Emmitt wrote:
Pudge wrote:
It would if the Falcons were a lot more competitive for more than 2 quarters in each of the games. In all 3 losses we've never really been in a position besides a fleeting moment, where we looked like we were on the verge of winning the game.
I'll strongly disagree on that comment. Falcons were looking pretty good at beating Arizona in a few moments of that game.
I'll be honest, I don't have a vivid memory of that game. But the Falcons held the lead only once in that game, in the last minute before halftime, and then Ryan fumbled a minute into the 2nd half and the Cardinals capitalized by re-taking the lead. So, again I would say that the 2 minutes that the Falcons held the lead is pretty fleeting.
There is a difference between "would win" and "could win." Like I said about this past year's Texans game, there was only a fleeting moment of that game where the Falcons held the momentum/advantage and looked like they were on the verge of winning. The Texans controlled that game, and besides maybe 10 minutes of that game, the momentum was firmly in their hands, and those 10 or so minutes where it was not, it was split evenly between the two teams.
The Falcons got off to a good start vs. the Packers and until midway through the 2nd quarter, it was pretty even. But after that point, the Packers ran away with the game. Any point the Falcons seemed to pull ahead early in that game, the Packers answered (i.e. fleeting).
Think back to the 2010 win over the Saints, where the Falcons looked like they were in control of that game for most of the game, until the end where the Saints were marching back. That's what I want to see more of if/when the Falcons play good teams during the regular season/playoffs. Or another good example is our win over the Titans. Even though in both cases we let them back into those games, it was our game to lose. Or my tried and true 2010 Ravens game. This is what we need to see more out of Mike Smith and that we haven't seen enough of, particularly on the road. This is the difference between a team like the Falcons and a team like the Giants, thus why when the playoffs started I said that the Falcons weren't more than the 5th or 6th best team in the conference despite a record that said otherwise. Too often people just look at record and think that is an accurate reflection of a team's strength/weakness.
If/when the Falcons can show themselves to be that sort of team that even if they don't win those games, they are consistently in them to the very end, even with a 7-9 record, then it's going to be hard for me to say that any team coached by Smitty is on the verge of something special.
That's why the Giants, maybe an outside chance, it was still realistic that they could make a run in this year's playoffs, while the Falcons would have had to suddenly transform into a different team than they had been for the previous 17 weeks.
