FalcFans Forums

Actually Jones is the replacement for Gonzalez. TD said as much when he made the trade. The Roddy and Gonzo era will be followed by the Roddy and Jones era. Of course Jones is much younger than Roddy so he's likely to outlast him as well.

Epic analogy. I don't suppose you can boil it down any simpler than that.

Look IMO our identity will become Balanced!!

We are very good at one thing and that's converting 3rd downs.....

Now we need a break on defense; if Sidbury, or Ray Edwards (I'm convinced he was hurt all last year ) if our defensive front can get some pressure; our secondary is looking good.

I've read where the coaches are really hoping A. Dent can beat out the veteran; (maybe that pick meant more than most here gave it; perhaps he can pass protect)

I understand I think about what everybody is saying; but if we can run the ball and pass it as well does that not make us a dangerous offense.... Julio is a big deal!! Those numbers as a rookie give us reason's to be excited!!

A balanced offense with a very strong defense...... We're not there yet but I see it!! The Julio trade was necessary to get us to Balanced. Turner will not run the ball 20 times this whole season.....We're keeping him in case to many injuries makes Balanced hard to perform.

Jeez TD is about the best Gm in the NFL who doesn't cheat, Pudge yes we will be there in 4 years.....

Mike Smith's JOB is safer than mine and I've retired!! ALL the horror shows; their plane crashing; nobody can figure it out?? Its football, we were trying to figure it out when Matt was a rookie and needed Turner in a big way; but now its right in front of us; we want to be balanced on offense; and great on defense!!

Not true. The Saings are a team that is very good at converting 3rd downs. The Falcons are better than your average team, when it comes to 3rd & shorts. But in 3rd & long situations, they are in fact below average, at least they were in 2011.


I would be excited if I thought Julio would have the opportunity to really expand on those numbers and be a centerpiece of the offense rather than remaining as the 4th fiddle to Turner, Roddy, & Gonzo. He's the most dynamic player on the team, but he's treated as if he's Michael Jenkins.


It's a nice little theory, but like I said in the analogy: if the goal is to be "balanced," then why you have spent a ridiculous amount of resources in one aspect of the equation. That completely throws any "balance" out the window.


I'm sure Ozzie Newsome, Jerry Reese, Kevin Colbert, A.J. Smith, and Ted Thompson would disagree with you.

[/quote]
I guess that's part of the problem. What is balanced? Is balance like most of the top offenses in the league, which can throw the football effectively for 3 quarters, but then grind out the clock in the 4th. Is it running the ball effectively but then being able to throw it when need be, similar to the Houston Texans?

Because if balance is being able to run the ball and pass the ball at will, that doesn't exist in the NFL. I don't believe it ever has, and therefore the Falcons are forging new territory to be the first team to ever do so. I counter that at the end of the day, you have to do one thing very well because you're going to come across another team that can stop you from doing one aspect of your offense, therefore you're going to have to rely on that one aspect to carry you.

And I wonder what that is for the Falcons. I think they want it to be running the football. That has been the case the past four years. But if that is the case, then why did you mortgage a small village to get a second wide receiver? Those two philosophies are incompatible. If you were going to mortgage a small village for any player other than a franchise QB, then it should have been Trent Richardson this year, not Julio Jones last year because he fits what you want to do.

And then I say for that one aspect of your team, you have to excel there. You can't just be pretty good there. So if that's going to be running the football, then I don't think the Falcons are doing enough. I don't think you can excel at running the football with a 30-year old Michael Turner running the ball. I also don't think you can do that with Sam Baker anchoring the left side of your O-line. And trading away 3 or 4 starters for one in Jones. And people think I'm complaining about relatively minor things, and I think this is the key issue. These "small issues" when adding together add up to be a lot more, and this is IMHO what is holding back this team.

You could get by with Sam Baker as your LT when Turner was in the prime of his career at age 26 or 27. But at some point in the past four years, the Falcons should have known that he is incapable of run blocking, and therefore your O-line is only operating at 80% efficiency at any given time. So therefore, at some point adding someone like Michael Oher, Bryan Bulaga, or Gabe Carimi, a run-blocking LT should have been a much higher priority over the past 3 or so years than it apparently was.

And this is what I complain about, these inconsistencies and incompatibilities between your personnel and your scheme/identity. You don't draft zone-blocking tackles to work in a power-blocking scheme. Period. You don't draft zone-blocking RBs to work behind a power-blocking line. You're collecting far too many role palyers, and expecting a collection of role players and complementary guys to go up against the best teams in the NFL and through grit and determination win. And that's not going to be the case, and it's why the Falcons have been continually punked in the playoffs.

And if I can't blame that on TD, then who should I blame it on?

I'll take that bet.

Pudge it takes a ton of time to debate you because you slant & slant, until you think you're right; but if I take the time;
I can usually call you on all your Bs.; and their is a huge pile of it scattered all over this site mostly because some didn't want to spend an hour trying to figure out how you changed good on third downs; to good on short, bad on long;
and 1 team can do it better??

Yes the Falcons are a very good third down team..... I didn't say third & three or third and 15; I just put them up against the
World Champions New York Giants and we do better; I put us against the Ravens and we do better; I put us against the
Steelers and we're almost dead even..... So you call me wrong; just because the Saints were better?? That's Bs.

If you don't know what balanced is then their's no hope (: Balanced is when the defense doesn't know if you will pass or run;
and you can do both effectively!! (no not Perfect ) but effectively!!

You claim their has never been a Balanced team in the NFL?? That's close to stupid. I did say close (:

Actually the Giants were fairly balanced but as the post season got near Eli got hot; and they did pass more.

The Superbowl Coyboys were very balanced; with Troy Aikman; Emmitt Smith; and MICHAEL IRVIN.....

I should not be needing to explain this to you; but balanced does not mean they throw the ball equally; or run it exactly as
much as they pass it!! No, they can do both effectively!! And on any given Sunday they might run more or pass more;
because they can do both effectively!!

Come on Pudge----you got to know what balanced means for crying out loud!! Never been a balanced team in the NFL;
HOW ABOUT THE 1998 FALCONS??

Facts aren't BS.


Now, that is BS. THe Giants threw the ball 60% of the time during the regular season, which was the 9th most in the entire NFL in 2011.

And now look at them in the playoffs:

vs. Falcons - 33 passes, 31 runs, Passes = 51.6% of plays
vs. Packers - 34 passes, 27 runs, Passes = 55.7%
vs. 49ers - 64 passes, 26 runs, Passes = 71.1%
vs. Patriots - 43 passes, 28 runs, Passes = 60.6%
Postseason Totals - 174 passes, 112 runs, Passes = 60.8%
Reg. Season Totals - 617 passes, 411 runs, Passes = 60.0%

If they were "balanced" in the playoffs, it was because vs. both the Falcons & Packers they held substantial 2nd half leads (2 scores or more) and thus could begin to run the ball. But don't make any mistake, when the Giants had their back against the wall, they relied on Eli Manning, Hakeem Nicks, Mario Manningham, and Victor Cruz to bail them out of trouble, not Ahmad Bradshaw or Brandon Jacobs.

That's what we can an identity. And none of that sounds like what I'd consider a "balanced" attack. There are two basic kinds of balanced attacks that have existed (the simple definitions): 1) A team that throws early, and then once they've built up a big enough lead, with then run the ball in the 4th quarter to finish off their opponents. and 2) A team that tends to rely on their running game early, and will throw at times when need be, but their gameplans tend to be built around grinding down opponents.

Examples of Team 1 would be the Giants of last year, Saints of 2009 and the Patriots for the most part when they've had RBs like Dillon and the Law Firm. Examples of Team 2 have been the Falcons in 2010 and Texans of last year.

This idea that you can do both is really nothing more than a myth. Parity is such in the league that prevents teams from having that well-rounded a team. Not to mention the cream is generally going to rise to the top. If you have a QB good enough to throw to win, you generally will allow him to do so. Typically only the teams that lack such a QB will focus on running the football. Even if you were to find a way to put Tom Brady and Adrian Peterson on the same team, at some point one of them is going to be marginalized because you have to choose between running and throwing. And unless your offense revolves around throwing to the RB. And there have been offenses like that (Bears, Ravens come to mind), but in almost all cases those are fairly average offenses. So maybe if you want to be truly balanced, you might as well just substitute that for being "average."


This is the data I saw, and which I interpreted.

Falcons Rank in 2010 in all 3rd downs converted = 3rd
Falcons Rank in 2011 in all 3rd downs converted = 6th

Looks like Cyril's ideal is backed up. But once you did a little deeper, it's not all that impressive to you.

Matt Ryan

% of 1st downs, on 3rd & <3 yds = tied for 10th (2010)
% of 1st downs, on 3rd & < 3 yds = 25th (2011)

% of 1st downs on 3rd & 3-7 yds = 12th (2010)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 3-7 yds = 2nd (2011)

% of 1st downs on 3rd & 8+ yds = 5th (2010)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 8+ yds = 18th (2011)

Drew Brees

% of 1st downs, on 3rd & <3 yds = 7th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 3-7 yds = 4th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 8+ yds = 1st (2011)

Ben Roethlisberger

% of 1st downs, on 3rd & <3 yds = 19th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 3-7 yds = 3rd (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 8+ yds = 3rd (2011)

Aaron Rodgers

% of 1st downs, on 3rd & <3 yds = 14th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 3-7 yds = 1st (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 8+ yds = 13th (2011)

Tom Brady

% of 1st downs, on 3rd & <3 yds = 9th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 3-7 yds = 11th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 8+ yds = 6th (2011)

Eli Manning

% of 1st downs, on 3rd & <3 yds = 8th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 3-7 yds = 15th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 8+ yds = 25th (2011)

Joe Flacco

% of 1st downs, on 3rd & <3 yds = 26th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 3-7 yds = 5th (2011)
% of 1st downs on 3rd & 8+ yds = 20th (2011)


Michael Turner

% of 1st downs, all runs on 3rd down = tied for 2nd (2011)

Mark Ingram

% of 1st downs, all runs on 3rd down = tied for 2nd (2011)

Darren Sproles

% of 1st downs, all runs on 3rd down = tied for 11th (2011)

Isaac Redman

% of 1st downs, all runs on 3rd down = 6th (2011)

Aaron Rodgers

% of 1st downs, all runs on 3rd down = 8th (2011)

BenJarvus Green-Ellis

% of 1st downs, all runs on 3rd down = tied for 2nd (2011)

Ahmad Bradshaw

% of 1st downs, all runs on 3rd down = tied for 11th (2011)

Ricky Williams

% of 1st downs, all runs on 3rd down = 18th (2011)


Call it an issue of semantics, but that doesn't seem "very good" to me. "Above average?" SUre. "Pretty good?" Yep, that too. But in comparison to a team like the Saints, who seem to be at or very near the top in ACROSS THE BOARD when it comes to 3rd down situations, that would be something I would consider to be "very good."

The fact that overall, they convert 57% of their third downs last year, compared to the Falcons 44%. The NFL average was around 36-37%. Meaning that the Saints are 50% better than your average NFL team while the Falcons are around 20%.

That's good, but nothing special. It's not something that the Falcons can hang their hat on, especially when you consider how mediocre they were throwing on 3rd & longs and 3rd & shorts.

And for the record, the Giants converted 53% of their 3rd downs against us in the playoffs. We on the other hand, had a nice solid 29% conversions.

If you wish to take your own peek at the numbers, here is where I got all that from: http://www.profootballweekly.com/nfl/st ... s/players/

It's not BS, Cyril, it's HBO.

No its really comedy central; when you throw all that trash around!! Again its you who doesn't get it!! A balanced team is one who can run the ball or throw it depending on the defense they play....AGAIN TO SPELL IT OUT----their not great at either
but far above average at both....

You never commented about the balanced 1998 Falcons; they were not average!! 2 receivers catching 100 passes and one runner going for over 1500 yards?? Come on Pudge you were alive then, you don't think they were balanced??



You never knew if this team would run or pass.....



Pudge----THATS MORE BULLSHIT!! You also didn't comment on the Cowboys of Emmitt Smith; Troy Aikman, & Michael
Irven; but the Cowboys were always balanced Danny White 57% completions; Tony Dorsett, 1600 yards; Tony Hill &
DREW Pearson.....

OK -I'LL CLOSE WITH ONE IN 2006 AS THE STEELERS WON THE SUPER bOWL---- Big Ben was horrible with only 18 tds and 23 interceptions.... But they let him throw the ball almost 500 times......

But wait; Willie Parker had 337 rushing attempts for 1400 yards;

but they at least spread the ball around so that Hines Ward had 975 yards.... Santana Holmes had 824 yards; and a host of others.....

I'm sorry you think balanced means average because I've show you that our 1998 Falcons; Then The Cowboys over many years; WERE BALANCED; THEN THE 2006 STEELERS


I'm even sorrier you don't think their is an BALANCED team in the NFL??

These are not your silly stats!! Their football teams who won with balanced offenses and good defenses (Falcon lead the league in sacks in 1998)

At least learn something; before you cut and paste again; from some stupid football magazine!!

You guys are arguing about balance, when it has been repeatedly shown that balance matters little in today's NFL. Today's NFL is all about passing. Good running teams get beat by good passing teams. If you can't pass, you can't win. It's as simple as that.

I love the running game and the battle in the trenches as much as anyone, but I realize that things have changed in the modern NFL, and if you plan on being a power running team, you are scheming yourself right out of Superbowl contention. You might contend that I'm dead wrong about this, but you will be hard pressed to disagree with the following... If you want to win playoff games with a power run scheme, then you better have one of the best defenses in the league. However, if you have a great passing attack, you can compete for playoff wins with an average defense.

No, Cyril, the 1998 Falcons team was not balanced. They were a running football team. Their offense was predicated on running the football. Their success passing was the direct cause of their rushing success, because their passing game was predicated on the play-action pass. That was the secret to their success, pound the rock with Jamal Anderson, and then when the 8th or 9th man got sucked up into the box, hit them over the top with Martin or Mathis. That's not balance. The Falcons ran the ball 51.4% of the time in 1998, the 2nd most in the league. Had they just ran the ball 4 more times, they would have passed the league-leading Bucs as the most run-oriented offense in the league.

There are plenty of times that have been able to run the ball well and throw the ball well. But this notion that you can do both things well enough to a degree where your opponent doesn't have a clue to what is coming is a joke. Because the reality is that your opponent in the NFL has studied so much film that they know pretty much your entire playbook. They know based off the formation and the situation what is coming the vast majority of the time. The thing that stops them from stopping you is really just about execution. Your players are just better than their players.

Abd you're mistaken about the 2006 Steelers. The 2005 Steelers were in the Super Bowl. The 2006 Steelers didn't even make the playoffs where Big Ben had 18 TDs, and 23 INTs. And I'll give you two guesses what their record was in 2006 which signifies how "average" a team they were...


And no I can't comment on the Cowboys of Danny White/Tony Dorsett of the early 80s because I wasn't alive for much of their success. Firstly, I think the game has changed significantly from 1981 to 2012, so that the way teams were built 30 years ago has little resonance today because of parity, salary cap, and the huge disparity between passing now as opposed to then. But from what I can figure, like most teams in the league back before the last decade, those Cowboys teams offenses were centered on Tony Dorsett, with guys like Hill and Pearson able to provide the fireworks if need be.

As for the Emmitt-era Cowboys teams of the 90s, those weren't balanced teams. They were running teams. Those offenses were firmly centered on Emmitt. The fact that Michael Irvin was their only receiver, if you don't count Jay Novacek, and that Emmitt and Moose in most of those years combined for 90+ receptions is a good indicator of how unbalanced that offense was. It was essentially run the ball to Emmitt half the time, the other half throw it to Irvin, if not him then Novacek, and if not them two check it down to Emmitt or Moose.

Like I said before, the cream rises to the top. And eventually your going to center your offense around the QB (if he's good enough) or the RB (if he's good enough). The other guy can be a very good complementary piece. As we saw with Dallas with Aikman, or as recently as 2010 with the Falcons, where the offense was centered on Michael Turner, but that running game wasn't strong enough to sustain a winning team, thus why Matt Ryan had to swoop in in the 2nd and 4th quarters to bail out the offense.

This may be another patented argument against Pudge that is more about semantics than anything. But I don't think it's possible for a team to do well in both areas to a degree where there is confusion about whether their offense is a pass-first or run-first offense. Maybe that existed in the early 80s, or before. And if so then I am wrong about it never existing. But it certainly doesn't exist now, and has not for some time.

And all I'm saying is if that is the path Smitty & TD have this team on, then it's not going to work. You have to pick one or the other, and fully commit to it. You can't waiver in between. And they haven't done that in the past two off-seasons. Because last year, they gave up too much for a player that doesn't fit what they want to do (which is run the football). And this year, their "re-commitment" to that is a step in the right direction, but since last off-season they already took several steps backwards with the Jones trade, they are still behind. And before they are fully committed to being the best run-first team you can be, they need to make changes at RB, LT, and TE. And then you have to get more playmakers on the defensive side of the ball.

And that is what people don't quite understand with why I criticize TD & Co. Because if they had made those moves or similar ones, they would be enhancing their team to a much greater degree than they have...

No its because your wrong and don't know what balanced means!! Going back to the 1998 Falcons; who cares how they completed their passes.... I mean two receivers with 100 catches; Chandler with 25 Tds. They ran it 51% you say; so that means to me it was a very well balanced team!! They could run or pass in an above average way; but we not great at either!!

You still stick with it was a running team; when its so obvious they were balanced; 2 receivers with 100 catches is more than
3 yards and a cloud of dust...... I'm finished- You'll never even admit when your slightly flawed; and that's a lot!!

The rest of the league was doing it wrong because we went to the Super Bowl!!

You clearly don't because you don't quite grasp how identity factors into whether a team is balanced. If you're identity is to run the ball, and then use the run to set up the pass, that doesn't make you a balanced team as your definition put it:

In your mind, you've simplified the game of football so that you see a team that runs the ball 52% of the time (my math was off, it was 51.96%, not 51.4%) as a team that is balanced, i.e. they can do either or. But football is much more complicated than that. The fact that the average team in the league in 1998 ran the ball 45% of the time, while the Falcons did it 52% is not an indicator that the Falcons were balanced, and everybody wasn't. It was an indicator that the Falcons were able to build up leads in several of their games, and could then salt away games with their ground attack. It's why 8 of the top 10 teams based around how much they ran the ball, finished with 10 or more wins (and the other two were 8-8 and 7-9).

It also means that a team that runs the ball as much as the Falcons did in '98, also was running more than their fair share of times on 1st and 2nd downs, and because of their rushing success, they could manage to stay on schedule in that manner (similar to the 2010 Falcons). They're not catching anyone off guard.

You think the causality between a team that runs close to 50% of the time and wins, works in that order. But you have it backwards. Teams that win, often run the ball close to 50% of the time. It is a surprise to many that the '09 Saints were among the league leaders in running the football that year.

Identity certainly matters in this equation of balance. You can't delineate the two, and think that how you run the ball or how you throw the ball, has no impact on whether or not you're a balanced team. If your passing game is built around the deep play-action pass, then you have to establish the run first before it works.

Take for instance the '98 season. We all know Chris Chandler had a ridiculously high YPA that year of 9.6. Which strongly indicates that the Falcons threw the ball downfield and did it well. Is it a coincidence that in the two games the Falcons lost (vs. 49ers & Jets), in two games where the Falcons were getting blown out going into the 4th quarter that Chris Chandler and DeBerg/Graziani vs. the Jets had their lowest YPAs of the season, with Chandler having a YPA of 6.7 vs. San Fran, and the DeBerg/Graz combo having a YPA of 6.0. Interesting that those also represent the two games where the Falcons ran the ball the least.

It's not a huge correlation, but you see there is a correlation between Chandler YPA in games and how many times Jamal Anderson ran the ball, and how big their leads were in those games in the second halves.

Pudge I hate to break it to you but it is a fairly simple game...... Yes most teams do have an identity of run first or pass first; (but you said the 1998 team was a run first but now your saying they did their running in the 4th Quarter....

One hundred yard catches by 2 receivers is hardly a team running out the clock.
Its that identity that lets team still be balanced when they are capable of also throwing when their identity is running or vice versa. I understand the league has changed the rules to where its easier to pass; the rule use to be if the ball wasn't in the air you could knock a receivers head off; now its 5 yards or a penatly. Now if you hit a Qb low; or high; or late their will be a penality.....

Your just so hung up on identity you have never thought of balanced is my feeling after these conversations!! IMO the more balanced the team the better the team; its why New England isn't winning Super Bowls; but a balanced team is more rare today so I shouldn't be surprised that some go crazy when its brought up..... Regardless the Falcons will be more balanced this year and it will make them more dangerous on offense!!

I'm not hung up on identity. Just that your definition of balance (a team that can run or pass with relative equality) is less about balance, as it is about identity. And you're trying to segregate the two (run/pass balance vs. identity), when I'm saying that you cannot. They may not be the exact same thing, but they heavily overlap one, and you cannot establish/change one with significantly affecting the other.

And it's much more complicated than from where you are approaching it, which seems to me to suggest that whether a team runs or pass is more like a desire or a simple coin flip, and isn't affected at all by situation. And if you're stuck in 2nd & 10s and 2nd & 9s more often than not, it's going to dramatically impact what your play-call is going to be on 2nd down and subsequently 3rd down.

On the other hand, a team that can get into 2nd & 5 or 2nd & 6 is going to be much more prone to run the football. That was the sort of team that the '98 Falcons were, which was a team that could stay on schedule on the back of Jamal Anderson, which would then set up the big play to Martin & Mathis. But I'm saying is that without Anderson's ability to run you could not have Martin & Mathis being as effective. If you reversed the equation, it wouldn't have worked, at least not to anywhere near the same degree as it did going forward.

I agree with you, the Falcons goal is to become balanced. But I don't agree with you that Jones is going to help us in that regard. This team is already throwing more now that he's on the team, as we saw our run play % drop from 45% in 2010 to 42% in 2011.

If the goal was to become more balanced than they are currently or were after 2010, then giving up 4 picks for a 2nd WR makes absolutely no sense. And it's been said a thousand times, and will continued to be said a thousand times, the only way that the price the Falcons gave up for Julio Jones is deemed fair is if the Falcons are going towards a pass-first offense that is designed to get more out of him than they currently are. If the Falcons are getting all that they want out of Jones currently, then they overpaid. You simply don't have to give up 4 premium picks for a quality No. 2 WR. And if the goal is to go back to a more "balanced" (i.e. a team that runs the ball approaching 50% of the time), then the Falcons were downright idiots to think that a 2nd WR was going to help them in that regards. An explosive passing game while somewhat beneficial to a running game, doesn't nearly "open up" the running lanes as much as good blockers do.

AS for the '98 Falcons, these are interesting stats I found (for all includes playoffs):

Jamal Anderson

1998 Breakdown by Quarter

1st Qtr = 121 att, 463 yds, 3.8 avg, 3 TDs, 19 1st downs
2nd Qtr = 106 att, 409 yds, 3.9 avg, 5 TDs, 24 1st downs
3rd Qtr = 105 att, 567 yds, 5.4 avg, 3 TDs, 23 1st downs
4th Qtr = 141 att, 655 yds, 4.6 avg, 5 TDs, 38 1st downs
OT = 7 att, 28 yds, 4.0 avg, 0 TDs, 2 1st downs

Terance Mathis

1st Qtr = 12 catches, 275 yds, 22.9 avg, 2 TDs, 4 20+ plays
2nd Qtr = 24 catches, 353 yds, 14.7 avg, 2 TDs, 5 20+ plays
3rd Qtr = 25 catches, 358 yds, 14.3 avg, 4 TDs, 5 20+ plays
4th Qtr = 20 catches, 373 yds, 18.6 avg, 6 TDs, 6 20+ plays
OT = 1 catch, 6 yds, 6.0 avg, 0 TDs, 0 20+ plays

Tony Martin

1st Qtr = 21 catches, 417 yds, 19.9 avg, 3 TDs, 6 20+ plays
2nd Qtr = 30 catches, 539 yds, 18.0 avg, 2 TDs, 8 20+ plays
3rd Qtr = 15 catches, 254 yds, 16.9 avg, 1 TDs, 3 20+ plays
4th Qtr = 14 catches, 242 yds, 17.3 avg, 0 TDs, 2 20+ plays


Now here are the really, really interesting stats....

Anderson's Carries vs. Total Pass Attempts

1st Qtr = 121 carries/110 pass attempts (52.4% run)
2nd Qtr = 106 carries/178 pass attempts (37.3% run)
3rd Qtr = 105 carries/107 pass attempts (49.5% run)
4th Qtr = 141 carries/113 pass attempts (55.5% run)
OT = 7 carries/8 pass attempts (46.7%)

Well Finally and it didn't hurt, and you made plenty of points along the way.... As to Julio what you and I think doesn't
matter; what matters is what he does!!

@ Pudge.

Sooo tough to admit you're wrong.

I'm not wrong. I said I agree that the goal is to become balanced. But I never said that they are accomplishing that, nor do I think the steps they are taking are helping them become more balanced.

If the goal is to be a balanced team, then the Falcons decisions over the past two offseasons are the wrong decisions. First and foremost their decision to trade 4 premium picks for a player that doesn't help them one iota become a more balanced team. Nor does their decision to draft Jacquizz Rodgers, and give up an extra pick to get him, nor does their decision not to find a young back with fresh legs to replace or at least share time with Michael Turner.

The Falcons may say their goal is to become more balanced, but they are going about it all wrong. If all you gleaned from my previous post was that statement about the goal becoming more balanced, then you missed the entire point of that post.

My definition of balanced in football is the ability to pass or run the ball. The 1998 team did this very well. It's not necessarily the stats you spew forth. If a defense we play is poor against the run, I have no problem running it 40 times and throwing it 15. The stats will tell us we are running team for that particular week, but the reality is we are taking advantage of the situation. Same goes if a team has a poor pass defense, throw it 45 times and run it 12.

If playing a team that has a pretty good overall defense, if we have the ability to pass or run, we can/should keep them guessing. Advantage offense.

That being said, on paper it looks like we are trying to become more "balanced". The proof however will be on the field.....

My response would be based off that definition, how does that distinguish one from any offense in the league?

I just think that in regards to the '98 team, so much of their success was predicated off running the ball. And thus I don't dismiss that simply because they happened to be closer to a 50/50 split of run vs. pass than the vast majority of other NFL teams that season.

The average NFL team in 1998 threw the ball 30.25 times per game. The Falcons hit 30 pass attempts in only 5 games. Twice in games where Chandler did not start: in a blowout loss vs. the Jets, and the other in a game where Graz & DeBerg completed only 13 passes against a bad Rams team. The 3rd one came in a blowout loss against the 49ers where Chandler started, but the Falcons were down 24 points at halftime. The 4th and 5th came in the season opener vs. the Panthers and Week 12 matchup vs. the Bears, where the Falcons running game wasn't up to its usual level. We rushed for 93 and 95 yards in those two games respectively, those being the 3rd and 4th lowest rushing totals of the year.

Thus the conclusion most would draw is that the Falcons rarely threw, and only did so when they couldn't run. And I'm sure you would state that they didn't have to throw because they didn't have to, not because they couldn't. Which may be true, but that to me doesn't make them balanced. Just like I don't think the fact that '07 Patriots threw to win in 14 of their regular season games, but managed to run in 2 of their wins when they couldn't throw makes them a balanced team.

The point I'm driving at is that most good/great offenses can do both fairly well. But it's extremely rare to find a team that does both well enough to a degree where they can regularly alternate between running to win or throwing to win. The great offenses will excel in one area and win the majority of their games doing it that way. Just like the '98 Falcons won the vast majority of their games running the football, and the '07 Patriots won the vast majority of their games throwing the football. I would not call either offense "balanced." If I was to do that, then probably half the offenses in the league over the last 10-15 years could be called "balanced." Yet, the '98 Falcons and the '07 Patriots rose to the top...

And thus it harkens back to my earlier point to Cyril, that if a team is truly "balanced" it's really just another way of saying "average." The cream that rises to the top are the teams that do one or the other extremely well.

Because if you are great at one or the other, you're not adjusting to your opponent, you're making the opponent adjust to you, and that's a far greater advantage than vice versa.

And my point is that while you want to be able to do both, at the end of the day you have to be great in one of those areas, otherwise you don't rise above the fray of mediocrity to being a great team. So it then begs the question, which area do the Falcons want to be great at? And if the answer is both, I think it's an unachievable goal at this point in time and it's never going to amount to you being more than average (or above average) overall. The '98 Falcons were a great running team, and a good passing team. The '11 Giants weren't a good running team, but they had the potential to be great throwing the football, which is how they achieved their success. And that's where identity comes to play, because at the end of the day where is your greatness going to lie??

And my beef comes from I think that the Falcons want to be a great running team at the end of the day, but if that is the case, then their decision to trade up for Julio Jones, and their over-shuffling of the O-line, and their continued reliance on Michael Turner are hindering them from achieving that goal. Thus why I'm critical of TD & Co.

I should have said pass or run it "effectively". And no, that does not apply to any offense in the league.

Baltimore runs "effectively" and throws "effectively," are they balanced? The Falcons run and throw "effectively." Are we currently balanced? Or would you call what we and Baltimore do being less than "effective?"

Not trying to be a dick about this, just trying to figure out what degree you consider "effectiveness?"

Effective is when we are one of the best at converting 3rd downs.....Look we're not there yet; but the worst part is YOU don't
think there is an effective balanced team. I can't argue what you somehow think doesn't exist; although you now admit the
Falcons want to be balanced.... Now watch it happen.

The point I'm trying to make Cyril is that I don't believe "effective" teams are the ones that win championships. You think the '98 team was a balanced team, I don't think it was. I think it was a good passing team, but their passing success was almost entirely predicated off them being a great running football team. That to me is not balanced because the scales tip so heavily towards the running side. I've given evidence to why I hold this belief about the '98 team. And if you ignore that evidence or are not buying it that is your prerogative. You also pointed out the Giants were a balanced team, and again I've given reasons why I don't think they were a team where the scales were relatively even. I think they were a much better passing team than they were a running team. At no point in this season did people fear Ahmad Bradshaw, Brandon Jacobs, or their subpar O-line. But people did fear Eli Manning, Victor Cruz, Hakeem Nicks, and Manningham. The fact that in the week leading up to our game there most of the talk centered on pressuring Manning and containing Cruz should tell you how "balanced" they were. The same goes for the 90s era Cowboys, in that those teams were built around Emmitt Smith and their ground attack. Could they throw the ball effectively? Sure. But if those 3 teams are examples of "balanced" teams, then I think you could throw the "balanced" label on most teams. And thus your notion that being balanced leads to further success is completely undermined IMO.

As for now admitting something, I don't know what to respond to that. Because clearly you've completely missed the entire points of my posts/arguments on this board over the past two years if you think anything in this thread has been an admission of anything.

That's where you are completely wrong!! Most teams can't win with either passing or running!! Most teams just don't do either very well....(That's up to 20 teams; not bad teams; their just a long way from the playoffs)

Now the ones that can win running the football; but also be competent when throwing their passes; those are balanced teams...
Same as the other way; those that can win just passing the football but are also competent running the ball those are also the
other balanced teams.....

Yes the Patroits use to win just passing the football but even for the "Great Patroits" their lack of balance has stopped them
from winning deep in the playoffs. Same for the Ravens; but hopefully you'll see an Atlanta teams that runs and passes both
with very good balance.... Maybe not this year but IMO we are getting closer and your complaining when this may be
our best team on the field??