Not sure if you've heard: we're 5-0. Ain't too shabby, if you ask me, but don't ask Bleacher Report's Lou Rom.
In this article, Rom predicts our 2012 losses. He believes we could lose to the Eagles, Cowboys, Saints, and Giants. Oh my! And maybe we will. Maybe we will fall back to Earth. Maybe we aren't destined to be perfect. Maybe Dave will get a Rogaine sponsorship. But who cares? Who really cares? Let them play.
Look, hear me out, because I'm going to tear apart Rom's logic, as best I can. Not because he's a bad writer. He's doing his job, just like I am. I'm going there because it's week 6. Week 6! Not week 10, not week 12, it's week 6. I don't think anyone truly expects the Falcons to be perfect this year, at least not yet. It seems - to be frank - very premature. Let things play out a bit for Vishnu's sake.
Let's break down Rom's logic:
However, the Eagles are 7-2 against the Falcons in the last 10 years [...]
Over the last decade the Eagles have been the more physical team while the Falcons have relied on finesse and speed.
Are you kidding me? These teams are markedly different than their 2002 versions. Why are we talking about what happened a decade ago? Our run defense hasn't been spectacular, because we often sell out the run to create pressure. It's a formula that's worked so far. Vick is dynamic, but we handled Griffin last week, I think we can handle him. Even if we can't, he won't run the ball 25 times.
Rom doesn't cite any real reasons we could lose to the Cowboys. He basically says they're clutch. He says they beat good teams. To be fair, that may be their recent history. But this is 2012. And the Cowboys aren't very good in 2012. They've been mediocre at best. Get with it.
By far the most respectable guess on Rom's list. The Giants can play ball. But they're not as good as they were in the playoffs last year. They're still figuring out their identity. But we've established ours. We've established a modus operandi.
Shocking pick. And I don't mean shocking in the traditional sense. Not shocking like Michael Turner's pants size. Enough said.
Alright look, I didn't exactly tear apart his logic as promised, I can acknowledge that. But give me a break, there wasn't much logic to tear apart. The problem with his analysis is that it doesn't take the past 5 weeks into account. Almost all of what he says was arguable 5 weeks ago. He's basically revisiting a preseason breakdown of our schedule. As a result, his premise is markedly flawed. Plus he waivers. It's like he has faith in the Falcons, but he wants to speculate for speculation's sake. Whatever. I'm over it.
End of rant.