Reality Check

[phocis850]

In my opinion, Jenkins deserves more credit than he is getting. While TG regressed, Jenkins progressed. Im going on a limb and saying that Jenkins became our best receiver towards the end of the year.

MM didn't call enough screens and deep balls. Its easy to defend a 10-15 yard area.

[juraitwaluzka]

I'd agree that Jenkins improved.

[Beef]

(01-17-2011 01:59 AM)Radical Wrote:  Our line is solid, but it isn't talented and isn't great at pass protection or moving a pile. We get by on the line with solid fundamentals and attitude more than anything.

For a dome team, we lack speed on offense. Roddy White is the only real game changer we have on offense at the skill positions. I said it earlier and I'll say it again. You want to see a dynamic offense that lights up the score board, here's what we'll need.

A real #2 WR. Cut this "he's our 3rd option" bullshit and get a WR that is good enough to be the #2 option. Someone else to really stretch the defense, not use body positioning to run skinny posts or corner routes. We don't have the talent at WR to run 4-5 WR sets. We have a big body possession receiver who might as well be 5"10 in Jenkins, we have an up and down slot receiver at #3 that is too much of an unknown to count on, an ancient possession receiver, and a special teams maven.

A talented offensive line that can get things done. Sam Baker sucks flat out, Justin Blalock is mediocre, McClure is solid but isn't moving any piles or taking on any 3-4 NTs, Dahl is alright but mediocre at pass protection, and Clabo is probably the only player of the entire bunch of I would call real good. There's no fucking route design or play call in the world that will work if you can't have your front 5 get a little bit of push in short yardage situations or pass block without the help of additional linemen or tight ends.

A RB to go with Turner that can beat a defense from sideline to sideline. Turner is a battering ram, and is up there in age. He doesn't catch passes, he isn't going to outrun you from sideline to sideline. Get a real RB to go with him instead of some pussy scatback that breaks in half if you run him between the tackles or if he gets hit too hard. A speed back with good hands that can break some tackles.

You do these three things, and this offense opens up. We are one of the slowest offenses in the NFL, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the play calling or route design.

And ANOTHER THING. Quit pushing the bullshit that Mularkey has been ran off from every other team in the NFL he's gone too. It is a flat out lie. He ran a good offense with Pittsburgh for 3 years with some garbage at QB before he left to become the Bills HC, he resigned after the fucked up management issues they had, had a bad year under Nick Saban in Miami because both the starting QB and RB went down on an offense that lacked talent, and Cam Cameron came in to run his offense so Mularkey no longer had a purpose any more. Just because you hate the guy and don't know enough about how an offense works to think the guy is the Satan that blights sin upon our "Pro Bowl" offense doesn't mean you have to make shit up about him.

^^ This.

Although I do think Jenks would be much more productive if we had those other pieces forcing the secondary to spread out & give him the mismatch defender a lot more often. Size does matter. Ask Grimes about that TD he almost defended.

Everything else, spot on.

[cooperbh]

(01-17-2011 01:55 AM)Beef Wrote:  Umm, did you not read what I wrote or did you choose to just not comprehend it so you could go all e-tough on someone?

Are you saying you have evidence to the contrary that defenses didn't blitz on us much? If so, let's see it.

I watched every game. I saw 6 rushers on us no less than 2/3rd's of virtually every game our offense was on the field. Hell, the 1st game of the season, Steelers stacked 8 in the box almost the entire game.

So what does Ryan's release have to do with that? If our O-line is defending droves of blitzes & helping our running game be extremely productive vs. overstacking, what evidence do you have to confirm your claim that they suck?

You do realize we won 13 games with this supposed horrible O-line, right?

You do realize we won 13 games with this supposed two-dimensional (dink-n-dunk passing + vanilla power running) offense, right?

Wow! That was easy! Last time I bother using things like "evidence" and "reasoning" in my arguments. Thanks!

[cooperbh]

(01-17-2011 02:11 AM)Beef Wrote:  ^^ This.

Although I do think Jenks would be much more productive if we had those other pieces forcing the secondary to spread out & give him the mismatch defender a lot more often. Size does matter. Ask Grimes about that TD he almost defended.

Everything else, spot on.

It was spot on. Especially these two parts:

"A talented offensive line that can get things done. Sam Baker sucks flat out, Justin Blalock is mediocre, McClure is solid but isn't moving any piles or taking on any 3-4 NTs, Dahl is alright but mediocre at pass protection, and Clabo is probably the only player of the entire bunch of I would call real good. There's no fucking route design or play call in the world that will work if you can't have your front 5 get a little bit of push in short yardage situations or pass block without the help of additional linemen or tight ends."

"We are one of the slowest offenses in the NFL, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the play calling or route design."


Just curious as to why you suddenly changed your stance on our O-line and playcalling.

[Beef]

(01-17-2011 02:11 AM)cooperbh Wrote:  You do realize we won 13 games with this supposed two-dimensional (dink-n-dunk passing + vanilla power running) offense, right?

Wow! That was easy! Last time I bother using things like "evidence" and "reasoning" in my arguments. Thanks!

That's a horrible rebuttle though.

I never said our offense was terrible because it was only two-dimensional though. So what you just said is idiotic.

In fact I praised it for doing as well as it did with such limitations, which makes me even more excited at what the possibilities will be once we do add more dimensions to it.

You on the other hand are saying our O-line is terrible without backing it up with anything while ignoring all the stuff that contradicts you.

[Beef]

(01-17-2011 02:22 AM)cooperbh Wrote:  It was spot on. Especially these two parts:

"A talented offensive line that can get things done. Sam Baker sucks flat out, Justin Blalock is mediocre, McClure is solid but isn't moving any piles or taking on any 3-4 NTs, Dahl is alright but mediocre at pass protection, and Clabo is probably the only player of the entire bunch of I would call real good. There's no fucking route design or play call in the world that will work if you can't have your front 5 get a little bit of push in short yardage situations or pass block without the help of additional linemen or tight ends."

"We are one of the slowest offenses in the NFL, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the play calling or route design."


Just curious as to why you suddenly changed your stance on our O-line and playcalling.

Because I never said our O-line was "elite". Like I said, you obvously can't comprehend. You just went off like an imbicile with a stupid cause.

All I did was provide some stats that show they certainly don't suck to the level that some here claim they do.

And I haven't changed my stance on the play calling. Again, you can't comprehend shit & spewing delusional nonsense that I never said.

[cooperbh]

(01-17-2011 02:29 AM)Beef Wrote:  That's a horrible rebuttle though.

I never said our offense was terrible because it was only two-dimensional though. So what you just said is idiotic.

In fact I praised it for doing as well as it did with such limitations, which makes me even more excited at what the possibilities will be once we do add more dimensions to it.

You on the other hand are saying our O-line is terrible without backing it up with anything while ignoring all the stuff that contradicts you.

I backed it up by referencing the thread that Tandy made about how little time the O-line was giving Ryan to throw the ball. Here it is if you want to check it out for yourself...

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/topic/390...try5807260


As to the playcalling thing, I was under the impression that you were none too thrilled with our current "two-dimensional/dink & dunk/vanilla power running" scheme and wanted to open things up a bit by bringing in some new players at the skill positions. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Radical]

(01-17-2011 02:07 AM)phocis850 Wrote:  In my opinion, Jenkins deserves more credit than he is getting. While TG regressed, Jenkins progressed. Im going on a limb and saying that Jenkins became our best receiver towards the end of the year.

MM didn't call enough screens and deep balls. Its easy to defend a 10-15 yard area.

Watch the games. There were receivers running deeper than 15 yards on plenty of pass plays. We need an offensive line that can give Ryan time and receivers that can go down field and make the play. Roddy is only one player, and no one else on our offense is going to beat any decent defense over the top or around the edges.

[Beef]

(01-17-2011 03:12 AM)cooperbh Wrote:  I backed it up by referencing the thread that Tandy made about how little time the O-line was giving Ryan to throw the ball. Here it is if you want to check it out for yourself...

http://life.atlantafalcons.com/topic/390...try5807260

Ok so that means you're still taking what I said out of context & creating an argument that has nothing to do with my point.

When I said that we're getting blitzed like crazy, something around 2/3rd's or more on average in virtually every game, isn't it a pretty damn good assumption that Ryan's not going to have tons of time to throw because of that?

In other words, I never argued that the line was "elite" & was giving him plenty of time to throw. You pulled that out of thin air for some reason.

What I did imply is that IF we had more weapons that forced defenses to spread out & not stack the box & blitz so much, then logic says he likely would have more time to wait for the deep routes to open up. I mean do the math... 5 blockers vs. 6-8 rushers is a mismatch & Ryan will have to throw quickly, which he does. But 5 blockers on 4-5 rushers, well I'm betting our O-line can do a hell of a lot better at giving Ryan time with those odds. And only a fool would disagree with that.

And the fact that even though we had the shit blitzed out of us & every team pretty much schemed to stop the run against us by cheating up & overstacking, I think our O-line still did a pretty decent job considering. I mean 3rd fewest sacks & one of the top rushing teams in those conditions, even though Ryan obviously plays a huge part with his quick release, still says to me that they weren't "horrible" like so many of you make them out to be. And on top of that, they were the least penalized O-line in the league by double-digits, which also really says a lot about their discipline & cohesiveness.

So no they may not be elite, but they're certainly not bad or even just average. They deserve some credit & respect.

(01-17-2011 03:12 AM)cooperbh Wrote:  As to the playcalling thing, I was under the impression that you were none too thrilled with our current "two-dimensional/dink & dunk/vanilla power running" scheme and wanted to open things up a bit by bringing in some new players at the skill positions. Sorry if I misunderstood.

And that's what I've been saying from the beginning & that's essentially the same thing Radical said. So he & I were on the same page & that's why I agreed with him. I have no idea how you turned that into me "changing my stance", unless you just have some agenda to bash me because I disagreed with you about something. Either way, you're just making stuff up left & right.

I've been saying all along that we're not fast enough & it's not just MM's play calling & route designs. I agreed with Swift somewhat too, but I clearly stated that I think MM's been forced to call those types of plays because he's figured out they are the most reliable for the personel we have, but I've said a bunch of times that I don't think that's his fault (which is what Radical was saying). I think we have other big plays in the playbook but that they're just not able to call them because we're missing the players (speed) to run them.

So no, I'm not "thrilled" (I would have said "completely satisfied") with the two-dimensional system we've run this season. I am, however "thrilled" we won 13 games with it because that speaks loads about our potential when we do actually have more big-play receivers & a speed-back to add more dimensions to our game plan. I have no problem with dink-n-dunk & power running between the tackles as long as it's not all we have. We were supposed to have Norwood, Meier, & HD to create those dimensions, but of course that didn't happen. And it just shows how great we can be if we still won 13 games without them.