Jump to content

Matt Ryan: What I Believe; What I Want...


Quarterback
 Share

Recommended Posts

Change the way you attack but keep the HC?

Mike smith doesn't seem like an air it out 40 times a game type coach.

no he doesnt but he dnt look llike the type to step on toes either so he knows he needs to change it up.. im sure he realizes how much talent is on this team...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I just dont understand how people say Mularkey offense was predictable when we have had 4 regular winning seasons in a row . Eventually guys who get paid a lot more $ as d cords would have figured out the predictable offense week in and out and we be losing games . Instead we have been able to be ranked in 3 out of 4 seasons top 10 in points for a predictable offense ?

New Orleans Saints run a predictable offense I can say . The difference is excution by oline , QB and wrs . Saints offense is spread offense 4 vertical seam routes . Over Lbs head in between S to either Colston or Graham . Sometimes they mix in draws and screens . The difference is there offense is hard to stop cause of excution not advance play calling . I think Payton is best play caller in league but with that said a play caller can only do so much

I dont think throwing back shoulder throws and vertical seam routes to 2 freaks in Colston and Graham is a complex offense

How would you compare the two OL's?

And I say we have been more predictable because of our well known intent to control the clock with 10+ play drives to protect a rather smallish defense that both can't get off the field on 3rd downs (29th of 32 teams) and begins tiring in the 4th quarter and almost routinely give up game tying or leading scores. This has been an issue for years!

I still recall the Falcons approach to the Ravens two seasons ago where, anticipating the Ravens would focus on Turner; they came out passing on nearly every down to both shock and tire the vaunted Ravens defense. That they haven't tried this more often since is utterly baffling to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

takeitdown - Good post , I just dont see us running a similar offense as NE cause they have 2 freakish TEs that can run . Tony G while having great hands is not beating defenses vertical or crossing patterns . Tony G best route is 7 yard stop and curls and pluck ball for a first down

Roddy is a possesion wr/ route wr . His skill set fit perfect for what Mularkey offense was similiar to what made Chris Carter great and Julio could have been our Randy Moss

Turner is a north/ south runner . Pretty sure every knew this when we got him

There were no complaints about his lack of pass catching in 08' when we were running down peoples throats and posing our will

we got caught up with " explosive " nonsense wanting to be like GB or New Orleans offense whe. all we should have been doing is building oline and dline for power football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been a question I've been curious about. I think TD isn't like Belichick in a lot of ways (e.g. hording picks.) I also think the biggest driver of this is Mike Smith. They work together, sure, but Smith drives the schemes and plans, and TD fills in the talent (in theory). Mike Smith is a notably conservative coach (except for going for it on 4th down), and most defensive coaches are. I personally think TD would have done much better with more multiple/spread options on both sides of the ball.

It's an interesting thing, but basically, you can be high variance through your players or scheme. Even a 2WR pound it offense, if you have Roethlisberger or Favre at the helm, is a different offense, with high variance. Or, if you're in a very multiple scheme, you can have workaday players, but you're putting them in such different positions, that it stresses the opposing squad.

For complex offensive and defensive schemes, you need bright players who can perform multiple functions, and you're willing to trade off some upside for that. You figure you derive the "change" from your scheme. New England has this on both sides of the ball, spread offense and 3-4 defense (interchangeable WRs and RBs, as long as they're smart, same at LB). Better talent always helps, but for them it's more important they're able to execute a scheme that asks many different things of them.

In Atlanta, both the offensive and defensive schemes were simple, but they still drafted the bright, leader, low ceiling guys. That's a bad combo. If you're going to run a 4-3, cover 2...you have to have dominance on the DL. It becomes much more about having gamebreakers, because the scheme isn't going to confuse anyone.

I think that Dimi was still drafting for guys who would allow complexity, but weren't as talented in a given area, but then when that complexity isn't used...you're left with a guy who simply doesn't perform his one job well enough. I still feel like the coaches and FO aren't on the same page (even though they like each other and whatnot). But, as you can tell by this ramble, it's a problem that has left me somewhat confused.

Just as an add on, I also think they wanted a lot of stability in the first few years, and that's what the franchise needed. And the quickest way to stability is keep all the same coaches and draft very solid high floor low ceiling guys. I think that's what they did, but they should have shifted part of the philosophy (toward more talent, more multiplicity) around year 2 instead of just remaining stable.

This is a fantastic post, and I could'nt agree more. I too have felt a mismatch between what TD wanted to do when he drafted players and signed FAs, and what the coaches and staffs who put that talent to use on the field through their schemes wanted to do. I guess TD recognized that as well going with a more vertically-oriented Koetter, and Nolan who is known for developing players and getting "more out of less".

Edited by niels petersen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How would you compare the two OL's?

 And I say we have been more predictable because of our well known intent to control the clock with 10+ play drives to protect a rather smallish defense that both can't get off the field on 3rd downs (29th of 32 teams) and begins tiring in the 4th quarter and almost routinely give up game tying or leading scores. This has been an issue for years!

 

I still recall the Falcons approach to the Ravens two seasons  ago where, anticipating the Ravens would focus on Turner; they came out passing on nearly every down to both shock and tire the vaunted Ravens defense. That they haven't tried this more often since is utterly baffling to me.

 

Saints oline > Falcons oline no questions there but there offense in my opinion does not face the blitzes or pressure we face cause teams are afriad to load box or blitz Brees cause if you do and it gets picked up they will kill you 

Edited by Twifws
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. That's on a weak OL and the delusion of a former certain OC that ran a power blocking system without the power to do so. Whether against the run, or the pass, just bulrush the Falcons weak OL while having close, man to man DB's asked to cover for just 3 seconds.

I don't think you understand quarterbacking if you think Ryan isn't a quick read, quick reaction, quick delivery type of QB that can hit the quick slants against blitzing. He's as good as any in the no huddle offense. For the hundredth time, he needs either superior blocking to find the 3rd or 4th option, or he needs a system to compliment his skills very similar to Brady's.

He has worked under the most simple of OC's whom many defensive players can predict the plays. I can't tell you how many times--with a 90% accuracy rate--I have seen Turner go out of the game and Norwood, Snelling and now Rodgers come in and I call the next play. MM had the most predictable offense in the NFL and this, coupled with a weak OL, had our opponent's defensive players attacking us with the confidence of a predator attacking their pray bound to a leash.

You're back to that weird font thing again. Eli Manning faced the same thing and overcame it. Yes Eli had a better schemer in Gilbride, but he also had the worst running game in the league. If a QB needs a superior line, to go with great WR, TE and RB, all schemed to suit his abilities, then we are not talking about a top QB. Top QBs make the players around them better, not vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go simpler than that. Teams will stack the box against us because we can't make them regret doing so. That's on the QB more than anyone.

how?? If were not in no huddle then hes geting the plays from the coaches.... Thoes 4th down calls that failed thats on the coaches...

I cnt stress it enough the scheme dictaded the calls.. yea its 8-9 men in the box they still want to run the ball.. thats the mentality that MM have... Thats why you ask yourself why didnt we throw the ball when its obvious there trying to stop the run...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep

Why do you think his hiring was a surpise hire cause its same philosphy and easy transition . Yeah there will be some screens and he will try to work on vertical passing attack but if he decides to go with 4 wr sets he will leave our oline exposed

Because our offense was good through these 4 years, except when it counted the most - against the good teams and in the playoffs!

We don't need to throw away everything we do well, but we need to get more multidimensional and diverse on offense if we are going to keep up with the good teams in this league..

No one is saying our offense wasn't good over these past 4 years, but it has become clear that it wasn't good enough vs. good teams and in the playoffs - and if we want to win the SB, we have to improve there.

Edited by niels petersen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear what your thinking...not another Ryan thread!

Well, I feel the same and I promise this will be the last topic starter about Ryan from this member until the season starts. And yes this thread is sure to attract some knuckle heads, but it is more intended for those who fully support Ryan and/or those who question or seriously doubt Ryan abilities yet but sincerely want him to be the best he can be

You know, in my opinion, in our last three or four presidents I have witness national embarrassment and a whole lot of nothing getting done. Frankly, I don’t think either of the past two presidents have done squat for our economy! Yet, for me, for my country, my family and your family’s sake, I certainly want the current and future presidents to all be successful. To pull against any is like spitting into the wind, isn’t it? I feel the same About Matt Ryan and our team…I want both to be successful!

So often on this board it seems that some write outlandish things either out of anger, ulterior motives, jealousy or even deliberate attempts to rile others—I’m guilty of the latter too a few times!

For the sole intent to reconcile the Falcon Fans that actually want and hope that Ryan continues to progress and possibly for once help bring this city the Lombardi, I will try to be as concise as possible with my sincere beliefs are about Matt Ryan. I welcome yours!

  1. All things considered, Matt Ryan is the best QB in Falcons history. Not necessarily the most physically talented (Vick, Miller, Bartkowski and certainly Farve were more physically talented), but safe to say a higher cerebral ceiling and again, all in, our overall best.
  2. Matt Ryan has been the best QB in the AF history in the regular season.
  3. Matt Ryan has not been very good in the playoffs (just like his teammates and coaches, frankly). He wasn't "bad" against the Cardinals, "bad" against the Packers (except 2 poor passes), but he was pretty "bad" against the Giants as he seemed to look as if he was stuck in the mud the entire game. This was a setback in my eyes and has indeed warranted some doubt.
  4. He needs to get better with his deep ball as he at times has floated it so high it loses velocity at its apex and thus underthrown. This is solved with an extra second in the pocket to throw off his back foot plus Matt throwing with a different trajectory and arc. He can do this. He's no Vick, Farve, or Rodgers, but he can throw a football with the same velocity, arc and trajectory as such "average" NFL arms as Brady, P Manning, Brees, Montana, Marino (yes, Marino could barely throw a football 55 yards), Warner--all former singular or multiple Super Bowl QB's.
  5. Matt is as good as any NFL QB at the short and mid-range passes.
  6. Matt is a solid leader and a solid teammate, well respected by his teammates, coaches and competitors. He works hard at mastering his trade.
  7. Matt Ryan is not elusive like a Rodgers or a Brees, nor is he big and strong like a Newton, Freeman or Roethlisberger. In fact, he’s kind of on the skinny side like a Jeff George or Tom Brady.
  8. More necessary than others, Matt Ryan is more dependent on an elite OL because of #7 above. I think he can flourish with such a line; I think his growth and full potential will be limited—regardless of the number of offensive weapons—without this.
  9. Matt Ryan is bright—32 on the Wonderlic.
  10. Matt Ryan is a good, solid man. The guy has never once done a single thing to embarrass himself, his team, this city or you as a fan. Indeed, he's just a good guy!

Now, feel free to debate or add to any of the above points; however, if you are truly a Falcon fan, you truly want the best for our team and our city, then how on earth--even given his shortcomings and limitations--can you pull against this man and not support and encourage him? Do you want Matt Ryan to be successful?

Me? I course I've never pulled against any player on a team I support, but in Matt's case, the guy is such a class act, dedicated and tireless worker, and all around good leader by example on an off the field, I've never wanted more to see a man succeed...and if one day he does reach the pinnacle of NFL accomplishments by hoisting the Lombardi, no one on the planet will be more joyous, proud and satisfied than me as I don't just want to win...I want to win with a winner!

Quality post.

I agree with almost all of it. Not sure about the presidential commentary.

The only thing you left out is buddy has several comeback wins and game winning drives. Up there with the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how?? If were not in no huddle then hes geting the plays from the coaches.... Thoes 4th down calls that failed thats on the coaches...

I cnt stress it enough the scheme dictaded the calls.. yea its 8-9 men in the box they still want to run the ball.. thats the mentality that MM have... Thats why you ask yourself why didnt we throw the ball when its obvious there trying to stop the run...

41 passing attempts in the Giants game versus 21 rushing attempts. That's not run heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're back to that weird font thing again. Eli Manning faced the same thing and overcame it. Yes Eli had a better schemer in Gilbride, but he also had the worst running game in the league. If a QB needs a superior line, to go with great WR, TE and RB, all schemed to suit his abilities, then we are not talking about a top QB. Top QBs make the players around them better, not vice versa.

I hear this argument frequently about the Giants OL and Defense.

This same OL and defense went to Lambeau and beat the 15-1 Packers quite impressively, and then the 49ers in San Francisco, and then the Brady led Patriots. Does it ever occur to you that just maybe the Giants OL and Defense finally hit their stride and full potential at playoff time and maybe are much, much better than their regular season statistics would indicate?

Do you think E. Manning defeated the Packer's 49ers, and Patriots offense!

Does it cross your mind that by the postseason the Giants weren't just fortunate, that in fact they were the best overall team during the playoffs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear this argument frequently about the Giants OL and Defense.

This same OL and defense went to Lambeau and beat the 15-1 Packers quite impressively, and then the 49ers in San Francisco, and then the Brady led Patriots. Does it ever occur to you that just maybe the Giants OL and Defense finally hit their stride and full potential at playoff time and maybe are much, much better than their regular season statistics would indicate?

Do you think E. Manning defeated the Packer's 49ers, and Patriots offense!

Does it cross your mind that by the postseason the Giants weren't just fortunate, that in fact they were the best overall team during the playoffs?

Yeah.

I definitely think that belief and confidence has as much to do it with anything.

I have had a feeling that many of our players seemed to believe less and less in the offensive scheme and mentality. Namely Roddy after the playoff loss this year. Without that belief, you won't gain any confidence in your own ability to overcome the shortcomings you know you have as a team.

Maybe that confidence comes from believing in your offensive scheme and the guys running it, because you know they'll put you in the best position available to make plays, all of the shortcomings taken into consideration? Maybe that's what Gilbride did?

Maybe the FOs tendency to not acknowledge an area of weakness on this team may also have something to do with that lack of confidence? I mean, they still believe in Baker for crying out loud.

Edited by niels petersen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear this argument frequently about the Giants OL and Defense.

This same OL and defense went to Lambeau and beat the 15-1 Packers quite impressively, and then the 49ers in San Francisco, and then the Brady led Patriots. Does it ever occur to you that just maybe the Giants OL and Defense finally hit their stride and full potential at playoff time and maybe are much, much better than their regular season statistics would indicate?

Do you think E. Manning defeated the Packer's 49ers, and Patriots offense!

Does it cross your mind that by the postseason the Giants weren't just fortunate, that in fact they were the best overall team during the playoffs?

You mean cause they won the Super Bowl, they are not the best overall team? How is getting sacked at a over 50% higher rate than in the regular season an example of the O-line playing better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem was that we tried to become explosive by over investing in the skilled position, because we had an OC who was incapable of creating an open aggressive scheme that could fuction well with anything less than premier talent.

Mularkey's schemes were great for protecting a young QB but woefully inadequate for a team with ambitions to contend for a title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.

I definitely think that belief and confidence has as much to do it with anything.

I have had a feeling that many of our players seemed to believe less and less in the offensive scheme and mentality. Namely Roddy after the playoff loss this year. Without that belief, you won't gain any confidence in your own ability to overcome the shortcomings you know you have as a team.

Maybe that confidence comes from believing in your offensive scheme and the guys running it, because you know they'll put you in the best position available to make plays, all of the shortcomings taken into consideration? Maybe that's what Gilbride did?

Maybe the FOs tendency to not acknowledge an area of weakness on this team may also have something to do with that lack of confidence? I mean, they still believe in Baker for crying out loud.

You can't expect the players to be confident, when their OC enters the biggest game of the season believing that his unit is overmatched against a 9-7 team.

Our gameplay in the playoff game was one of the most gutless I have seen in 25+ years, and reflected Mularkey's lack of confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He might not like to step on toes but it's not like the falcons brought in urban meyer to run the spread.

IMO opinion Smiths job is on the line this season and he brought in an OC that's going to keep the team on the same track it's been in since he's been HC. I feel Artie should've cleared out the entire coaching staff after the debacle in NJ.

i disagree.. roddy had said in a interview at the SB week that koetter wants to throw it around a lot... And smitty brought him in so im sure smitty knows wat type of offense he is bringing in...

Smitty stated a few times that kotter is going to deploy screens and more aggressive plays...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem was that we tried to become explosive by over investing in the skilled position, because we had an OC who was incapable of creating an open aggressive scheme that could fuction well with anything less than premier talent.Mularkey's schemes were great for protecting a young QB but woefully inadequate for a team with ambitions to contend for a title.

Mularkey offense was successful with Justin Peele at Te and Jenks as our 2wr . It was TD that invested in Tony G and Julio not Mularkey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mularkey offense was successful with Justin Peele at Te and Jenks as our 2wr . It was TD that invested in Tony G and Julio not Mularkey

And they were upgrades, but the offense didn't take off even with much more talent.

The mularkey offense was succesful, but not against good teams or in the playoffs, neither with Peelle/Jenkins nor with Gonzo/Julio.. Mularkeys offense is too gutless and passive to get it done in the big games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we win, the QB is a hero. In losing, point the finger at the OC, O-line, RB, etc.

panthers(2) seahawks, eagles, we won all 4 of these games but we shouldnt have.. not cause the teams are more talented... But because of bad playcalling.. horrible game managment..

Theres games where ryan has played bad but we still won cause of turner and vice versa... But when your playcalling is so conservative that in a 2:00 situation your only calling plays for 5-10yds who fault is that???

Ivmean cmon the guy got scrutinized the day he became jax HC... Everybody knew he was holding this offense back... Even other teams and city reporters lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we win, the QB is a hero. In losing, point the finger at the OC, O-line, RB, etc.

That is the nature of the league as it is now. It's a passing league now. The QB is who every fan is watching, and who everyone will praise for the win.

I think the playcallers don't get enough credit for their work.. Just look at the Alex Smith TD run vs. the Aints - announcers say one word about the good playcall, but after the game all the talk is about Alex Smith, not the OC. The truth is that play wouldn't even have happened if not for the bright mind on their OC who made it all happen. Not trying to take anything away from Smith, but good playcalling is an essential part of setting the QB up for success.

Edited by niels petersen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem was that we tried to become explosive by over investing in the skilled position, because we had an OC who was incapable of creating an open aggressive scheme that could fuction well with anything less than premier talent.

Mularkey's schemes were great for protecting a young QB but woefully inadequate for a team with ambitions to contend for a title.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...