Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JC Falcon

Steady Or Streaky?

6 posts in this topic

The statistics thread shows the Falcons almost always win the games they should, but also usually lose the games they should against good opponents.

So in your opinion, which has a better chance of a Super Bowl?

1. A talented team that plays better, executes better and usually wins the games it should. This means it has to really be better consistently than most teams to win a Super Bowl.

2. A streaky team that loses games it should win, but also wins unexpectedly, but not consistently. It might slip up and beat a better team in a Super Bowl, but also has a chance of shipping the bed in a regular or post season game and miss the playoffs or flop one post season.

There is no correct answer, I'm just curious what other folks think.

Personally I think Smith and almost all coaches would go for consistency. If they know what they've got and what will get executed they will take their chances on being outplayed or out-game planned..

I also think Atlanta tried streaky with Vick led teams that were horribly inconsistent and could never string together the correct run. Eg. Winning when not expected in Green Bay playoff then losing the next week. Destroying the Rams, then losing to Eagles in NFCCG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vick had good defenses. He's the last QB to have that luxury. Look at the turnovers, defensive stats, and his numbers in that Green Bay game. Even right after the game he was being anointed as spectacular and I was like, "wait a minute. Give credit to the D!"

Our defense, in my humble opinion, over the last five seasons under Smith/Ryan has been mediocre at best. In the playoffs, they're abysmal. And by abysmal, I mean they average giving up four TD's and change to opponents (~31 ppg).

With that kind of D, streaky is an accomplishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take option #3: Lucky.

Nonconformist!

Obviously both good and lucky is best, but by definition you cannot plan when you get lucky/streaky, hence a drawback to option 2. But drawback to option 1 is very unlikely to get lucky and beat a better team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statistics thread shows the Falcons almost always win the games they should, but also usually lose the games they should against good opponents.

So in your opinion, which has a better chance of a Super Bowl?

1. A talented team that plays better, executes better and usually wins the games it should. This means it has to really be better consistently than most teams to win a Super Bowl.

2. A streaky team that loses games it should win, but also wins unexpectedly, but not consistently. It might slip up and beat a better team in a Super Bowl, but also has a chance of shipping the bed in a regular or post season game and miss the playoffs or flop one post season.

There is no correct answer, I'm just curious what other folks think.

Personally I think Smith and almost all coaches would go for consistency. If they know what they've got and what will get executed they will take their chances on being outplayed or out-game planned..

I also think Atlanta tried streaky with Vick led teams that were horribly inconsistent and could never string together the correct run. Eg. Winning when not expected in Green Bay playoff then losing the next week. Destroying the Rams, then losing to Eagles in NFCCG.

I don't think the statistics thread did a good enough job showing that but whatever.

You want a team that is good, consistently. The team that plays the best football as reliably as possible is usually (not always) the team to win the game. More importantly, the teams that play consistently good football are ALWAYS in contention. Only by being in contention (ie the playoffs) can you get lucky and go on a streak.

It's not the most satisfying answer, but I think its the correct one. Play football well enough to get in the playoffs. From there, hope you catch a break or four.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit of a spectrum question. You don't want 100% consistent, because then you have to legitimately have the most talent in the league to win, you'll lose all games against superior opponents. You don't want 100% streaky because every game is a coin toss, and you'll not make the playoffs.

I'd say you want a little more streaky than the Falcons have been. The Giants are a fairly good example. They're a good (not great) team who can get hot and win. I'd rather a team a little more consistent than them, but that's the realm.

If you're going to try to get by being super consistent (and never playing above your head) you're going to need to get a lot of luck on the other side, the personnel side, to be able to outperform other teams.

It's not satisfying, but give me 70% consistent, 30% streaky. The Falcons have never been that team where you say "Man, if they bring their A game, the whole league is scared." That's where I'd like to get. Play a B game usually, but have that next gear that you can reach occasionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites