when thier coaches and coordinators are on the hot seat, and they either ride or die, or when adversity hits, they remain flat and quit. This is one of the factors in the Giant Fiasco(tm). Yesterday a couple things stood out to me.

I dont think these players think anyone is on the 'hot seat'...But when Asante made that pick and then got the celebratory penalty, Coach Shrek went over to him and had a 3-4 minute a$$ chewing session. While we had the ball on Offense, Mike Smith was showboating yelling at Samuels. And Samuels was not hanging his head, looking forlorn, or looking him in the eye: he was fist bumping with Peterson and getting clapped on the back.

IMO, this should be Nolan's job. Smith should be watching what is going on, because what would have helped us there is him yelling at Koetter for running Turner up the gut for another 3rd down non conversion! Then after we SCORE A TD, you call him over and ream him.

Im not saying this team hasn't 'bought in'. They have. But certain games get in thier heads. This game is one of them .

Now clearly, they can go on the road and win ( see Philly ). But Im concerned about things Im seeing on the sidelines. Last year I commented on Ryan's 'lack of fire' in the Giant Fiasco(tm). This season, he is yelling 'GTFO'.

When Julio went out, so did the game. Tony G did his best, but we are dependant on #11. And, if he sustains any significant injury time for the rest of the season, then that has to weigh in on the value of that pick, IMO.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:52 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6234
Location: Planet Claire
Smith was not showboating and he always does that about those stupid type penalties. Penalties in general are one of his pet peeves. Assante has a loooong history of that kind of stuff. He may not really be the typical Falcon Filter model but I think we are glad to have him. He and Roddy and maybe DeCoud are a bit demonstrative relatve to, say, Babs or Turner or Julio. Anyway, Assante later came back to Smith, it appeared, and acknowledged he was right. True about JJ. He and Roddy and TG with Matt pulling the gears are the Falcons circa 1212. As they go we will go.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
No, if Julio misses more time, it must weigh heavily on the GM's decision to ignore the lack of depth at WR.

The part of me that likes saying I told ya so is winning out. But we've known for months that many of the issues that plagued this team on Sunday would be issues this season.

By not having another vertical threat on the bench at WR, you were basically hitching your offensive success to a player not missing any time, a player that hasn't played made it through a full season healthy in 4 years.

I don't want to sit here and heap all of the problems on the ground game on Turner. I think if we're playing the blame game with the ground attack, then 60%+ of the blame goes on the O-line this year. But we've known for some time that if Turner was the team's lead back, and with the same inept OL that we fielded last year, that the ground game would rarely be a significant factor in our ability to win.

Look, I get it. Most of you think TD is literally the Vegan Jesus. And I know his decisions won't preclude this team from winning 12 or 13 games this year. But you have to admit he did miss the mark on these decisions right?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:12 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:51 pm
Posts: 4902
Location: New York
I know people like to complain about receiver depth but other than the Packers and Patriots, what team really has great receiver depth?

_________________
Image

I'm a Devin Hester guy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:38 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
As soon as I saw Weatherspoon out with the ankle injury I wrote a "L" in the column for yesterdays game. Without someone like Spooner to cover Graham we didn't have any hope if beating the Saints with a white hot Drew Brees and low & behold:

Jimmy Graham, 7 Receptions, 146 Yards, 2 TD's

Beyond that, yes the Saints defense is terrible; the Falcon offense is not opportunistic though. They've faced other horrible defenses (Raiders anyone?) and did not take advantage of mis-matches. Instead, they did just barely enough to win. Same problem here. It certainly doesn't help that any combination of running backs on the current roster could turn in a decent ground performance even against a crappy run defense.

The Saints own this team... Even in a down year they still own this team. After you've been taken to the woodshed and beaten so many times you just start to rollover.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:13 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:51 pm
Posts: 4902
Location: New York
They own this team yet they've won by combined 11 points if you exclude the MNF game. Stop overreacting, its really getting annoying. Saints are still a good team and its tough to win in the Superdome. If Atlanta loses to New Orleans at home, then I can see why people will be flipping out and really criticizing the Falcons. I got over it after two hours, i'm still bitter but it was bound to happen.

_________________
Image

I'm a Devin Hester guy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:11 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
It's not about having great WR depth, it's about having someone competent at the No. 4 spot that if/when one of the starters goes down and in today's NFL your 3rd WR is a starter, he plays as much if not more than your starting RB.

For all of the talk about how explosive this offense is, it's tied exclusively to Julio Jones. If Jones is out of the lineup or ineffective, you have nobody on the outside that is going to stretch the defense, help you dictate coverage, and thus generate those explosive big plays down the field.

And thus you revert back to being the same tired offense you were in the pre-Julio years. The major difference is that then, when you ran the ball control offense, you could succeed at it because you had a good to very good ground game. You don't have that anymore.
Emmitt wrote:
They own this team yet they've won by combined 11 points if you exclude the MNF game. Stop overreacting, its really getting annoying. Saints are still a good team and its tough to win in the Superdome. If Atlanta loses to New Orleans at home, then I can see why people will be flipping out and really criticizing the Falcons. I got over it after two hours, i'm still bitter but it was bound to happen.

What was bound to happen? Losing? Sure, but I think you're missing what is the issue with a lot of people, including myself. it's not about losing, it's about losing to the Saints.

Think about the Ravens-Steelers rivalry. In the Tomlin-Harbaugh Era, the Steelers owned the Ravens, as they were 6-2 against them leading up to last year. They beat them in the regular season (4x) and beat them in the playoffs (twice).

They were two similar teams with similar approaches, yet the Steelers always won when it seemed to count because they held a mental edge, essentially "out-Raven-ing" the Ravens.

Then last year, in what was it Week 1, the Ravens got over the mental hurdle and put the smackdown on the Steelers. They would go on to sweep the season series, and now moving forward, the Ravens should now believe they can do to the Steelers what has been done to them the past 5 years.

Now when it is applied to Saints-Falcons, we see similar things. We see two supposedly relatively evenly-matched teams, but even in a year where the Saints are really down, and the Falcons are really up, the Saints still own the mental edge.

This has been the problem with this team throughout the Mike Smith Era. They lack the mental toughness to win the big games.

Last year, if that Falcon team was "for real" and was ready to make a run in the playoffs, then they would have showed it in that Week 16 game vs. NO. But they didn't, they got blown out, and it was just a precursor to what we saw vs. the Giants 2 weeks later.

This should have been the 35-7 beatdown that the Ravens put on the Steelers in Week 1 of last year.

And so all of you that think it's no big deal, are missing the point. If/when this team develops that "it" factor that we're all hoping for, we should see it against the Saints.

So call me crazy for making a mountain out of a molehill, but if in a few weeks on Thursday Night, the Falcons don't come out and put the smackdown on the Saints like the Ravens did the Steelers.

Without seeing that, why should I think this season is going to end any better than the past four? Because what people don't get is that this is a flawed football team. This is the most flawed 8-1 football team I can recall seeing. And to make up for those flaws, this team has to show it is mentally tough.

And if they cannot show it against the Saints, why would you think they would do it against the 49ers, Giants, Packers, Bears, etc. come January?

It's like a kid that gets bullied by the same kid every day in school, but then puffs his chest and says that he'll beat the ass of any other bully that steps his way. :roll:

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:22 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4639
Pudge Wrote "
Quote:
This has been the problem with this team throughout the Mike Smith Era. They lack the mental toughness to win the big games.


Pudge you continue to pick and choose then say anything and now you will back it up with anything to be right.....

Ok, We haven't won a playoff game so we can't win the big one??

We go 8-0 and you talk about the mental stress this puts on a team and
we lose in N.O. so we're not mentally tough? Although we have won games we shouldn't have because we made the big play??

Why was the opener against Denver not a big game or last weeks win
against Dallas??

Look this team isn't that great so don't act like you figured this out with your great knowledge!! We lost the game Sunday and didn't give it away. Dang you come across as such a loser with your glass half empty and cry all preseason why you'd do so much better as out Gm. Then we win 8 in a row with a good offense; and only an average defense; and after our first loss you say we're not mentally tough.

We've been about .500 against the Saints for the Smith era while they went to a Super Bowl. We're two above average teams and the Saints don't mean more this year than anyone. Coach Smith is just getting more from his players than their interim Coach.

Pudge Wrote "
Quote:
It's like a kid that gets bullied by the same kid every day in school, but then puffs his chest and says that he'll beat the ass of any other bully that steps his way.


Hey I've seen that second guy a lot, but he just didn't want his ass beat by the tougher guy. It doesn't mean he's not a tough guy. (:

IMO the Saints team is a better team than us right now; and would beat us next Sunday in the Super Dome again.

Now at home we might or might not fair a little better; and everyone can think we shouldn't have lost Sunday; but if we were truly not mentally tough we'd have given up when we could have. And not being mentally tough is your point right?

Are you the one thinking we'd go 16-0??

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:28 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
Cyril wrote:
Why was the opener against Denver not a big game or last weeks win
against Dallas??

Big games are games where something significant is at stake. Winning your division, making the playoffs, beating a much reviled rival, ending a losing streak, saving your season, or playing a team that is clearly better than you. Were any of those things at stake vs. Denver or Dallas for Atlanta? No, so they weren't big games. However because it's the Saints, a game which could end their hopes of winning the division, as well as a rival, and a team that has routinely owned you over the years, makes it a big game.

No, the Falcons aren't .500 under Smith versus the Saints. Even if you throw out the Chris Redman game a couple one years ago, Smith is 2-6 against the Saints.

You say the Saints are better than us, which is your opinion. But it must also mean you don't think this team is all that good when a team with possibly the worst defense in NFL history is still a better team than us, and has lost three games to teams we beat.

We aren't mentally tough, not because we lost just this game, but because we've lost several of these types of games: all 3 playoff games, vs. NO in Week 16 last year, vs. GB, vs. Pittsburgh, vs. Houston, etc. It's now a pattern of behavior that we've seen over the past 4.5 years.

This season isn't about going 16-0, it's about winning in the playoffs. That is ALL it has EVER been about. And the playoffs are a different animal, which requires teams to elevate their game. That has been something the Falcons have not done at all under Mike Smith. They play a good team, and they shrink from the challenge, they don't respond well to adversity. Thats what the playoffs are all about.

You had no running game, you were missing your most explosive weapon and your defense played like crap for half the game. If you manage to win that game, do you realize how huge a confidence booster that is? Do you realize that getting the monkey off your back while not playing your best football does to a team like these Falcons, who have very few moments like that over the years?

When this regular season is over we'll probably look back and see the Falcons played 2 or 3 playoff teams: Denver a team that they struggled offensively against. New Orleans a team that they struggled offensively against. And we'll see how they fare later against the Saints and then Giants. And that'll probably be it, those are the biggest games of the 2012 Falcons season, and their only chances to become battle-hardened before the playoffs.

And I think you are aware of this more than most Cyril, but come playoff time this team is only going as far as the offense takes it. And thus far, this offense has been less than impressive against playoff-caliber opponents. Only scoring 10 2nd half points against one of the worst defenses of all-time is inexcusable. That's what an average Nfl team would do, and given the quality of opponent, what a below average team would do.

Contrary to popular belief this team is not a great offense. They are very good, but they are nowhere close to the offensive juggernauts we've seen in recent years. And frankly, this team may have to be because their defense isnt going to stop anyone come January, and they for damn sure can't run the ball to take pressure off the passing game.

Games like this are those opportunities to test yourself before the real bullets start flying. And if you come out of them with an L but can say "We played our best football, but those other guys just happened to be a little bit better on this given Sunday," then that's fine. I can sleep at night. But that wasn't the case on Sunday, and frankly there have been almost no instances where the Falcons played in a big game, and gave that other team their best shot. Besides the 2010 Ravens game, I can't think of any. Can you?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:47 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4639
Sorry I didn't see the Saint game as any bigger than the Cowboys.

Divisional games usually count a lot because usually the team who wins the most division games wins the division. Not this year; its the record that counts and it won't be the record in the division.(unless the game your playing is always the most important, in your thinking)

Pudge Wrote "
Quote:
This season isn't about going 16-0, it's about winning in the playoffs. That is ALL it has EVER been about. And the playoffs are a different animal, which requires teams to elevate their game.


We've argued about this forever..... I want to win football playoff games as much as anybody, but unlike the guys who leave at halftime from watching on Tv, I don't. I realize the season is where
100& of the entertainment is; for 70% of the teams, and the playoffs it may get zazzed up by by 30% by the 30% left. Tune in on Super Bowl Sunday AND if your team is not their then walk away!! it can't be Super Bowl or bust. Its about competing to the best of your abilities. (which doesn't always happen)

Its like every boy can grow up to be president; if we assume we'd all like to be one (which most don't) then most of us didn't make it, but
we can all be all we can be. (and when the glass is half empty its hard to do that) and yes in many ways football has some similarities to life!!

If you want to set up your life to hope to win the lottery ok, but I'd think being financial independent without being rich;is better odds if
your glass is half full. And realizing the odds; and stop calling being a winner a loser!! We've become one of the better franchises like it or not, but no way close to a great one.

Coach Smith teams usually play to the same level so unless you can find a Coach that always delivers in the playoffs your out of luck until the Falcon team is consistently that good.

Pudge Wrote
Quote:
You say the Saints are better than us, which is your opinion. But it must also mean you don't think this team is all that good when a team with possibly the worst defense in NFL history is still a better team than us, and has lost three games to teams we beat.


Yes you got that exactly, Coach Smith plays as close to 100% each game; as our pass rush & defensive backs will get ate up by all Qbs allowed that much time to throw. The Saints don't have the worst defense in NFL history; and its about the same as ours, as of this minute!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:28 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
Cyril I hear your words, but they express a bit of naïveté.

It's not Super Bowl or bust, but it's definitely win a playoff game or bust. Naïveté due to the fact that you seem unaware of the firestorm that will come after this year if the Falcons don't win a playoff game. They dont have to go to the Super Bowl, but they do have to get at leat one W in January.

You have an owner that is trying to sell a brand new stadium to a notoriously fickle fan base. It is an extremely tough sell if this team has not won a playoff game in five years, despite having a Top 3 regular season record.

I don't want to suggest winning a playoff game is easy, otherwise you wouldn't have a bunch of teams that have gone a decade without winning one. But the Falcons have the 10th longest playoff win drought, and since Mike Smith took over 18 NFL teams have won a playoff game, more than half of the league. So it's not as if winning a playoff game every 4 or 5 years is a unique challenge.

I don't care if Smith wins every year, but he's gotta win one or otherwise the pressure mounts. Accusations of Marty Schottenheimer v2.0 start getting thrown around, especially after this year due to the start the Falcons made.

Ryan is on the verge of being paid a ridiculous contract after this season, and if he cannot lead this team to a playoff win this year, particularly after an MVP-level start, a significant portion of this fanbase will turn on him.

If you think Artie's postseason presser last year was bad, wait til you see this years if there is no playoff game. As fun Gus has stated, Smitty's seat gets awfully warm without a playoff win this year.

If you can sleep well at night content over the fact that Atlanta wins most of its regular season games, and no playoffs games, more power to you. But the one guy that matters (Arthur Blank) cannot because he has way too much money wrapped up into this teams ability to win in January.

The last thing Blank wants to see is this team turn into the Braves. A team that is consistently good, but rarely great and thus irrelevant within its own city.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline
Draught Guru
Draught Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 5029
Pudge wrote:
If you think Artie's postseason presser last year was bad, wait til you see this years if there is no playoff game. As fun Gus has stated, Smitty's seat gets awfully warm without a playoff win this year..


barring injury to Ryan, if we miss the playoffs after an 8-0 start that seat wont be 'warm' it will be vacant. Smith would be fired the first week of January, count on it.

Now, if we get to the playoffs and get bounced after one game, without a 'win' that seat will be 'warm'.

_________________
"what if there were no hypothetical situations?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4639
Pudge Wrote
Quote:
Cyril I hear your words, but they express a bit of naïveté.


Naivete about who?? I was a season ticket holder while The Falcon's won playoff game consecutive season's with Leeman Bennett and maybe for three straight years...... Then the same pressure mounts for
a Championship game; the Coach got fired and the hottest assistant coach was hired "Dan Henning" and he won about 12 games in 3 years
and we then went through Glanville 1 playoff game & then June Jones
one playoff game.

Pudge its you who would love to break the mold of NFL football. The Bill
Cowher of Pittsburgh you've said is not your trend "you don't want to wait 13 years or whatever to win a Super Bowl".

Well I just know more winning coaching have been fired to hire lousy
coaches again to go 3-13 again its a shame. Its all over the league. When you find a Mike Smith that can win you games; you should let him play it out till he hits his ceiling; which he doesn't have the personel to win it all now.

Maybe BLANK is so immature he can't stand not winning his Super Bowl but money won'y buy you a NFL title today. Its no wonder guys like Jimmy Johnson don't get back in the league.

Winning a playoff game IS a unique challenge to Blank. He has slit his own throat at every turning point in his franchise. I'll sleep at night whether he slits his throat or not!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:12 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
But the difference between Cowher and Mike Smith is that Cowher took the Steelers to the Super Bowl (and lost) in his 4th season. In fact, the Steelers played in 3 AFC Championship games in Cowher's first 6 years in Pittsburgh, compiling a 5-6 playoff record.

The point I was expressing about not wanting a Cowher was because of my belief that Smitty's overly conservative approach requires an organization to give him the job for 15 years just to give him enough chances to do something.

I don't want that. You look at all of the coaches in recent history that have coached the same team for 10+ years, people like Cowher, Fisher, Reid, Belichick, Shanahan, etc. They all led their teams to a SB win or loss within the first 6 years they were there. The Titans were 8-8 pretty much every year in the first 4 years Fisher was there, then in Year 5 they were in the Super Bowl against the Rams.

Does that mean Smith has to take the Falcons to the Super Bowl this year? No. But he does need to start winning in January, otherwise why does he deserve to coach here in Atlanta for the next 5-10 years?

I do like Smith, I do want him to succeed here in Atlanta. But I also believe that he has to do more than he currently is (i.e. win playoff games) in order to keep his job here in Atlanta. Again, it's an issue of standards. Too often Smitty and TD are not judged by the standards of their peers/contemporaries, but instead are judged against previous Falcon failures. Mike Smith isn't competing against Dan Reeves, Marion Campbell, and Jim Mora. He's competing against Tom Coughlin, Gary Kubiak, Jim Harbaugh, Marvin Lewis, Bill Belichick, Mike Shanahan, etc.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:22 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4639
I was pointing out how often good coaches are fired to soon to be replaced with worse coaches!!

The difference in Pittsburgh with Bill C.
was they already had an established franchise. In fact as a boy I remember Pittsburgh being considered terrible and have never looked at what turned them around except their owner buying them a team.

Coach Smith is right now turning a terrible franchise around. It took about 45 years to be one of the worst franchises; and will probably take a lot longer than 5 years to have a strong foundation of winning.

I agree this year is as good enough as any to win a playoff game under Smith; but to fire him if he doesn't would just probably put us back at 3-13 soon.

You take away teams who could buy teams and look at those teams since the salary cap..... Frisco, Dallas, Washington, Oakland, ect, and you'll see most of those teams looking at close to a decade to catch what they had.

I'm just saying consistent playoff winners and Super Bowl contenders takes longer IMO than you think. I believe the stats would back me up, but I don't need them; I know how fragile a new up and coming franchise is in the era of the salary cap. Coach Smith will probably end up being as good as Matt Ryan is because their is just so much money to spend......

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:36 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
Smith didn't inherit dog crap. The Steelers of the later Noll years weren't too good. The Falcons went to the playoffs more times in the 7 years prior to Smith's arrival than the Steelers did in the 7 years.

I don't think that's what you meant, because you are right, historically the Falcons were terrible, why the Steelers were the polar opposite. But I don't like it when people imply that Mike Smith inherited 42 years of ineptitude. Reeves, Blank, and McKay did help turn the Falcons into a mediocre team in the previous decade.

For me personally, I'm just saying that Smith needs to win at least a playoff game in the next two years. I think if he doesn't then Blank is going to fire him, and if that is the case I dont think I will disagree with the decision. When you have a QB like Ryan and some of the other talent on this team, then if you can't win 1 playoff game in 6 years, presumably 6 winning seasons, then something is wrong with you as the coach.

You're right, if that happened would the odds be fairly good that his replacement is a lesser coach? Sure. I think Smitty is a top 10 coach, so that probably means there's a 67% chance his replacement is not as good.

But it's not like we're going to go back to being a 4-12 team with Matt Ryan.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:20 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4639
WOW---Pudge wrote
Quote:
Smith didn't inherit dog crap.


No he inherited a ton of it!! And did win regardless.

Pudge its the franchise "mindset" that attracts the players to win, through 16 games. I'm feeling it a little bit now; as they win games they should lose.

Smith inherited a team left in mid season by the head Coach for what he thought was a better gig.

Smith had no Qb, I won't argue what kind of team Smith inherited
but my point is he's taken us to five straight winning season's...

I believe Vick took us to the playoffs 3 years and then we crashed and burned again for the 5th time.

As much I loved Reeves he didn't do it either; he had a terrible record; but I do believe (in this case he could have made Vick-"man up") and for Vick their couldn't be a worse answer than Mora and Knapp!!

We go go back to to 3-13 easier than you think with anybody at Qb.
That's what others will find out!! But I don't wan't to teach you guys that; I just no its true.

You find a guy who can win; and stick with him as long as you can.
I believe you've mentioned John Fox a couple of times; well Ryan is no Manning; but Mike Smith has gotten him some weapons even while at the expense of an offense line.

It all starts with winning and it may tale 4 more season's to win a playoff game; but I don't believe that, again you must understand the average fan wants to see victory and hope. We have that!!

I think we can beat the Niners.

I think we're a 50% improved team this year,

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
2007 might have been "rock bottom" for this team/franchise from a media storyline standpoint, but from a pure football standpoint, it was pretty much what had occurred 4 years earlier in 2003.

Again, I'm not trying to lessen Smith's accomplishments, but I don't like the implications that he had somehow inherited the worst team imaginable.

He inherited a 4-12 team, but people have to remember the reason why that team was 4-12 was because they didn't have a QB the previous year. He was really inheriting a 7-9 team from 2006 that just needed to get a QB.

Just like in 2004, Jim Mora inherited a 5-11 team, but the reason that team was 5-11 was because the QB missed most of the year. He really inherited a 9-6-1 team from 2002 that just needed to get their QB back.

The idea that the Falcons shouldn't fire Smith (in this scenario where they still are winless in the playoffs after the 2013 season) because things could/likely to get worst to me isn't really based on anything. That's complacency :shock: . Not to mention the love affair with Dimitroff. Since if TD is such a good/great/brilliant/exceptional GM, then you know the team isn't going to suddenly tank with a new head coach right?

Ryan doesn't have to be Manning to keep this team afloat. He just has to be Carson Palmer. Palmer in Cincinnati had a record that was the equivalent of winning 7.5 games (47% win pct) every year, and that's with Marvin Lewis as his coach and the worst front office in sports. TD alone in your eyes should just add at least 2 wins to that. And so if you assume Blank/TD can hire a coach as competent as Lewis as a replacement for Smith, then one can assume that Falcons will at least be in the wildcard mix nearly every season.

Again, you used John Fox as an example. He and the Panthers went to the Super Bowl and nearly won it in his 2nd year. Then in 2005, they lost again in the NFC Championship game to the Seahawks. That got him 5 more years as the Panthers head coach, and really those 5 years you saw that team return to being a .500 team and ultimately being that atrocious 2-14. What eventually got John Fox canned in Carolina is that they basically rode out mediocre QB play to its furthest extent. If they had started to develop a young QB years before, Fox would probably still be the head coach in Carolina. Basically they should have done what the Packers did in 2005 when they drafted Rodgers, or at least what the Eagles tried to do when they drafted Kolb.

So again, you keep talking about giving Smith an extended period of time to get the job done here by comparing him to coaches like Fox, Cowher, Shanahan, etc. that won and won big very early in their tenures. So in this scenario, where Mike Smith has been the coach here 6 years, had 5 or 6 winning seasons, and not won a playoff game, he doesn't deserve to be held to the same standard/high regard as those coaches, because again all of those guys in that same period of time went to and/or won a Super Bowl.

It goes back to my earlier point that their early success earned them the opportunities to coach in their respective cities for 9, 10, 12, 15 years.

And while I criticize Cowher, it wasn't about his inability to win in the playoffs, because he did that nearly every year they made the playoffs. It was his ability to win the "big one" i.e. the conference championship game. He was 1-4 in home conference championship games before they finally won a Super Bowl.

Smitty has a ways to go before he's in that conversation.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:24 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6234
Location: Planet Claire
Good points, Pudge, but I also like Cyril's "Everything counts." Bottom line is if you have agood QB you have a chance no matter how horrible your coach or front office are. I look at all the coaches the Giants went through after Parcells or the Cowboys coach shuffle and think Reeves statement--self serving though it may have been--that stability is important is true. It was true the 07 team was a QB away from being a 9 win team and, really, int he never ending Vick Discussion we will never know what BP might have been able to do with him. The late 80s are probably the lowest point the team had to crawl from with the mid 90s a close second. still, the catharsis of 07 is why we are where we are. Franchise leveled and reconstructed. Carolina made a mistake dumping Fox. Always thought he was a great coach.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:10 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26018
Location: North Carolina
On Fox, he is/was a very good coach. But he was too conservative for his own good.

Again, his marriage to Jake Delhomme brought them down. He also wanted to be a team that could run the ball well, play good defense, and with Steve Smith making the big plays, they could be really good. That was their formula in 2003, 2005, and 2008, all the years where they were contenders.

But the problem, what happened with all the years between then where they were just mediocre Running with DeShaun Foster, losing Peppers, Kris Jenkins, Mike Rucker, Mike Minter, Will Witherspoon on defense were key to dismantling what was a very good defense the first 3-5 years of Fox's tenure.

Someone could certainly make the argument that Fox was killed by poor personnel management. And I certainly would say that had more to do with their demise than Fox's coaching ability.

But the one thing I noticed with Fox, similar to Reeves here in Atlanta, was that his teams were so entirely based around that formula. When they had it, they were very good, again in 2003, 2005, and 2008. Not counting his final 2-14 year, he was 37-43, which they were 7-9 and 8-8 every year.

I just think it's another example of what you see in a lot of different cities except maybe New England and Pittsburgh is that after a long period of time, coaches and their respective teams are going to get into a rut. We saw it in Carolina, Philadelphia now with Andy Reid, Tennessee with Jeff Fisher, Denver with Shanahan, even Reeves here in Atlanta.

And my takeaway is that if you don't have that stable, and rare combo of good coaching and good front office/personnel/ownership, then eventually you're just going to after 5, 6, 7 years, you're just going to be an average team.

Can Smitty and TD be that combo? I think so. But things have to get better than where they are now.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:19 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4639
Pudge Wrote "
Quote:

I just think it's another example of what you see in a lot of different cities except maybe New England and Pittsburgh is that after a long period of time, coaches and their respective teams are going to get into a rut


I just think that's completely wrong!! After a certain amount of time coaches and their respective teams lose to age or injury their great Qbs.

Then its just luck till they find a good Qb. Ryan has never played even close to good in a playoff game, now you of course blame the Coach but I don't think Coach Smith sent Ryan into the Cardinal game to help give them 5 turnovers; it just happened......

If Ryan play very good in a playoff game this year I bet we win, if he sucks I bet we lose. Now that's rather simplistic since our defense Sucks so maybe we lose if Ryan plays good; But I guarantee we lose if Ryan plays bad!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:56 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4639
Pudge Wrote"
Quote:
The point I was expressing about not wanting a Cowher was because of my belief that Smitty's overly conservative approach requires an organization to give him the job for 15 years just to give him enough chances to do something.

I don't want that. You look at all of the coaches in recent history that have coached the same team for 10+ years, people like Cowher, Fisher, Reid, Belichick, Shanahan, etc. They all led their teams to a SB win or loss within the first 6 years they were there. The Titans were 8-8 pretty much every year in the first 4 years Fisher was there, then in Year 5 they were in the Super Bowl against the Rams.


Yea and Belichick & Shanahan both had perhaps one of the top 5 Qbs in
Football history. Besides that; by your standards who are these once every 15 year losers or one winner who quit.

My point is from following the Falcons as long as anyone, I believe Coach Smith's 5 straight winning seasons in a row is as least as big as Shanahan or Belichick going to Super Bowls when their franchise is
use to it!! Our Franchise NEVER came close to winning five straight season's I believe 3 is tops and that was with no foundation.

I'd suggest you sincerely need more patience for once we crack thru
we don't want backsliding like Oakland, Frisco, Chicago, Cardinals...... That starts with the consistent tradition of winning IMO.

You can't compare us to Pitt or New England; you can compare us to
N.O. who have gone to a Super Bowl and are about 3 years from falling apart because of a franchise built on no foundation and a great Qb getting old!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 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: