Some revisionist history on the 2010 season

[JOEinPHX]

They just won't go away - all these posts that say the Falcons scraped by in so many games, they got lucky, they were nowhere close to deserving a 13-3 record. It all seems a little silly in a league where the bottom line measure of success is the final record, where the mantra is 'a win is a win', and where the truth is that a ridiculously high percentage of games are won or lost on a handful of plays.

But if someone just has to persist with the argument that the Falcons rode 'luck' into the post-season, let's take a look at how many teams out their also had their share of luck. If you look at every team in the NFC, and take away every win by seven points or less, i.e., every win that came down to one or two 'lucky' plays, the final standings look like this:

PHIL 5-11
NYG 7-9
DAL 3-13
WASH 0-16

CHI 4-12
GB 6-10
MINN 2-14
DET 2-14

ATL 6-10
NO 5-11
TB 5-11
CAR 0-16

SEA 5-11
STL 5-11
SF 5-11
AZ 3-13

It couldn't happen of course, because if you take a win from one team you have to give it to another, but I think the point is made. Atlanta finishes with the second best record in the NFC and are still in the playoffs. It's not possible to say if they'd get a first-round bye because these new numbers are fictitious, though I would like to point out that it's probable the Saints, whose fans seem to be the leading proponents of the 'Atlanta got lucky' meme probably wouldn't have made the playoffs at all.

[Peyton]

It's not revisionist to say this team's performance exceeded it's talent level. People said it all year. Not everybody agreed, but it's not like some people just came up with that theory when the team lost.

[JOEinPHX]

(01-17-2011 02:34 PM)Peyton Wrote:  It's not revisionist to say this team's performance exceeded it's talent level. People said it all year. Not everybody agreed, but it's not like some people just came up with that theory when the team lost.

I agree that the team exceeded its talent level, and maybe with more regularity than the NFL average. I'll take that every day over 'falling short of your talent level' (which could lead to some discussion regarding the coaching staff's performance and the number of 'Fire fill in the blank' posts). But my point is that the origin date for the theory doesn't matter - only that it doesn't hold water whether the team overachieved or not.

And, I somehow knew that a thread with Revisionist History in the title was sure to draw your response.

(I absolutely abhor smilies, but needed you to know that this wasn't any kind of dig).

[g-dawg]

Joe,

Falcons are a very good team - I don't think to many people on this board dispute it. But like Peyton said, we were not as good as our record - Falcons are probably a 11-5 type team - which is pretty damn good.

Bottom-line, we just are not an elite team yet. The defense certainly needs a lot of upgrade(still - arggh!) and we need more explosion on offense.