There are 2 Ways to Remember this Season

[Red Falcon]

Our schedule wasn't that tough this year, we won a lot of close games. I'm proud of this team, but we got some work to do.

[Anomaly]

I'm going with a combination of the two.

1. This team won the number 1 seed and was the best team in the NFC....

2. .....They were beaten in the playoffs by a better team [that day] where things snowballed after a couple of uncharacteristic mistakes. This season is still a phenomenal success.

[mdrake34]

(01-16-2011 03:12 PM)Va Falcon 88 Wrote:  I'm going with a combination of the two.

1. This team won the number 1 seed and was the best team in the NFC....

2. .....They were beaten in the playoffs by a better team [that day] where things snowballed after a couple of uncharacteristic mistakes. This season is still a phenomenal success.

I like this approach best. Did we theoretically "over-achieve" and win games we should have? Sure. But fuck it, we won and nothing can take that away from us. We earned the No. 1 seed fair and square, we just didn't play like it last night.

[takeitdown]

I thought this was about a 10-6 team this year, that happened to win a lot of close games. Typically, winning a lot of close games isn't sustainable (teams that do it one year, don't the next.) I just hoped there was some weird quirk to the boring 10 yard game they were playing that would persist through the offseason (even though I posted I didn't think it would, the homer in me hoped I was wrong.)

We clearly lack diversity on offense...if Turner is in, we know he won't be bouncing it outside or catching the ball. We know our TE won't go deep, etc., etc.

I feel we need a LeSean McCoy, a Mike Williams, and an Aaron Hernandez before this team is at all comparable (in real talent) with the top 10 NFL teams. I thought that's what the FO was going for this year in the draft, anyway.

What is less clear is exactly what kind of QB Ryan is. He had high YPA first year, and then lowest of the top 15 QBs this year. Is he a dink dunk manager, or with extra receiving talent, can he improve his deep ball and be a consistent top 5-8 QB? I don't think any of us know that, but we all know having receivers who get open quickly for a QB who specializes in presnap reads is a must.

On defense, I'm more confused. Most of the picks of the Dimitroff era have been on defense, and I think they've been the right idea, but yesterday made it look horrible. We need a pass rushing DT...they drafted Peria, and Peters...but will those guys be the guys. Needed safeties...drafted pretty good guys, though I'm not a Decoud fan, I think the FS needs to be a ballhawk.

Anyway, the offense clearly needs a few playmakers, and then it will be on Ryan (and the OC) as to how far we can go. On defense, I just don't know. I feel like a Charles Johnson, a nickel corner, and a fast OLB and keeping Lofton out of passing situations probably gets us pretty close to there, but it's hard to tell after last night.

I guess as an optimistic deal...Imagine we sign Charles Johnson, a mid tier coverage linebacker, and pretty good nickel CB in FA. Then Imagine we draft the equivalent of Lesean McCoy (or Ray Rice), Mike Williams, Aaron Hernandez, and some developmental guys. Are we there then? I feel we'd be close, and that's just with two mid tier FA's and one big one, along with a draft of a good versatile back, good WR , and good TE, which isn't crazy if all are in the first 3 rounds. Need some playmakers badly.

[cooperbh]

(01-16-2011 03:12 PM)Va Falcon 88 Wrote:  I'm going with a combination of the two.

1. This team won the number 1 seed and was the best team in the NFC....

2. .....They were beaten in the playoffs by a better team [that day] where things snowballed after a couple of uncharacteristic mistakes. This season is still a phenomenal success.

I'm going with the combo plate as well. Although, I can't truthfully call the success we had this season "phenomenal."

[Slamee101]

So let me ask some of you...are you essentially saying that we were frauds this year but trying not to say it harshly? I mean, we've had the talent argument before but I don't really buy that we lucked up into 13 wins.

If the Saints, or the Eagles (since plenty of folks hate those 2 teams) would have won 13 games, locked up the 1 seed, and gotten blown out by a team that they had beaten earlier in the season...would you be saying that the season wasn't an epic failure?

Not asking you to post your answer, but just ask yourself that question and give yourself an honest answer.

[takeitdown]

(01-16-2011 05:17 PM)Slamee101 Wrote:  So let me ask some of you...are you essentially saying that we were frauds this year but trying not to say it harshly? I mean, we've had the talent argument before but I don't really buy that we lucked up into 13 wins.

If the Saints, or the Eagles (since plenty of folks hate those 2 teams) would have won 13 games, locked up the 1 seed, and gotten blown out by a team that they had beaten earlier in the season...would you be saying that the season wasn't an epic failure?

Not asking you to post your answer, but just ask yourself that question and give yourself an honest answer.

I'll respond. Each year, about 4 games for each team are decided by "luck." So, you'll typically have a good team miss the playoffs at 7-9 because they had the ball bounce badly, and sometimes you'll have a decent team make it at 12-4, when they're no better than the 7-9 team. Basically, imagine a team whose talent and coaching would normally put them at 10-6 or 11-5. They could easily, by having a couple of bad breaks (lose a couple of close games more than expected) and be 8-8. They could also easily win a couple from good breaks (or win more close games than expected) and be 12-4 or 13-3.

I think that's where we are. Not frauds. A solid 10-6 or 11-5 team that won more than their rightful share of close games. Teams that are good, and tend to win in the playoffs, tend to win a number of blowouts. In fact, teams that win a lot of close games in the regular season have a horrible record in the playoffs. In close games, there's too much opportunity for luck, and with only 16 games, it doesn't balance out. With blowouts, you know who won and who should have won.

So, I think we're a 10-6 team who overachieved and got a bit of luck. I think, similarly the Packers are a 12-4 or 13-3 team who got a bit of bad luck. They have a far better talent level than us (as do about 4-6 teams in the NFC.)

However, we're on the right track. Just need a few playmakers, and need not to buy into the 13-3 record. There's still work to do. A lot.

[juraitwaluzka]

(01-16-2011 05:35 PM)takeitdown Wrote:  I'll respond. Each year, about 4 games for each team are decided by "luck." So, you'll typically have a good team miss the playoffs at 7-9 because they had the ball bounce badly, and sometimes you'll have a decent team make it at 12-4, when they're no better than the 7-9 team. Basically, imagine a team whose talent and coaching would normally put them at 10-6 or 11-5. They could easily, by having a couple of bad breaks (lose a couple of close games more than expected) and be 8-8. They could also easily win a couple from good breaks (or win more close games than expected) and be 12-4 or 13-3.

I think that's where we are. Not frauds. A solid 10-6 or 11-5 team that won more than their rightful share of close games. Teams that are good, and tend to win in the playoffs, tend to win a number of blowouts. In fact, teams that win a lot of close games in the regular season have a horrible record in the playoffs. In close games, there's too much opportunity for luck, and with only 16 games, it doesn't balance out. With blowouts, you know who won and who should have won.

So, I think we're a 10-6 team who overachieved and got a bit of luck. I think, similarly the Packers are a 12-4 or 13-3 team who got a bit of bad luck. They have a far better talent level than us (as do about 4-6 teams in the NFC.)

However, we're on the right track. Just need a few playmakers, and need not to buy into the 13-3 record. There's still work to do. A lot.

That's pretty much my assessment as well. While I would like to see some bigger changes in scheme I don't think its likely we'll see that, so really the only way to make some break through changes is with play makers. Hopefully we can get some. I do think the staff has done the most with the least so I hope with some more talent they will be able to take advantage of it.

[Peyton]

(01-16-2011 05:17 PM)Slamee101 Wrote:  So let me ask some of you...are you essentially saying that we were frauds this year but trying not to say it harshly? I mean, we've had the talent argument before but I don't really buy that we lucked up into 13 wins.

If the Saints, or the Eagles (since plenty of folks hate those 2 teams) would have won 13 games, locked up the 1 seed, and gotten blown out by a team that they had beaten earlier in the season...would you be saying that the season wasn't an epic failure?

Not asking you to post your answer, but just ask yourself that question and give yourself an honest answer.

"Frauds" is your word.

Am I saying that this team isn't nearly as talented as the Packers? Yes, that is what I am saying.

[Slamee101]

(01-16-2011 07:59 PM)Peyton Wrote:  "Frauds" is your word.

Am I saying that this team isn't nearly as talented as the Packers? Yes, that is what I am saying.

Of course it is, but I kind of get the impression that's what some of you are essentially saying but just don't want to bash the team.

I mean, you've been on the "lacking talent" thing with our team for most of the season if I'm remembering things correctly. If you're saying we weren't really as good as our record indicated...that's pretty much saying we were pretenders, not legit, not as good as our record. All really just another way to say frauds if you ask me...just less abrasive.

*shrugs

I for one feel like we had plenty of talent to go all the way this year...but when we needed to bring it, our players and to a larger degree our coaches, didn't answer the call.