FalcFans Forums

Well Fun Gus you're right, its a great rebuttal!! No I disagree Blank would have fired Smith if we'd come out on the short end of Seattle..... Now if we had not been competitive it would a completely different story.

Their is luck in all games; usually from turnovers or refs..... Ryan has done this before!! Firing a .700 coach is crazy. I don't know if I even believe you coach different in playoff games. Were you around when this move was made??

From John'O.

Look our defense pretty much sucks..... Nolan can't do anymore with it. Our defense plays good when its not on the field..... I honestly believe Coach Smith goes further with less talent than most coaches.

Look at the play of the Qbs in the playoffs and you often see who goes to the SuperBowl. Ryan's two fumbles killed us, while the two Qbs in the Super Bowl played better than Ryan in the playoffs.

I think your mostly still upset that Coach Smith left the starters in against the Panthers. I think you need to play them when you know the next week is a bye week.

I just can't believe anyone wants Mike Smith fired after what he's done for this team in 5 years.....Our defense doesn't deserve to be in a Super Bowl!!

Damn competitive Championship game.... I could blame a number of players but the article sums my thinking up; better than I could have said it (:

No Mike Smith is not making the same mistakes. In fact he did what you wanted and gave Ryan more chances; now that Ryan's improved and can go to more than just one or two receivers. As Pudge mentioned their are many teams that are close; then change coaches to find they fired a winner.

possibly. BUt why would firing Mike Smith after 4 playoff losses in five years, the latest at home,again: a historical collapse, not be a 'football decision'? Arthur grew his business. He sells it. He knows about business/sales. Im of the opinion that he would have fired Smitty with or without the stadium deal. Because in a true business sense, you dont reward without merit. When he held that 'good is the enemy of great' presser he was telling everyone that one and out was not acceptable anymore.

had he not done that, I would agree with you. But he put everyone on notice about this January 2012.

how could he 'develop' a 'good' guy who would have let the Falcons lose that first game?

I agree with this and, frankly, found the presser last year to be the same issue and a bit contemptible although somewhat understandable. It was like bringing TD and Smitty out in public and spanking them. But I can't complain about AB in the greater scheme of things. I also find the "fire Smitty" mantra to be more of a reflection of the Falcon fan base than a reflection on Smith. Jon Gruden? Really?

I think I may not be getting my point across well. Let me try a different tack....

The only reason Im getting RAP's back is because IF we lost that first playoff game in that fashion ( unbelievable collapse at HOME) then I am the guy getting heat for sayin send Smitty packing. Let's look at this from a business analogy.

Your Blank, who along with his partner built a business empire....And you have a flagship franchise store opening. You pick a guy to come in and run this franchise. For the first few years, this guy ( and his staff ) run things ok. Your making your yearly projections. Things start to 'look up'. The shareholders are pleased.

Then, things start to slip. The guy who was running that store starts to struggle. His 'team' doesn't put in the usual effort. Yearly projections fall. Then, finally: the GM runs afould of the law and gets sent away for fraud. The entire store is ruined. The GM is in jail, and whats left of his team is leaderless and sucking.

Now, shareholders are pissed. Your bleeding $$, not making anywhere near the yearly projections. Blank handpicks a 'new guy'.

This guy comes in, and just like the last guy, has success early. Great work ethic. Honest. In a few years he has turned the franchise store around. He is making his yearly projections. But the shareholders STILL remember the last guy(s). Instead of being satisfied that this store is successful, they now want 'more'. Instead of clearing 'Y' amount, they now want this store, which has been rocked by stuff: they want this store to copy the successes of OTHER well known, efficiently run stores from other mtero areas('X').

This is the problem Arthur has. The fans that buy his tickets are the shareholders. After that Giant Fiasco(tm) Blank had to do something to assure them that getting to the playoffs to lose repeatedly is not an option. So he bowed up and had a presser where he basically did just that. I will make the argument that probably did motivate Smitty and thats a factor ( not a big one, but one nonetheless) in our finally getting a playoff win. Which is why Im not being consistant and saying we should keep him.

In the above mentioned analogy, Arthur Blank himself goes to the store and summons the GM. In his office he says 'Look, I realize you came in here and turned this business around. For that I am grateful. But unfortunately, the shareholders aren't happy. Even though you routinely make 'Y', they want 'X'. I am giving you one more year to turn this around. It's not personal: strictly business. '.

Then, imagine this: the guy manages to get to 'X'. He stays on.

'X' was a playoff win. That bought Smitty more time. But now, the focus is going to shift to 'Z'( Superbowl!). But I dont think it would have been the 'wrong' thing to do to fire Smith had we lost last week in that fashion. And it would have happened. So why be mad that RAP is saying something now that we ALL might be saying in three years from now? If Smitty cant move past 'X' to 'Z' he will be gone. Blank is not like Art Rooney. He didn't get what he has by not 'working for it'. People like to point at Schottenheimer, but also Bill Cower. But Cower cam in there and in his first two years got to the playoffs. Then in his third season, he got to the Superbowl ( 95) and lost. He then followed it up with a string of playoff appearances until he finally won it all. But people like to say 'look at how loyal the Rooney's were to Cowher and how it paid off. THAT is why you need to be patient.' But people forget he got to 'Z' in year three. We are now in year six with Smith, we are 1-5 in playoff appearances. Had we gone 0-4 why does it make any sense for Blank to keep him?

strictly business. That how Arthur rolls. He aint the Rooneys, the Smith's, etc. I remember the Smiths. Cmon. Arthur built an EMPIRE. Rankin Smith? president of an Insurance company. He did not 'build' that business..there's a huge difference bewteen the two. When Rankin says Leeman Bennet reached a 'plateua', he knew all about it because he himself reached the same 'plateau'.. Rankin Smith never woke up and had to worry the decisions he would make could bankrupt him and put thousands out of work. He had a golden parachute, while Blank took all the risk.

And I read his book awhile back, now who knows how much of that is 'truth' but Blank's story is pretty remarkable. back in the day, Marcus and Arthur worked for HandiDan, a home improvement chain. Marcus was CEO and Artie CFO. they had a friend who was a venture capitalist named Ken Langone, that invested in HandiDan...
Although a minority shareholder, Langone effectively protected Marcus from issues that arose between Marcus and Sanford Sigiloff, the CEO of The Daylin Corporation, Handy Dan's parent company. Marcus, however, felt that if Langone sold his interest in Handy Dan, it may actually improve his relationship with Sigiloff. Shortly after Langone sold his Handy Dan stock both Marcus and Blank were fired. Langone organized financing for Marcus and Blank to found Home Depot. Now a national chain with over 300,000 employees.

That is BALLS.

So why question his success? If Arthur Blank is not satisfied, he will get results. Im grateful to the Smith's for bringing a team here. But Im happier it is still owned by Blank. Even though he gets on my nerves sometimes.

Well I guess it all comes down to if your a Super Bowl or bust guy or you want competitive action, playoffs and hopes of a Super Bowl. We had a great season and a
playoff win. Ryan is getting better and Julio is going to get better. (IMO the Seattle win was no luckier than the Frisco loss. We lost the turnover battle in the latter)

Its kinda hard to compare stockholders to football fans.... Stockholders have different stocks to choose from, while football fans continue to grow from kids to paying customers; while some older folks fall off. In your respective city you either go to games there or you don't.

Yes but it does make your point about how you feel.

Smith took us to where we had only been 2 other times in 50 years after just 5 years
of starting from a very poor place. Winning football coaches are very hard to find and that's why we see about 8 fired each year. I guess fans can't take the good with the bad, they only want the good; but we have not had it in 50 years......

A decision to keep the franchise in place, is a decision..........We're getting closer but
just not fast enough for some.

What other well known franchises consistently win Super Bowls? Are their 5? Are
their 3? Bill Cowher won his Super Bowl after about 12 -14 years... He'd never have a chance in Atlanta (fans wouldn't be happy with a Super Bowl loss either) It got Dan Reeves about 3 more years!!

Super Bowl or bust is just not a place I'm going to live. I'd be busted all my life (:

See, your kinda making my point for me. Everyone says it too Cowher that long to get a Superbowl win while overlooking the fact that he took over a struggling franchise, first two years:got to the playoffs. Thrid year WON the Championship game and went to the Superbowl. Does anyone think in 2010, if we go to the Superbowl and lose, and come back (just like Cowher) and continue to have playoff seasons, we are even having this discussion? Of course not.

I dont think this qualifies for 'Superbowl or bust'. Remember this franchise is the only one in our division without a Superbowl win. It used to be about 'back to back' winning seasons. Check. Then it was getting to the playoffs. Check. Then it was 'win' a playoff game. Check. Now, the bar is moved. Now it will be win the championship. If Smith was going into year 6 with 4 playoff losses and after the GIant Fiasco(tm) and what would have been called the Great Saettle Meltdown(tm) it's just not 'crazy' for Arthur Blank to make the case it's time to 'move on'. That's the way I see it.

So I guess this gives Smith about 2 more years to get that Championship win. If were going into the new stadium still getting turned out in the playoffs, Smith will be fired. If in three years that is the case, everyone remember RAP called this now. That's all I was sayin'.

No let me make this clear, I thought Cowher was a great coach!! I think if your making playoffs year after year you will eventually get to the Super Bowl. I don't think 14 years is too long if your getting into the playoffs most years.....I'd like it quicker but a good coach is a good coach!!

Many would disagree with that but I know how easy it is to go 1-6 and have your season over in October for year after year.... If I made your point for you then I'm glad because I am just saying what I believe too.

If your argument today is not Super Bowl or bust then I don't understand it?? And if it is
that's fine; I just can't set my entertainment up that way for myself.

If I want 'entertainment' I will watch the Braves

Here's what Im saying: The fact that Smith got a playoff win gives him a reprieve. For me, thats is not 'or bust'. Because he showed progress he should be rewarded with an extension. Say 2-3 years.

If we cant win a championship game by then, Adios Schotty.

But if we had lost the Great Seattle Meltdown(tm), then I firmly believe Blank would have sh*tcanned his a$$. And I would have said it was the right thing to do.

Remember this from Last January?:
Blank stated that the team is playing for “rings” and “championships.” He said, “We’re not about being in the playoffs. . . this organization is about greatness.”
http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-bl ... th-season/
Blank would have said something similar to Robert :



"while I have great respect and I admire Mike Smith very much, I am troubled at our teams lack of focus and progress. Mike Smith came in here and turned this franchise around. He made this a great team. Unfortunately, as I said Last January, my vision of the Atlanter Falcons is not 'good'. It is 'great' I am not building a state of the art facility to have perrenial playoff losers in it. It is with a heavy heart, and a brightened hope for the future, that immediately I will begin the process to bring in a suitable replacement that appeals to the new direction this 'great' team is headed for....Thank you, and good night"

That is the press conference that would have occurred on Monday January 14th, 2013.

I'm not sure I see the comparison/connection between anything that happened this January and January 2009?

You make good points, but IMO you're making my point about why it's not a football decision, but a business/financial decision.

IMHO, the primary reason why you fire an NFL coach is because of underachieving. Maybe it's bad game management, maybe it's inconsistency, but either way you feel like you are getting a consistently inferior product week to week, and thus you move in another direction. IMO, besides some off-field issues (like Mora's radio interview) or in-office politics, there is really no other reason to fire a coach.

That to me is a football-based decision. I'm firing this guy because our football is inferior. There's no possible way that after these 5 years, you could make that claim if you're Arthur Blank, even if they had lost to Seattle last week. The immediate emotional reaction would have been negative, but when you sit back and look at the big picture, this is not an underachieving team. And then when you factor in that we wound up being 2 plays away from being in the Super Bowl this year, then there' sno way you say the on-field product is subpar.

Now of course the problem with that is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. RobertAP has a much higher opinion of the quality/talent of this team than I myself have. And thus he may see that this team falling short is a sign of underachievement, where I however see this team getting as far as it did as a sign of overachieving. This has been discussed before: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17758

The sad fact is that because of Smitty's early success, the bar is going to be high in the future. And I hope it's not too high, because IMO the Falcons are likely going to take a step back next year and in the next few years. It's not rebuilding, but its reloading. They have a lot of old, declining talent. In fact, besides Spoon, Ryan, Moore, and Jones none of their 10 or so best players are in the primes of their careers: Roddy, Gonzo, Clabo, Samuel, Abe, Babs, Turner. And the rest of the roster is predominantly filled with JAGs if defining that term to mean guys that nearly every NFL team has a player of similar caliber (e.g. Blalock, Biermann, Nicholas, Douglas, Peters, etc.)

It's going to take probaly 2 if not 3 really strong off-seasons to replace/upgrade most/all of that. And if Blank is basing his decision off football, then he should understand this and know that this team might not be in the conference championship over that span, and thus adjust his standards accordingly.

This is why the Rooneys succeed. You hire good people and give them time and resources to do good. Rather than wanting to completely reevaluate the entire organization from year to year.

Because the key difference between a business and a football organization is that if you aren't getting the results you want in a business, theoretically you can fire the supervisor, manager, or CEO and think the new guy can get the current crop of underlings to do better. But if you fire a football coach, it isn't just the top getting axed. The new guy wants to bring in his own underlings. So you are constantly doing a complete restructuring of your organization, especailly when you are forcing a GM to fire/hire a guy that he never wanted to. If you fire Smith in that instance, you're usurping TD, and you might as well be firing him because you're essentially saying, he's not performing his job either. And you're basically starting over.

This notion of what happened in TB with McKay-Dungy-Gruden isn't a likely scenario. The argument that bnb has made against that particular move is that while you get the short term gain (winning the Super Bowl in 2002), you pretty much screwed yourself over for the next 10 years after that. And so the only way that move is proven successful is if the new guy (Gruden) is able to get that quick short-term gain, which is unlikely as anybody that knows odds. Even if you consider the Bucs (or Falcons in this scenario) a guaranteed-playoff team, the best odds you can offer is 8%.

On the other hand, if you were to give Smith 5 more years even at 3% odds (1 in 32), that adds up to be double the likelihood (5 x 3 = 15%) that you win a Super Bowl in the next 5 years as you would in Year 1. That is how probabilities work right? It's been so long since high school math...

Why do I say, "fire Mike Smith?"

I say this because I do not believe that Mike Smith has what it takes to win a super bowl.

I think that when the playoffs come around, Smith over-thinks (or under-thinks) things. He starts making decisions that take the game out of the hands of his players, and forces the team into a defensive position. Instead of going out there and kicking butt, we're going out there to protect our lead. This was true in 2009, and it's true today.

I THOUGHT that we were over the hump the way that we destroyed the Giants. However, we blew huge leads in two successive playoff games. This is an inherent problem with Mike Smith. Perhaps Mike Smith can correct this. But he freaking better do it before next season. If we go into the playoffs with him next year and play scared in the 2nd half again, he has to be out the door. If not, tell me how many huge leads we have to blow before we let him go.

*sigh* another one mislead by cute stats and revisionist history..

So the 'Rooney's' are smart because they 'give them time and recources' to do good. Like Arthur Blank doesn't? I'll ask again, since the Rooney's are always brought up in these situations: BC went in to a stinkpot, in his first two years made the playoffs, third year, won the championship, lost in the SB. Oh, those loyal, loving Rooney's! Staying 'true to thier coach'..lol. Bill Cowher and Mrs Rooney rides unicorns together in marshmallow happyland

Hell, if Smith took Ryan, went to to playoffs and by 2010 won a championship, Stephanie Blank would be blowing him while Artie made the lasagna.


Good grief. It's not like Wade Phillips, where were tossing a guy out in a year and a half. Sorry, but had we lost that first game( the way we did, too) we would be going into year 6 with four playoff losses: that's not even CLOSE to Bill Cowher.

Sorry, but the NFL is a business and should be ran as such.

Couple things. First, we are the only team in our division without a SB win? My advanced years muddle my memory at times but I don't recall Carolina winning a SB. Am I wrong? Second, I think the fact that the steelers won a handful of SBs in the 70s is pertinent. They have been in if not won out right more SBs than we have won playoff games. That was then and this is now? Maybe. But they know what winning them looks like and there are people in that org and in their buildings who still remmeber what that looks like.

Our disparate outlooks on life may be at play here. Raw capitalism kind of seems to say if you aren't growing you are dying. BnB capitalism says if you stick your neck out too far your big head may make it snap in two.

The notion that Smitty didn't let his players play holds virtually no water to me. Sat on the lead? Hardly. We wer ebombing away in the second half. We just didn't connect. Our players lost the game..not the coaches. Not even a little. If you fire Smitty after the Seattle squeaker then you just fired the guy who was one fumbled shot gun snap away from taking his team to the SB. People always point to Bobby Cox as abig game choker. Really? Did he get deeked by the SS rather than looking at his base coach. Did he serve up a HR to Jim Leyritz? On the big stage it is about the players nine times out of ten. Cox made some mistakes in 20/20 hindsite but not nearly as many as the guys on the field did. Smitty ball coul be pointed to last year versus the Giants. But this year? No way. We were a largely one dimensional team that did incredibly well given that restriction.

You mean like the way Daniel Snyder or Jerry Jones run their organizations? Or like how Blank ran it when he first got here?

I'm not comparing Cowher and Smith. Your argument is similar to arguments I made in the past. That all of the coaches that lasted longer than 9 years basically won or went to a Super Bowl in their first 4 or 5 years. Jeff Fisher, Andy Reid, Cowher, Shanahan, etc. I get that.

Think about this. The Steelers won a Super Bowl under Mike Tomlin in his 2nd year. They went to another one in his 4th year (2010) and lost to Green Bay. Last year, they were "upset" by the Broncos in the playoffs. This year, they limped to 8-8 after a 6-3 start and being widely considered at the midpoint of the year to be one of the 5 best teams in the league. Let's say the Steelers miss the playoffs again in 2013, thanks in part to the continued souring relationship between Roethlisberger and Todd Haley. Remember that Tomlin dismissed Arians after 2011, he goes onto do what he did in Indy, and that decision could be made worse if he somehow manages to get the Cardinals back into contention in 2013.

A lot of fingers will begin to be pointed at Tomlin. Will he be on the hotseat? In many NFL cities, I believe the answer is yes, and that seat starts to warm up after (in this hypothetical situation) 3 subpar years. But in Pittsburgh with the Rooneys, I don't believe that will be the case.

Because the Rooneys aren't constantly re-evaluating their coaches in the same way that most do.

Now, I'm sure your counter is Tomlin's hardware buys him added time. But the point I'm trying to make is that the Rooneys hired a good guy, and believed they hired the right guy and thus instead of focusing on "what he has done for us lately" or "how is he helping us", they instead approach it as "how can we help him."

If you were to make that counter, you would be falling into the trap that others do in believing Super Bowls are magic. Because my counter to your entire premise fun gus is that essetnially you are stating that a handful of plays completely determine whether or not Mike Smith is worthy of being retained as a coach. Basically if Matt Bryant misses that FG, then all of a sudden Mike Smith deserves to be fired.

If Harry Douglas doesn't slip on that catch, then Mike Smith suddenly is a great coach.

Now, the good sign here Fun gus is that you yourself have admitted this "inconsistency." And as a fan, you are more than welcome to have such inconsistency because you like the rest of us aren't in charge of jackshit. But in the case of Arthur Blank, who is in charge, such an inconsistency is bad.

My point about Super Bowls are magic is the point that you're basically using the fact that one team won or lost to determine one is good and the other is bad. Now suddenly Mike Tomlin's coaching is seen as good because he's been in a Super BOwl. Jim Harbaugh is outstanding because they beat the Falcons. And Mike Smith's job is questionable because of a close win over Seattle and a close loss to San Fran.

Are these things being based off Mike Smith's coaching? No. They are basically being based around whether Matt Bryant makes a kick, Jacquizz Rodgers picks up a block, or Tony Gonzalez catches a pass (in the Seattle game), not off any decisions made by Mike Smith.

The same with RobertAP. His opinion that Smitty should be fired is completely changed if Harry Douglas doesn't slip. Or the refs throw the flag on Bowman at the end or if Ryan throws to Tony in the final moments instead of elsewhere. These aren't evaluations of Mike Smith's coaching ability. It's the same argument I've made in the past with you about Ryan vs. Flacco. The gist of your argument is not really a comparison of the two QBs, it's a comparison of the two teams.

If you're evaluating Smitty's coaching ability, you should try to minimize how much influence 1 or plays have on that. Instead, you should instead be evaluating all of the plays, and in the case of Mike Smith, we have well over 5000 to evaluate. And the overwhelming majoiryt of them indicate that Smith is one of the best coaches in the league.

I criticize John Fox after the DEN-BAL not because the Broncos lost the game. The Broncos lost that game because of Rahim Moore's bad coverage. I criticized Fox because of my belief that his decision to run on 3rd downs late int he game and not try for the W before OT were bad coaching decisions. Now in retrospect it has been stated that those were all instances where Peyton Manning made the call. And if that is true, then my criticism of Fox is subdued if he was not in control (the issue of should he have been is a separate one).


And the question I pose is which coaches do you or did you think had what it takes to win a Super Bowl. Did you think either Harbaugh brother had what it took prior to last week? What about Belichick, Tomlin, Whisenhunt, McCarthy, Coughlin, Shanahan, Dungy, John Fox, Holmgren, etc?

The point I'm trying to make is that no one thinks anybody is capable of winning a Super Bowl until they actually do it. It is completely a reactive analysis, as opposed to proactive/predictive.

This is important because if you can accurately say you can/have judged other coaches to be SB-caliber in the past/present, then your evaluation of Smitty has merit. Otherwise, you're simply judging Smitty in a vaccuum, and if that is the case then what are you basing this off?

And the answer is the fact that he has yet to win a Super Bowl. And again, that is a highly flawed way of viewing things. Because as I pointed out above in my response to fun gus, the reason you think that is because of Harry Douglas slipping on a play, or the ref not throwing a flag on a defensive holding or Matt Ryan fumbling a snap, not based off anything that Mike Smith is coaching.

But again, if the feather in your hat is as you've stated before "I was right about Mularkey & Van Gorder, therefore I know what I'm talking about when it comes to coaches." then my counter to that is "So was I" yet I have a completely different opinion than you about Smith. How do we reconcile this?


TRUTH.

in 'hindsight' I would not have made that post about Carolina winning the Superbowl
But crippling the only defensive force you have for a meaningless game, COMBINED with a defensive collapse in the 1st seed and bye game late in the game: in a season where you could not 'close it out in 7 other 'regular season' games'?

Sounds an AWFUL lot like Bobby Cox to me

I seem to recall that you said that Smith was the one holding us back. At the time, I said that it was possible that he was, but that the offensive and defensive game planning/play calling was a bigger detriment. I said let's get some new coordinators and see what happens.

We got the new coordinators. They did make a difference. However, I think that it is more clear now than ever that Smith insists on protecting the defense in the 2nd half of these big games. I think that major shift in mindset between the first and second halves is a detriment to our team. You can see it in the way that we play... People are afraid to make mistakes. It's on the offensive and defensive side of the ball.

As far as reconciling this, we can't... All we can do is watch and see what this team does in the future.

I give you the TB game. That was a psychological gamble that backfired badly but who is to say if we had not lost to them with the regulars that we come in flat or over confident and lose to Seattle? I certainly can see the logic here and the disconnect with the players seemed apparent on this one. But Smitty is never to proud to say he is learning and trying something new. I cannot recall what we did in 2010 in regards to the last games but he did say that he took a more laid back approach then and gave the players time off whereas this time he worked them and playing versus TB was probably part of the overall strategy there. You've always been kind of paranoid about injuries and, truthfully, Smitty is generally pretty cautious about them in terms of giving people extra time to heal. It's a dangerous game but I think you just have to play it. If he had it to do over I think he would have pulled those guys late but who is to say they don't get hurt on the first snap?

you know what, one of my buddies did point out to me something which I did not realize: that the presser in question probably LED to the 'playing out the starters'. That had not Blank gone and thrown down the gauntlet after the GF(tm), maybe Smith's decisions on that worthless TB game are different....
something to think about?

I didn't like Blank doing that then and I don't like it now but it is his baby so he can rock it however he wants. He could have made all those points behind closed doors or even in publci without dragging TD and MS out there shame faced. But I can't complain about Blank. Probably the best thing that ever happened to us.

Yes, after last season I openly pondered whether Mike Smith was too conservative for his own good. But I think after seeing the 2012 season play out and watching this offense shift to the way it should have in 2011 to a pass-first attack, that the answer to that question is No. Mike Smith is not too conservative for his own good. He's not Dan Reeves or John Fox, and adhering to a certain style of play despite all of the signs and arrows suggesting and telling him to play differently.

I also don't see how you can look at the 49er game and come to the conclusion that the reason the Falcons blew that lead is because of poor coaching or being overly conservative, and playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win.

On the opening series of the 2nd half after the 49ers cut the lead to 24-21, the Falcons threw on 4 of their 6 plays. The 4th pass was Ryan's INT. Then on the next series after Akers' missed FG, they ran the ball 4 straight times. But guess what? All 4 were successful runs: 7 yards, 12 yards, 9 yards, adn then 2 yards. Then they pass on 2 of their next 4 plays, and then on the 5th one Ryan fumbles. The 49ers march down the field, and Crabtree fumbles at the 1. It's now the 4th quarter. They are backed up at their own 1, and they don't execute on 3rd & 6 because Gonzo is tackled a yard shy of the sticks. Bosher punts, and Ginn gets a good return. The 49ers run it down our throats and score to take a 28-24 lead with 8 minutes left. You've argued previously that this is the pivotal drive where you believe Smitty failed us because he opted to run out the clock. Again, this was the right decision. Frankly, it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise given the circumstances and how the game had been played thus far. On the 3rd play of that series, Ryan goes for all the marbles to Julio, but Tarell Brown breaks it up. Doesn't seem like the players are playing scared on that play as you suggest. Then, IMO is when the Falcons make the decision to bleed clock after missing that. A few plays later, the turf monster gets Douglas. He potentially scores, but at the very least gets another 15 yards on that play if he keeps his feet and puts the ball inside the 15. They bleed another 2 minutes off the clock to hit the 2-min warning. Ryan checks down to Snelling due to pressure. Then on 3rd down he throws to an open Roddy, but because Drew Davis doesn't cut Ahmad Brooks like he's supposed to, Brooks breaks it up. Then Bowman holds Roddy on 4th down. The umpire misses it because it's behind him, and the back judge doesn't throw the flag seemingly because he was "letting them play." Game is basically over at that point. But even still, the defense doesn't quit and actually plays defense for the first time in 45 minutes and gets a stop giving the Falcons one last prayer.

Again, considering all of this, I don't understand your conclusion that Smitty is the root cause of why the Falcons blew that 2nd half lead. I didn't see a team that was afraid. I just saw a team that wasn't good enough.

You've been vocal about your opinion that this OL is not good enough. And I'm assuming you have a similar opinion about the defense. But you seem to be going the extra mile in thinking that even if the Falcons got these things fixed, they still wouldn't be good enough and that Smitty has gotta go too because there is a culture of fear that is pervasive in this organization.

What is interesting to me is that you look at the SEA & SF game and see something totally different than myself. I should note those are just 2 out of the 85 games in which Mike Smith should be evaluated with. But you see a team that blows 2nd half leads, and conclude the coaching is subpar and they blew those leads because they are scared. I however look at it and see despite blowing those leads (to 2 teams that BTW most of America feels/felt are/were superior to ATL), this team had the resiliency to have opportunities in both games to win in the end despite blowing those leads, and that to me is a representation of why Smitty is such a good coach.

Over the years, we've talked about this team's ability to respond to adversity. And I think in 2012 this team has overwhelmingly responded well to adversity. If that isn't a hallmark of Smitty's good coaching.

Again, I think another point of convergence is that you think this team is uber-talented. And I would agree, if you were comparing our 4 best players (Ryan, Gonzo, Julio & Roddy) to the 4 best players of any team, they would be glowing. But when you compare the other 49 guys on the team, they are mediocre at best. I'll take the top 9 or so guys on this team any day of the week. But the rest? Meh, there are 4-12 teams that have a better Bottom 45 than we do.

This is another perfect example IMO of the Falcons (and Mike Smith) being judged in a vacuum. Because if you applied these same standards to every other team/coach in the NFL, then you'd be wanting them all replaced.

PUDGE, i'll soon be 62. Can we get the print back to larger?? No wonder I'm more worried about me than the Falcons (:

Samedi,
Thanks that was amazing!! (: I do the best I can (:

I have been meaning to reply to this.

I don't think Smith should be fired, but I also don't think he will ever be a successful post season coach. Maybe I am wrong and he could actually be a good post season coach with different players.

That brings me to Ryan. Yes, I criticized him, but I don't think he should be replaced. Will he get better? Maybe he turns into a Rich Gannon or maybe he has peaked. Either way, it would be stupid to replace him. As I said, he is between 7 and 10. It is really really hard to find a great QB, so you live with what you got and I am fine with that.

On paying Ryan, I don't believe the going rate is 18 mill. I think it is more like 15 mill and I would not go a penny over. Actually in light of Ryan's lack of postseason success, I would start at 12 mill. Of course, we all know TD and Blank will overpay and give him 18 or 19 mill. I bet that extra 3 mill would have been nice for a great RG like Dahl.

Again, am I saying we should get rid of Smith/Ryan? HELL NO! I am saying that I am tempering my expectations that this duo will never have much post season success.

This is what I don't get. What exactly makes one a successful postseason coach?

Look at Coughlin, Belichick, and Payton's recent postseason records. When they aren't winning the Super Bowl, they are "underachieving" in the playoffs. This is the reality in the NFL today. If you're not in the Super Bowl, your fans are pulling their hair out and reaching for the knives to slit their wrists.

Again remember this: Nobody thinks anybody is capable of winning the Super Bowl until they actually do it.



That's the difference between the Falcons being at home and the Falcons being in the Super Bowl this year. That is the difference between this belief of "you're never going to be a successful postseason coach" and "all of your past failures are white-washed because your team is in the Super Bowl."

Look a year ago, I was questioning the coaching. I was looking at a team that had 4 potentially dynamic weapons at QB, WR, and TE, and they were still reliant on their running game.

This year, I have absolutely no questions about the coaching of this team. We got the most out of our talent. Ryan had his best year. Gonzo had arguably his best year as a Falcon. Roddy & Julio certainly were playing at a very high level. We have an average defense, but in home games this year they played like they were a Top 10 if not Top 5 unit. We got the most out of our talent, and so I'm wondering why are people questioning the coaching?

It's just the Blame Game and completely negates any team you play as having a vote in the matter. Addition by subtraction = problem solved.