Number two

[Beef]

(02-03-2011 01:02 AM)USAF HART Wrote:  I don't know how many times I am going to have to say this but EVERY SINGLE ISSUE on offense starts with our running backs. Every single STARTING RB in the league had at least 25+ receptions last year. Every one of them, with the exception of Michael Turner. If we want this team to turn a corner, either Turner needs to start catching screen passes or we need to bring in a back who will. Because Turner is not a threat to catch the ball, teams are loading up the LOS to stuff the run, even if we aren't dialing up a run play. This puts alot of pressure on our passing game because every defender is within 10 yards of the LOS.

Remember when Tandy posted those amazing stats saying matt Ryan averaged somewhere around 2 seconds before he had to get rid of the ball? Want to know why? Teams are playing us too close because there is no threat unless it's coming up the field via WR's or TE's. The Falcons were the most blitzed team last year, and because Turner wasn't catching passes out of the backfield, we had no answer. Most teams struggled to double Tony and Roddy, but the great teams were able to stop it. WE NEED A DUAL THREAT RUNNINGBACK! If Turner is in the game, there's no point in guarding him because he isn't getting a pass thrown his way. This frees up a defensive body to doubly Roddy/Tony. If Snelling is in the game, they have to worry about the pass so they can't double both Tony/Roddy.

Why is Jenkins' stats so poor? Because Matt Ryan is only averaging two seconds before releasing the ball. Now you tell me how fast you can look at 3 different targets in 2 seconds and determine who the best available target is. Given what Matt has to work with, I am shocked his INT numbers aren't higher. Most designed plays for the Falcons have either Roddy or Tony as the designated first target. They usually find themselves lined up on the same side of the field, and due to the pressure Matt can't turn his head fast enough to the other side to see if MJ is open or not. I hope this all makes sense. I'm tired, and it's my night time over here. I just got off work and i'm ready to count sheep.

I have been saying exactly this in every debate over the quality of our O-line, so of course I agree 100%.

I also think this is partially why MM has been wrongly criticized. We simply do not have the weapons to spread out defenses. We run a 2-dimensional vanilla predictible offense because of this. MM very likely has the plays in his book, but every time we've tried them (ie. screens, edge runs, reverses, play-action, & deep passing routes) they fail more times than not. And sometimes result in complete disaster. So I think he's steered away from them significantly & was basically forced to run Turner between the tackles & dink-n-dunk short passing because it was the only thing reliable.

The O-line did contribute to all of it with inconsistent average to above average pass blocking on occasion, but like you said, much of that could have been the result of defenses not being spread out & playing close to the LOS. Which again is something I've argued many times in the past. So I firmly believe it to be true.