A TDW Observation: This is the week...

[Tandy]

(09-22-2010 05:18 PM)TheDirtyWord Wrote:  I'll agree to disagree as well.

However, I will point out that two other teams finished 3-0 even though they didn't make the playoffs.. Cleveland and Pittsburgh. In Cleveland, such 'progress' resulted in the HC actually keeping his job even if they hired a Parcells type in Holmgren. In Pittsburgh, it was greeted with crickets. What organizational model would you follow? The point is that while finishing 3-0 might have meant something to us personally, it meant nothing relating to the competitive landscape of the NFL.

As for the Ryan comparisons to Brady/Manning...it's clear that the Falcons see/saw him in that type of light. Remember two years ago when Manning was doubtful for the season opener because of the bursa sac thing in his knee. He rushed to come back, but he simply wasn't going to miss time even if he was at 70-80% of himself. That kind of stuff resonates in a locker room and is a reflection of the type of competitive compulsive personality Manning is. So if Ryan had decided to shut it down with 3 games left - if you don't think that would say something to the guys in the locker room, I would disagree strongly with you there. As the front man for a franchise, which Ryan is (or at least should be) - you simply are going to be held to a higher standard. And the contract you sign does have something to do with what's expected of you from a character and leadership perspective. Don't believe me? Ask the Redskins about their 'investment' in Haynesworth.

Steelers weren't eliminated from the playoffs until the final week. No comparison. As you stated, Cleveland's coach had a vested interest in winning those games as well. No comparison.

As for the face of our franchise - I don't think the Falcons wanted to taut Ryan that way. After what happened with our former QB - they kind of went out of their way to make it a "team" thing. Regardless of that - Ryan has emerged as a leader in the locker room and in the Organization. He has been tauted as such by the media and the community.

Still, if Turner isn't just as much the "face" of the organization - no one is. He's highly paid and recognized as the lead offensive player on our team. Oh yeah, and he's highly paid. So, why wouldn't he go back into the game and play Sunday since he was cleared by half time?

---

OK Darn it - I promise myself I stop this now!

[Radical]

(09-22-2010 03:51 PM)TheDirtyWord Wrote:  And for the record, I do not think our playoff hopes are doomed if we lose this game. Our SB hopes are.

No. No. No. No. No.

It just doesn't work like that. As many surprise upsets, runs, and teams there have been over the past years, you should know that.

[cooperbh]

(09-22-2010 04:30 PM)Tandy Wrote:  Oh and under this regime - the record is 1-3, not 1-5.

1-5 sounds much better when you're trying to paint a dire picture of the TD/Smith regime being totally dominated by the Saints, yet don't have any actual evidence to back it up.

The truth of the matter is that we have been highly competitve in every game we have played against the Saints during the TD/Smith era. Their 3 victories against us came by a total of 15 points (4, 8 and 3 points, respectively.) Conversely, we absolutely dominated the Saints in our win against them - a couple of late garbage-time scores by NO is the only reason the margin of victory wasn't greater than the two TDs that it was.

As for the other two games that were cited as an example of the Falcons supposedly lacking the confidence to play with the big boys - the road losses to NE and Dallas - I counter with victories against...

The Packers and their #1 (at the time) pass defense at Lambeau.

The 3-2 Bears with 11 seconds on the clock and 30 yards to cover.

The 8-2 Panthers (ended up with 12 wins and a division title) who had laid a 24-9 beatdown on us in their previous meeting.

The 9-3 Bucs who, like the Panthers, had also held us to just 9 points in their previous meeting while racking up 24.

The 9-5 Vikings (ended up with double digit wins) at the Metrodome.

The 3-1 49ers at Candlestick.

The 7-6 Jets at the Meadowlands in late December.

And let's not forget that the Falcons were still very much in both the NE and Dallas games going into the 4th quarter.


Anyone who thinks this team under Coach Smith has ever lost a game due to a lack of confidence has simply not been paying attention.

[Peyton]

(09-23-2010 02:34 PM)cooperbh Wrote:  1-5 sounds much better when you're trying to paint a dire picture of the TD/Smith regime being totally dominated by the Saints, yet don't have any actual evidence to back it up.

The truth of the matter is that we have been highly competitve in every game we have played against the Saints during the TD/Smith era. Their 3 victories against us came by a total of 15 points (4, 8 and 3 points, respectively.) Conversely, we absolutely dominated the Saints in our win against them - a couple of late garbage-time scores by NO is the only reason the margin of victory wasn't greater than the two TDs that it was.

As for the other two games that were cited as an example of the Falcons supposedly lacking the confidence to play with the big boys - the road losses to NE and Dallas - I counter with victories against...

The Packers and their #1 (at the time) pass defense at Lambeau.

The 3-2 Bears with 11 seconds on the clock and 30 yards to cover.

The 8-2 Panthers (ended up with 12 wins and a division title) who had laid a 24-9 beatdown on us in their previous meeting.

The 9-3 Bucs who, like the Panthers, had also held us to just 9 points in their previous meeting while racking up 24.

The 9-5 Vikings (ended up with double digit wins) at the Metrodome.

The 3-1 49ers at Candlestick.

The 7-6 Jets at the Meadowlands in late December.

And let's not forget that the Falcons were still very much in both the NE and Dallas games going into the 4th quarter.

Anyone who thinks this team under Coach Smith has ever lost a game due to a lack of confidence has simply not been paying attention.

I hear ya. In my opinion, all of those teams you listed were non contenders themselves. Decent teams, sure. I hear what you are saying though.

[cooperbh]

(09-23-2010 02:40 PM)Peyton Wrote:  I hear ya. In my opinion, all of those teams you listed were non contenders themselves. Decent teams, sure. I hear what you are saying though.

Yes, obviously, there were some pretenders in there. The point is that all of those teams were considered contenders at the time of their matchup. And each of those times, the Falcons showed they were not the least bit intimidated by the big stage.

This week's game is important due to division implications, but this Falcons team doesn't need a victory against the Saints to prove it can win against so-called "elite" teams. Been there, done that.

And who's to say that the 2010 Saints are an elite team at this point in the season, anyway? It's not like they've been imposing their will on other teams so far. I'm sorry, but the Saints are gonna have to show me more than just two winning records in four seasons to be considered elite by me. They could very well turn out to be the 2003 Bucs or 2006 Steelers for all we know, in which case a victory against them Sunday would end up being thrown into that "pretender" pile.

Again, "statement" games take place in January, not September.

[Peyton]

(09-23-2010 03:24 PM)cooperbh Wrote:  Yes, obviously, there were some pretenders in there. The point is that all of those teams were considered contenders at the time of their matchup. And each of those times, the Falcons showed they were not the least bit intimidated by the big stage.

This week's game is important due to division implications, but this Falcons team doesn't need a victory against the Saints to prove it can win against so-called "elite" teams. Been there, done that.

And who's to say that the 2010 Saints are an elite team at this point in the season, anyway? It's not like they've been imposing their will on other teams so far. I'm sorry, but the Saints are gonna have to show me more than just two winning records in four seasons to be considered elite by me. They could very well turn out to be the 2003 Bucs or 2006 Steelers for all we know, in which case a victory against them Sunday would end up being thrown into that "pretender" pile.

Again, "statement" games take place in January, not September.

We get it. You don't think the game is important. And your point is a good one, although your timing is off making that argrument a year after the two Super Bowl participants started their seasons 14-0 and 13-0.

[RockHoward]

Of course this game is important. No one has said otherwise. But even Matt Ryan said that he doesn't believe in early season "statement" games. (See the Monday night video for the exact quote.) Those of us who happen to agree with Matt shouldn't be mischaracterized as believing the game is not important.

For those of you who want to build this game up in your minds beyond what it really is, go for it. Just be sure to tell your friends about the new form of CPR that is more effective and easier to administer and requires no mouth-to-mouth contact. (Google for "CPR new" or "hands-only CPR".) The rest of us (including the players I hope) don't need this added stress in our lives. The game with NO will be challenging enough as is.

[Peyton]

(09-23-2010 04:44 PM)RockHoward Wrote:  Of course this game is important. No one has said otherwise. But even Matt Ryan said that he doesn't believe in early season "statement" games. (See the Monday night video for the exact quote.) Those of us who happen to agree with Matt shouldn't be mischaracterized as believing the game is not important.

For those of you who want to build this game up in your minds beyond what it really is, go for it. Just be sure to tell your friends about the new form of CPR that is more effective and easier to administer and requires no mouth-to-mouth contact. (Google for "CPR new" or "hands-only CPR".) The rest of us (including the players I hope) don't need this added stress in our lives. The game with NO will be challenging enough as is.

LOL.

Yeah I hear ya, but I probably view football as pure entertainment more than just about any person on the board, it allows me to be honest with myself about the games. If the Falcons wins, I am going to be excited about what it does for them and I am sure I will be very entertained.

If they lose, I will realize that it is a big blow to their SB chances, but certainly not a death blow.

Then I'll go make myself a sandwich.

No stress either way.

[cooperbh]

(09-23-2010 03:30 PM)Peyton Wrote:  We get it. You don't think the game is important.

What gave it away? Oh, wait - I bet I know what it was...

(09-23-2010 03:24 PM)cooperbh Wrote:  This week's game is important due to division implications, but this Falcons team doesn't need a victory against the Saints to prove it can win against so-called "elite" teams. Been there, done that.

---

(09-23-2010 04:44 PM)RockHoward Wrote:  Of course this game is important. No one has said otherwise. But even Matt Ryan said that he doesn't believe in early season "statement" games. (See the Monday night video for the exact quote.) Those of us who happen to agree with Matt shouldn't be mischaracterized as believing the game is not important.

For those of you who want to build this game up in your minds beyond what it really is, go for it. Just be sure to tell your friends about the new form of CPR that is more effective and easier to administer and requires no mouth-to-mouth contact. (Google for "CPR new" or "hands-only CPR".) The rest of us (including the players I hope) don't need this added stress in our lives. The game with NO will be challenging enough as is.

Exactly.

If the Falcons lose this game, the post game statements made by Coach Smith and the players will center around notions such as "It's always important to get division wins" and "We did a, b and c well; We need to improve on x, y and z."

If the Falcons win this game, the post game statements made by Coach Smith and the players will center around notions such as "It's always important to get division wins" and "We did a, b and c well; We need to improve on x, y and z."

In other words, just another day at the office. And they will mean it, too. Because that's exactly who and what this team is.