My Bleacher Report Article

[Beef]

(01-17-2011 05:30 PM)The Falcon Jedi Wrote:  I thought that was a good write up. I dont think this team was as good as it's record suggested. We were more like a 10-6 team. We beat a lot of bad teams, had a favorably easy schedule.

Our offense was stale and predictable. Our defense over-achieved. While we didnt give up a ton of points, we gave up way too many yards and had trouble getting off the field on 3rd downs. Dunta Robinson was a disappointment. Sean Weatherspoon was ineffective. Peria Jerry was invisible. Mike Peterson too old. Curtis Lofton didnt do a whole lot either.

Offensively, Turner had the most yards of any NFC RB but he also had the most carries. His YPC average wasnt that great. What happened to Harry Douglas? Jenkins wasnt much of a #2 WR, he should be a #3. White was the only bright spot. Ryan cut down on his INTs but he played way too cautious, never made many huge plays until the final minutes of games when he had no choice. And Gonzalez had a lot of ups and downs, his age really showed.

You can go on and on with all the problems, there seem to be very many. I think a lot of it starts with BVG and Mularkey - their schemes worked for a while but teams are now figuring them out. A change really needs to be made with those 2.

I just don't get this. It's really irritating actually. We went 13-3, not 10-6. Winning is winning, period. If the other teams were better than us, they would have beat us more, but they didn't. And no other teams out there played & beat nothing but playoff caliber above 500 teams. Every team in the league played some easy games vs bad teams, so acting like our schedule was easy is ridiculous.

We played 8 games vs. teams with winning records(6 of which we won), 2 of which were the SB champs, 7 of which were against teams who went to the playoffs(4 of which we won), & SF, Cleveland, & Cinci were all dangerous teams who had at least 1 or 2 wins against other playoff teams, so they were by no means guarantees, & of course Seattle was an away game vs a playoff team who ultimately beat the SB champs in the playoffs. I'd actually & easily call that one of the toughest schedules in the league by comparison.

And I agree our offense was extremely stale & predictible, but by no means did we "over-achieve". We controlled the clock & teams couldn't stop us from doing that, which means they played worse than we did, OBVIOUSLY, otherwise they would have had more points at the end of the game than us

And special teams is part of this team & part of our success, so not sure why how good they were is rarely considered in these types of arguments.

The rest of what you said is fine, but I think you're just over the top on the schedule & the fact it's absurd to make statements like "we're really a 10-6 team" when there's obviously no way to prove it while there's overwhelming clear evidence to the contrary... the fact we didn't go 10-6.