Question Bout Seattles Comeback

[Atlien 404]

they had jerry rice on first take(real objective right?) but did sf not give up 28 strait points after building a big lead this year?

reason i ask is rice said atl cant win cuz we gave up a lead......laughable

[SaintsFanInLA]

Of course you can win. But I think the point is, it should be a big concern for a team whos is the number 1 seed to give up a 20 point lead at home and basically need a miracle to get into field goal range in 31 seconds in a playoff game.

You did it, and that's all that matters. And no two games are the same but people are always looking at the manner in which games are won and lost. That game will either get people ready for next week with confidence or it can be viewed as a weakness in your armor. No one can KNOW for certain, it will all play out next week when San Fran comes to town.

[Trouble]

Crap we let every team back in it. we could have a 100 point lead and will go bend and broke D and let them score 99 straight point.

Smith very rarely goes for the throat or the kill. It turns into clock management and no mistake football. Basically we sit our our butts until the other team gets there crap together.

[SyCo]

Crap we let every team back in it. we could have a 100 point lead and will go bend and broke D and let them score 99 straight point.

Smith very rarely goes for the throat or the kill. It turns into clock management and no mistake football. Basically we sit our our butts until the other team gets there crap together.

its amazing after five years he still believes hes right. granted, we've won more than lost, but its truly a gamble

[Ethanga62890]

Crap we let every team back in it. we could have a 100 point lead and will go bend and broke D and let them score 99 straight point.

Smith very rarely goes for the throat or the kill. It turns into clock management and no mistake football. Basically we sit our our butts until the other team gets there crap together.

We've lost like 1 game with a lead after halftime in Smiths tenure. Something like 50-1. If anything we should have ran a few more times instead of chuckin deep. Our run game was balling.

[Da Bird is Da Word]

I knew it wasn't gonna be a shut out at half time and expected Seattle to make the game interesting, but not that interesting. Seeing us lose a 20 point lead like that just makes me nervous that this team can keep any lead. We let the Broncos and the Saints back in the game after being up like 20-0 and 17-0. I don't know if it's us "taking the foot off the gas pedal" or if it's just the other team's adjustments and resolve to win, but either way something's gotta change. It's the playoffs for crying out loud, you gotta run up the score even if you're up like 40-0. If the Falcons are up two scores early against the 9ers they better not waste that opportunity dammit.

[REV.2000]

A MIRACLE? iCE MOVE THE BALL 41 YARDS ON TWO PASSES IN AN 18 SECOND SPAN AND STILL HAD 13 SECONDS LEFT. COULD HAVE MOVED IT ANOTHER 15 YARDS. NO MY FRIEND THAT WAS NOT LUCK, THAT WAS SKILL!

IF MATT RYAN GETS THE BALL, WITH 31 SECONDS TO GO

IN THE GAME, AND YOU ONLY HAVE A ONE POINT LEAD ON

ATLANTA ...... YOU ARE DEAD MEAT! MATT RYAN IS THE MASTER

OF THIS SENERIO. HE HAS DONE THIS, MANY TIMES. ATLANTA

WILL ALWAYS COME OUT ON TOP IN THIS SENRIO. AS LONG AS

WE HAVE MATT RYAN, AND A KICKER ...... WE WILL BEAT YOU.

THERE WAS NO PANIC IN MATT SUNDAY .... THERE NEVER IS.

[Falconcheff]

So's I'm thinkin' bout this game we just had, and something occurs to me... Hear me out

Basically there's always been a lot of fans against Mike Smith's play not to lose philosophy. It lets teams back in the game, isn't flashy, etc.

So I'm thinking about Seattle, and how they were mounting a comeback. One of the things that really helped them along that path was Ryan's INT to Earl Thomas. And I'm thinking, "If Smitty had stuck to his conservative ways, that INT never happens." And if that INT never happens, Seattle doesn't close the gap in enough time to legitimately make that comeback.

In other words, maybe Smitty's usual gameplan, "Get a big lead, then finish it out with clock management," was the better play, but he might have given into fans who scream for us to keep on the gas. Well, when the gas was applied, a silly mistake (which would not have happened during a run play) almost cost us the game.

So the point is this. I don't think giving up a lead is foreign to us. Yet we will still come out on top, because that's how we play. We get up BIG, then outlast.

That's what happened against Seattle. we got up BIG, then outlasted. The whole second half I just kept saying, "All that needs to happen is that we have to hold them to less than Twenty points more than we score against them in the second half." And that's the way it went.

And BTW, Seattle did what playoff teams are expected to do... show some pride and make a game out of it. Good for them! But i think Mike Smith's general philosophy is this: If you're ahead by enough to run up the score, you're ahead by enough to run out the clock.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Falconcheff

[Da Bird is Da Word]

So's I'm thinkin' bout this game we just had, and something occurs to me... Hear me out

Basically there's always been a lot of fans against Mike Smith's play not to lose philosophy. It lets teams back in the game, isn't flashy, etc.

So I'm thinking about Seattle, and how they were mounting a comeback. One of the things that really helped them along that path was Ryan's INT to Earl Thomas. And I'm thinking, "If Smitty had stuck to his conservative ways, that INT never happens." And if that INT never happens, Seattle doesn't close the gap in enough time to legitimately make that comeback.

In other words, maybe Smitty's usual gameplan, "Get a big lead, then finish it out with clock management," was the better play, but he might have given into fans who scream for us to keep on the gas. Well, when the gas was applied, a silly mistake (which would not have happened during a run play) almost cost us the game.

So the point is this. I don't think giving up a lead is foreign to us. Yet we will still come out on top, because that's how we play. We get up BIG, then outlast.

That's what happened against Seattle. we got up BIG, then outlasted. The whole second half I just kept saying, "All that needs to happen is that we have to hold them to less than Twenty points more than we score against them in the second half." And that's the way it went.

I see what you're saying. But I think there's a fine line between recklessly trying to run up the score and almost being responsible for the worst fourth quarter collapse in NFL history. I just hope the team learned something from this.

[Falconcheff]

I see what you're saying. But I think there's a fine line between recklessly trying to run up the score and almost being responsible for the worst fourth quarter collapse in NFL history. I just hope the team learned something from this.

I agree, I can't stand this heart-attack way we win games. No lead is safe except the last one!

i'm all for something in the middle as well... more high percentage mid range passes to Tony G, and less late game gunslinging. I've always said how much I loved the '99 Rams' philosophy under Kurt Warner... GET FIRST DOWNS ON FIRST DOWN!!

That way you don't have to worry about third and long's...

[NOVAFalconFan]

Abraham came out after the first half. That didn't help in holding down the comeback.

[Des-pool]

So's I'm thinkin' bout this game we just had, and something occurs to me... Hear me out

Basically there's always been a lot of fans against Mike Smith's play not to lose philosophy. It lets teams back in the game, isn't flashy, etc.

So I'm thinking about Seattle, and how they were mounting a comeback. One of the things that really helped them along that path was Ryan's INT to Earl Thomas. And I'm thinking, "If Smitty had stuck to his conservative ways, that INT never happens." And if that INT never happens, Seattle doesn't close the gap in enough time to legitimately make that comeback.

In other words, maybe Smitty's usual gameplan, "Get a big lead, then finish it out with clock management," was the better play, but he might have given into fans who scream for us to keep on the gas. Well, when the gas was applied, a silly mistake (which would not have happened during a run play) almost cost us the game.

So the point is this. I don't think giving up a lead is foreign to us. Yet we will still come out on top, because that's how we play. We get up BIG, then outlast.

That's what happened against Seattle. we got up BIG, then outlasted. The whole second half I just kept saying, "All that needs to happen is that we have to hold them to less than Twenty points more than we score against them in the second half." And that's the way it went.

And BTW, Seattle did what playoff teams are expected to do... show some pride and make a game out of it. Good for them! But i think Mike Smith's general philosophy is this: If you're ahead by enough to run up the score, you're ahead by enough to run out the clock.

This is my thought also. Should have run the ball more, it was working.