Falcons: Grantland on The Loss

[AUTiger7222]

(11-13-2012 02:00 AM)Drathdon Wrote:  Maybe we don't no-huddle so that teams in January will have less film of it to work with? Seems we're comfortably in 1st, enough to not show parts of our hand we will need later.

As for going for 2, we couldn't put it in the endzone in 3 tries at the end, so why does he act like going for 2 would be automatic. If we could get the 2-point conversion, we could get the TD at the end... so it wasn't conservative calls that killed us, but execution. We were in position to win, so the coach did his job.

I completely agree. Like I said if you miss the 2-point conversion we would have still needed a touchdown at the end to win. We couldn't put it in once we got inside the 5. We need to fix that problem.

[mdrake34]

Not because of this article, but Bill Barnwell is my least favorite NFL writer, ever. He's incredibly boring and long winded, invents stats of his own and then uses them to justify his own opinions. He's also incredibly arrogant. Grantland is one of my favorite websites, but I'll read Bill Simmons over Barnwell any day of the week.

[ATLBound]

(11-12-2012 08:52 PM)AUTiger7222 Wrote:  I didn't read the whole thing. I stopped reading because I got the sense it was an article bashing Mike Smith and saying we will never win with him and I don't buy that for 1 second.

EDIT: Just went back and finished reading the article and I gather that it's an article bashing Smith for not going for 2 and how it effected the rest of the game. How you gather that it's an article saying opposite I don't know.

You said it was an article bashing Smith and how we will never win with him, but it wasn't. Thats how I gathered it.

It was an article expressinf how he thought Smith made a mistake in not going for two and how that decision affected the rest of the game.

Matter of fact to quote the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH

"Mike Smith's an EXCELLENT HEAD COACH. He's good enough, in fact, that I'm tempted to find excuses to figure out....blah blah blah."

He questioned ONE decision that Smith made and thats what you call bashing and we will never win with him????

[ATLBound]

(11-13-2012 10:23 AM)AUTiger7222 Wrote:  I completely agree. Like I said if you miss the 2-point conversion we would have still needed a touchdown at the end to win. We couldn't put it in once we got inside the 5. We need to fix that problem.

Hahaha.....you made the point of the article. The guy is saying that of we go for two and MISS it, then we are in the same position as we were when we didn't go for two.

BUT if we go for two and MAKE it, then all we need is a field goal and we wouldn't have had to worry about our short yardage problems.

Nobody is disregarding the fact that our short yardage game sucks but I agree as a coach masking efficiencies is part of the job and indirectly going for two there and making it would have done so.

It's like you get it but you don't.

[Drathdon]

Ok, I see what you are saying now, how missing the 2 would not hurt us, as we would still need a TD to win, but that is said with the knowledge that NO only got another FG and we ended up down by 4. If NO had gotten a TD instead, missing that extra point by going for 2 instead would have had an impact.

The problem with monday morning QB talk is that it is done already knowing what happens after the decision could have been made, while in the live game, no one knows the later variables.

[AUTiger7222]

(11-13-2012 09:07 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  You said it was an article bashing Smith and how we will never win with him, but it wasn't. Thats how I gathered it.

It was an article expressinf how he thought Smith made a mistake in not going for two and how that decision affected the rest of the game.

Matter of fact to quote the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH

"Mike Smith's an EXCELLENT HEAD COACH. He's good enough, in fact, that I'm tempted to find excuses to figure out....blah blah blah."

He questioned ONE decision that Smith made and thats what you call bashing and we will never win with him????

No I was talking about your posting saying it's an article saying how not going for 2 didn't matter. You said that is what the article was about. I disagree. The article was about how not going for 2 changed the rest of the game. And what makes you think we would have gotten the 2? We had 3 plays right from the goal line at the end of the game and couldn't put it in the end zone because our short yardage offense sucks. We wouldn't have gotten the 2 point play and then we would have been in the exact same situation we ended up in anyway.

[AUTiger7222]

(11-13-2012 10:29 PM)Drathdon Wrote:  Ok, I see what you are saying now, how missing the 2 would not hurt us, as we would still need a TD to win, but that is said with the knowledge that NO only got another FG and we ended up down by 4. If NO had gotten a TD instead, missing that extra point by going for 2 instead would have had an impact.

The problem with monday morning QB talk is that it is done already knowing what happens after the decision could have been made, while in the live game, no one knows the later variables.

I agree with the after thought but it never even crossed my mind to go for 2 there because field goals don't beat the Saints. Touchdowns are needed to beat the Saints. That's why we lost. Because we had to kick 2 field goals and the Saints only had to kick 1. Change one of those field goals to a touchdown and we would have won.

[Aftermath]

(11-13-2012 02:00 AM)Drathdon Wrote:  Maybe we don't no-huddle so that teams in January will have less film of it to work with? Seems we're comfortably in 1st, enough to not show parts of our hand we will need later.

As for going for 2, we couldn't put it in the endzone in 3 tries at the end, so why does he act like going for 2 would be automatic. If we could get the 2-point conversion, we could get the TD at the end... so it wasn't conservative calls that killed us, but execution. We were in position to win, so the coach did his job.

Great, Smith's get a lead and sit on it philosophy has now been implemented for the entire season. =(

[Aftermath]

I'm not saying Smith wont luck into a playoff win or two eventually but he is a terrible big game HC. He is outclassed by better teams and he knows it. Dude lost his cool on the Asante int, acted like a bitch, and basically took away any attitude the D had, it was all down hill from there. He is an excellent regular season coach, may go down as one of the best ever, but he just doesn't have it in him to compete against the big boys. Saints might have been 3-5 but that game had a playoff atmosphere and he got beat by a team with no HC.

[phocis850]

So Smitty was wrong getting onto a player for causing a useless penalty?

Derp.