It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:42 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:17 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/0 ... -in-chiefs

Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
About the Author
Eric Edholm
eedholm@pfwmedia.com
Senior editor

It’s a bit down the road, but for Falcons head coach Mike Smith he has thought a lot about his Week One opponent. The Falcons travel to Kansas City to start the season against the Chiefs, whom they have not faced since 2008, in Smith’s third game as the head coach in Atlanta.

Smith believes that the Chiefs’ 7-9 record in 2011 is a bit deceiving.

“I know (Chiefs head coach) Romeo Crennel is building something special there along with (Chiefs GM) Scott Pioli, and of course (Falcons GM) Thomas Dimitroff is familiar with both of those guys, having worked with them in New England,” Smith told PFW on a conference call this week. “They have done a very good job of building the roster there.”

Like others have noted, Smith felt that injuries were the key derailment for the Chiefs last season.

“They were a team that suffered an exorbitant amount of injuries last year, and clearly it affected them,” he said. “I think they are a much better team than they were last year if they can keep all the (key) guys healthy.”

But one of Smith's more interesting comments came in how he saw a lot of the Falcons in the Chiefs. Clearly the Dimitroff-Pioli-Crennel connections run deep from their time together in New England, and Smith has seen it play out in how the teams’ rosters have been constructed.

“There’s going to be some balance and some familiarity there,” Smith said. “We look alike in some ways, which is interesting.”

Some differences are clear — the Chiefs run a 3-4 defense, and the Falcons do not, for one — but Smith has a point. The two teams have invested heavily in the WR position with the Falcons trading up for Julio Jones a year ago and Roddy White in the middle of a six-year, $50 million contract. The Chiefs have used recent first-round picks on Dwayne Bowe (who is currently unsigned as the team's franchise player) and Jonathan Baldwin, they used a second-rounder on Dexter McCluster and also signed mid-level free agent Steve Breaston.

Both teams also clearly favor using a diverse run system to control the action offensively, although each have new offensive coordinators — Brian Daboll for the Chiefs and Dirk Koetter for the Falcons — who could add their own wrinkles to the existing model. Still, Michael Turner and Peyton Hillis are expected to be the battering rams and Jacquizz Rodgers and Jamaal Charles the quicker backs for the Falcons and Chiefs, respectively.

There also, of course, is one more level of familiarity despite the teams having not met in nearly four years. TE Tony Gonzalez, in what appears to be his final NFL season, will return to Arrowhead for the first time since he was traded by Pioli and the Chiefs to the Falcons, in what should be an emotional scene for the future Hall of Famer.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:04 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:30 pm
Posts: 2347
Quote:
travel to Kansas City


Thats place is gonna be LOUD for a opening game. No huddle better be dialed in week 1.

I def agree they got crushed by injuries last year. CRUSHED. Assuming Charles/Berry get back to form, they could easily be a .500 team, and who ever knows with that division.

Brandon Flowers on our duo (and Berry), I'm very much looking forward to watching that.

side note - Pudge's head (maybe mine too) will look like this if Hillis gets to rumbling again... :twisted: .

_________________
Good is the Worst Enemy of Great


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:59 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1160
Location: San Diego, CA
I hate how coaches always try and pump teams up before they play and try to avoid saying anything that will give the other team any "bulletin board material." I would love a coach to just come out and say are you serious we are going to smash them lol.
Mike Smith as he is:

Reporter: How do you feel about your next week match up against the 2011 Colts?

Mike Smith: They dont have Peyton, but they are a tough match up they still have two good pass rushers and We really liked Curtis Painter when he came out of college he has a strong arm and can make all the throws. We have to be carful because there is no such thing as a easy win in this league.

Awesome Mike Smith:

Reporter: How do you feel about your next week match up against the 2011 Colts?

Mike Smith: [Laughs Loudly] Are you Serious they are 0-8 do you think we would lose to them? They loss to the Browns, The Browns [Laughs again] any serious questions is anyone going to ask me when is the last time I saw Big foot [laughs again] Im done I have to go [walks off stage]

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:19 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Reezy The Savior wrote:
I hate how coaches always try and pump teams up before they play and try to avoid saying anything that will give the other team any "bulletin board material." I would love a coach to just come out and say are you serious we are going to smash them lol.
Mike Smith as he is:

Reporter: How do you feel about your next week match up against the 2011 Colts?

Mike Smith: They dont have Peyton, but they are a tough match up they still have two good pass rushers and We really liked Curtis Painter when he came out of college he has a strong arm and can make all the throws. We have to be carful because there is no such thing as a easy win in this league.

Awesome Mike Smith:

Reporter: How do you feel about your next week match up against the 2011 Colts?

Mike Smith: [Laughs Loudly] Are you Serious they are 0-8 do you think we would lose to them? They loss to the Browns, The Browns [Laughs again] any serious questions is anyone going to ask me when is the last time I saw Big foot [laughs again] Im done I have to go [walks off stage]

:lol:


But for the record, I think the Chiefs will beat the Falcons in Week 1. Defensviely they match up very well with us. They can put guys like Flowers and Routt on islands against Roddy & Jones. Between Berry and Derrick Johnson they should be able to effectively contain Gonzo. Arenas isn't an elite nickel corner, but good enough to keep Douglas contained. And their run defnese is one of the better in the league (Top 10), and thus should be able to bottle up Turner. I think then having Hali coming off the edge is going to give the Falcons some fits in pass protection. Unless Jones or Roddy can really win their matchup on the outside, I expect the Falcons offense to struggle.

I think defensively KC won't be impossible to handle. But I think with an explosive back like Charles, the kind we tend to have the most trouble with, and their big, physical WRs (Baldwin & Bowe) will potentially give Asante & Grimes the most trouble.

But then again, it is a Romeo Crennel-coached team. They never won their season opener when he was in Cleveland, all of which were at home.

So I guess coaching advantage definitely goes to the Falcons. But as far as the teams go, I think they are almost perfectly even. The outcome of the game will be determined by which team has a playmaker that can go off in the game.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:30 pm
Posts: 2347
With similiar talent on each roster (minus the QB's), we should see very early if the coordinator changes help us like we hope.

_________________
Good is the Worst Enemy of Great


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:08 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1160
Location: San Diego, CA
I see the Falcons beating the Chiefs, Routt and Flowers are a decent duo but I dont see them being left on an island with Roddy and Julio. Tamba Hali does present a challenge coming off the edge but it will be no different than when we faced Jared Allen, Jason Babin, or Julius Peppers it sucks but we have dealt with it. I could see this game going like the Chicago game last year but we had a lot more weaknesses along the line [Garrett Reynolds & Sam Baker] than this year [just Sam Baker]. I am not sure that Charles will be the same back a year after his injury I mean he is totally dependent on his lateral movement ability and explosiveness. All in all I say we get out of there with a 10 point victory.

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:11 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:30 pm
Posts: 2347
Quote:
Flowers are a decent duo


Flowers is a top 5 NFL corner, period. He on Julio is an epic matchup. I think Hali might eat our lunch though, luckily maybe Baker isn't hurt til after week 1.

_________________
Good is the Worst Enemy of Great


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:26 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1160
Location: San Diego, CA
widetrak21 wrote:
Quote:
Flowers are a decent duo


Flowers is a top 5 NFL corner, period. He on Julio is an epic matchup. I think Hali might eat our lunch though, luckily maybe Baker isn't hurt til after week 1.


Flowers is a top 10 talent at corner but pairing him with Routt only makes the duo decent. Is it a better duo than when Asomougha & DRC or Revis and Cromartie or Woodson & T.Williams or even Grimes & Asante? I dont think so because Routt is Captian PI and will struggle when thrown at it happened in Oakland and it will happen in Kansas City.

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:49 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:30 pm
Posts: 2347
Quote:
Flowers is a top 10 talent at corner

Not nitpicking, but name 8 other corners better minus Revis.

I didn't include Routt, and that may be our angle, take one of our two receivers and work him over. I've seen Flowers shadow people, and that dude is no joke. He's like Revis Jr.

_________________
Good is the Worst Enemy of Great


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:57 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1160
Location: San Diego, CA
widetrak21 wrote:
Quote:
Flowers is a top 10 talent at corner

Not nitpicking, but name 8 other corners better minus Revis.

I didn't include Routt, and that may be our angle, take one of our two receivers and work him over. I've seen Flowers shadow people, and that dude is no joke. He's like Revis Jr.


Revis, Woodson, Nmandi, Champ Bailey and Jonathan Joseph round out my top five and Flowers is right on the cusp with Haden, Grimes, and Cory Webster.

The only reason I dont have him in my top five is that he is a liability in the Redzone due to his lack of size.

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:30 pm
Posts: 2347
He's now more FS, hybrid secondary maven now. Nnamdi needs a big bounce back year. Bailey isn't getting any younger, but his play is still at a very high level. Thats why I've got him top 5.

I'll give you Joseph, Webster and Haden. Otherwise we do have two good ones in Grimes and Samuels (although I do wonder how long Samuels can keep up this level of play).

Quote:
Outstanding cover man Brandon Flowers is the true cornerstone of Romeo Crennel's effective 3-4 defense.

Despite only being 5'9" and 187 pounds, Flowers is possibly the finest champion of man coverage in the game.

He combines intelligence with uncanny instincts and awareness to foil receivers—his performance in the red zone is the only reason Flowers does not top this list.

_________________
Good is the Worst Enemy of Great


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1160
Location: San Diego, CA
I see im not the only one who thinks that he is a liability in the redzone. :king: I do like Flowers though, but Routt is weak and has been overated since his days in Oakland.

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:03 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Routt is overrated. Always thought that even during his days in Oakland, but he's fairly productive. But the point is that he's good enough that you're not going to be afraid to leave him on an island with a guy like Jones or Roddy and feel like they are going to go for 180 yards.

Now, then again, if all the hype surrounding Julio comes to fruition and he is able to transcend to that elite WR level this year, that opening game against the Chiefs will be the perfect opportunity to do so. But you remember last year, Bears put Tillman on an island with him, then had their safeties blanket Roddy, they were solid. The only corners in the league that Julio really destroyed were the bad ones.

Schematically, Crennel doesn't have to feel like he needs to use Berry and/or Kendrick Lewis to blanket either WR. Then he could put Johnson on an island against Gonzalez, and not feel like Tony at this point in his career is going to destroy him (similar to how the Panthers put Beason on an island with him). But then maybe, Tony is inspired by his homecoming and proves too much for Johnson. But then you still have Berry there to serve as backup, because he has to be hanging back to save either of the CB's butt. He can play a lot more cover 1, bring Berry up in the box to stop Turner and the ground game. And relaly put the clamps on the Falcons offense, so that we have the sort of game where we're struggling to score 17 points.

Whether Flowers or Routt are Top 5, Top 8, Top 12 really doesn't matter. but they are of that skill level that you shouldn't be fearful that if they are on an island for 50-75% of the plays, it's going to be a major liability to your defense.

Flowers is the left corner, which means he'll probably cover Roddy more, and Routt will be the right corner, which means he'll cover Jones more. This is the perfect opportunity for Jones and all the hype surrounding him and the new offense to come to fruition. Because if he goes out there and makes a quality corner like Routt look bad, then there is indeed something special about Jones. but if he just goes out there and gets 5 catches for 70 yards, then it's just all hype. BUt if he goes out there and has like 9 catches for 160 yards, then this team might be on the verge of something special.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:38 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:30 pm
Posts: 2347
Quote:
Flowers is the left corner,


I have been racking my brain, as I am trying to remember the game last year, where I thought they had him shadowing a particular #1 WR all game. I thought it was a MNF game (VJackson)?? Anyway, he totally shut whoever it was down. By half way through the game, Flowers was in his hip pocket so much, I said damn, he's literally arrived as Revis Jr. cause this dude can't even catch a pass onhim. Still can't exactly remember though. With our dual WR strength, I could see them just leaving him on one side though.

The trio (of WR's) was on nfl network last night, working on the jugs machine. Catching a ball, stepping forward each time. Honestly none of the 3 have epic hands, but boy is JJ a tall drink of water. On you JJ numbers, I think the thing with him, in any given game where he catches 6-7 balls, any one could go to the house. If were smart enough to hit him in stride (which we have traditionally been awful about), his YAC skills take over. So its easily conceivable for him to have 7 catches, but for a 150 yards. We did see the flashes of this ability, he just needs to do it all the time.

_________________
Good is the Worst Enemy of Great


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:59 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
In the realm of the Chiefs corners, Routt = Dunta, while Flowers = Grimes. Jones is the type of player that when he faces a Robinson type of corner, a matchup corner that tends to rely on pure athleticism, he should be able to take advantage because there are only a handful of corners that athletically can go up against Jones and be OK.

But if the Falcons cannot take advantage of that, and he just winds up "Michael Jenkins-ing" it up, which contrary to popular belief is what he did for all but 4-5 games last year, and in those 4-5 games, it came against Darius Butler, Brandon Browner, E.J. Biggers, and Kevin Thomas, etc. caliber corners basically the equivalent of CHris Owens and Dominique Franks. The issue is that when he's facing Chris Gamble, Charles Tillman, Patrick Robinson, etc. and they are effectively containing him if not shutting him down.

And until that changes, he is no more effective a starter than Michael Jenkins. Because Jenkins similarly could beat the lesser corners of the league. But to be that 1A that Dimitroff envisioned, he has to be able to go up against the better corners in the league and still be effective. Even Roddy doesn't always fare well against CHarles Woodson, Gamble, Jabari Greer, Leon Hall, etc.

But the problem with Jones is that given what we gave up with him, that even that level might not be good enough Jones. To match what we gave up for him, he has to be on a level with Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson or Andre Johnson where even those guys get beat. I don't expect Jones to be that player this year. If he is, then the Falcons indeed have a chance to make a Super Bowl run. I hope that next year or the year after, he will be that type of player. And if he is, then Dimitroff's vision might have taken too long to realize, but it wasn't off the mark. But if he's not, then Dimitroff screwed the pooch.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1160
Location: San Diego, CA
widetrak21 wrote:
Quote:
Flowers is the left corner,


I have been racking my brain, as I am trying to remember the game last year, where I thought they had him shadowing a particular #1 WR all game. I thought it was a MNF game (VJackson)?? Anyway, he totally shut whoever it was down. By half way through the game, Flowers was in his hip pocket so much, I said damn, he's literally arrived as Revis Jr. cause this dude can't even catch a pass onhim. Still can't exactly remember though. With our dual WR strength, I could see them just leaving him on one side though.

The trio (of WR's) was on nfl network last night, working on the jugs machine. Catching a ball, stepping forward each time. Honestly none of the 3 have epic hands, but boy is JJ a tall drink of water. On you JJ numbers, I think the thing with him, in any given game where he catches 6-7 balls, any one could go to the house. If were smart enough to hit him in stride (which we have traditionally been awful about), his YAC skills take over. So its easily conceivable for him to have 7 catches, but for a 150 yards. We did see the flashes of this ability, he just needs to do it all the time.


It was Vincent Jackson, but separation was never his thing to begin with. Being in San Diego I have seen him play a lot and thats why I didnt really think the Bucs picking him up would make a huge impact as a lot of people believe. He is what he is a 6'5 reciever who can win a jump ball every now and again but doesnt separate and sometimes plays like he is 5'9. I mean Chris Houston shut him down. So shutting down VJ hardly constitutes as being a "Revis Jr." I dont think it would be as easy to shadow Roddy as it is VJ. To me this game comes down to the trenches if Matt Ryan isnt getting hit I cant see us losing this game.

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Reezy The Savior wrote:
It was Vincent Jackson, but separation was never his thing to begin with. Being in San Diego I have seen him play a lot and thats why I didnt really think the Bucs picking him up would make a huge impact as a lot of people believe. He is what he is a 6'5 reciever who can win a jump ball every now and again but doesnt separate and sometimes plays like he is 5'9. I mean Chris Houston shut him down. So shutting down VJ hardly constitutes as being a "Revis Jr." I dont think it would be as easy to shadow Roddy as it is VJ. To me this game comes down to the trenches if Matt Ryan isnt getting hit I cant see us losing this game.

I think the VJax signing could be huge for the Bucs if they establish a play-action based offense. By beefing up their O-line by adding Nicks, and if Martin is Bradshaw, Blount = Jacobs, and having Mike Williams as the possession receiver and Benn and VJ as the vertical threats, with Freeman's arm strength and mobility, they could have a very potent offensive attack. But it will require them being able to run the ball effectively to make it work.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:05 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4641
"Pudge Wrote"
Quote:
But if the Falcons cannot take advantage of that, and he just winds up "Michael Jenkins-ing" it up, which contrary to popular belief is what he did for all but 4-5 games last year, and in those 4-5 games, it came against Darius Butler, Brandon Browner, E.J. Biggers, and Kevin Thomas, etc. caliber corners basically the equivalent of CHris Owens and Dominique Franks. The issue is that when he's facing Chris Gamble, Charles Tillman, Patrick Robinson, etc. and they are effectively containing him if not shutting him down.

And until that changes, he is no more effective a starter than Michael Jenkins.


Pudge I really don't have any gripe with you and you know that; but I very seldom see anyone questioning some things you say
that are just so off base; I don't know why half the board doesn't step up?? You don't throw people out for disagreeing and Jenkins
is so much a lesser receiver every day than Julio was as a rookie. We lose one more game last year; and probably don't make the
playoffs last year; which then might have not shown us how bad we really were as a playoff team.

Here's what Julio did against the league last year--- well its really too stupid an argument for me to make..... I know your response will be I don't understand what your saying; but when are you going to get over that your wrong a lot; your even human (:

Recorded five receptions for 71 yards in his pro debut against Chicago (9/11), including a teamlong 32-yard reception. Hauled in two receptions for 29 yards vs. Philadelphia (9/18). Reeled in six receptions for 115 yards, including a career-long catch of 49 yards, at Tampa Bay (9/25). Set career-highs in receptions (11) and receiving yards (127) and recorded his second-consecutive 100-yard receiving game at Seattle (10/2). Tallied one reception for 16 yards and added one rush for 17 yards vs. Green Bay (10/9). Inactive vs. Carolina (10/16) and at Detroit (10/23) due to injury (hamstring). Hauled in three passes for 131 yards, including his first two career touchdowns, and added two carries for 33 yards at Indianapolis (11/6). Recorded two catches for nine yards vs. New Orleans (11/13). Inactive vs. Tennessee (11/20) due to injury (hamstring). Participated but did not record any statistics vs. Minnesota (11/27). Tallied four catches for 68 yards, including a long of 26, at Houston (12/4). Registered 104 yards and two touchdowns on three catches, including a long reception of 75 yards, at Carolina (12/11). Hauled in five catches for 85 yards and a 29-yard touchdown and added one carry for six yards vs. Jacksonville (12/15). Logged eight catches for 128 yards, including his third consecutive game with a touchdown, at New Orleans (12/26). Notched his third multi-touchdown game of the season after recording four catches for 76 yards and two scores vs. Tampa Bay (1/1).

I really don't like feeling like I'm always disagreeing but I read and wait up till two weeks then I feel I should step up; because
some of this stuff and many others; like out hurt linebacker who has only played in 5 games in 2 years; who's argument that his injury
is superficial to make a point on; just spreads the board with you covering partial debates and taking unreasonable positions that make us all look bad!!

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:49 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
I'm not going to re-hash this old argument. You either get it or you don't, and going over it for the 28th time probably isn't going to make it sink anymore. But here goes...

...You're doing what most people do, and simply playing fantasy football with Julio Jones. When you dig a little deeper and see how that production translated to team success, you don't see much of a link. As is often the case with WRs, you see a lot of empty, hollow production. We see the big yardage and big catch numbers from these WRs and we think it translates to substantial value to an NFL team/offense. Yet, the overwhelming evidence if you care to look is that there is no substantial correlation between top-level WR production and winning football games. You can't make that same statement about QBs, RBs, O-lines, and defenses, but you can with WRs. In fact, an argument could be made that there is a much stronger negative correlation between top-level WRs and wins than any other position on the football field with the exception of maybe long snapper.

I've given numerous examples like this in the past with Jones. But here's one more...take the Bears game for instance. He had 5 catches, 71 yards, and a 32-yard reception. Now on the surface, that's pretty good to outstanding production in your first NFL game. But when you look a little deeper, you realize that 32-yard big play, came at a point in the game where the Falcons were down 30-6 with only 20 minutes left in the game. Prior to that play, Jones had 3 catches for 11 yards. Now if you cared about advanced stats (and you don't seem to), then one metric indicates that at the point in the game where Jones made that big play, the Falcons had a 3% chance of winning the game. And after that big play, they still had a 3% chance of winning the game. The point being while that 32-yard grab is a nice play, and what we might call "foreshadowing" Jones big play potential, that specific play doesn't really help the team get closer to winning the game, thus it's largely empty, hollow yards/production. And so while Jones stat-line: 5 catches, 71 yards looks a lot better than your typical Jenkins stat line: 4 catches, 46 yards, in the end, it really isn't helping the Falcons anymore win games. So when you look at the Bears game as far as helping the Falcons win, Julio Jones brought practically zero to the table: the same accusation that people leveled at Jenkins for years as him being a guy that isn't helping the team to any large degree and is just taking up space.

And if you were to go through the other 15 games played in the 2011 season with the discerning eye of determining how much Julio Jones helped the Falcons win games, you would discover that in the overwhelming majority of those games he was not very helpful.

Now we all know that Jones at various points in the season flashed great potential. But a handful of flashes isn't enough. If you're judging Michael Jenkins in 2010, and Julio Jones in 2011, you have to look at the complete picture and the entire season, not just the flashes. Now, in 2012 and beyond, I think Jones will blow Jenks out of the water. But as of today, that is not the case.

As for other people not calling me on these things, maybe, just maybe, they don't do that because to them what I'm saying makes some sort of sense. And maybe the only reason why you're the only one calling me out on it is because you're the only one that is wrong. :P But I do appreciate the effort, the board just wouldn't be the same if you weren't around. :wub:

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:40 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4641
Pudge Wrote"
Quote:
As for other people not calling me on these things, maybe, just maybe, they don't do that because to them what I'm saying makes some sort of sense. And maybe the only reason why you're the only one calling me out on it is because you're the only one that is wrong. But I do appreciate the effort, the board just wouldn't be the same if you weren't around.


Oh the board could live without me easy; and another one would just take your place if you became a fan of some other team.....
but I've seen through the years that we all know that you always rehash everything and anything; and that's your right; but most don't
want to spend hours in conversation. Most would rather put a cartoon up to make the point; but I always expect you to come to your
to your senses; but am always shocked when you stay stuck (:

I don't even play fantasy football (I did one year in my life) but they had no way to cover the passes Jenkins touched that gave
interceptions to the opposition. So Jenkins in 2009 vs. Julio in 2011 had the same impact on the Falcons wins?? Your saying this blows me away but maybe that's why I ask; I kinda pretend its a drug before I start reading; and its kinda like a very short ride on
acid..... Its confusing but it will bring you back for more on those days when you need a change (:

I guess I should say thanks (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:01 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
I said Jenkins in 2010, not 2009. I have no problems saying that Jones in 2011 was better than 2009 Jenkins, but I have a hard time saying the same for Jenkins in 2010. If you were to measure Jones 5 best games from 2011 against Jenkins 5 best games from 2010, then Jones will outclass Jenkins. But if you were to factor in Jenkins other 6 games from 2010 vs. Jones 8 other games from 2011, then Jenkins would be the victor. And when you take Jenkins 11 games vs. Jones 13 games as a whole, then it comes out about even. I'll concede that Jones was perhaps slightly better, but the popular perception is that the two were night and day in terms of their ability to help the Falcons win games, and I don't believe there is a scrap of evidence to support that. All of the advanced metrics (those cute stats that fun gus despises) that somewhat measure this indicate that the disparity between the two WRs in those 2 years is negligible.

I change my mind a lot more than people probably think, or at least I'm more willing to do so than people think. I just need compelling arguments and/or evidence to do so. And if your argument is Jones > Jenks because he's more talented, then thats not very compelling in my book. Josh Freeman is more talented than Tony Romo, but he didn't have a better season. If you're argument is built around Jones > Jenks because he had more catches, yards, and TDs. I don't find that very compelling because that is a very antiquated way of viewing statistics. That shift to advanced metrics has already happened in baseball, is happening in basketball, and we're in the beginning stages in football. I'm not saying catches, yards, and touchdowns don't matter. But just like in baseball, for 100 years batting average was the end-all-be-all stat, but now people know better with OBP, etc.

Whether you actually play fantasy football or not doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of today's football fans are influenced by it. A perfect example of this is Pro Bowl voting, which I assume you participate in.

And the other part of the equation is the eyeball test. But the problem with the eyeball test is that it is very subjective. And the problem with that is that the big, sexy plays that Jones makes stands a lot more in our memories than the less sexy, but still substantial plays that a player like Jenkins makes. No one remembers the 12-yard catch on 3rd & 9 that extends a drive and eventually leads to a touchdown that Roddy or Gonzo or Turner makes, but everyone remembers the 80-yard TD catch and run that Jones made. Now, not to suggest that the 12-yard > or = 80-yard catch. But in a game, Jenkins might have 3 or 4 plays like that, while Jones will only have 1 of those big plays. And so in the end, they tend to balance out in terms of helping the Falcons win.

Now advanced stats help us distinguish these instances much more easily than standard stats. But for the most part, people tend to ignore these "cute" stats either through ignorance or stubbornness.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:39 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:57 pm
Posts: 4641
Pudge Wrote
Quote:
If you're argument is built around Jones > Jenks because he had more catches, yards, and TDs. I don't find that very compelling because that is a very antiquated way of viewing statistics.


Well at least I can understand you now?? You don't think scoring Tds matters all that much, nor the number of catches and
taking those catches into longer gains isn't very important?? You say their important; but you say its a poor way to measure
performance?? I say Big BS. You use them almost exclusively for QBs; and I'll just be looking for the metric board when you
bring it out (:

_________________
"Everything Counts"
Cyril


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:51 am 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3178
Cyril wrote:
Pudge Wrote
Quote:
If you're argument is built around Jones > Jenks because he had more catches, yards, and TDs. I don't find that very compelling because that is a very antiquated way of viewing statistics.


Well at least I can understand you now?? You don't think scoring Tds matters all that much, nor the number of catches and
taking those catches into longer gains isn't very important?? You say their important; but you say its a poor way to measure
performance?? I say Big BS. You use them almost exclusively for QBs; and I'll just be looking for the metric board when you
bring it out (:


As we all know, Pudge is very black and white. It's all about the statistics with him. He cannot fathom the fact that defenses have to take Julio into account and prepare for him. They did not have to do that for Jenkins.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:15 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1160
Location: San Diego, CA
You both make good points but I can see where Pudge is coming from the Lions have had Calvin Johnson for six years and but didnt start to improve as a team until they improved a lot of key areas. Fitzgerald has been a beast his entire career but as soon as Kurt Warner left they fell off now if Warner would have stayed and they ended up having a guy like Maclin or Meachum would the drop off been as bad in the win and loss column? I dont think so, WRs are a nice toy for an offense but are not a necessity look at the Steelers none of there starters we drafted in the first round. So Julio is a beast and me personally I love the aggressive move to go and get him but he wasnt a must have unless we were going to use him as a feature weapon in our offense [less than 15 targets a game]. With the whole stats thing I have to say they dont mean what they once did for example people who didnt see Turner play would say he finished with 1300+ yards and 11 TDs, he must be a beast but when you look closer at the stats you see that he avg under 4 yards a carry in 9 games and he only avg over 4 yards a carry against three winning teams. Jenkins made a lot of clutch catches in Atlanta but was never a threat to take over a game, Jones however is capable of that he just has to get on the same page with MR2 and be more consistent.

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mike Smith sees lots of Falcons in Chiefs
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:22 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26026
Location: North Carolina
Cyril wrote:
Well at least I can understand you now?? You don't think scoring Tds matters all that much, nor the number of catches and
taking those catches into longer gains isn't very important?? You say their important; but you say its a poor way to measure
performance?? I say Big BS. You use them almost exclusively for QBs; and I'll just be looking for the metric board when you
bring it out (:

That isn't what I said at all. It's an antiquated way of trying to compare players. Just because one player had 800 yards and another had 600 yards, doesn't automatically mean the 800-yard guy is better. Just because someone had 8 touchdowns and another had 4, doesn't mean the 8 TD guy is a better player. Anybody that understands the game of football and how football is so much about situations should understand this concept. All you have to do is look at last year's receiving numbers and see guys like Antonio Brown, Nate Washington, Darrius Heyward-Bey, Pierre Garcon, Jabar Gaffney, and Laurent Robinson all produce at levels comparable to Julio Jones and Greg Jennings, and we all know those guys aren't great receivers (or at least we should know that), and maybe they aren't as good receivers. That should be your indicator that catches, yards, and TDs aren't as important a measuring stick as people make it out to be.

AngryJohnny51 wrote:
As we all know, Pudge is very black and white. It's all about the statistics with him.

I'm not all about statistics. But I do believe that if you hold an opinion, that opinion should be based off evidence, and thus you should be able to present some semblance of evidence to support that opinion. If you think Barack Obama is a socialist Muslim who is trying to destroy America, then you should have some evidence to support that. If you don't then you are no more credible than that crazy homeless person on the corner shouting obscenities at passerbys.

And in the case of football, that often comes in the form of statistics. If I hold an opinion, but can't find credible evidence to support that opinion, I may not change my opinion completely, but I definitely won't be as adamant about that opinion as I was previously.

But the problem with the majority of football fans is that they still think in these antiquated ways. It's no more evident than with the Pro Bowl voting. The best players are determined to be the guys with the most tackles, interceptions, sacks, catches, yards, touchdowns, etc. And that's a very antiquated, silly, ignorant way of looking at things.

The sad, sad reality is that the majority of fans out there think in this ignorant manner. And I do everything I possible can so that the 20-50 people that regularly post on this message board become a small island of enlightenment in the great sea of ignorance that plagues football fans nationwide.

Eventually, we will reach a point 5, 10, or 20 years from now where "cute stats" will rule the day in football. And then it'll be 2028, and you'll finally be readily accepting the things I've been saying since 2011.

Unfortunately, there are people that I don't believe can be helped. There are people that wallow/revel in ignorance without even knowing it, and simply don't have the mental capacity to comprehend the concept that just because some guy has 54 catches and another has 41, doesn't mean the former is better than the latter. I don't believe any of these people post regularly on this board. But maybe I'm just naive...

AngryJohnny51 wrote:
He cannot fathom the fact that defenses have to take Julio into account and prepare for him. They did not have to do that for Jenkins.

What defenses? The bad ones like Indianapolis and Carolina? Ok, sure. But the good ones? LIke Houston, Chicago? I'm sorry, that didn't happen. That's a pipe dream. When you look at the fact that Julio Jones best games came against either the worst defenses/secondaries or in games when the Falcons struggled offensively, and when the Falcons offense was at its best, Jones was largely an afterthought tells you that teams weren't too worried about accounting for him.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: