It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:40 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:11 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Your point about the QBs being tied to those teams success is a fair one, although I should note that Cowher had most of his success with what many would call mid-level QBs: Neil O'Donnell, Kordell Stewart. Baltimore hasn't exactly been known for great QB play over the years, although they've been largely consistent and good.

Why is that? Because those teams have had stable front offices that were geared towards long-term building with the draft. Teams hit lulls constantly, but if you constantly have infused your team with talent via draft picks over a long period of time, you can ride those lulls out and still be competitive. Remember, in the year without Brady the Patriots were 11-5.

If/when the Falcons recommit to the draft, and actually start drafting well (which they have not done outside the 2008 draft), then this team can have the ability to ride out any lulls.

Cyril wrote:
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.

And that right there is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not judging Mike Smith based on the standard of his peers, you're judging him based on a historical standard that is largely irrelevant.

Again, he's out there competing against the Bill Belichick, Gary Kubiak, Pete Carroll, Sean Payton, John Harbaugh, Mike Shanahan, etc. These are the guys he's got to win against. And it feels like to me, you're basically saying that it doesn't really matter how Mike Smith compares to those guys. He doesn't have to really outperform those guys to keep his job, he just has to outperform Mora, Bennett, and Reeves.

The history of this team is part of the equation. But there's going to be a point where if Mike Smith continues to do what he's done, the 42 year history of the team prior to his arrival is going to be irrelevant. Because he's going to pile up 5, 6, 7, 8+ seasons of success, and then what? He's not building off the 42 year history, he's building off that 5-8 year history.

I'm not against being patient. But you can't be eternally patient. And I don't agree with you about how long it takes. I think 5-6 years is plenty of time to win a playoff game. And I don't prescribe to the idea that it's somehow all that different because we're the Falcons. This isn't like he took over Rutgers. It's a professional football team, and the rules installed over the past 15+ years have made it a parity-driven league, and thus the gap between who's the best team in the league and who's the worst team in the league isn't as huge as it once may have been. There's a statute of limitations for how long you can blame Jeff George, Michael Vick, and Aundray Bruce for your problems.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:23 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4641
Pudge Wrote "
Quote:
And that right there is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not judging Mike Smith based on the standard of his peers, you're judging him based on a historical standard that is largely irrelevant.


Yes we've finally reached where we differ!! Historical standard is irrelevant?? Its not just a Coach, its a Gm, an owner, the influence the past brings toward the present? If its irrelevant why is Buffalo; Cowboys, well hell, why name them, every lousy team usually stay lousy and most of the few consistent consistent winners always usually winning?

I'm talking past the days when you could buy a team; but its no different from people. You come from the ghetto its harder to get out; if your born into wealth its also harder to get out.

Why don't the bottom teams break out and stay on top? Why do the top teams stay on top regardless of head coaches?? Its because it takes time; and more time than most owners are willing to give.

If you don't think the franchise history has probably about 70% of the reason's it takes extra time it takes to build a great franchise starting from crap then you just haven't been around long enough!!

Mike Smith is just now after 4 postseason's and us being in 3 of them; he is just now shedding the image of loser. Yes in the past just being in the hunt for playoffs was good enough because we never achieved that. Now Blank has a Gm and Coach both on the same page that a playoff win is necessary for success.

And then it will be Superbowl.

It just takes a long time and only about 10% of all franchises are considered elite!!

We're getting close to above average; but going forward you must have an owner that understands history. Rome wasn't born in a day and wasn't ruined in a day -- neither was the Us.

The history of everything and its present leadership influences its success; and the speed of that success or failure. Only know it take twice as long to get there and a quarter of the time to lose it all.

The people you mention Aundrey Bruce, Mike Vick, or Jeff George were all tied to coaches not our orgaization. Bruce to Gm from Oakland that also got us Jeff George; Vick was actually tied to blank and you can't win that way.

Today I do not feel Ryan is tied to Smith, or Thomas D. Nor Turner to Thomas D. For the first time in 40 years this franchise is working as a group; an owner, a Gm with a department and a Coach tied to his GM 50-50. This has taken this franchise 45 years to learn and likewise for most of the other franchises. Well Most have not learned it. That's why most Coaches are fired way to early if they show they can win. The winning coaches in the post season usually have the better players; at least how I feel about the Falcons. I feel the Falcons
& Blank got it 5 years ago, but its easy to want to revert to your instant success, which means long term failure.(Again)

Now go study that with an open mind and you'll see that its true even
if its not what you want to believe!!

That's all my info on this topic.

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sulky McGee
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:05 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
The reason why certain teams stay lousy is because they are poorly run. That has little/nothing to do with what they did 30 years ago, it has everything to do with now. The examples, you mentioned. Buffalo has struggled to win in the past 12 years because they have done a poor job developing QBs. From Rob Johnson to J.P. Losman to Trent Edwards to Ryan Fitzpatrick. When they've had good QBs in the post-Jim Kelly/Marv Levy era (Doug Flutie & Drew Bledsoe), they were successful. AS for Dallas, their lack of success has coincided largely with their owner Jerry Jones endeavors to run the team rather than having a bonafide GM. When he did have someone else running the team (Parcells), they also experienced the most success.

You're right in that a lot of teams don't show enough patience. But at the same time, you can't sit there as an owner or GM and give every coach you hire a 5-year grace period. Because often times, midway through the 2nd or 3rd year you clearly see that the arrow is not pointing up.

Every situation is obviously different. BUt you mentioned it in a previous post, in that a team's success is often tied to their QB. Back in '08, I said on this board that who the Falcons took with the #1 pick that year would be the decision that would make/break Thomas Dimitroff. If he took Ryan and he worked out, then Dimitroff/Smith & Co. would get plenty of time to do their thing. If he took Chad Henne (which was reportedly the Plan B) and it didn't work out, then he would not get such time, and what had occurred in the previous 42 years in Atlanta would occur. It's not a coincindence that the most stability/success this organization had in that time period was during the 10 years that Steve Bartkowski was on the team. Followed by the years where Chris Chandler, Michael Vick, and Chris Miller.

My point is that in places like Buffalo or Dallas, what happened under Marv Levy or Chuck Knox, or what happened under Tom Landry and Jimmy Johnson has no impact to what happens currently. HOwever where history does matter is in the case where a guy like Ralph Wilson or Jerry Jones is the owner, and the one strand that carries over in that time. And if either/both are not doing their part (i.e. hiring the right people) then sure you're going to see a continuation of problems.

But the idea that bad teams stay bad is probably overrated and really not accurate anymore, now that we have much more parity in the league since 1995. At least not in the sense that there is some historical baggage that gets carried over into the present/future. Look at the teams that won the most games from 1985 to 1995: 49ers, Bears, Giants, Dolphins, Broncos, Vikings, Saints, and Bills. Look at the teams that won the least: Patriots, Bengals, Falcons, Colts, Cardinals, and Bucs. Things have changed quite a bit for many of those teams over the past 10 or so years.

If you've lost for several years, sure there is a hill you must climb. But once you've climbed the hill, you don't have to climb it anymore. Arthur Blank doesn't have to be "extra" patient with Mike Smith now because of the previous 42-year history of the team. What occurred then, has nothing to do with what is happening now with Matt Ryan, Julio JOnes, John Abraham, Sean Weatherspoon, etc.

At the end of the day, an owner like Blank can only make judgments based off what is happening now. If he does not feel that Mike Smith can compete at the highest level with the coaches/teams that currently exist in the NFL, then Mike Smith should not have a job. And the same applies for every team.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] 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:  


cron