[MERGED] Complaints, Vents, Questions, about the 2010 Atlanta Falcons

[The Birds Are The Truth!!!!!!]

(01-16-2011 12:26 AM)RFlagg Wrote:  Goat #1: Owens. He got burned over and over and over again.
Goat #2: Defensive coaching staff for not adjusting when it was obvious Owens was being targeted.
Goat #3: Ryan. Both INTs were his fault, he held the ball to long on the first and delivered a change up rather than a fast ball on the second.

What killed our D tonight was being on the field too long. We lost the TOP battle 38:19 to 21:41. We had an extra week off and had Green Bay on a short week, yet we looked like we didn't do any preparation for this game. Today is a sad day to be a Falcon fan, without a doubt the worst performance by a #1 seed I have ever seen.

That 13-3 record was make believe. Everybody was picking us to lose and what do you know? Not only did we lose, we got our azz handed too us. It hurts.

[Woody Paige]

This coaching staff also had a lot of time to get the guys ready and they got their asses handed to them tonight.

[The Birds Are The Truth!!!!!!]

(01-16-2011 12:31 AM)ch46745 Wrote:  No, what killed our defense was our secondary leaving recievers wide open and Van Gorder calling way off coverage. Even Rodgers could have completed a pass to himself the coverage was so off. Owens might not make the team next season. The tackling was just as bad.

Only thing I have to say is....good bye Owens. Makes it even more sweeter if TD aleast try to persue Aso.

[Arkansas Falcon]

(01-16-2011 01:31 AM)DriveHomeSafelyAtlantaWins Wrote:  With no disrespect intended, I think you are definitely over-reacting to this loss. It's understandable -- we completely got our asses kicked, and it's depressing.

But things are nowhere near as bad as you said. Our success was not luck. We've got some problems to fix, and some of them are glaring. But we've got a strong team and a strong core, and the future looks bright even though this moment right now completely sucks ass.

Exactly.

[juraitwaluzka]

(01-16-2011 01:37 AM)The Falcon Jedi Wrote:  I didnt say this is worse, but in a way it actually is. We had the easiest path to the SB any team could hope for, and we just blew it. It was almost too perfect.

That remains to be seen. It could be that we just lost to the Super Bowl champs, we'll have to see how it plays out.

For reference, the 13-3 Broncos lost to the 9-7 Jags in the 2nd year of existence

[The Birds Are The Truth!!!!!!]

(01-16-2011 12:40 AM)FalconinPa Wrote:  And JA98 over Patrick Willis

That's still hunting this team. LOL

[Woody Paige]

Matt Ryan's ceiling is not as high as many of you think it is. I won't say he's reached it but I'd be willing to bet he's gotten very close to it already.

[northwinds]

(01-16-2011 01:34 AM)Quinton Wrote:  I looked it up. Clay Matthews became the starter on the October 2, 2008 USC Depth Chart.

http://www.teamandras.com/USC/USC_Depth_...ts_New.asp

By the way, he was not listed as a starting LB at any point during the season. His role was as a situational stand-up pass-rusher for a lot of their packages.

Yep, I'm gonna believe you over the Orange County Register and Sports Illustrated who has a history of putting second string LBs on their cover.....really LMAO....and I guess Clay Matthews was just a second string "situational stand-up pass rusher" tonight in the dome as well...he really didn't seem to "fit" into the Packer defense....

[MilleniumFalcon]

I have a bad feeling that the year we go to the Super Bowl is the year it's in cold weather in New York...

[Quinton]

(01-16-2011 02:11 AM)northwinds Wrote:  Yep, I'm gonna believe you over the Orange County Register and Sports Illustrated who has a history of putting second string LBs on their cover.....really LMAO....and I guess Clay Matthews was just a second string "situational stand-up pass rusher" tonight in the dome as well...he really didn't seem to "fit" into the Packer defense....

Seriously dude? Are you really this stupid? I mean this is seriously like convincing someone that the world is indeed round. If you clicked on my link you can see the depth charts for USC as they changed for the entire 2008 season. Clay Matthews became a starter on October 2, 2008 at the "DE" position. There are 2 people in this thread telling you that you are wrong, and the depth charts that I linked to you proved my point. Clay Matthews was not a starter before the season, and he officially became a starter on October 2, 2008. Although, he was listed as a "DE", he was used as a stand-up pass rusher in a lot of situations. USC also rotated their players for different packages, which is why he did not play every down for USC.

The dude had 54 tackles and 4 sacks as a senior. Those aren't the types of numbers that starting linebackers will post up for a season. I'm not saying he's not a great player, because I think he is one of the best in the NFL. But you're arguing with me about something that clearly wasn't true.

Also, I have no idea where you are going with the "he really didn't seem to "fit" into the Packer defense...." line, but if you are referring to when I said he did not fit into our defense, it is because we run a scheme that demands cover 2 linebackers, and we are a 43 base defense. A rushing LB does not fit into our scheme. I'm sure we could've have worked him into the scheme, similar to how the New York Giants do things, but we would have had to completely change our defense for that to work. The reason why he works so well in the Packers defense is because he is basically playing as a stand-up defensive end, which is similar to what he did in college and it is what is required by most outside linebackers in 34 defenses.

I really feel like this should be common knowledge, but your comments and remarks are so ignorant it makes me wonder if you are infact being serious or trolling.