The Great Debate: Who Holds The Key To An Unstoppable Falcons Offense?
In this series of posts, I seek to find the answer to questions that are brought up around here or around the various sports conversation sites. I use a realistic, low-stat opinion to generate discussion about these topics, but I also encourage the use of stats in an argument.
Trying to hold away the stat flame from this one is going to be hard, though this is why I encourage the use of stats in these posts.
Many, many times we have debated here about what is holding the Falcons offense back. We seemingly have the tools to do good things. Heck, we dominated time of possession, we made relatively few mistakes, and we have a young QB who is one of the best in the business.
We have a solid RB and a do-all backup RB, albeit they are both physical runners. We have an elite #1 WR and an underrated #2 WR and a bunch of younglings behind them. We have an OL that has jelled over the years to form a strong, cohesive unit.
We have an Offensive Coordinator who isn't very popular among many of us, but let's face it, we could be doing much worse.
So who's hiding the Energon Cube to the offense?
The answer...may surprise you.
I have been on the speed back bandwagon for a while now. I believe we desperately need someone who can catch passes out of the backfield who isn't a lumbering RB (Sorry, Snelling, though I really hope we keep you around)
But since the draft is a risk, we can't assume that any kind of speed RB that is drafted will suddenly make the offense explode. The speed RB won't start immediately, if at all, and his impact will be limited in scope. The Juggernaut Falcon Offense will need someone more readily available.
The answer to this question, in my opinion, is rather complex. It's a team thing. (Imagine that. An entire team holding the key to something in a team sport.)
Here's my breakdown of what has to happen for us to be great:
1) It starts at the very top. It's not so much about what position as it is who we get. The offense is going to explode with a legitimate #2 receiver, but we have to be very, very careful as to who we obtain to fulfill that role. Do we trust a younger, small WR like a Titus Young to step up and fill the need of a #2 AND a speed WR?
Mr. Blank, Comrade, and Smitty have to collaborate and make the right decision here. I think we will sign a taller FA receiver (think Sims-Walker) and draft a speedy receiver (think Young or Jernigan) and see what each brings to the table. The wrong decision on either account could stall the offense for another year and potentially do long-term damage (Turner wearing down).
2) The WR Shuffle. Let's assume for a minute that a good #2 WR is brought in. Actually, let's assume Sims-Walker is brought in.
There was a small debate over whether MSW was an improvement over Jenkins. I think the general consensus was that he was an improvement, albeit a small one. Let's also assume for a moment that MSW is the best #2 we're able to pick up, excluding the draft.
The general consensus over the past couple of weeks has been moving Jenks to the slot where his physical style will reign supreme, so long as there is a #2 to take his #2 spot. However, not much was mentioned about how massive of an upgrade Jenkins is over our #3. Let's face it, HD hasn't been performing up to par in the slot. He's recovering from an ACL, so he gets his pass for this past season, but there should be no excuses this year. Jenkins has decent speed, he's big, and he has reliable-enough hands.
That's a monstrous improvement from dropsy, glass ACL Harry Douglas (no hate intended) and therein lies the key. Jenkins is just talented enough that if we bring in someone even slightly better than him that we didn't have before, it's going to open Roddy's game up tremendously in 4 WR sets. Acquire a fourth WR to freeze the safeties downfield and all of a sudden, we're crediting...
3) Mike Mularkey. No doubt this man will be integral to this upcoming season's offensive success, perhaps moreso than ever before. This season will make or break his stay here in Atlanta, because I have 100% confidence in the FO to address our WR needs.
Assume MSW comes in and plays on a slightly higher level than Jenkins, now think back to what made the Packers' O so good. Not many people have been on the James Jones bandwagon, but between him, Driver, Nelson, Jennings, and Quarless, any one of them can make a big play, and it's because of one simple offensive scheme.
The mismatch.
Our receivers consisted of Roddy, Jenkins, and a slowed Gonzo. Athletic LBs could cover Gonzo because let's face it, he's slowed down considerably. He still has the best hands in the game, but he can't get open quite as well anymore. Roddy was being smothered and still put up ludicrous numbers. Jenkins had his moments, but he didn't have enough of them.
Add MSW to the mix, and all of a sudden HD/Weems/#4 is being covered by either an LB or a bench warming DB, and that's a winning formula. All that is is James Jones/Jordy Nelson in the Packers scheme, and that will cause nightmares for teams without a deep DB group (aka just about everybody).
Run a little pre-snap motion or a few tricky routes and now MSW is being covered by that LB, and that's how we get 20 yard chunks over the middle. I'll go ahead and assume Matty's a smart QB. His passing ability rivals almost anyone in the league if you ask me. This assumes MM can make the playcalls.
The Pack may have a talented WR corps, but even with the addition of Mr. Starks, they're still largely one dimensional, unlike us, because we have...
4) Consistency in the running game. No doubt subtracting Gonzo and adding Noel Devine with Roddy/Jenkins/MSW/HD on 3rd down is a QB's happy place.
I feel like it's safe to say Turner will have another 1,200+ yard season this year. He's slowed a bit, but he's still pretty consistent. He gets the yards when we need 'em, and that's all we need from him. As this offense continues to evolve, Turner's importance will grow, but the workload asked of him will decrease.
Turner will still be a very valuable runner. He can still get up to speed, given some space, and he can eat up chunks of yards. Adding someone like MSW will allow the O to spread out and still run the ball effectively since MSW is another threat that must be respected. That, in turn, allows for fewer men in the box, and our physical style of play feasts on weakened defensive fronts.
A speedy RB that can catch will thrive in this system. 4 WR/1 Speed Demon RB sets practically scream "Screen Pass", and since we haven't hardly run any in the three years of MM's tenure here, considering them now could set up some major traps along the way this season.
Noel Devine would do well in this system. He can catch like a receiver but is still shifty as an RB. He would only add to the mismatches, especially if motioned out of the backfield.
Getting a full-time back like Noel Devine would put us potentially in Patriot offense status. (Screen pass to Kevin Faulk, anyone?)
We're very, very close to having the offense of our dreams, but in order to reach that offense, everyone has to contribute, starting with the coaching staff and front office. We absolutely cannot miss on a #2 receiver, because I feel that sets this whole thing up. The #4 receiver is interchangeable, as is a potential #5 option instead of Gonzo or an RB. One of the two needs to be someone who is very fast to help open up deep lanes.
Provided the right WR is brought in, the responsibility then falls to Mularkey. I'm 100% confident that Matty will execute whatever is asked of him. He has not earned any doubt from me in his ability to lead and conquer with this team.
Mularkey will then have to exploit mismatches and he'll have to exploit them all game long. If he's as gadget-y as people claim he is, then this should be right up his alley. Naturally, it's up to the players to execute his plan, but I believe they'll do just that.
This will largely fall on MM and a #2 WR, who will push everyone else down a spot and cause mismatch nightmares for defenses. However, it will still require a team effort to REALLY open up the offense because everyone will be playing a significant part in it.
What do you all think? Who do you think holds the key to the final stage of offensive power? Is a #2 WR the missing link? It is Mularkey's playcalling? I'm really looking forward to this!
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i have to agree with you on all points here. i’ve always felt that Jenkins would do better as a 3rd receiver. MSW could actually thrive in Atlanta with Matt Ryan being an upgrade from Garrard (in my opinion).
i hope we can pick up a Brian Westbrook like back. the screen play would open up running lanes and slow down the pass rush. it would also give our o-line a chance to display their athleticism and get them the credit they deserve.
here would be my position draft board:
1st round: DE
2nd round: CB
3rd round: TE
4th round: OLB
5th round: T
6th round: G
7th round: FS
this is assuming the Falcons have all 7 picks.
Stretching just a little are we?
Assuming that the O will explode with a different #2 is based on two things:
1) MJ12 cannot create space
2) Whomever is brought in will be used differently than MJ12
MSW nor JJones is that WR. Your comment about JJones breaking a play anytime is correct but it’s due to the WR corps he’s part of. When GB spreads their WR’s out who knows where the ball is going. ATL has neither the WR corp nor passing schemes to do that.
I’ll be you a dollar to a doughnut that if ATL brings in a fairly high dollar FA WR they won’t draft a WR before the 3rd or 4th round. That will cut out the guys you’ve mentioned.
There are few FA WR’s available that have numbers that are appreciablly better than MJ’s. The ones that do are going to cost a lot of money. TD might invest in one this year though.
ATL needs to pick up a different kind of RB than Snelling or Turner, if for no other reason than to fill Norwoods position. Devine, meh, not my first choice, we’ll see how that plays out.
MM hasn’t exploited a mismatch in three years. Will he with more offensive tools? Guess only time will tell.
Have we really had mismatches to exploit before this year?
That’s what getting a solid #2 adds for us. It’s the mismatching potential and it’s what makes GB so good.
If they stick to what they’re hinting at, we’re starting to turn to “win now” mode. MSW does not fit the flamethrower receiver bill, which means we’re still going to need one. If Titus Young is still there in the 2nd, I think you have to pull the trigger on him. We have OL depth, even if a couple of the starters leave because we’ve been grooming players for some time now.
MSW nor JJones is that WR. Your comment about JJones breaking a play anytime is correct but it’s due to the WR corps he’s part of. When GB spreads their WR’s out who knows where the ball is going. ATL has neither the WR corp nor passing schemes to do that.
Alone, no, they are not that WR, however when you add Jenkins, White, and Gonzo (plus any decent 4th option) to the mix, all of a sudden the same could be said about us that is said about GB. Jenkins, oft maligned as he is, can still make catches and we all know Roddy and Gonzo are money in the bank.
We don’t have the schemes because we don’t have the talent to exploit the entire mismatching potential. Jenkins can be single covered by a #2 and Roddy can be double teamed, albeit not all the time because he’s incredible. Everyone past those two just isn’t cutting it. Gonzo has great hands, but he’s slowed down, so the athletic LBs can help cover him now, whereas in his younger days, that wasn’t the case.
I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say adding a solid #2 and losing nobody is going to make us much, much better. Whether it will happen or not, though, there’s no way to know.
Follow me on Twitter! twitter.com/FalcoholicZippo
If you're a fan of the Falcons, or if you want to chat it up with some Falcons fans, sign up here, share your opinion, and get to know some great fans of the Falcons!
by Caleb Rutherford on Mar 7, 2011 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
The arguement will go one of two ways
Don’t have the scheme or don’t have the players. I don’t think we have the scheme. If that’s the case then it won’t matter who the #2 is.
Yes, ATL has had mismatches, statistically it’s impossible not to.
I’ve never said adding a solid #2 wasn’t a good idea, what I’ve said is that none of the names being tossed around are any more solids at #2 than Jenkins. You really want to improve the offense, get a WR that is better than MJ, somewhere between him and Roddy. Then dropping MJ to #3 makes sense.
What the....????
“We have OL depth, even if a couple of the starters leave because we’ve been grooming players for some time now.”
What roster are you looking at? Where exactly is this depth you allude to? The Falcons have an average at best starting LT, an aging C, and three FAs making up the starting unit (Blalock, Dahl & Clabo). Hawley appears to be the heir apparent for McClure at C and could conceivably play at one of the OG positions, but is truly untested. Mike Johnson and Jose Valdez are the only other OGs on the roster (aside from aforementioned FA starters), and I’ve sure not seen enough of either to warrant their promotion to the starting lineup. Will Svitek and Garrett Reynolds are the only back up OTs on the current roster. If either of them was worthy of starting, surely they would have replaced Baker already (either directly or with Clabo moving to LT). I’d like some of whatever it is that you’re smoking if you think that’s depth. The reality is that the #1 priority should be OL, then DE. If the Falcons lose two of the three FA OL and don’t make a FA move or trade to get a proven replacement for at least one, you can completely forget about the so-called playmakers because no holes will exist for Turner or any other RB and Ryan will be watching from a wheel-chair by Week 6.
A couple of the starters, meaning two.
Hawley, Reynolds, Johnson, Valdez. None of those 4 played much at all last year. Svitek played some, and Bruggeman exists. Players have the capacity to improve their games, you know. Also, I expect us to retain at least one of the 3 FA OL that could be leaving.
I simply said we had depth, I didn’t say they’d run in and be All-Universe.
Follow me on Twitter! twitter.com/FalcoholicZippo
If you're a fan of the Falcons, or if you want to chat it up with some Falcons fans, sign up here, share your opinion, and get to know some great fans of the Falcons!
by Caleb Rutherford on Mar 7, 2011 11:54 PM EST up reply actions
...right, which is why I said we had depth.
As in we still have multiple bodies that can fill the positions, even if a couple people leave.
Here’s something about the League. Not every player we have is going to start off as an All Pro/Pro Bowler/Good/Whatever.
But anyone we keep should be capable of playing in at least a limited quantity, perhaps even starting if the person ahead of them were to go down.
Could they fill in as well as the starter? Who knows. It has happened before.
But if you think the FO hasn’t been preparing for this by acquiring depth that could step in and play, I’ll have to respectfully disagree.
Follow me on Twitter! twitter.com/FalcoholicZippo
If you're a fan of the Falcons, or if you want to chat it up with some Falcons fans, sign up here, share your opinion, and get to know some great fans of the Falcons!
by Caleb Rutherford on Mar 7, 2011 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
I can give two examples of where that is suspect
At WR and LB. One injury to Roddy and MJ, yes MJ, and the WR corps could be in bad shape. If Nicholas doesn’t resign there is a problem. If he does and there is an injury during the season and there is a problem.
The FO has done great getting DL depth that plays every game. The OL depth does not have the playing time the the DL does.
Not buying your definition of depth
You make it sound like depth is purely a numbers thing. I don’t believe that’s the generally accepted definition. Rather, depth typically means backups that can come in to replace an injured or lost starter with little to no drop off in performance. Obviously that’s not going to be the case with studs and perennial All-Pros, but for the average starter it applies. And in this case it’s worth mentioning because we have no studs or All-Pros on our OL (Pro Bowlers don’t count as it’s a popularity contest).
Further, I’m not as enamored with our starting OL as others seem to be, so the idea of Svitek or Reynolds replacing Clabo and Hawley/Valdez/Johnson replacing Blalock or Dahl doesn’t exactly give me the warm fuzzy feeling.
I also agree that depth at other positions like LB and S are very troubling as well. My point was only that I don’t see the “depth” at OL that you see and therefore have a hard time with the justification that #2 WR is a bigger need.
Out of all those guys, I could only see Johnson or Reynolds starting now
But I agree that we’ve got quality depth along that line. The team still needs to bolster it.
Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!
Hawley before Johnson
I see Hawley starting before Johnson, based purely on the fact that Johnson has only played in two preseason games and Hawley played in 15 of 16 regular season games, albeit in spot duty.
That's a good point
I think Johnson’s ceiling is higher, though, and I believe he was relatively polished coming out of college.
Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!
Dollar to a Doughnut?
Man! My mom used to say that all of the time and I had not thought of it in years until, …yesterday. Weird. Now if you’ll whip up fried chicken and a coconut cake we’ll be in business.
Thoughts on Reggie Bush to the Falcons.
I’m not sure if it’s a good idea but ol’ Chuck & Chirnoff brought it up. He’s a speedy dude that can fit our exact need BUT he’s not cheap and who knows if he can stay on the field.
Rule #1: Double tap.
by Ball Hawk on Mar 7, 2011 1:47 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I know, right?
Rule #1: Double tap.
by Ball Hawk on Mar 7, 2011 9:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
ive heard talk but im not sure, does matt ryan have good enough arm strength to throw the deep ball?
by suicide bunting is a sin on Mar 7, 2011 2:20 PM EST reply actions
like i keep hearing that matt ryan cant throw the deep ball
by suicide bunting is a sin on Mar 7, 2011 2:21 PM EST reply actions
No, he doesn't have the arm strength to shoot one 50-60 yards on a rope
Its not a knock on him, he just doesn’t have the cannon of an Aaron Rogers or a big Ben. He’s a solid short to mid passer. When he goes deep they tend to float and hang up way to long.
As we've discussed in past threads
you don’t really need to hit those 50-60 yarders, just throw them up occassionally to keep D’s guessing.
You also don’t need those type of passes to win games. Brady and Brees were both near the bottom in the league in the % of deep throws last year.
yea
i mean our longest play of the year was like 56 yards. I just wish we could go have a pass longer then 20 yards down the field more then once every 3 games
That would be nice
I’m just not sure of ATL has the plays designed for that though.
To be honest Matt threw deep 20.7% of the time and with 600 attempts that equates to 124 deep passes. With ATL playing 17 games this past season Matt threw deep 7.3 times a game.
For clarification, the % deep I talked about above is for passes of 15 yards and longer.
yea
i doubt MM has any plays designed for that. Matt did throw a few but most deep passes took to long to develop and usually Matt needed extra blockers so that meant fewer receivers. I dont know how many times i saw 8 blockers and only 3 recievers running routes
20.7% illusion
But most of his deep throws seem ‘fake.’ I’ve seen him overthrow/out-of-bounds it on plays where his deep man was double covered. It’s almost like he’s trying to make the defense think he’s willing to go deep without actually throwing the ball to someone.
Remember to stretch before running to BVG injuries.
I think the deep most of us think about, myself included are the passes 30+ yards downfield
Yours are far more in the real world mwalex. But I am curious on how many I guess deep, deep balls Matt threw. Do 15 yard passes really push the safeties back? I do agree to an extent that if you throw up an occasional 50-60 yarder it keeps some teams honest but I think the way we throw em, 1 pass overthrown way out of bounds to Jenks every other game doesn’t do much. Like u said w/Brees and Brady they didn’t go long much, so why not use that wasted throw underneath and learn how to throw a proper screen. Maybe the answers the opposite way. Pull D’s closer with short stuff so the 15 yarders are a little more open? Jesus, this post is all over the place…
Don't worry mwalex, we're not gonna go hypothetical again!
The 50-60 yarder is a wonderful highlight but really doesn’t happen too often.
We can man!! It's all good
According to NFL.com, if I’m reading the information correctly, Matt threw 32 passes of 20+ yards and 6 passes of 40+ yards in 2010.
Thanks for humoring me mwalex
Rarely go to NFL.com for stats. I didn’t know how deep they got in some categories! So it looks like Matty was in the bottom tier in both areas. MM’s scheme or just the fact that no one other than Roddy could get open further out? Not too worried about the 40+ stuff, like u said mwalex, low percentage stuff but wouldn’t mind him giving a few more looks to that 20 yard stuff. I feel like sometimes D’s really press down on us. Really hurt our YAC. I really hope MM opens things even just a little. Even if it’s just to show teams we can do it if we want.
I guess the only way we'll see
is if MM does get a few more offensive tools. We don’t know who the WR’s will be but we do know who is going to be the OC.
There are a couple of people that hold the key to offensive bliss
1) I wasn’t a fan of Dahl so assuming that everyone else is still there, the person that takes his place is extremely important
2) I feel that a number two wide receiver has to bring more than just being a little better than Jenkins. He has to bring a different skill set whether that’s being shifty, quick, instintive, or a combination of those qualities.
3) I still think we need an all-purpose back. As I’ve mentioned before, we tip our hand to defenses. When Turner is in you know we’ll probably run. When Snelling is in, everybody knows that it probably will be a pass play and to cover for the short pass. I’m not saying that we should get rid of Turner but the organization should give thought to adding a more complete back really soon.
I feel like most people would rather keep Dahl than Blalock
I think Blalock just seems quieter and more finesse than Dahl, but I do believe he’s the better lineman.
Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!
I would prefer Blalock
And I absolutely hated him when we drafted him. He was overmatched, missed assignments and was a longhorn! But now, like u said Dave, he quietly takes care of business. I even heard mention of him as a possible pro bowler from non Falcon news sites. He’s gone from a guy who almost seemed clueless to a technically sound lineman. I like Dahl but if we could only keep one, I’d choose Justin.
Totally agree
on Blalock. I think he’s the superior lineman which may make it tougher to keep him.
I agree with most points here
Except Jenkins being physical. He may be a physical blocker, but he is one of our least physical receivers (when it comes to receiving). Were he physical, we’d be in way better shape.
However, I do agree with the general sentiment that you don’t just look at how much better a WR is than Jenkins, you look at the domino affect. Upgrading your 2 makes your 2, 3, 4, 5 better. It’s the primary position where adding a player up top actually helps the entire set.
I do feel, however, we need a Plaxico Burress/Muhsin Muhammad/Hakeem Nicks/etc. type WR on this offense. Ryan lacks great accuracy on the deep ball and needs someone he can count on to attack the ball…making INTs very low risk. Jenkins doesn’t fit a type, unfortunately…he’s not elusive enough to get very open, and not physical enough to make catches when covered. However, he’d still be valuable in the multiple WR sets.
I definitely agree with that idea
We could definitely use a guy that comes back to the ball, is agressive in playing that ball in the air.
What’s more, I think HD will be more effective in the slot than most would think, given that his knee will finally be 100%, so we don’t necessarily need a top speed receiver (James Jones), although that would be nice.
I think we should strongly consider trading Jenks away so we can clear cap room for signing a higher caliber #2 wideout
"My parents do a lot of things behind the scenes that go unnoticed"- Cam Newton, Heisman acceptance speech.
by TurnerTheBurner on Mar 7, 2011 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
Who is a higher caliber WR for #2?
Other than Fitzgerald/Holmes or someone ATL can realistically pick up?
Fitz would be our #1.
Love Roddy, but Fitz is better.
Follow me on Twitter! twitter.com/FalcoholicZippo
If you're a fan of the Falcons, or if you want to chat it up with some Falcons fans, sign up here, share your opinion, and get to know some great fans of the Falcons!
by Caleb Rutherford on Mar 8, 2011 12:02 AM EST up reply actions
Nope.
Fitz is a great player, and he had that spectacular postseason run a couple years ago. But no one would come in a displace Roddy, because he has at the very least earned the right to be our go to guy. Of course all this speculation is probably useless, because there’s no way we can throw that much money at one position.
Wrong!
I love Roddy as much as the next guy, but you’re high if you think Fitzgerald would be the #2 behind Roddy. Roddy still drops too damn many balls and still makes too many stupid mistakes. Fitzgerald is the consummate pro – great route running, great hands, ability to create separation on his own, ability to break tackles and maintains composure at all times. Call it Fitzgerald #1a and White #1b if you’d like, but the pecking order would be clear.
This is another case of perception NOT matching reality
Roddy’s catch rate for 2010 was 64%. For Fitz it was 52%. Roddy’s success rate was 53.1% and Fitz’s was 45.3%. The only major difference is that Fitz was targetted deep a good bit more than Roddy.
In the past Roddy has dropped passes but his two lowest catch rates were when Vick was QB and that was as much of a problem, or more so, than bad hands.
Sorry,
but Fitzgerald is miles better after the throw. When the ball is in the air Roddy does not have anywhere near the ‘my ball’ mentality of Fitz.
Remember to stretch before running to BVG injuries.
Not MM but MS..
as in Mike Smith. It’s his [Smith’s] offense and defense. He wears the headphones and every call goes through him. He doesn’t take a lot of credit but is quick to take blame when they don’t. If he was ever going to throw anybody under the bus then after the G.B. game was the perfect time. He’s a “stay the course” guy and yes it’s served him well.
I don’t think you take a QB at #3 who can’t throw the deep ball. I don’t think you take a QB in that situation and not attempt to throw the deep ball. And I don’t think you can throw it deep if it’s not a regular part of the arsenal.
I agree
I don’t think you take a QB at #3 who can’t throw the deep ball. I don’t think you take a QB in that situation and not attempt to throw the deep ball. And I don’t think you can throw it deep if it’s not a regular part of the arsenal.
Wait… what are you saying exactly?
Remember to stretch before running to BVG injuries.
That Ryan can throw
the deep ball or they wouldn’t have picked him. I don’t think we do it enough to make it a viable part of our offense. It’s obvious that the Falcons spend a lot of practice time on the running game. Hence the success running it and stopping it.
tired of seeing 0-2 playoffs
Lets be serious about it…1st year we werent expected to even be a 500 team…than we lost to the eventual NFC Champs. Last year we lost to the eventual super bowl champs and they exploited us in an area that we knew we were weak in. How is that so terrible? Yes I want Lombardi trophies but I am happy for the fact we have been exceeding even our (the fans) expectations…
Dont cloud the issue with facts!
by muuzilla on Mar 8, 2011 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That was not the basis for what I said
my comment had to do with “staying the course”. If you do what you’ve always done you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.
So far we’ve lost to the NFC champs and SB champ, does that make it acceptable? I hope not.
I’m not trying to be difficult but I don’t care if you’re tired of seeing “0-2 in the playoffs”, so far that is what it is. I’m very ahppy with the progess of the team but the problems that caused the loss to GB are the same as the team has had for three years. Part of evolving and getting better is to address and solve problems. “Staying the course” is not an indicator for evolution.
That being said ATL is off their three year plan. This is the year something should happen.
same problem
yes, but different people. I am not sure how many from D is left from 08 but I know it isnt too many so that means we have started to grow there. But like you, I want results. On the same token, seeing 0-2 in the playoffs is not a bad thing from where we came not too long ago.
Dont cloud the issue with facts!
I agree about things getting better
But I don’t want to see ATL go 0-3 or 0-4 before changing the course.
And going into the fourth draft
again looking for defensive help. We’ve drafted some middle round guys that we’re “redshirting” 3rd, 4th, 5th round is where your team really is built. Gotta get guys who’re going to make plays there.
I agree but my point
is we’ve got to get it fixed. Bearing in mind that with the success of the team the Falcons haven’t had a couple of years where they draft relatively high. Not that I’m complaining about that. My real question is how the defense responds to BVG after the Packer blow out?
That's a good question
but I think we have to look at who gets added to the D in the offseason. I don’t think BVG can do any better than he has, he has maxed out his ability. If so ATL must add people that can improve the pass rush.
It's not only that we lost.
It’s also how we lost. The GB game was freaking embarrassing. As a fan, I’m absolutely proud of 33 wins and 2 playoff appearances. But as a fan, I also demand more.
Bottom line: 2 playoff trips = good. 2 losses = bad.
Remember to stretch before running to BVG injuries.
Having watched every Falcon season
and witnessing some horrific blow outs that was the first time that I ever quit on the team. I never thought they’d play like that again until I was hopefully DEAD! Didn’t expect that they’d be trying to kill me.
anybody think if darren sproles is a good idea?
i was able to watch him a lot when the chargers games came on and i like his speed and hands coming out of the backfield. what do yall think?
by suicide bunting is a sin on Mar 8, 2011 11:11 AM EST reply actions
I think we all assume
that we know what the Architect is trying to build. The Falcon’s MO on offense is to control time of possesion while keeping the opponents Offense of the field.
We all know that Jenkins isn’t on the field for his catching or playmaking abilities, he’s on the field to block! And he does that very well compared to most WR’s. Yes he will catch a few balls an occasionally make a big play but ya know…
3WR or Slot or HD in our case = No Production. I’m not saying HD won’t turn it around, it’s not like he had a healthy non productive 3 years. I think this is the biggest position of need.
TE/ Speed Back is next…2012 no Gonzo i’m sure it will be addressed somewhere in the draft. Norwood aka the glass man is great for 8 plays a year. also should be addressed via draft or FA
What i’m suggesting is that the Falcon’s Offense is not “designed” for fast attacking. It’s constructed to slowly drag opponents down the field. Not only that but the few quick strike weapons we should have "Slot & Skat Back are non-productive. Either injured or ? Those 2 positions create missmatches, YAC, more offensive play’s…… hopefully……..
by FalcNole on Mar 8, 2011 10:36 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
Stupid question here but why cant we get a scat back and have him on the field at the same time as Turner? Too many times the other team knows that if Turner is on the field he is gonna run it. I mean, last year was a career high in catches at…12 or something? He is a good blocker if I recall tho. So why not have 2 backs in…1 as a scat back and Turner as a half back. Than we can bring in Ovie as well. Play call the scat to the slot now and than. There are many ways to work a multiple back system to create missmatches.
I would like this for our offensive picks:
TE
RB/WR (scat back)
WR (even though we have so many right now and if they can remain healthy…we might not need one)
Than of course for Defense I think we need a DE than a tweener LB than a CB.
Dont cloud the issue with facts!
Where's the Screen?
I have thought for the last few years that the screen pass had been eliminated from our playbook. The few times that I have seen the screen we did not fool a soul and usually went for a loss. When our backs get in space they are almost unstoppable but when they get hit in the backfield or at the line we see marginal gain. A Screen or a dump pass just over the line seems logical to get these players into some space or into the second level. Instead I see passes to wide outs or backs on the sidelines or sweeps to get this space. If we could run successful screens

by 















