It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:21 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:21 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
Robert,
I sure think a coach can help build talent when a player has some!! Sorry I didn't mean to avoid this question!!

Usually at the professional level someone shows some type of promise. Its so hard to just say
but I think Smith has helped say Snelling; a player who just mostly blocked before Smith got here. No doubt he helped Grimes; I thought he used Abe wisely as he got older to get as much production as possible.

I mean veterans like McClure you got to wonder if they'd been able to play so long without Smith's positive approach to the game. I mean we have two free agents at linebackers; so having them improve during the season like our corners I think get's Smith some praise.
Same with Moore and I don't know how you classify DeCoud, He was better last year; is it him, or the lack of a pass rush or I just can't say.

On the other hand their have been a lot of possibilities like Owens; Sidbury; Dominque Franks; who I think Smith has given chances to play and do well, but they just didn't come through. I'm of the opinion that the good players will eventually play good some sooner than others. Pudge has a great point that Smith has second string receivers that should have gotten more playing time. So I judge if a player was given the chance to play!!

I mean these Offensive linemen we have should have been replaced before 4 or 5 years ago but you can't replace them if no one is there to do that.

I believe if you give players playing time you've given them about all you can do. I mean there is an assumption that players like Weatherspoon who started as a rookie was just going to be good. He gave Ryan that same first year experience. Same with Corey Peters.

So its kinda like if you liked Smith like I i did I just don't think you go to the Championship game like we did last year; on luck, its good football.

Now if your not crazy about Smith like yourself their's more players you can ask about.... Vance Walker, Curtis Loften, Kroy Beirmann, Shawn Schillinger, guys who I don't know about...Should they have gotten better; and a few other corners. Most of these guys got playing time. Now DREW Davis is my perfect example of someone who obviously could have been contributing!!

I know we've not lost good players who went on to be good with other teams except over money. I think that's the acid test!!

I think Thomas D. has neglected both our lines. He got the players and their has been more turnover on defense than offense.

I guess my real answer is has the coach done well with what he's had. Up to this year I think so. Thomas D. started out hot, you can't forget the Tony G. trade; the Julio trade will always be debated . Honestly he just hasm't hit on round 4-7 and really not enough 3s.

So your right; I can't answer that question with certainty. I do think the last three years Smith has done better than Thomas D. Its close. If that means fire them both; then you got Blank dangling again not knowing what to do.

The cowboys owner is his own GM. and I think up till now he's been rather bad.

I'm getting where I've talked about it so much I'm getting burned out on it. If chain of command is followed its Thomas D, who should decide if Smith goes or not. I'd bring them both back for a year but I think Pudge is mistaken when no one talks about playing New Orleans so close but the other teams we lose to are outrages??

I don't see it as a close call; you bring them both back and expect better than 8-8. I understand since your not crazy about Smith where you'd say fire Smith.

Like I've mentioned I'm not quite as invested in the Falcons as I when when a season ticket holder but I've watched about .350 football for 30 years. It doesn't mean we'll go back to that; but its kind of like Andy Reid. Philly didn't really appreaciate him, so Kansas City does.

Yes besides Thomas D. neglecting our lines (that's a big deal; ) missing on all free agents there; its not really cut and dried.

Do you fire winners over one season, that's what I think is the answer. Thomas D. & Coach Smith seem to be a rather equal match.

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:33 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26076
Location: North Carolina
Cyril wrote:
Pudge you said before the season
Pudge wrote:
Look, I get how a person could be down on the Falcons off-season.

Best OL in 2012: Tyson Clabo

Gone. Replaced with Lamar Holmes and Mike Johnson. Why would anyone outside Flowery Branch feel like the Falcons got better there?

Lose Todd McClure to be replaced by Peter Konz.

Konz stunk last year, why would you feel like they got better there?

Now that you Thought Konz sucked last year; lost our best lineman in Tyson Claybo; and says Lamar Holmes & Mike Johnson can't be upgrades; so we have four linemen that can't cut it; including Hawley; and it seems you has changed your mind now that the line collapsed as anyone would have believed if honest with the fact's. In fact now that we see the results you now say

Well, firstly you're taking those comments out of context. Those were in reference to a discussion about Pat Yasinskas giving the Falcons an off-season grade of a C, not what I expected the Falcons upcoming season. The part you excised from the quoted text was the part where I said "I disagree with his grades."

Cyril wrote:
You say Reynolds is going to be a back-up, you said Konz stank, in 5 years Reynolds only had 13 starts while inactive all 16 games in 2010. because he couldn't make the team his rookie year!!

Actually, Reynolds did make the team as a rookie (in 2009), but was inactive for most of that year and the following year because he was playing behind a good player in Harvey Dahl. But again, the Falcons opted that Dahl wasn't worth $16 million and Blalock was worth $39 million the following off-season, and thus Reynolds got his chance.

Konz stunk last year because he was playing out of position. Again, all offseason long I was saying that I believe Konz would be better as a center. And even despite his struggles this year, I don't think Konz has been terrible considering it's his first year at center, and contrary to popular opinion, a lot of centers come into the league struggling. John Sullivan (Vikings) is a good example. It looked like the Vikings were sorely mistaken in thinking he could replace future HOFer Matt Birk a few years back, but after 2 seasons of struggling, things clicked and he's considered one of the top Cs in the game. Will that happen to Konz? Maybe, maybe not. But again, there was little reason to think Konz wasn't going to be at least competent heading into this year.

Cyril wrote:
Mike Johnson had 12 career starts in 4 years; also inactive weeks 1-17 his rookie year; couldn't make the team!! Never could be a starter in 4 years!!

Johnson had 2 opportunities to be the starter at RG prior to this year, and both times inopportune injuries prevented him from winning the job in training camp. When you miss 5-10 days in camp, and allow Garrett Reynolds to take the 1st team snaps in your absence, typically the coaches will side with the guy that is taking reps. And obviously this year at RT, his season-ending injury thrust Lamar Holmes into the starting lineup.

Cyril wrote:
In fact A lot of reason I THOUGHT THIS YEAR WOULD BE A DISASTER WAS BASED ON THINGS YOU SAID ABOUT THESE LINEMEN THEN i LOOKED IT UP. YOU WERE RIGHT!!

Well, I didn't because OL play is overrated. You don't need a good OL to be a good team as long as you get production elsewhere on your roster. And my expectation was that this team would get good production elsewhere on their roster, which is why I believe this team would be a playoff-contender.

As I said in another post, the reason for the Falcons stinking this year isn't the OL. It's that the QB play has gone from Top 8 in the league to Bottom 8. Since Jones' injury, Matt Ryan is now ranked 25th in the league in terms of ANYA. And I've indicated that ANYA differential (offense vs. defense) is correlates the highest to winning besides points differential. Prior to Jones injury, this team was 8th in the league in ANYA, the same ranking he had over the entirety of the 2012 season.

And the pass defense has dropped off completely. We went from 10th best defense (according to ANYA) last year to now ranking 32nd. That's because last year's defense didn't give up TDs (#1 in the league in passing TDs allowed) to now being one of the worst (#31 this year). We ranked 4th in the league last year in interception rate, but now rank 27th there.

You compare Matt Ryan's production sans Julio, his ANYA since Week 6 is about the same as Geno Smith and E.J. Manuel, two rookies were during the first 5 weeks of the season.

This is the reason why I'm so down on this coaching staff is because I believe last year that the issues with "coaching up" Ryan were erased, and now we've seen our QB fall off a cliff. You see guys like Andrew Luck struggling without Reggie Wayne, but Luck is a 2nd year player. Matt Ryan is a 6th year player.

And again, it really goes back to this Brian Robiskie thing. This is what I said back in early October when we were discussing trading for a WR:
Pudge wrote:
Yes it does. The shortcoming of the team that won't be apparent to you until you actually see the team on the field is going to be the Falcons inability to generate explosive plays sans Julio Jones. The Falcons are going to go back to the dink and dunk offense they had under Mularkey (that you hated so much), except this time they won't have the running game to support it. The Falcons offense is on the verge of collapse and it will be no more effective than the Patriots. But the Patriots are 4-1 you say, how bad can that be? Well it's an offense that is 29th in YPA, 21st in passing yards, 25th in completion percentage, 22nd in explosive plays, and 21st in passer rating with one of the 3 best QBs in the league. The Pats also have way more balance than the Falcons, who throw the ball 70% of the time, while the Pats only about 60%. The Pats are a much more balanced offense and actually have a good defense (go ahead look up the numbers). You put the Patriots passing attack with our running game and our defense, you'll be lucky to win 3 games the rest of the season.

And the team basically said, "No, we're sticking to our 'process.' We won't make any 'knee-jerk' reactions and will roll with these young WRs that eliminate the strength of our offense, the no-huddle from the equation." And guess what happened, you suddenly morphed into one of the league's worst teams.

So I can only conclude 1 or 2 things:

1. Either the Falcons Brass was too stupid to see what has happened over the past 6 weeks was going to happen.
2. They didn't care because they wanted to tank the season.

Whichever one I conclude, they don't deserve their jobs. They sign Brian Robiskie, so I'm assuming this coaching staff I had so much confidence in that I was defending Mike Smith at the same time I was talking about this team being on the verge of collapse, has a plan that is going to prevent the offense from having said collapse.

Guess what? No plan. Now I feel betrayed by the guy that I was pounding the table for 6 weeks ago because the evidence is clear that you're not a good coach because of how bad this team has been.

Look, I always say you gotta take an entire body of work into context. And yes, when you consider Smitty's success over 6 years, you cannot fire him. But to me, we've learned way more about Mike Smith as a head coach in these past 6 weeks than we've learned in the previous 6 years, and he's come up wanting.

I disagreed with RobertAP before about Smitty not having what it takes to win a title. I still disagree with him when his premise is based off game day adjustments. It's now because he can't adjust, and it's not on game day, it has to do with the big picture.

I just want Arthur Blank to blow it up, because these guys suck (Smitty & TD). But I'm going to back off. Because maybe they get Clowney, and if Clowney is the once in a generation DE that many contend he is, he will be their saving grace. And through sheer dumb luck, that will be the catalyst to turning things around here in Atlanta.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:56 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6247
Location: Planet Claire
So, one player will turn it around here like Mario did in TX?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:42 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
Quote:

Well, I didn't because OL play is overrated. You don't need a good OL to be a good team as long as you get production elsewhere on your roster.


Pudge; give me a f**** break; this is where you not having played the sport hurts you!!

Your not getting production from your Qb if your line sucks or your running backs. You can write 10 pages of B.S. BUT O-lines are not overrated. We're proving it right now; wake up and realize your witnessing what a lousy line does to your team. Ryan just hasn't been sacked because he throws his passes in.05 seconds if receivers are ready or not.

Your saying an O-line is overrated is the worst statement you've ever made on this board!!
Jeez that's just horrible!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:49 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6247
Location: Planet Claire
Gotta agree with Cyril, Pudge. While there are instances of a great QB such as Rodgers a year or so back somewhat overcoming poor OL they are rare. OTOH, this does not mean that your OL has to be full of great players, i.e., big ticket FA or high draft picks. It also doesn't mean that a young line can't get better. To throw MR under the bus as a big reason for our drop off is getting caught up in stats with too little consideration for how they come about. Yes, our line play last year was only marginally better but when you have the 3 headed monster WR corps with JJ able to hit a home run every time you snap the ball then the pressure on the line and subsequently the QB is infinitely less.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:29 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26076
Location: North Carolina
Don't mind my condecension here fellas, but this is what you're not seeing that I am seeing from watching tape.

The Falcons OL is protecting Ryan better than they were last year. Ryan is getting time to throw, but because the offense is centered on dinking and dunking and not taking any deep shots when they have the opportunity to do so early, that is holding the offense back way more than the offensive line.

Look, I'm not saying that OL play doesn't affect things. But you've guys convinced yourself that the bad OL is the sole and primary cause of the problems of this team. And I keep telling you that when you watch tape and compare this year's O-line to last year's O-line, you see very little difference overall, and you see improvement from last year. But because the team was successful in 2012, people forget that the OL was terrible last year. Because it doesn't fit the narrative. It doesn't fit the narrative that you're trying to create as fiction, rather than one that actually fits based off non-fiction.

Ryan isn't pulling the trigger, and the offense isn't asking him to pull it either. That is the primary problem with this team, not the offensive line.

Yes, the OL is bad, but the play-calling and game-planning has played into that. Because they are trying to be balanced, but don't have the OL to be so. And they are trying to sustain with dinking and dunking their way down the field, just like they did under Mularkey. Yet, no one here is complaining like they did back then with how stupid/dumb it is to try and build a successful offense with 12-play scoring drives. At least then we had Michael Turner, Julio JOnes, and Roddy White. Now, Koetter is doing the same thing with much less.

According to Pro Football Focus, the Falcons rank 28th in terms of Pass Blocking Effiency. The Giants, Colts, Bears, and Cardinals are the teams that are worse. Note these stats in terms of percentage of throws that go 20+ yards:

Jay Cutler - 15.8% (5th)
Eli Manning - 13.2% (15th)
Carson Palmer - 12.9% (16th)
Andrew Luck - 10.9% (24th)
Josh McCown - 6.8% (34th)
Matt Ryan - 5.6% (36th)

There's no excuse for the Falcons to not throw the ball down the field. People say that they don't have the OL to do it, but that's complete BS as the above stats show. The other convenient excuse is that they don't have the weapons. And whose fault is that?

This team could overcome this OL rather easily if they devised a scheme and offense that tried for big plays. But they are not, and that is why the fail.

Image

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:21 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
Now there is nothing you can say to me that is condescending!!

PUDGE SAID
Quote:

Well, I didn't because OL play is overrated. You don't need a good OL to be a good team


YOU SAID IT, YOU OWN IT!! THE DUMBEST thing I've ever heard you say in 15 years.


Sorry I won't write more for that statement rattles me about how much you think you know when its really a simple game.THE O-LINE EFFECTS ALL OTHER POSITIONS ON OFFENSE.

i'M OUT OF THIS THREAD; before I SAY SOMETHING i'll REGRET.

SINCERELY, all you guys and Pudge have a happy Thanksgiving!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:06 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26076
Location: North Carolina
All you have to do is look around the league and see teams with bad offensive lines that are successful. The Falcons showed that last year. You look at a team like the Colts, Cardinals, Steelers, Packers, Bears, Ravens, Dolphins, all teams that either have weak OLs or have had them recently and been in playoff-contention or in Super Bowl contention.

On its own, OL play isn't necessary to be a successful team. QB play and defense are much, much, much bigger factors in overall team success. Many of those teams I mentioned above, including the Falcons have succeeded because they can compensate with good QB play and/or defense.

There's no denying that if the Falcons OL play was better, they would have more success. I'm not arguing that. But the central problem isn't the OL play. It's the fact that the coaches cannot find ways to compensate. The coaching staff has built up a gameplan that heavily relies on having a good OL rather than one that somewhat mitigates the lacking quality of the Falcons O-line.

Again, this is the central issue I have with this coaching staff. They are not adjusting. If they would, I'm not saying this team would be 9-2, as they could easily still be 2-9. But they would be competitive in games, and they would be scoring at least 7-14 more points per game.

That's my beef. But I keep hearing/reading: "Well, the Falcons are losing because OL stinks, and there's nothing Mike Smith can do about that, so c'est la vie."

And that's BS.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:22 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1823
Location: Los Angeles California
Pudge, you continue to argue this point on the OL with great insight, and I want to believe you, but the thing that I think derails your argument is that various members of this OL keep getting benched. You don't get benched because you aren't the problem, you get benched because you can't do your job. At this point, I'd argue that half our OL shouldn't be in the league, and THAT is a problem, no matter is Ryan is a Game Manager check down king or not.

_________________
"I am certainly not afraid to have Brian Finneran on the field. Has he ever not made plays? He just makes plays. He is one of those guys that just makes plays. He is dependable."

J. Mora JR.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:26 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26076
Location: North Carolina
The OL stinks. But people act like an NFL team/offense cannot function without a good OL, and that's complete BS.

Look at the Cardinals, they have a bad OL. No doubt about that. Arguably the worst in the NFL. Yet they've averaged 26 points per game over the past 7 weeks. Part of that is because they get stops on defense and can score points off those turnovers. But a big part of it is that Bruce Arians hasn't dialed back his offense because he's afraid of taking sacks.

That's the problem. As I pondered after the 2011 season, was this coaching staff too conservative for its own good. Then after last season, I thought that question was answered with a definite no because they didn't overly rely on the run, and took measured shots down the field (but not that many). But this year, they are overly reliant on a weak running game, and don't take any shots down the field. Part of that is because Ryan has been reluctant to throw, but another part is that there have been very, very few opportunities where this team has tried to take shots.

Why? Because they play scared and conservative. That's the thing that is missing here. They have a bad OL, and the way they are calling the games is playing into that. That's why everybody thinks the OL is the Achilles Heel of the team/offense. It doesn't have to be is the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not suggesting that with this OL the Falcons can still be one of the premier teams in the league. They cannot. But they could be significantly better than they are. Since Julio got injured, this team has scored 105 points in 6 games, which is 29th in the league. The teams that are worst are the Browns, Jaguars, and Jets. And the reason why those teams are struggling to score points has little to do with their offensive lines, but has more to do with those teams having crappy, young QBs.

There's no excuse for the Falcons to have a QB the caliber of Matt Ryan and be this bad. They should be at least as good as teams like the Dolphins (25th), Giants (22nd), Titans (21st), Vikings (19th), and Redskins (17th).

THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR THAT. People keep saying the OL is the excuse, and that's BS.

One of the reasons why Ryan is playing poorly, is the EXACT same reason why Ryan played so poorly against the Giants in the 2011 playoffs. Because the coaching staff is not doing much of anything that is designed to get a QB to play well. No vertical shots, no play-action, and overly relying on man-beating pass routes without man-beating WRs. If the Falcons went max protect (as they often did in 2012) and took measured shots down the field, they would change how defenses played us. They would have to respect the deep ball more, and that would open underneath stuff for Gonzo & HD to do more work. They don't run any play-action, which on those downs when they go Steven Jackson up the middle on 1st & 10, they should go play-action and try to take a shot down the field. No one is asking them to run play-action all the time, but on those obvious run downs, use 2 or 3 of those a game to take more shots down the field. And they stopped trying to use complementary routes, which they used effectively against Arizona, which is why Drew Davis "looked good" against them. But they stopped that since then.

Making these changes won't make the Falcons into a winning team, but instead of getting beat 34-10, they could be getting beat 34-24. The only way you should be considering Mike Smith to be doing a good job is because you also believe this team should be tanking games.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:40 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
We played N.O. TOUGH and I DON'T HEAR A SHOUT OUT FOR THAT!!

PUDGE WROTE:
Quote:
Part of that is because Ryan has been reluctant to throw, but another part is that there have been very, very few opportunities where this team has tried to take shots.

Why? Because they play scared and conservative. That's the thing that is missing here. They have a bad OL, and the way they are calling the games is playing into that. That's why everybody thinks the OL is the Achilles Heel of the team/offense. It doesn't have to be is the point I'm trying to make.



iT'S RYAN BEING RELUCTANT TO THROW; AND FEW OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE SHOTS IS ALL ON RYAN!! He's run the no huddle where he calls the plays and he's as likely to call a running play as anyone. The offensive line makes him want to not get hit...... It is this way because of the line; not the coaches. Ryan throws so many away its a joke!!

That slide referred to, may have been prudent; but it shows me he won't sell out for the win!! The only reason a Qb slides is the rules say he then can't be hit.... We won't know what would have happened; if he said I'm going to score come hell or high water; sure he might have been tackled but it really showed where Matt's priority is!! He won't risk being tackled and would rather slide.

That from 12 weeks of this Offensive line making Matt show how he handles adversity!!

The O-LINE HAS BEEN HORRIBLE SINCE TRAINING CAMP.

Their are no coaches who will turn a team without a line or defensive line around.

Its as simple as Coach Smith took a no running team to the Championship game last year....
He didn't forget how; the O-Line is worse; and so is the defensive line. No Ryan didn't forget how to play Qb just as Coach Smith forgot to Coach..... You really believe that and its scary.

Things have turned so sour on this team; its its terrible Offensive line; which in some ways has gotten worse... Ryan won't get hit if possible so his numbers are down. As a 6th year Qb if Ryan wants to open things up he can call any play he wants....Ryan know he'll have to hurry and its Ryan who is afraid of the interception.

Our best hope is for a team to overlook us; then maybe we;ll get a win handed to us. If Ryan is half the Qb you think; then he's do something on his own; to open it up... He has no plans to get beat up any more!!

Smith has had adversity since he took over the team; This is really Ryan's first adversity
and he's shown absolutely no leadership; nor a desire to do anything extra. I don't really expected it with this line; but Ryan has surprised a lot of people with his lack of fire. That's just not him; and he doesn't want to get hit anymore.

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:26 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26076
Location: North Carolina
Talk about passing the buck. :roll:

So let me get this straight, Cyril... You believe that this team has gone from 13-3 last year to possibly 3-13 this year because the offensive line and defensive lines have gotten that much worse? Are you also saying that Ryan's poor play is independent of the coaching? Ryan hasn't been running the no huddle until last week, so saying he's not taking deep shots is 100% on him is BS. The coaches were calling the plays for 5 weeks, not him.

The same accusation leveled at me earlier this season now applies to you. The fact that you're digging real deep to avoid putting any blame on Mike Smith and the coaching staff.

The Patriots started 5 rookies on Sunday vs. the Broncos, and are without their 2 best defensive players (Vince Wilfork & Jerod Mayo, both out of the year), and yet they managed to win that game despite turning the ball over 3 times in the first half. That's what we call facing adversity and rising above it.

If you think Mike Smith has faced adversity and responded to it well in the past, I'm curious to know what you're calling adversity. He's currently facing adversity and is shrinking from it.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 3:25 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
Mike Smith's big adversity came in year one. I HAVE BLAMED COACH SMITH FOR LETTING AN ATMOSPHERE EXIST THAT LET TONY g. stay home when he could have been helping younger players and letting the atmosphere have Roddy tweet it we don't have a Super Bowl its a lost season.

Ryan is a 6th year qb; he's on the field; I have said he couldn't really do much different with the terrible O-line; and you say line play is overrated!! You blame coaches and I THINK (AS YOU HAVE SAID) THAT WITH OUR CLOSE WINS LAST SEASON WE COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN 11-5.

PUDGE WROTE
Quote:

Cyril wrote:
Pudge you said before the season
Pudge wrote:
Look, I get how a person could be down on the Falcons off-season.

Best OL in 2012: Tyson Clabo

Gone. Replaced with Lamar Holmes and Mike Johnson. Why would anyone outside Flowery Branch feel like the Falcons got better there?

Lose Todd McClure to be replaced by Peter Konz.

Konz stunk last year, why would you feel like they got better there?

Now that you Thought Konz sucked last year; lost our best lineman in Tyson Claybo; and says Lamar Holmes & Mike Johnson can't be upgrades; so we have four linemen that can't cut it; including Hawley; and it seems you has changed your mind now that the line collapsed as anyone would have believed if honest with the fact's. In fact now that we see the results you now say

Well, firstly you're taking those comments out of context. Those were in reference to a discussion about Pat Yasinskas giving the Falcons an off-season grade of a C, not what I expected the Falcons upcoming season.


i'M NOT TAKING ANYTHING OUT OF CONTECT UNLESS YOUR SAYING YOU CHANGE WHAT YOU SAY TO FIT YOUR NEEDS.

No I've said Coach Smith didn't stop learning how to Coach and Ryan stop being a Qb in the same 16 games. You have been knocking Ryan pretty good but you want all his interceptions on the coaches; now that you've changed your tune. Your so shallow on this one I'm tired of talking with you; but eaach of your posts either attack the coaches or me, when we didn't have 4 line positions set up coming into the season.... Sorry but if you strike out with all 4 players on the line; yes you can have a disaster like we've had.... Learn from it!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 6:02 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
Pudge Wrote
Quote:
There's no excuse for the Falcons to have a QB the caliber of Matt Ryan and be this bad. They should be at least as good as teams like the Dolphins (25th), Giants (22nd), Titans (21st), Vikings (19th), and Redskins (17th).

THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR THAT. People keep saying the OL is the excuse, and that's BS.


Pudge I'm rewriting this to be a little nicer and say the same thing..... Just like a Team shouldn't go from 13-3 to 3-13 its just not reasonable to think that both the head Coach forgot his job, and Matt Ryan didn't change either....

So what's the difference.... We lost McCLURE who was good enough to go through 4 coaching staffs and Claybo played certainly average last year..... What happened is the guys they thought that would fill in for Claybo; & McClure have not worked out. Baker was given a huge
18 million dollar guarantee and he really let us down or it was a terrible signing.

Then right guard which was never really set, was not addressed!!

That's 4 lousy linemen that has handcuffed our Offense.

On defense we had no pass rush and that was not addressed. Guys like DeCoud who did ok
last year are just sucking this year.

So its obviously not JUST the O-line and its not an excuse. This is not the way I want it to be;
but of all our problems its the 4 linemen I mention. Blalock has never been mistaken for an all pro either.

aCTUALLY N.O. played rather bad thursday night; so we always have the chance for someone to over look us.

The year after our Super Bowl we went 5-11. Its the damn same deal, without as many injuries. So I'm just saying I've seen it before. My saying it shouldn't happen doesn't matter;
BUT THIS YEAR NEEDS WERE NOT ADDRESSED!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:19 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
Who's going to read all that crap!! 9 sacks in one game and you think our offensive line is underrated?

Think Again??

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:38 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
9 SACKS IN ONE GAME..... YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT WITHOUT DIFFERENT PLAYERS.....

Give it up Pudge, your looking kinda insane (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:34 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1823
Location: Los Angeles California
I'm still sitting here wondering how the Jets got to 8-8 and Falcons posted 4 wins. If Matt Ryan was 'elite' there is no way we should be below 6 wins no matter how woeful the rest of the team was, thus, I'm still going with Ryan is 'only' a great game manager which means he needs average support at multiple positions and above average a two key positions to have success AND that Smith isn't the kind of coach that can 'create' 2-4 wins a season just with his X's and O's. Some folks say we stink in the 3rd Quarter because Ryan has lost his throwing rhythm, but I would go back to the inability to make quality adjustments in the game plan on both sides of the ball during half time, both when we have the lead and are down. An 'elite' coach can adjust after the half and reclaim the momentum, but Smith has never had that, but he did have Ryan pulling 25 come from behind wins before the 'ice' melted on old Matty this year. At the end of the day good coaching is what made the arguably worst pre-season team in the league, the Jets, get to 8 wins, AND why the Pats got 12 wins with all their injuries [4 from Brady's brilliance, 4 from Bill, and 4 from what talent they still had]. IMO, Smitty adds nothing to the equation of wins, while I still believe Ryan at his best can add 2-4, although after this year I'm having my doubts and that flex number is more at the 1-2 range and falling.

_________________
"I am certainly not afraid to have Brian Finneran on the field. Has he ever not made plays? He just makes plays. He is one of those guys that just makes plays. He is dependable."

J. Mora JR.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:28 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4346
When people say, "he has more come from behind wins than any other QB in the league for the time that he's been here," that doesn't say, "game manager," to me. Of all of the QBs in the NFL, he's the best when the game is on the line. You don't want to have to put the ball in the hands of a, "game manager," when the game is on the line in the 4th quarter. You want a game manager to hand the ball off, and avoid making mistakes.

It is CLEAR AS DAY, that Mike Smith WANTS Ryan to be a game manager. However, with no run game, and no defense, Ryan has had to be more, and he has done so, quite well. This year, we simply put a horribly inferior team on the field, and then people started getting hurt. Ryan was not able to overcome all of the deficiencies/injuries.

I really don't think you could put any QB... ANY QB, in this situation and get more than 5 or 6 wins. A lot of our games could have gone either way. We probably would have won today if not for a phantom snap. We probably would have beaten San Francisco if not for a Harry Douglas bobble. As much as the offensive line sucked this year, weird, inexplicable crap also happened that cost us games. I just don't get how you can say, "Ryan could have done more," in those types of situations. I suppose he could have gone to someone other than Harry Douglas while he was being thrown to the ground. Cam Newton probably would have run really fast and picked up that ridiculous snap and run it in for a TD.

We can debate this for the next 7 months... I doubt anyone is going to change their mind. Ryan will, at some point in his career, be given the opportunity to prove that he's more than simply, "a game manager." For that to happen, he will need to be provided with an offensive line that can hold up for the kind of time that the elite guys get. He will also need a coach that knows how to run an aggressive passing offense. Make no mistake, Ryan's, "game manager," like performances stem from this coaching staff, not from the player. The coaching staff continues to hold this offense back, not having any clue how, or not wanting to get the most out of the talent that we have on the field.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:39 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
I'll say it again, being a game manager is not a bad thing its a good thing!! Very few Qbs can carry a team and about now that's down to Brady or Manning.

Your best game managers are your traditional best Qbs. Its just if you have no talent their's nothing to manage. Finding good game manager for a Qb is finding a very good Qb. Why is that bad?? Its what the position is all about? Not 1-50 can actually carry a team!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:17 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4346
I think that this comes down to what you define as a, "game manager." Wikipedia defines it as follows:
Quote:
In American football, a game manager is a quarterback who, despite relatively poor individual statistics such as passing yards and touchdowns, manages to perform well enough to win games.[1][2] Game managers often benefit from strong defense and rushing offense on their teams. The player is expected to not lose games with interceptions, fumbles, or poor decisions, particularly during important situations near the end of a game.


Urban Dictionary defines it as follows:
Quote:
A mediocre NFL quarterback that lets the game come to him, simply managing it rather than making things happen.


I do not believe that either of these definitions describes what Matt Ryan does for our team. I believe that our coaching staff wants to be a ball control team, where we execute long drives, keeping our defense fresh, enabling the defense to attack the opposing offense. However, for the past several years, the run game hasn't been there, and the defense has sucked. Ryan HAS carried this team for the past several years. If not for Ryan's ability to take the team on his shoulders and drive down the field at the end of the game, what would our record in previous seasons have been?

Imagine Ryan on a team where the philosophy wasn't to have him sit back and manage for 3 quarters, and instead, put the players around him to allow him to attack opposing defenses with short, medium, and long passes for four quarters. Matt has proven that he can make all of those throws. He has proven that he can beat the blitz. He has proven that he can make pre-snap reads and adjustments. He has proven that he's a tough SoB and will take a hit and make the throw.

I just don't see how anyone can give him the label, "game manager," knowing full well that the coaching staff is conservative as hell. Matt Ryan has shown that he has all of the tools to be an elite QB. The things holding him back are an ultra-conservative offensive philosophy, and a train wreck of an offensive line. Even so, the guy is among the league leaders in all passing stats every year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:23 pm 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6247
Location: Planet Claire
By Wiki's definition, no, he is not that. Nor is he a gunslinger or exactly what I would call a play maker. Just terminology really, though.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:23 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26076
Location: North Carolina
RobertAP wrote:
He has proven that he's a tough SoB and will take a hit and make the throw.

I agree with most of what your'e saying, but I would beg to differ on that point:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1860 ... d-and-goal

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:02 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4713
Quote:
Urban Dictionary defines it as follows:
Quote:
A mediocre NFL quarterback that lets the game come to him, simply managing it rather than making things happen.


Well that's no more official than this. A QB GAME MANAGER is a Qb that gets his whole team involved. The good ones don't make many mistakes and their percentages are very good.....
The good ones are usually winning games; but even the best game manager is poor if the other 10 positions are basically fairly bad. The main difference is an elite Qb will find a way to win 6 or 8 games regardless; and is usually in he top 2 or 3 Qbs in the league. Most of the poor
game managers are hit and miss; and don't stick with teams long. The good game day managers will win a lot; but always have a few fellow Qbs considered better than them!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:18 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 4346
Pudge wrote:
RobertAP wrote:
He has proven that he's a tough SoB and will take a hit and make the throw.

I agree with most of what your'e saying, but I would beg to differ on that point:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1860 ... d-and-goal

I seem to recall a few times early in his career where Matt Ryan didn't slide in those situations, and ended up being throwing into the air and losing the football. But hey, what's a few more hard knocks?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm going back to Matt Ryan = Game Manager
PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:45 am 
Offline
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:12 pm
Posts: 6247
Location: Planet Claire
RobertAP wrote:
Pudge wrote:
RobertAP wrote:
He has proven that he's a tough SoB and will take a hit and make the throw.

I agree with most of what your'e saying, but I would beg to differ on that point:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1860 ... d-and-goal

I seem to recall a few times early in his career where Matt Ryan didn't slide in those situations, and ended up being throwing into the air and losing the football. But hey, what's a few more hard knocks?

What is Wiki definition of "few," one? (Minnesota 2008)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

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