The Last Twelve Quarters + Overtime

[vel]

The offense has scored four touchdowns. Four. 4. Quatro. However you want to put it, this offense has hit pay dirt four times in the past three weeks combined.

That's pathetic.

If you don't think that factored into Quinn's thought process heavily, you've been ignoring the biggest issue of this team over the past five weeks.

Yes, I get the frustration and anger from the loss. But the offense was not trustworthy in terms of scoring touchdowns. This was not just over that game, but the last four weeks prior. Eric Weems gave them good field position countless times with good returns. He had 191 yards on 8 returns.

Every counter argument I hear to the "What if they go for it and don't score" statement is "They would have had the ball on the 2!" You're still relying on the defense to get a stop AND the offense scoring a touchdown! Either scenario, in the event the offense doesn't score, which was more likely than not, is relying on the defense getting a stop. One scenario requires just a FG and the other requires a TD still.

Here's another point in conjunction that shows just how poor the offense played and has been playing:

The defense allowed 17 points. This would have been the equivalent of the top scoring defense's performance (#1 = 17.4 ppg).

The offense scored 16 points and has been averaging 16.8 points the last 5 games. That's the equivalent of the #31 scoring offense.

The defense was the more trustworthy group in that situation. Forget stats. You don't have that info during the game. You have to go with the hot hand. The hot hand has been the defense. Especially against Gabbert and that offense. Don't blame Quinn for trusting his defense, who hadn't allowed a single point all half. Blame the offense for having lost the faith in the ability to score a touchdown.

Yes, the decision was bad in hindsight because we lost the game. Just like the decision to throw in the Super Bowl was a bad one because they lost. Winning covers all mistakes. But the past month's worth of play from the offense forced Quinn's hand in the wrong direction.

[JDaveG]

Good points. I still think it was the wrong decision, simply because you had 2 yards to go to get a TD. If you don't get it, you have great field position and an easier shot at the TD, plus Matt showed in the 1st quarter he can get it done in a 2 min. drill.

But that has to play on the mind of the HC. I think it was a mistake, but I don't think it's the "Dan Quinn just turned into a drooling idiot with no stones" mistake some are making it out to be. The reality is, the team has to play better in all 4 quarters, not just at the end of the game when hard decisions are made (though it would be nice if they'd play better then, too).

[Sponge]

I remember how we use to get a TD on the first drive of the game

[BCEagleATLFalcon]

The defense was the more trustworthy group in that situation. Forget stats. You don't have that info during the game. You have to go with the hot hand. The hot hand has been the defense. Especially against Gabbert and that offense. Don't blame Quinn for trusting his defense, who hadn't allowed a single point all half. Blame the offense for having lost the faith in the ability to score a touchdown.

Overall, really strong analysis of what all are calling a bone-headed decision.

But what I have to hit on is the bolded line. Yes, you're absolutely right that the defense had held throughout the second half. Held to no scores.

But this was not a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from scoring. This was a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from getting a first down. There is a BIG difference there.

You've got to go for it. If you miss, let the defense make a quick stop with San Fran pinned on their 1. Either way, we needed a 3 and out. The odds are exponentially better on the 1 yard line.

[rounz]

I remember how we use to get a TD on the first drive of the game

Sigh

Those were the good old days.

[rounz]

Overall, really strong analysis of what all are calling a bone-headed decision.

But what I have to hit on is the bolded line. Yes, you're absolutely right that the defense had held throughout the second half. Held to no scores.

But this was not a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from scoring. This was a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from getting a first down. There is a BIG difference there.

You've got to go for it. If you miss, let the defense make a quick stop with San Fran pinned on their 1. Either way, we needed a 3 and out. The odds are exponentially better on the 1 yard line.

Very good point.

[Flying Falcon]

Overall, really strong analysis of what all are calling a bone-headed decision.

But what I have to hit on is the bolded line. Yes, you're absolutely right that the defense had held throughout the second half. Held to no scores.

But this was not a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from scoring. This was a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from getting a first down. There is a BIG difference there.

You've got to go for it. If you miss, let the defense make a quick stop with San Fran pinned on their 1. Either way, we needed a 3 and out. The odds are exponentially better on the 1 yard line.

http://giphy.com/gifs/HhTXt43pk1I1W

[Mega Flare]

I remember how we use to get a TD on the first drive of the game

Literally lead the league in 1st quarter scoring. Seems like a lifetime ago now, doesn't it?

[PokerSteve]

Overall, really strong analysis of what all are calling a bone-headed decision.

But what I have to hit on is the bolded line. Yes, you're absolutely right that the defense had held throughout the second half. Held to no scores.

But this was not a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from scoring. This was a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from getting a first down. There is a BIG difference there.

You've got to go for it. If you miss, let the defense make a quick stop with San Fran pinned on their 1. Either way, we needed a 3 and out. The odds are exponentially better on the 1 yard line.

^^^^ This. You trust your offense and you go for the TD while you have possession at the two with the game in your hands.

Thread/

[Domed Outter]

I'd take the potential for 2 TD drives than hoping we score a TD on 1 heavily time-reduced possession.

[Domed Outter]

Overall, really strong analysis of what all are calling a bone-headed decision.

But what I have to hit on is the bolded line. Yes, you're absolutely right that the defense had held throughout the second half. Held to no scores.

But this was not a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from scoring. This was a situation where they needed to hold the opposing team from getting a first down. There is a BIG difference there.

You've got to go for it. If you miss, let the defense make a quick stop with San Fran pinned on their 1. Either way, we needed a 3 and out. The odds are exponentially better on the 1 yard line.

Also wouldn't it allow us to be more aggressive there? Their receivers dropping passes galore kept us in the game. Our run defence has been good as well.

[LiquidFalcon]

Theres no point to not go for it, if the D is so hot than they can go get a safety if the O fails and the ball gets turned back over. A FG gives you nothing but needing another FG. If your gonna lose at least lose trying to win the game, not taking the safe route. Even Mike Smith wouldve gone for it. Fail all the way around though, the O is pathetic cant even score on some of the worst teams in the league,they barely beat them and now are losing to these teams. We are losing and struggling against backup QB's and can the defense learn to cover a TE, if they dont Carolina is going to put up about 90 points and Olsen will have at least 1000 yards per game, yes THOUSAND.

[etherdome]

The offense has scored four touchdowns. Four. 4. Quatro. However you want to put it, this offense has hit pay dirt four times in the past three weeks combined.

That's pathetic.

If you don't think that factored into Quinn's thought process heavily, you've been ignoring the biggest issue of this team over the past five weeks.

Yes, I get the frustration and anger from the loss. But the offense was not trustworthy in terms of scoring touchdowns. This was not just over that game, but the last four weeks prior. Eric Weems gave them good field position countless times with good returns. He had 191 yards on 8 returns.

Every counter argument I hear to the "What if they go for it and don't score" statement is "They would have had the ball on the 2!" You're still relying on the defense to get a stop AND the offense scoring a touchdown! Either scenario, in the event the offense doesn't score, which was more likely than not, is relying on the defense getting a stop. One scenario requires just a FG and the other requires a TD still.

Here's another point in conjunction that shows just how poor the offense played and has been playing:

The defense allowed 17 points. This would have been the equivalent of the top scoring defense's performance (#1 = 17.4 ppg).

The offense scored 16 points and has been averaging 16.8 points the last 5 games. That's the equivalent of the #31 scoring offense.

The defense was the more trustworthy group in that situation. Forget stats. You don't have that info during the game. You have to go with the hot hand. The hot hand has been the defense. Especially against Gabbert and that offense. Don't blame Quinn for trusting his defense, who hadn't allowed a single point all half. Blame the offense for having lost the faith in the ability to score a touchdown.

Yes, the decision was bad in hindsight because we lost the game. Just like the decision to throw in the Super Bowl was a bad one because they lost. Winning covers all mistakes. But the past month's worth of play from the offense forced Quinn's hand in the wrong direction.

I agree that the defense has out-performed the offense. However, we are talking about a defense that is fatigued...a defense that has been desperately keeping the Falcons in the game.... a defense that was fortunate that SF dropped few critical passes. Quinn was banking on our defense to muster some magical strength and shut down SF's offense with a quick 3-and-out.

Now, balance that against a l-yard gain to ice the game.

Is our coach telling us that we don't have the ability to gain one yard? Are we no different than the teams we have fielded for the past five seasons?

Come on, Quinn made a poor decision.

Edited November 9, 2015 by etherdome

[HASHBROWN3]

The offense has scored four touchdowns. Four. 4. Quatro. However you want to put it, this offense has hit pay dirt four times in the past three weeks combined.

That's pathetic.

If you don't think that factored into Quinn's thought process heavily, you've been ignoring the biggest issue of this team over the past five weeks.

Yes, I get the frustration and anger from the loss. But the offense was not trustworthy in terms of scoring touchdowns. This was not just over that game, but the last four weeks prior. Eric Weems gave them good field position countless times with good returns. He had 191 yards on 8 returns.

Every counter argument I hear to the "What if they go for it and don't score" statement is "They would have had the ball on the 2!" You're still relying on the defense to get a stop AND the offense scoring a touchdown! Either scenario, in the event the offense doesn't score, which was more likely than not, is relying on the defense getting a stop. One scenario requires just a FG and the other requires a TD still.

Here's another point in conjunction that shows just how poor the offense played and has been playing:

The defense allowed 17 points. This would have been the equivalent of the top scoring defense's performance (#1 = 17.4 ppg).

The offense scored 16 points and has been averaging 16.8 points the last 5 games. That's the equivalent of the #31 scoring offense.

The defense was the more trustworthy group in that situation. Forget stats. You don't have that info during the game. You have to go with the hot hand. The hot hand has been the defense. Especially against Gabbert and that offense. Don't blame Quinn for trusting his defense, who hadn't allowed a single point all half. Blame the offense for having lost the faith in the ability to score a touchdown.

Yes, the decision was bad in hindsight because we lost the game. Just like the decision to throw in the Super Bowl was a bad one because they lost. Winning covers all mistakes. But the past month's worth of play from the offense forced Quinn's hand in the wrong direction.

Quinn is a smart man/coach. He's obviously keenly aware of our offensive playcalling. He doesn't have a hair on his azz if he hasn't had shanny in his office wanting to discuss what is being done to correct it. If this continues, I think the Falcons need to be the ones to proactively seek a new HC position for our OC.

[since68andcounting]

The offense has scored four touchdowns. Four. 4. Quatro. However you want to put it, this offense has hit pay dirt four times in the past three weeks combined.

That's pathetic.

If you don't think that factored into Quinn's thought process heavily, you've been ignoring the biggest issue of this team over the past five weeks.

Yes, I get the frustration and anger from the loss. But the offense was not trustworthy in terms of scoring touchdowns. This was not just over that game, but the last four weeks prior. Eric Weems gave them good field position countless times with good returns. He had 191 yards on 8 returns.

Every counter argument I hear to the "What if they go for it and don't score" statement is "They would have had the ball on the 2!" You're still relying on the defense to get a stop AND the offense scoring a touchdown! Either scenario, in the event the offense doesn't score, which was more likely than not, is relying on the defense getting a stop. One scenario requires just a FG and the other requires a TD still.

Here's another point in conjunction that shows just how poor the offense played and has been playing:

The defense allowed 17 points. This would have been the equivalent of the top scoring defense's performance (#1 = 17.4 ppg).

The offense scored 16 points and has been averaging 16.8 points the last 5 games. That's the equivalent of the #31 scoring offense.

The defense was the more trustworthy group in that situation. Forget stats. You don't have that info during the game. You have to go with the hot hand. The hot hand has been the defense. Especially against Gabbert and that offense. Don't blame Quinn for trusting his defense, who hadn't allowed a single point all half. Blame the offense for having lost the faith in the ability to score a touchdown.

Yes, the decision was bad in hindsight because we lost the game. Just like the decision to throw in the Super Bowl was a bad one because they lost. Winning covers all mistakes. But the past month's worth of play from the offense forced Quinn's hand in the wrong direction.

Or, you trust your offense with your vet QB, pro bowl receiver, and top 5 RB to get ONE yard and break out of their funk to win a game.

Terrible coaching decision. Even if you do it baseball style, by the numbers, the odds were much more in our favor to win that game if you go for it.

[HEIST]

Did you see our offense yesterday? We were totally primed to rip off a 50 yard TD drive.

We had all those starts at the 50 yard line to prove it

[blizzard_falcon]

Or, you trust your offense with your vet QB, pro bowl receiver, and top 5 RB to get ONE yard and break out of their funk to win a game.

Terrible coaching decision. Even if you do it baseball style, by the numbers, the odds were much more in our favor to win that game if you go for it.

Yep. And the odds of keeping San Francisco from converting two first downs were also very much against us.

As said above, the goal wasn't to keep them from scoring, it was to prevent them gaining 20 yards... a very tough feat given our lack of a pass rush or anyone who can contain mobile QBs.