FalcFans Forums

Disagree. As a player, you listen to the coaches....especially the head coach. Brees didn't "stand up" to Payton, Payton sought out Brees' input. Tom Brady didn't tell bill B. how the show was going to be run, Belichek was smart enough to include Brady in the offensive game plans.

Smitty has not put that trust into Ryan.....yet, and may never.

AJ51 nailed it. Like I've said before, the perception is that QB greatness just comes out of the aether. You think Aaron Rodgers' "greatness" wasn't helped along by having his head coach be his offensive coordinator in Mike McCarthy? The same thing for BRees. You think Brees came to NEw Orleans with all of the questions surrounding him (most thought he was done as a top QB akin to Chad Pennington), and start demanding things, and Sean Payton just went along for the ride.

It's a mutual relationship, but the coach always must make the first step. And as Mike Smith has shown time and time again over the years, he's not willing to make that step. So it makes no sense to criticize Matt Ryan for not being able to overcome that, especially when he's a 27-year old that is still learning at this point in the league. Brees was the same age when he went to NO 6 years ago. The popular perception because our brains have a habit of excising details over time that we deem extraneous is that the QB that BRees is today is the same QB he has always been. And that has not been the case. The comparisons between the two at the same stages in their careers are extremely close.

You think Brees demands of Payton, you couldn't be more wrong Cyril. Brees didn't make that first step. Payton did. He wants Drew Brees to be as involved as much as possible in the offense, becuase Payton understands that Brees being the best he possibly can be is the key reason for why the Saints have been a legit Super Bowl contender in 4 of the past 6 years.

The Falcons haven't quite fully grasped this yet. They see a bit of it, which is why they've incorporated the no huddle. But they have yet to really embrace this, and the reason for that IMHO is because Mike Smith is too conservative. LIke the vast majority of former DCs, he firmly believes in Marty Ball.

And it's not to suggest that you can't win that way. But the problem in Atlanta is that they are trying to straddle this fence of being this physical and finesse team. But it doesn't work that way. Because you have to embrace one or the other and go all-in so to speak on either side of the fence. And the problem is that when you look at who are the best players on the Falcons team, it's largely players that fit in with the finesse style, while the coaching staff wants to instill this physical mentality. And so how it works it that you're never going to be as physical as you want because you're players just don't have that capability. And when you go finesse, you're always holding yourself back somewhat because your coaches don't want to embrace that, so they don't really design a system/structure/environment that maximizes your players.

So in the end, you're always left a bit wanting in either regard. And this is why other teams of what should be comparable ability seem to always overwhelm you come playoff time because they've fully embraced whatever aspect of their roster/team, and thus can reach their full potential, while you're only able to operate at 75% capacity.

"Angry Johnny " wrote

I didn't say " a player" I said a special Qb that thinks he's going to be a great one. I also just hope folks will understand no one just starts out making demands; or telling a head coach " how its gonna be" no they earn it a little; year by year; until by the third season they should be able to have private meetings about game plans; for the offense; or the complete ability to check to any play they want.

Some Qbs are not smart enough to do this; but Ryan is. I think Ryan will go along to get along. No coach ever put a deer in the headlight in a Qbs eyes. The great ones move the coaches thinking more to theirs; as the years go by. Of course not in all cases based
on the personality of the coach; and the personality of the Qb, but then the great coaches have an open mind too.

When your leader (the Qb) is good enough it just makes since to want his feedback. However if your Qb is fairly quite and doesn't want
to give imput what are you going to do. I don't know what Matt Ryan's like; but I suggest most put their own personalities into this equation to decide what a great Qb would do.

No Drew Breeze doesn't make demands (that just not good human relations) but I guarantee if Payton had him handing the ball off
30 times a game; he's be pleading their's a better way...... Anything I say here please understand I'm assuming unless your Jeff George; your slowly winning over your coach as a Qb. My guess is Matt Ryan will follow any orders; and toe the company line;
the great ones help makes the coaches see their is a better way!! Its a "mindset" that the great ones have; they earn it; then
execute. Maybe Ryan is less secure in his abilities than we think??

You make some fair points, Cyril. I do think there is some give and take between Mike Smith and Ryan currently. I just think that gulf between what the Falcons do and say what the Saints do is pretty big. And I think it would be better for this team to try and close that gap.

I think running the football is important, but I think the Falcons approach to it is not the best approach. I think when a team is a great passing attack and can also run the ball effectively, it makes them dangerous. But the key is acquiring that top passing attack first.

The analogy I might use is it's like building two towers/skyscrapers/buildings. And when you have this great passing attack like the Saints, it's one of the huge towers and represents passing. And it soars above the skyline. And then you have this other one that represents running the ball, which doesn't soar above the skyline, but it's large enough that if you squint your eyes and crane your head, you can see it just peaking above the skyline from a distance.

The ideal would be to have two twin towers both soaring above the skyline and dominating it. But in truth, you have only a finite amount of resources (e.g. steel, concrete, glass, etc.) in which to build these things, and thus your engineers, construction crews, have to make a decision to invest most of your resources into one tower, and the superior one is of course the passing tower.

The Falcons approach on the other hand seems to be to stress "balance" and to slowly try and build up both towers at the same time. The passing tower is slightly taller than the running tower, but the goal is to build that ideal where you have two soaring towers.

But my thinking is that is not possible. It goes back to our argument before about whether any of the great teams were ever truly balanced. And even if it was possible 15-30 years ago, I don't think it's really possible today.

Because being a great running team is fairly simple. The NFL running style is extremely vanilla. If you can put a good RB and good O-line on the field, you're going to be a pretty good running team. But being a great passing team isn't that simple as putting a good QB on the field and some good targets to throw to. Otherwise, the Falcons passing attack would be a lot better than it has been to date.

Defense often simply boils down to physically dominating your opponent. Same with running the ball. I think it's why so many DCs prefer to run the ball because it's right up their wheelhouse with how they understand the game. There's nothing more emasculating than going up against an opponent that is going to physically manhandle you. But passing isn't that simple because you can't simply ask a WR to get open by moving his opponent out of the way. It's about timing, precision, anticipation. Defense/running is played from the neck down, while passing is played from the neck up.

And getting back to the analogy because of that complexity, I don't think you can simply just build up your passing tower over time until it reaches greatness like you presumably could with running by just added pieces/resources. YOu have to instill a structure/scaffolding that allows room for that complexity to fall into place.

To get to the point, I think the Falcons approach is putting a firm glass ceiling on how good a passing attack they can be. And thus because so much of today's game revolves around throwing the ball, you're basically limiting how good an overall team you can be by doing so.

Contrast to the Saints method or other successful teams which is we're going to devote as many resources we can to the passing tower and get that to a point of greatness, and whatever is left over we can devote to running. And at the end of the day if you have this great passing attack and a lackluster running game, that is going to potentially take you further than a team that is just solid to good in both areas, as evidenced by the Falcons lack of postseason success, and the last two Super Bowl winners being two teams that at no point during their respective seasons were anything more than a below average running team.

And I guess to bring it back to the point of the recent posts in the thread, is that Matt Ryan alone cannot initiate that aspect which is to dictate to the organization how they should build their skyscrapers. That has to start with Mike Smith, and then Ryan enters into the equation. But if Mike Smith is unwilling to devote enough of the necessary resources to building that passing tower, then there is absolutely nothing Matt Ryan can do to change that.

" Pudge Wrote "

Ya see we agree on a lot!! The big difference here is I never doubted Drew Breeze's ability, it was his health or shoulder. So when
N.O. got Breeze i think he was perhaps a little better than Matt Ryan today, but 5 years ago Ryan was not ready to shoulder anything himself; so we went with the running game to give him this time to develop. Its paid off for this franchise!! (but no longer)
IMO Ryan just hasn't been ready!!

Now although you really dislike the Julio trade it shows me they are trying to build the passing tower. Regardless if it was wrong; that's
what I think they were trying to do. Now everything else is "will Matt Ryan be given the chance to really lead this team ??

The reason as you know the league is no longer balanced is they've changed the rules so dramatically to help the offense's pass;
almost too many rule changes in the last ten years that all mostly favor receivers. I'm hoping Turner becomes Ryan's best blocker;
and I hope our running game is good; but not our main weapon.

I mean if we hand the ball off to Turner 20 times in the first game and he gains 50 yards I'd wish Blank does his two minute walk to
the field and fired Smith. The very fact Roddy is hopefully is still in his prime; and Julio has a season under his belt; what are they going to do besides target those two; Ryan & Julio should be a combination!! I'm only saying what's reasonable. If Mike Smith sucks we'll
find out this year---same for Matt Ryan..... I think their both really good; but they got to do it!!

Despite all my negativity/criticism about this team, I do think the offense will improve this year under Koetter. I think he'll do a better job doing many of the little things that can make this offense more potent that Mularkey did once in a blue moon. But the thing I wonder about, and something we'll have to see develop over the coming years is whether or not in a few years we'll be seeing this offense start to stagnate as it has done under previous OCs because they didn't really implement a structure that could sustain long-term growth.

And if/when the Falcons decide to implement that structure, it's not going to have all of the pieces fall into place. It's going to take Ryan a few seasons to really grow and develop in that system to become the player that most of believe he can be or at least want him to be. IMO, I think that's what the Giants did after '07 with Eli Manning, and I think it paid off in 2011. But up until then, everything wasn't rosy. All of our talk of putting the "right" system around Ryan isn't like flipping a switch and he's all of a sudden an elite QB. It's probably going to take 3 years in that system before things really click for him. And all the while he'll make strides, and I think that's the time during which this team can added the necessary pieces around him.

But IMO, they're not doing that this year. When they got Jones, I was hopeful that 2011 was their "transition" year, and that in 2012 they would start to implement those changes and turn the keys over to Ryan. But it seems like they are just delaying that again another year, as 2012 they still have the transitional pieces (see Turner). And every year you wait, is a year wasted IMO. The odds are low that Roddy White is not going to be a Falcon come 2015. Maybe they give him an extension between now and then, but at that point both he and Jones will be FAs, and it's likely that this team will devote big money to keeping Jones, and let Roddy walk. And so you have 2 years with the both of them after this season, but what if it takes Ryan 3 years to really have everything click? And while the team might be improved this year, you're arguably wasting this year with Turner because you're still trying to recapture the 2010 magic.

This team is essentially living in the past, trying to re-live 2010, similar to how the Falcons under Reeves were trying to recapture that '98 magic for 3 years. BUt they are making the cardinal mistake of trying to re-make the past, as opposed to preparing for the future.

" Pudge Wrote"

I think they wanted to give the keys to Ryan last year but when he stalled early never hitting an open Julio deep; Mularkey just
didn't have the playbook to adjust. Yes after 4 full years of starting I don't think its like turning on a light, the light should be on now,
and its up to our offensive line to let that happen.

We've never heard Roddy suggest he'll get the ball less or hear Turner say he'll run less; except this year. As a 5 year veteran Ryan can't get it by next year he may not get it. Again I suggest Turner may be Ryan's lone backfield blocker for the pass; which then he is
only transitional by what he does. I don't think anyone blocks out of the backfield better than Turner; and those hands of stone I wonder how often they were used in preseason; or in practice?

Now I think things will still be too conservative to you; but I expect a big change.

But that's exactly my point Cyril. Everything isn't goign to fall into place right away, and if the Falcons think it should then they are just naive or stupid.

Tom Brady didn't really become Tom Brady until about 2004 or 2005. And he began starting in 2001. Just like Drew Brees didn't really become Drew Brees until 2006 or 2007, and his first year starting was 2002. Guys don't become great overnight. They build up over time. Ryan has built up what he can do in the Mularkey offense over time. But this notion that he should be able to just carry that over in Koetter's offense or the "mythical" offense that many of us think will best suit him, IMO is just as naive or stupid. Even though Brees was better in Year 1 of Payton's offense than he was in San Diego, it wasn't until Year 4 that everything clicked and fell into place where Brees was exceptionally great and the rest of the team was good enough to support that greatness that it finally paid off.

There are no prizes for winning regular season games. And if the Falcons give Ryan a bit, and then he doesn't hit the ground running and they revert back to running the ball, then they will certainly win more regular season games, but they aren't setting themselves up to win in the postseason. I've said in the past, if you find yourself in a position that you need to take a step or two backwards in order to take five steps forward, then you should willing to make that sacrifice. And I'm not confident that Mike Smith sees that big picture.

This is what I believe currently: I believe if Mike Smith was to remain the Falcons head coach for the next 10 or so years, at some point in that time the law of averages would allow him to lead this team to one Super Bowl. And thus his career would appear similar over 15 or so seasons as an NFL coach to that of Jeff FIsher and Andy Reid who coached 16 and 13 full seasons and only ventured to 1 super Bowl each (they both lost). And another similar person like Bill Cowher, who coached 15 years in Pittsburgh and went to 2 Super Bowls. Fisher led the Titans to a Super Bowl in his 6th season as the coach (5 full years, 1 half season as interim coach). Reid was the same. And Cowher did it in his 4th year, and then exactly 10 years later in Year 14.

So I'm thinking this...If Mike Smith doesn't take this team to a Super Bowl this year, next year or the year after, that would give him a full 7 years to take this team to a title. If he has not at least won the NFC by then, why should he get an 8th year?

And with those conditions put in place, does the Falcons and more specifically Mike Smith's philosophy/strategy conducive to achieving those goals in that time span?

What I see is a team that can be consistently good, but rarely great. And I think if you're in the business of winning championships, greatness has to enter in the equation at some point. And while two years ago this was not the case, now I do certainly question whether Mike Smith is the right man for the job to lead us to greatness. That is going to be the prevailing question in 2012, and in the next few seasons after that: Is this team on the verge of greatness, or is it stagnating in goodness.

And as I said earlier in this thread, I think if the answer proves to be the latter, most if not all of that blame will fall on Matt Ryan's head, rather than the head coach. And I believe that will be because Ryan will be compared to Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees, etc. While Mike Smith won't be compared against Mike Tomlin, Sean Payton, Bill Belichick, Mike McCarthy, Jeff Fisher, Tony Dungy, Tom Coughlin, Andy Reid, etc. He'll be compared against Jim Mora and Bobby Petrino. And people will look back at Falcons history, and see a lot of bad coaches, and believe that this team can do a lot worse than Mike Smith. And they'll look back at that same history, and since Matt Ryan won't be as great as Brees and the like, he'll be lumped into the same category as Bartkowski, Chandler, and Vick, and because he didn't out-achieve them by a huge degree, he's the more expendable and easily replaced guy rather than Smith.

And personally, based off what I've seen over the past 4 years, I think that's the wrong conclusion to draw...

"Pudge Wrote"

What's Everything? If your talking about Matt Ryan I doubt he is really asked to do a lot more; just different plays and hopefully a
better accurate deep pass. (35 yards) to the same guys especially Julio; who Ryan now should be much more comfortable with;
and then more pass plays all around!! Ryan should not be a problem this year its the offensive line.

Look, I'll never call for a Super Bowl because most are chasing a ghost. Bill Cowher, Andy Reid; Dan Reeves, Bill Parcells; Bill B.
your taking some of the greatest coaches ever and covering a span of 75 years for(these best coaches put together) and you have about 5 Super Bowl rings. So that's about one every 15 years.

IMO we can scream and shout and get the best of the best but now that their is a salary cap; one Super Bowl every 15 years is about
on pace..... I understand you don't have to like that; you don't have to accept that; but I'm afraid that is the way it is!!

"Pudge Wrote"

There is a prize for winning regular season games; "you get to play in post season"

"Pudge Wrote"

This is where I think we the fans are naive or stupid!! Blank may have said he is in the business of winning championships; but surely you don't really believe that do you??

He's in the business of ego; making money by filling the stands which comes from being consistently good!! He's achieved his goals and on to a bigger stadium; and more ego; and his franchise should be worth more!! The other stuff we blame on others; they taught us we were in the business of winning championships; but its just never been true.!! Sorry Santa Clause is not real; he's for retailers to make money, like the Falcons to make money for Blank!!

Then about once in 15 years you get another good Qb and hope you hit; so you can keep selling the dream; to those that think
its what its all about!! I use to think like you but now I know its for entertainment--that's all; and money to those who sell and produce the entertainment!!

Blank would love a Super Bowl but he'd rather we go 11-5 and occasionally win a playoff game than go 6-10.... 6-10 won't fill
the seats; that's where his interest ls; and selling you on him wanting a Super Bowl is also where his interest is; because as long as you believe him; you'll spend more time supporting his team which results in Tv revenue!!

Figured that would be someone's response. Touche. But the point I was trying to make is that Smitty's approach tends to maximize the number of regular season games you win, and minimize the number of postseason games. Because similar to how winning games in the preseason is different than the regular season, I think the difference in the postseason is becoming much more pronounced than it ever was. His conservative/low variance style from an intuitive standpoint seems like it should work, but the results speak for themselves and I think that style of play, and specifically I'm referring to our run-based, conservative offense where our QB is asked to manage the game, is having a direct effect on why this team is losing games.

And if Mike Smith is unwilling or unable to change that, then it basically comes down to Thomas Dimitroff doing his job a lot better. Because that style of play IMHO only works if you have significantly better talent on your team, especially in the trenches. And when you look at what TD has done in recent off-seasons, he has done a poor job IMO putting together a team that can win at the highest levels with that style of play. Trading for Jones, passing on Mario Williams IMO are potential franchise-killing decisions.


I wasn't referring specifically to winning Super Bowls, I was referring to going to Super Bowls. And those coaches collectively have been to 14 Super Bowls, so it's really more like every 5 years.

All I'm saying is that if I'm the owner of the Falcons, and by the end of the 2014 season, if I haven't seen the Falcons go to a Super Bowl and/or feel that they are on the brink of doing so, then I would move on from Mike Smith. That could very well mean that Mike Smith gets fired and goes onto have success with his 2nd team similar to Dungy and Coughlin. But it raises the question of do the Bucs/Jags regret firing those guys. I don't think either should. The Bucs won a Super Bowl win Gruden. If they regret anything it was the ownership going bankrupt and giving too much power to Jon Gruden. Nor do I think the Jags should regret firing Coughlin. If they regret anything it was probably keeping Jack Del Rio for as long as they did, but again that probably had as much to do with the failing financial situation of ownership and the fanbase in Jacksonville. Now, the hope for the Falcons is that because Arthur Blank is going to start to have a huge influx of revenue circa 2018 so hopefully those issues can be abated. The Bucs/Jags were two organizations that you can say hired lesser coaches after Dungy/Coughlin, but because of their weak financial base, ownership couldn't go out and fix the mistake because they got into the pattern of trying to limit their expenditures. I hope, the Falcons aren't in that situation if they choose to move on from Smitty in the next few years.

I believe in patience, but I don't believe in eternal patience. Yes, it's better to have Jeff Fisher or Andy Reid than the alternative of a coach that you have to change every 4-5 years. But at the same time, you don't get a live-long pass because every year you win 9 or 10 games, and lose in the 2nd round of the playoffs. I have to feel like as a hypothetical owner that the arrow is always pointing up, as opposed to sideways.

And as for Mike Smith, if the next 3 years of Falcons football don't feel/look significantly better than the last 3 years of Falcons football, then I think he has to go.

And it's slightly funny to me that you bristle at me comparing Mike Smith to some great coaches, yet Matt Ryan is constantly compared to great QBs and nobody ever bats an eye.

Drama Queen.

"PUDGE WROTE"

I don't what I said to " bristle " about comparing Mike Smith to great coaches?? Its too early to know; he has a great ability to keep
his teams together; but just average at game day decisions. As to Ryan being compared to some great ones I think its too early for that too. I'd bet Mike Smith becomes a great coach before Matt Ryan becomes a great Qb; but its a real guess; the odds are against them both.

As for most everything else I agree. Mike Smith doesn't get forever and neither does Thomas D. although i'd bet Smith goes first.

If we get to the Championship game and lose; and keep making playoffs I think Blank will keep Smith around until Smith retires!!

Final Thought on our pass rush; if things go poorly I could see us losing 9 games......Then perhaps Smith goes this year. Their are a
lot of ways I see this year being a bad one for us; and it starts with Matt Ryan; and our offensive line.

Nobody really knows what Matt Ryan has for guts..... Maybe none; or maybe the O-line does well and we don't have to test his heart? I see this season as a toss up, either good or bad; for some reason I don't feel it will be average.??

I think we do know what Ryan has for guts. The questions you raise about Matt Ryan that you perceive as unanswered, I think are for the most part answered. Matt Ryan has started 62 games in this league. There isn't a lot he hasn't shown us.

I think he's shown us that he's a guy that can get rattled if you get after him early. So it's important that he needs a better O-line than say someone like a Roethlisberger or Cam Newton who can create more with his legs.

He's shown us that when he came into the league, he was capable at throwing down the field at a point in his career when he had minimal coaching. And thus it makes it seem that his regression in that area has come from the conservative nature of coaching that he's got in the ensuing three years which has changed the "natural" way he was throwing the ball downfield. And thus, I think bad coaching has a lot to do with how poor he's become throwing the deep ball, and it's going to take better coaching to revert him back to his natural level.

I think he's shown that despite that issue, he's a fairly accurate passer within 20 yards. And he's shown that he's got a quick trigger and can get the ball out to avoid sacks. He's also shown that he's a good decision maker that almost never makes bone-headed decisions.

He's shown that when he reaches a point when he can trust his receivers and build a rapport with them, they can become better. As he's shown even with those of lesser talent such as Finneran, Douglas, and Jenkins, which is in stark contrast to the Falcons previous QB.

With many of those things in mind, he has a conservative streak. He'll make the smart play as opposed to the big play. Meaning you're not going to see many throws like this from him:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-fantasy/0 ... 39-yd-pass
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss ... -the-catch
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... yard-catch

It's not to say he can't make those throws, but they will be very rare occurrences with Ryan, not to mention it's doubtful that with a coach as conservative as Mike Smith, he would ever have a playcall that would require such a throw.

And because of Ryan's lack of a big play ability so to speak, he's going to need a bit more additional support from a running game than say another QB with better physical tools and more of a gunslinger mentality (e.g. RG3).


Now, the only real remaining question in my eyes is can/will he improve as a deep ball passer. I think he can, because he's already shown he can be good in that realm (see 2008 season). I think the question of will he, has just as much to do with the coaching staff as it does with Ryan. Because I believe in an environment that fosters a "go-getter" mentality, challenging the defense, and being more aggressive offensively like the Saints/Packers, would allow Ryan to rise to that challenge because i believe another thing he's shown over the years is that he is capable of rising to the challenge when given the support to do so, evidenced by his 4th quarter comebacks, which he has more of than any other QB post-merger through the first 4 years of his career:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... i?id=tgzW4


And knowing all that about Matt Ryan, if you can't even win a playoff game with that as your QB, then I think you're doing something wrong as a head coach.

It's similar to Carson Palmer. People will look back at Palmer's career, and IMHO misevaluate him because of the lack of accomplishments. Because in the eyes of the majority of football fans, they see accomplishments (how many Pro Bowls, MVPS, playoff games won, etc.) as the end all-be all of QBs rather than simply ability. And while accomplishments are an expression of ability, they aren't the end all-be all.

I think Carson Palmer had the potential for greatness, but I think several major injuries, poor management by the Bengals front office, and mediocre coaching really threw that potential right out the window. I think Cincinnati failed Palmer, not the other way around.

And I think we're on the verge of that here in Atlanta, that if certain goals aren't accomplished (such as winning a playoff game), then the popular perception is going to be Matt Ryan failed us, and I don't think that should be the case at all.

Because of Ryan's lack of elite physical tools, and some questionable performances in big games, he doesn't have what it takes to be great. I disagree. But greatness doesn't appear out of thin air, that's what I mean it doesn't come from the aether. There's a structure around these guys that is built to achieve said greatness and allow it to flourish.

The Falcons did what I'm talking about once IMO, and it proved to be highly successful. The 2010 Ravens game. And if they did what they did in that game on a weekly basis, then I think this team has the potential that within a few years with a few more pieces, they could be as good as any offense in the league.

I agree with much of this, but I think Carson and the Bengals failed each other..Palmer has always and will always be an 'up and down' 'hot or cold' QB...He was that way @ USC and didnt really 'shine' until his Sr year.. He didnt get thrown in there his rookie season in the NFL, he backed up Kitna. Then, in his first year, he sprained his knee and missed some games, and the team went 8-8..Then, in 2005 he started having another 'great year' ( just like his SR year at USC). So, the braintrust of the Bengals backed up the money truck in december, and by January he had a MFer of a knee injury, and he never recovered. Now, you can make the argument that the Bengals did fail him on many levels, but he failed them as well. IMO.

Its like people say it was Norm Chow that 'flipped the switch' his Sr year but one bad injury and then Norm Chow is a 'failure'.

This is what seperates Ryan from Palmer. He is tougher and smarter, IMO. At least during the regular season

I could certainly buy the argument that by the time 2010 rolled around and injuries had sapped Carson of his arm strength, and losing had sapped him of his drive, that he certainly failed the Bengals then. But up until then? I don't really agree.

Did Carson do everything that he could have done? No, probably not. But when you look at the porous defenses they had in Cincinnati before Mike Zimmer showed up, the fact that they surrounded him with individuals in key positions of not having the finest character for years, I think most of his shortcomings are excusable.

I don't want to make it sound like he was 100% in the right, and they were 100% in the wrong, but I think the scales do heavily tip to the Bengals side when it comes to who failed who.

At his peak (2005), Palmer was a Top 5 QB. And for 4 out of the 5 other full seasons he played with him, I think he was a Top 10 QB. And thus the fact that the Bengals only had a winning season in 1 of those 4 years, shouldn't be heaped too much on him. Not to completely absolve him of blame, but you could put 20 legit reasons ahead of Carson Palmer as the reasons for those failures.

But to go back to the Falcons, I think if it should come to pass that the Falcons remain a good team over the next year or two i.e. maintain the status quo, I think the blame is going to be pointed towards Matt Ryan. Which I think similarly will be unfair because like Palmer, I think there are plenty of reasons ahead of Matt Ryan on why this team hasn't taken things to the next level.

I'm a QB-centric guy, and I believe generally that as the QB goes, so doth the team. But that doesn't mean the team and QB are one in the same.

Cyril questions Matt Ryans guts. I think that's crazy, because I believe it means that he is ignoring 90% of what Matt Ryan has done for this team over the past 4 years. There are clearly some games where you could question Ryan's resolve, but they are far outweighed by a number of games where you could not. Matt RYan had started 65 games as a Falcon, and if you want to take 1 of those games and make it outweigh the other 64, then so be it. But don't be surprised when people start to question your objectivity.

But for whatever reason, now people want to summarize Matt Ryan's career as the pussy that played vs. the Giants, threw a pick 6 to Tramon Williams vs. the Packers 2 years ago and couldn't hit open receivers deep against the Texans. Are these noteworthy? Yes. Should they define his career? No.

There is a sizable portion of this fan base that is ready to turn on Matt Ryan at a moment's notice. Because they have already done so multiple times over the past few seasons, usually right after he has a bad game since they write off the rest of his career, saying that he's not going to get much better than what he currently is.

And maybe they are right. I don't have a crystal ball. In 2005, Carson Palmer looked like he was on the verge of a HOF career. And then 5 years later in 2010, he was done and just an average starting QB. And maybe 5 years from now, we'll look back and say the same about Ryan. But similarly with Palmer, if that's the case, I don't think it'll be because Matt Ryan didn't have the capability to be better than what he was.

As I've said before, the bottom line is that if you cannot win multiple playoff games over the course of several years with Matt Ryan or a similar caliber QB, then you as a head coach and/or GM did not do your job.

Sorry, but I disagree with you on this one sticking point: Ryan's play regressed in all three postseason games. I dont really care particularly 'how well' he feasted on the sub-par teams in the regular season, for me it is all about what happens in January. If Matt Ryan does not want to become Tony Romo, then it's really up to Matt Ryan to make sure that doesn't happen...

All I'm really saying is this year is a proving year for Matt Ryan & Mike Smith. Guts, heart, leadership, swagger, making the open plays; all of these can make your Qb or a lack of some of these; can break him.

Yes I'm Questioning Everything!! I won't know till the season plays out; but someone had better step up; hopefully both Ryan & Mike
Smith.

I don't blame as much that the qb does wrong as you do on the Coach Pudge; and I don't give the Coach as much credit as when the Qb does well. I still don't believe a winning Qb lets ANY coach get in his head till he's afraid of making mistakes.

I remember that Frisco coach (I think he went to Carolina ) and he pulled Steve Young after an interception; and his teammates had
to restrain Young from killing the guy. I realize that's just one instance.....

"Pudge Wrote"
We all know that just to play in the NFL you need guts; its just some show more than others!! If the head coach is the catalyst for the Qb then you've made a strong statement for Coach Smith; and the
90% he's pushed Matt Ryan to achieve.

Look this year I'm more confused than any year in a long time; as to what to expect?? So I'm playing devil advocates to both sides
with the announcement that I have no clue (:

I do think Mike Smith is a good coach; and Matt Ryan a good Qb. Its how good that I feel that this year should show us all. Both going into their 5th year. As they say "they better hang together or they'll surely hang alone"

Exactly what I'm talking about. The perception out there is that Matt Ryan is the guy or should be the guy driving the bus. The myth that great QBs appear from thin air out of the aether, and thus take the bull by the horns and lead their teams to greatness without a lot of help from the players around them, their coaches, GM, owners, etc. Name one QB that could rise above mediocrity in those areas to go onto greatness?

The whole point here is that Mike Smith's system isn't designed to allow for great QB play. His system is designed for the QB to just manage the game. And thus Matt Ryan gets slapped with this expectation that he has to rise above his environment. And there's the myth out there that all of these other QBs have done so, and there isn't a single instance of one. Did Joe Montana/Steve Young rise above Bill Walsh? Did Tom Brady outplay Bill Belichick's mediocrity? While Sean Payton and Mike McCarthy are probably not the world's greatest coaches, they are very good offensive minds, and thus they are getting more out of Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers than others could. We know McCarthy is a pretty darn good OC because he was finally able to reign in Brett Favre for the first time in like 6 years in 2007. John Elway didn't start to excel in Denver until Mike Shanahan became the OC there. Fact is, that when you look at Reeves record in Denver, he was fairly mediocre (except the 1 Super Bowl year in '89) when Shanahan wasn't calling plays for him.


As I said before, Matt Ryan is going to be constantly measured against past, current, and potentially future HOF QBs, and yet so many people still don't quite grasp the inherent flawed nature of such a comparison.

The other thing that you're not aware of Cyril, is that Steve Young was 33 years old when he and Seifert had that blow-up.

Matt Ryan is 27. And when you look at all the QBs that at that age have achieved more than Matt Ryan at the same age, they all played for better coaches and/or better supporting cast. Not a single one of the Falcons teams that Matt Ryan has played on has been built well to succeed in January. Because the Falcons have struggled to defend the pass and they aren't a good passing team because their offense isn't designed to throw the football. It's designed to run the ball, and throw it as a fallback. It's a passing league, yet the Falcons have at their core failed to understand this concept for 4 years. Maybe that is changing with Koetter, Nolan, Samuel, Julio, etc. But I doubt it because this team still has Michael Turner. And anybody that knows it's a passing league, knows that the 2012 version of Turner provides absolutely no help in that regard. He isn't a good enough runner anymore to give you a play-action oriented offense, he's a capable blocker, but no more so than the other 2 lesser/cheaper RBs on the team, and he is one of the worst catching RBs in the league. Yet, somehow this head coach, GM, and whoever else who makes such decisions, still believe he's a core piece of this team. Why do you think I criticize them so, because they make bad decision after bad decision, yet no one ever calls them out for it. So I have to overly criticize them to make up for the lack of criticism the rest of the fan base fails to give.

And people don't quite understand that this is a major reason for that "regression" in Ryan's play that we're talking about. In their warped worldview, they believe that Matt Ryan has to outplay his environment, because they feel that other great QBs have managed to do so. Which is downright false.

If the environment changes and allows for greater growth of the QB, then IMO I believe Matt Ryan will grow. But I'm not going to give him s*** for merely being a production of his environment. Which is no different than every other professional QB that has ever walked the face of the Earth.

The same s*** that people give Ryan for not being Steve Young, Drew Brees, etc. they should be giving to Mike Smith for not being Bill Belichick, Don Shula, etc. And whether people admit it or not, the reason for that is because Mike Smith is the "Great Savior of Falcons Football" because he fixed 40 years of misery with one fell swoop, and therefore is given Eternal Absolution. But Matt Ryan on the other hand is a QB that 90% of the fan base didn't even want, and thus he's never going to earn his place until he wins a Super Bowl.

And as I said earlier, QBs don't win Super Bowls. Teams win Super Bowls. But not here in Atlanta, that's all going to rest on Matt Ryan's shoulders whether or not that happens. And if the Falcons don't have a team capable of winning a Super Bowl, the fan base will blame Matt Ryan for it rather than the actual architects of the team.

Also, don't forget that Mike Smith comes from the defensive side of the ball. The offensive X's and O's are not his forte. He needs to trust in his OC and more importantly he needs to trust in Ryan. Can he or will he? That remains to be seen, but if he still insists on clock management, playing the field position game and insisting on the ground and pound, this team will not reach it's potential. And it does have potential.

I think a notable thing about becoming a better deep passing team is looking at how those good teams do with the deeper passes. I like to point to New Orleans, because while Brees is great and accurate and pretty mobile, they always give him a couple of options in the middle of the field to "throw it up to." This is pretty explicit in their scouting and their style of play. They'll use small quick guys, or fast stretch the field guys, but they'll generally have two options you can just throw the ball to. That's in the form of Colston and Graham last year (though you could argue even their deep receivers are pretty good at adjusting.)

What this does is allow Brees to see if the deep ball/better play is there immediately, and if it's not, make a more contested throw to a Colston or Graham who can catch the ball at 15 yards and gain a few more. And they've been explicit that they're looking for these wide catch radius guys who can play in the middle of the field.

So, even with a pinpoint accurate QB, they realize some plays are going to be contested, and keep guys for that purpose.

So, if the Falcons were trotting out Roddy on the outside, a Braylon Edwards/old Derrick Mason type on the outside, Julio in the slot, and TG, and were telling Ryan to look Roddy/Edwards first, and then throw it to Julio or TG second (up high, let them get it) then I would feel very good about Ryan taking that next step.

But as long as in their mind a deep completion comes from a great route and a perfect pass, there will be no effective deep game. Unless the QB can scramble for a few extra seconds, it is imperative that the team uses height advantage in the middle of the field to make the deep passes easier. I think that is the largest step this team can make, larger than the OL (which I think is a huge issue) improvements, larger than perfected timing. Simply realizing that deep balls are completed to tall receivers on shorter, easier passes, and adjusting accordingly. If they do this, they can be very good, and easily transition from Turner. If they don't, I don't think they'll ever get there, because they don't understand how the modern passing offense works, and are discouraging their QB from utilizing what makes it work.

Okay, Ill play along. Here is what I would like : A QB that gets a postseason playoff WIN. Does that make him 'great'? No: that makes him Tim Tebow. Or, Mike Vick.

If you wanna give John Fox props for 'setting up the perfect offense for a sh*tty QB', you go right ahead. I've heard it. I disagree.

Lets review. J McDaniels used Tebow in his rookie season, and as a 'backup' ( following MANY who said he would NEVER find success in the NFL ) but Fox comes in and puts Tebow back on the bench: and give Kyle Orton starting duties. After going 1-4, he put's in Tebow, who, after showing some promise in his rookie season, LEADS the team to almost winning that game. Now, who get's the 'credit' for that win? Fox? The guy who's
player assesment and development' supergenius intellect put Kyle Orton out there to stink it up for 5 games: and then, in desperation plugs in the 'crowd favorite'? Okay...You are going to tell me John freekin Fox had it planned all along that Tebow would lead a 16 point rally against the Chargers? Really?!!

Or, how about John Fox really planned for Tebow to win by late game rallies ? Im sure he knew that Denver became the first team in NFL history to win a game after being down by at least 15 points with three minutes to play in a game against Miami. Yep.

Then, the awesome John Fox ( didn't you or someone else compare Smitty to him?) surely planned for Tebow to win against the Raiders, Jets and lowly Chiefs, and I am quite sure he predicted Tebow destroying the Steelers in ther playoffs. riiiiiiigggght.

No the simple and obvious FACT is not that J Fox and Elway 'schemed' for Tebow, but that one way or the other, Tebow became a LEADER, pulled his TEAM up ( much like K Warner ) made them play better: and he has a playoff win, whereas Ryan does not. Fact.

This after so many 'PFT' and 'football geeksiders' said this guy would NEVER find success in the league.

Now, you may say guys like that are the 'outliers'. An exception to the rule. Okay, that may be true.

But, there is also examples of guys like that who can LEAD, not 'manage'. Now, does that mean I want Tebow over Ryan? HELL NO.

But do I want a little Tebow IN Ryan? Like I saw his rookie season? HELL YES.

This sounds an awful lot like the ol MV7 'excuses' of years past. If Matt Ryan does not want to be Tony Romo, then it's up to Matt Ryan, not anyone else. Im Fun Gus, and I approved this post

In the offense with Tebow, they seldom had 15 completions, usually much closer to 10. If you don't think that was a specialized offense designed for Tebow I'm baffled. I'll give him props for playing a great game against the Steelers, but that offense was most certainly designed for Tebow. And they took advantage of how teams played them in the regular season to surprise the Steelers with deep balls to single coverage. It didn't require genius...just decent adjustment.

I disagree. That 'offense' from minicamp to game 5 was most certainly 'designed' for Kyle Orton.

Now, if you want to say Fox made an 'adjustment' and quickly 'tailored' his O for Tebow: then yes. But hell, that wasn't until Orton sh*t the bed. Halfway through a game: and he opened Pandora's Box.

So I give waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more credit to Tebow then Fox, or Elway, or 'whoever' his great QB 'coach' was. I watched those games.

You cant tell me that Steelers game was a 'fluke'. Bullsh*t. Or the last half of that season. To give John Fox some undue credit for that run is B.S.

Good Grief. Give the man his due, for Crissakes

I watched the games also, and have never been a big fan of Fox. However, they designed a read option primarily run type offense, mimicking colleges and really, what the Falcons did with Vick for a couple of years. They didn't try to have Tebow do sophisticated route progressions, or keep him back in the pocket most of the time.

For four of their six wins in the Tebow stretch, they won with 17 or fewer points. They relied on a defense to keep the opposing team to 10 points or so through 3 and 1/2 quarters. Now, if you ask me, there's a whole lot of luck there. It's certainly not the way Fox planned it. And if teams had scored normally against their D, Denver would have been too far out of those games to mount a comeback.

I watched and thought, much like I do with a bruising running attack/mediocre game manager, that they'd better hope the other team didn't put up points, because they couldn't consistently keep up with them. Tebow normally only threw 20 or so passes (meaning they were surprises), had the entire D in the box, and still only completed less than 1/2 his throws generally. I wasn't impressed with anything besides the late minute heroics in any of the games I watched. That is, until the Pittsburgh game, in which the coaches looked smart and Tebow looked good.

I will give him credit for being a gamer, and being a very good red zone threat. You and I just saw different things in those games, I guess.

This isn't the first time something like this has been opined:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16559
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=16590

There is really no response to this sort of thinking. Because in the minds of people that are making these types of observations, the play of Alex Smith in the 49ers win over the Saints, or Tebow's play in their win against the Steelers, and Ryan's play in the loss to the Giants, either validates or defines their abilities/seasons/careers.

Yes, Tim Tebow was John Fox's Plan B. But they did indeed implement a scheme/system around him once they enacted that Plan B that was well suited to Tebow's abilities (or in many cases, lack thereof). And they did play a Steeler team that at the time of the matchup, they did match up well with. After all, this guy right here did predict the Broncos victory.

And then when the Broncos played the Patriots the following week, they got shellacked thanks in part due to Tim Tebow having one his worst games of the year. And the 49ers while they almost beat the Giants the next week, it wasn't thanks much to Alex Smith who completed only 46% of his passes and the 49ers were 1 of 13 on 3rd downs for the day and had perhaps the worst game of his season.

But we can't compare those games/performances against Matt Ryan's performance, which was similarly perhaps his worst, because that would completely invalidate our arguments. But hey the response is: "Yeah Pudge, I know Smith and Tebow returned back to Earth the following weeks. But the point is that they at least had that one game where they were in the stratosphere/on top."

And you'd be right. I can't argue against 1 game being taken out of context and used as a litmus test for whether a QB has "it" or not. I could suggest that the Broncos matched up well against the Steelers, and thus their gameplan was effective. I could also argue that the same was the case for the 49ers against the Saints, but the Falcons did not match up well against the Giants. But that would just be considered me making excuses for Matt Ryan.

Because whether I like it or not, whether I think it's fair or not, whether it's valid or not, QBs are going to be defined by how many yards they throw for, how many TDs they throw in comparison to their interceptions, and how many games their teams win. It's about results. Tebow got some, Smith got some, Ryan didn't, and therefore that's all that matters.

And it's not really that sort of "Bottom line" thinking that I have a problem with. But what I do have a problem with is that when it comes to determining the best way to fix your bottom line, then you can't be so superficial.

How do we fix Matt Ryan? The issue with Vick was how do we make him good. With Ryan, it's how do we make him great. And it seems to be that many are saying, it's will and drive that make you great. And it would seem most people here would say Ryan has more will/drive than Vick, but then again since Vick won playoff games and Ryan has not yet, then I guess that would call into question. And I guess for many people, it's that cut and dry. But it's been my experience that such fallacious reasoning is common, in that people will manipulate the evidence in order to fit the results they want.

Now fun gus, I believe it was you who said that earlier in Ryan's career, you saw that will/drive you're looking for. So if all it takes is a will/drive, and Ryan had it one point, then what happened to it? And if it's lessened or gone completely away, then I guess the issue then becomes figuring out what has lessened it or made it go away, and if you can remove that obstacle/catalyst, then I guess you've solved the problem.