Phillup11

New Members
  • Content count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Phillup11

  • Rank
    Rookie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Atlanta,Ga; Daytona Beach, Fl

Recent Profile Visitors

1,855 profile views
  1. Coleman and Ito would have been a nice duo. TBH
  2. IMO, I don't think 2019 Matt Ryan can operate in the ATL 2012 offense with the same efficiency. I think Matt Ryan has lost some arm strength, not just on the deep ball, but with putting the ball in tight windows. Koetter playbook requires more tight throws. (Why do you think Tony G. has so many highlights making congested catches...and now Matt Ryan is caught forcing passes to TEs yet again). Shanahans offensive concepts are the best thing for Matt Ryan as he nears retirement. Having a steady ground game with short passes, and the deep passing game is predicated on PA passes which gives matt ryan time in the pocket to "wind-up" and throw deep.
  3. Why are people referencing the oline when comparing Freeman and Ito. They run behind the SAME Oline, and ITO consistently looks better doing it. If I was coach, I would make Ito Smith the starter.
  4. When DQ was hired, he had the option to hire Koetter. He didn't have any OC "friends" to bring along automatically. He wasn't even close to Shanahan like that, he just reached out to him. He could have easily kept Koetter in for the familiarity to Ryan over the reason he hired shanahan, which was because of his scheme. Well now, we settled and hired Koetter again NOW because of his familiarity to Matt Ryan. TBH, we should have kept Sark. He was slowly getting into his groove and at least he kept the same scheme. Ryan is starting to get too old and weak arm to be changing schemes repeatedly now. I feel Shanahans scheme is best for the current version of Matt Ryan.
  5. I'm not saying bring back Sark, but at least he stayed true to the scheme and what worked best for the offense. I felt if we didn't hire Kubiak, we should have kept Sark.
  6. One thing to note was that Shanahans "long play calls" worked for the Falcons. Especially with the shift-to-motion in the plays. That is something that was slowly reduced with Sark, and now likely all together with Dirk coming in. It was a tremendous advantage that put us in favorable matchups by moving receivers around. People talk about being unpredictable with the playcalls, but I feel like shortening up the playcalls is a direct correlation to predictability.
  7. The defense has been trending more man coverage in recent years. I'm sure DQ loves to play man, BUT it was only feasible when all of our defenders were healthy. I remember seeing an article months ago mentioning that because we lost many starters on defense, we started playing more zone coverage again. I also remember an article breaking down the defensive tendencies and it showed more snaps of man coverage in games with all starters healthy by a wide margin than games where 2 or more starters on defense were out. (Man coverage is also what got us a 20 point lead against NE in the superbowl AND lost us the lead because the defense got tired from it)