FalcFans Forums

Pudge,
You are correct that nobody thinks you can do it till you actually do. Honestly though do you think after five years and four postseasons that this team will ever get to the SB in its current configuration (Smith/Ryan)? I mean they squeeked out a home playoff win in the final seconds to a team that had to travel across the country not once but twice. Maybe the problem is Ryan and he will never win the big game. Maybe it is Smith. Maybe it is TD, since he put together this mediocre defense. Maybe it is something else, but as Andrew Brandt likes to say past actions dictate future performance. From my vantage point, four tries and little to show means future performance is likely to be similar.

We also started from winning 4 games and losing 13 and no post season for a while; so
I think winning 13 games and a playoff game in 5 years is a lot of a difference than continuing what we were doing. Many Qbs keep improving after year 5!!

All of these " game day" decisions get so easier when you have better players. So easy
that you might not need to make many, except have a good game plan.

winning. winning makes a successful postseason coach.

look, you guys know how I feel. Saying 'other teams get a vote' does not negate the fact that with all these 'weapons' 7 times this season we had to come from behind to win. Twice in the playoffs we lost commanding leads. Our defense AND offense shut down.

But for .31 seconds and one playoff WIN, Smith would have been gone. You know it and I know it. The issue is, you guys see that as 'wrong', whereas guys like me and Blank do not. I like to reward merit. Smith secured a playoff win=contract extension. Smith loses 1st round bye ( meaning 4 playoff losses, two at home and one with a massive collapse) and it's Coach Nolan-time.

Arthur is not Ted Turner, and thank Vegan Baby Jeebus for that

One of the problems is that people think about the Falcons in a vacuum. When you start to factor in multiple teams into your minds, you start to put things into context.

Think about this...the Saints.

In Payton's first year (2006) there they won their division at 11-5 and got a 1st round bye. They beat the Eagles in Round 2 in a hard-fought game that went down to the wire. Then they played the Bears, the top seed in the conf. championship and got smacked around. They turned it over a bunch and lost by 23 points. The following year, Deuce McAllister went down with injury early on, they dumped Joe Horn among others and with one of the league's worst defenses they limped their way to a 7-9 record and missed the playoffs. They had little to no running game that year.

in 2008, they were an 8-8 team with the league's most potent passing attack despite the fact that Bush, Shockey, and Lance Moore were their top 3 targets (Colston was injured for much of hte year), they had a running game split between Pierre Thomas, Deuce, and Bush that was still one of the weakest in the league. And their defense was still one of the leakiest in the league.

Then in 2009, Brees has one of the best seasons a modern QB has had in NFL history. Their running game is one of the most efficient in the league, and their D becomes the opportunistic unit under 1st yr DC Gregg Williams that propels them to the SB and to ultimately win it.

And the question/point I'm building towards, is what if anything did Sean Payton show between 2006-08 that suggested he was capable of leading the Saints to the Super Bowl. What did Brees show up til then?

I'd bet money we can go back to the archives of this forum or another Falcon one from 2007 and 2008 where Falcons fans are saying negative things about Payton/Brees ability to win big games.

So what happened in 2009 that suddenly changed for them? The answer is NOTHING. Brees/Payton didn't suddenly become better QB or coaches. They are and always have been the same player/coach they've always been since 2006. What happened in 2009 for the Saints was the rest of the team stepped up.

You look at the Saints postseason success post 2009, it doesn't differ too much from their postseason success pre-2009. In 2010, they get embarrassed by the Seahawks and Beast Mode. 2011, they roll over Detroit, but then turn the ball over 5 times in the 1st half vs. SF, including a pair of Brees INTs and 2 fumbles on ST.


Look, I can't predict the future. But I do believe we have the right coach and the right QB. My problem with the team is that the other areas of the roster/team are deficient.

Not to throw TD under the bus, but his drafting has been unspectacular over the past 4 years. Besides Spoon & Moore, what assets has he added since 2008? Most of his big-time FA signings over the past 3 years have busted out. Not since trading for Tony Gonzalez and signing Peterson in 2009, has this team made a calculated off-season move to acquire another team's player that has worked out. Dunta Robinson, Ray Edwards, Vince Manuwai, Reggie Kelly, Matt Giordano, Lofa Tatupu, etc.

When Robert McClain is the best FA signing you've had over the past 3 off-seasons, that's not great. So if you're trying to figure out who in this Triumvirate is Octavian, Mark Antony, and Marcus Lepidus is, I think it's fairly easy to guess who is filling the role of Lepidus.

Look I think it's going to take multiple years to fix all of the other problems on this team. That's why I said in November, that this year was the Falcons best shot at winning the big one because their best players were playing at the highest levels we've seen them play.

My hope is that the Falcons fan base and particularly their ownership, can now be patient understanding that this whole thing is a process.

Fixed that for you. This is another classic example ( like those oh so patient and penitant Rooney's ) of not seeing the forest for the trees. First, the city was still reeling from a huge natural disaster, and the owner openly contemplated moving the entire franchise to Texas. Then, in the first year, the new coach comes in not only gets to the playoffs, but actually wins one. First year.

So were supposed to be 'patient' like the Saints? Should Arthur Blank be more 'patient' then a guy who was going to move the entire franchise out of town?

So you're saying that because the Saints won their first playoff game under Payton, and the Falcons didn't under Smith, that was the sign that indicated that the Saints would eventually win a Super Bowl under Payton, and the Falcons won't under Smith?

So does that also apply to Rex Ryan? Dave Wannstedt in Miami? Pete Carroll in both NE and Seattle? Jim Haslett also won his first playoff game in his first year in NO as well. Dan Reeves with the Giants? Bill Callahan in Oakland? Ray Rhodes in Philly? Norv Turner in SD? Mooch in SF? Jim Caldwell in Indy?

What about all of those teams that lost multiple playoff games before like Cowher, Dungy or Coughlin?

There is NOTHING that is predictive of a team's ability to win Super Bowls. If there was, you would have heard of it by now. Within a season, we have some predictive tools based on how certain teams are playing. But there is nothing that suggests what a team did in 2012 is going to make an iota of impact on what happens in 2013.

You may think Smitty doesn't have the "it" to win it all. But I'm asking you what is that "it" that you somehow have been able to figure out that nobody else has figured out? Apparently Payton had "it" in 2006, but didn't have it in 2007 and 2008. And then he had it in 2009. But again, 2010, 2011 he didn't have it again.

I didn't say that. I never said Smith wont get us to the SB. I just answered your question: "what if anything did Sean Payton show between 2006-08 that suggested he was capable of leading the Saints to the Super Bowl?"

The answer was simple. In his first year he got a playoff win. In year three, Bill Cowher got a playoff win, following two years of playoff appearances. My point was your saying we need to be 'patient' with the 'process', even if the 'process' takes longer then we thought. It took Smith and Ryan 5 years to accomplish what Payton did in year one, and Cowher in year three.

So forgive me if I dont agree with your timeline. Smith has 2-3 more years to prove he can get it done. That's what finally winning a playoff game will get you. But guess what? Dont be pissed at me or Blank is by year six we have 4 playoff losses, or by year 9-10 we still havent gotten there, and think a change must be made.

By your statement, you're saying that first year success is correlative/predictive of Super Bowl success, which doesn't seem to be the case. So I again pose the question does that apply to any other coach? It's ridiculous to say that it mattered in NO that Payton got his first win in his first playoff game, yet it doesn't apply to any other coach on any other team.

Look the truth is we could go the next 5 years and not make the playoffs;
regardless of who is the Coach. Both of last years Super Bowl winners didn't make the playoffs!!

I don't think this years team had a Super Bowl defense; I mean most think Blank is the "best thing to happen to the Falcons" but I remember Mora's remarks on the telephone;
I remember Vick being babied to death, and I certainly remember Petrino leaving the owner..... So what has Blank really done for this franchise that Coach Smith hasn't done??

Do I want a new owner---NO!! Do I think Smith will take us to the Super Bowl next year, No!! The past has seldom shown a new coach to be the ONE element that takes a team to the Super Bowl.....If a change usually worked over the years, I can promise you everyone would be wanting change!!

Sorry, I disagree with you Pudge. I don't think first year playoff success is indicative of future playoff success, but it certainly sets the stage. If the team/coach lay an egg the next couple of years, then it was an outlier. Payton won a playoff game his first year and then went to the SB in the fourth year. Even if he had lost the NFC champ game that year, I would still think he could make the SB because he had won playoff games. Not to put to fine of a point on this, but Smith/Ryan/Facons are 1-4 in the last five years. The one win was a squeeker against an opponent who traveled more miles in a week than a lot of teams do in a season. Based on a sample size of five games, I don't see this team doing much in the postseason in the future. Is it possible? Yes, but the odds aren't in their favor. If they are to go to the SB, then I think they will need at least one game at home if not two. If I were a betting man, then I would put all of money against them running the table from a wildcard spot.

not only that, but you discount the 'us against the world' post apocolyptic disaster rebounding from an owner wanting to MOVE THE DAMN TEAM. I mean, cmon now! The narrative was as good as written. You would have to be a very special kind of Saints fan not to believe this guy was going to get it done after 2005-06. ALL the Saints fans bought in, just like we all did when Matt went to the playoffs his first year. The difference here is it took Matt and Smith 4 more years to accomplish was Payton did in one and Cowher did in three.

I guess this just boils down to people looking only at the results of the game rather than how the games reached those results, which is an attitude I rarely agree with.

What's interesting to me is that in the playoffs, Payton is 4-0 in home games and 0-3 in road games (not counting the neutral site game of the Super Bowl that they won).

Why weren't the Falcons hosting a team in their first playoff game? Because they gave up a late TD drive to the Saints in Week 14, and because Roddy White dropped an open TD pass vs. Denver. You take away Pierre Thomas' 88-yard KO return to set up that scoring drive, and Roddy's drop, (2 plays) and the Falcons are possibly the #1 seed in '08 and hosting the Eagles in Round 2.

I just don't prescribe to the notion that all wins are the same and all losses are the same. One team loses because of 1 or 2 plays, and another wins because of 1 or 2 plays. And I don't believe 3 or 4 plays means that one team is suddenly headed down one path to glory, and another is suddenly twisting in the wind.

Every season is different, and typically what affects one season has little to no effect on the next year with the exception to an injury to a key player that may or may not carry over. And so to say that Sean Payton winning a playoff game in Year 1 put them on the path to winning a Super Bowl in Year 4 doesn't make any sense IMO, just like saying Mike Smith losing in Year 1 means that this team wasn't on a path to a Super Bowl in Year 5 or won't be in Years 6, 7, 9, or 12. Cowher doesn't win in Year 1, but wins in Year 3. They don't win a Super Bowl in Pittsburgh until Year 14. What if/anything that occurred in Years 1-3 have any sort of impact on what would occur 11-13 years later? None.

You look at Norv Turner, in his first year just like Payton he took them to the AFC Championship. It was the first time the Chargers had won a playoff game in 13 years. So why then wasn't the narrative written with Turner as opposed to Payton? And I'm betting your answer has something to do with the fact that Payton > Norv. And that is exactly my point. Because you're essentially using hindsight to apply meaning to arbitrary games. Payton's first win mattered only because he eventually did win a Super Bowl. Turner's first win didn't matter only because he did not. Coughlin and Cowher's initial lack of playoff success has little meaning because eventually they won Super Bowls. Payton won a Super Bowl because he's a good coach, not because of anything that happened in 2006-08. Norv didn't because he's not. And similarly, if Mike Smith wins a Super Bowl it'll be because he's a good coach, not because of anything that did or did not happen in 2008 or 2012.

Basically, Mike Smith's lack of postseason success or his postseason success means nothing until it means something.

Look, you believe that Mike Smith doesn't have what it takes to win a championship here. And you are allowed to have that opinion. Neither of us have a clue what is going to happen. I guess my point is that what has happened over the past 5 years really has no bearing on what will happen over the next 5 years. We as human beings constantly try to apply a narrative to all things, in the sense that things build off one another like the intricate plot of a story. But life and football really aren't that cohesive. It's all really random.

I guess I'm just trying to say that you have your opinion about Mike Smith which is predicated off what has happened over the last 5 years, and I'm just saying that none of that really matters when it comes to whether or not the Falcons will eventually win a Super Bowl under him.