Ok. I thought you were saying that should only be done if Roddy/Tony were fading, and you therefore NEEDED to use Julio extra. I don't think that needs to be the case. I think you can have 4 good receivers, and still rely on a certain one or two to "go up" for balls.
You're not wrong, but I don't think it applies to this team. Not some team that exists in the aether, I'm talking about this team. And for this team to embrace that sort of style of play, it will take a dramatic shift in philosophy.
As I said in the past, I think that sort of philosophy is one that is centered around scoring points. And you don't mind throwing 2 INTs, if it means you also threw 4 INTS. You look at Kurt Warner in '08, he threw INTs in 13 of the 20 games that he played that year. And the Cardinals were 6-7 when he threw a pick, and 6-1 when he did not. And clearly there is a correlation. And Mike Smith is not wrong for wanting to limit turnovers. But IMHO, he does so at the expense of making plays.
You look at the Falcons and their offensive DVOA over the past 4 years. They have ranked 10th, 3rd, 2nd, and 1st in terms of variance, meaning they are the most consistent team on a week-to-week basis in terms of their offensive efficiency as measured by DVOA. But you look at the last 4 NFC Champions, and you see the Cardinals rank 19th, Saints 16th, Packers 16th, and Giants 11th in their respective seasons. Is that significant? I think so.
Because those teams operate on a risk-reward system. Those teams go through every game knowing that their best chance of winning rests on their QB's ability to throw them to victory. This leads to inconsistency during the regular season, but through the trials and tribulations of 16 weeks of regular season grit, they are battle-tested when it comes to playing in January. Those QBs have now "practiced" for 16 weeks of throwing their teams to victory, and when the lights come on in the playoffs, they are better prepared to be able to elevate their play to the appropriate level to have postseason success.
The Falcons on the other hand, are about consistency, and their QB managing games. So that their QB is now well-equipped or prepared to do what he needs to do to win in January. This is what I was referring to back in January when I spoke of the correlation/causality of how Mike Smith prepped and game-planned to why Matt Ryan played like a little bitch vs. the Giants.
I'm not sure 1 or 2 "throw up" balls for Julio per game is really enough. Maybe it is, and with all the consistency that the other guys provide, those 1 or 2 plays is enough to really give us that extra umph. But as with all things Julio, that will only be a complementary part of the offense. It's the cherry on top as opposed to the rich and creamy ice cream in the sundae. And from September till December, that might be more than enough. But come January, I don't think it will be. Because those playoff teams are going to have a guy like Nnamdi Asomugha or Charles Woodson, that they'll put on an island against Julio begging you to test them. And what will end up happening, is the Falcons will shirk from that challenge and go back to the old tried and true, consistent and conservative style of offense that will get them beat because it plays right into the hands of the opponent because it's going to much harder to sustain when you have Trent Cole, B.J. Raji, Clay Matthews, etc. up front that can stop/slow that style of offense down.
Will those 1 or 2 throws make this offense better? Certainly. But IMHO you're going to have to do much more if you want to be a championship caliber team. The Turners & Gonzos of the world should be the complements, not the core.