Spts1

" Teams know how to attack that dated Seattle defense ", Boomer Esiason

109 posts in this topic

38 minutes ago, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

We haven’t ignored the problem but we haven’t attacked it with the ferocity I thought we would either. We scoop up Freeney, which was a big get but then we let him walk the next year when he had some football left, when Clay got healthy.

Clay has a productive year in ‘17 then we let him go to the Patriots. We bring in Irvin then let him walk.

We seem to be content with letting Takk and Beasley be the focal point of our pass rush, with a supplementary veteran in the mix when neither one of those guys have shown they can do that with consistency. I’m sitting here thinking about what we could have done in ‘17 if we had doubled down and had Freeney and Clay rushing with each other. 

We’ve never looked to stack the deck on the edge and build a true rotation.

Nope. We've always been content. I said that under Smitty and thought it was a Smitty issue but it's a TD issue. It's this "good enough" mentality that they have always had with the DL. I get wanting to rely on Vic and Takk long term, but not supporting them with legit rushers behind them has been foolish. 

That's why I'm for a full regime change. Scrape the whole thing. We continue to see the same issues. We don't know the where the problem is so why not start clean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vel said:

Nope. We've always been content. I said that under Smitty and thought it was a Smitty issue but it's a TD issue. It's this "good enough" mentality that they have always had with the DL. I get wanting to rely on Vic and Takk long term, but not supporting them with legit rushers behind them has been foolish. 

That's why I'm for a full regime change. Scrape the whole thing. We continue to see the same issues. We don't know the where the problem is so why not start clean. 

What's funny about TD is that he is constantly bringing in DBs to churn the roster position, but he doesn't do that with DL. It may cost him his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Geneaut said:

What's funny about TD is that he is constantly bringing in DBs to churn the roster position, but he doesn't do that with DL. It may cost him his job.

He rarely brought in good DL under Smitty, which was unfortunate. Under DQ, he's added some good ones, but has lacked the overall commitment to stack the deck in a scheme highly dependent upon front 7 play. Look at the Panthers. They routinely have decent secondary play but it's amplified because the QB's they face are always under pressure. Individually, none of the Panthers secondary starters are plainly better than Atlanta's, but the Falcons are constantly covering passing attacks with no semblance of a pass rush. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vel said:

He rarely brought in good DL under Smitty, which was unfortunate. Under DQ, he's added some good ones, but has lacked the overall commitment to stack the deck in a scheme highly dependent upon front 7 play. Look at the Panthers. They routinely have decent secondary play but it's amplified because the QB's they face are always under pressure. Individually, none of the Panthers secondary starters are plainly better than Atlanta's, but the Falcons are constantly covering passing attacks with no semblance of a pass rush. 

And how bad would we look if we hadn't 'lucked' into Grady being an insane player specifically considering his draft position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 9:51 AM, Spts1 said:

James Brown asked the NFL Today crew " whats wrong with the Falcons? "  Boomer immediately said that teams know how to attack Quinn's dated defense...:(     Phil Simms said the Cardinals are gonna beat the Falcons today...

Did Boomer mention what defense teams don't know how to attack? I agree, we should be running that one /purp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, vel said:

I can't agree here. I'm fine with the other comments, but since 2014, there have been very few LTs drafted better than him. Taking Jake was the right move and will always be the right move. 

Oh, I don't disagree that he's been a solid pick.  I'm not mad at Jake Matthews.  My point is, we always seem to be picking guys when we need them, not when the best move is to take them.  Jake was the right move because we needed a LT, not because he's a generational player.  Or even the best player on the board at that time.

I mean, he was a 6th overall pick.  It's not that he's a bad player.  It's that we always seem to miss that "this draft is chock full of ________ position," and just fill out the roster with guys at positions of need.  Ridley is the last time I remember us legitimately taking the best player on the board at our pick.  Lindstrom may (or may not) end up being that guy too -- him getting hurt isn't the GM's fault.  McGary was the best tackle on the board at the time if early returns are correct, but I think it's obvious we moved up to get him because we needed a tackle, not because he was a game changing generational player we had to have.

Osiruz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Geneaut said:

And how bad would we look if we hadn't 'lucked' into Grady being an insane player specifically considering his draft position?

Yep. They luckily found a top 3 DT who is truly dedicated to becoming the best player he can possibly be. Wish we had more of him. 

red falcon and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, vel said:

Nope. We've always been content. I said that under Smitty and thought it was a Smitty issue but it's a TD issue. It's this "good enough" mentality that they have always had with the DL. I get wanting to rely on Vic and Takk long term, but not supporting them with legit rushers behind them has been foolish. 

That's why I'm for a full regime change. Scrape the whole thing. We continue to see the same issues. We don't know the where the problem is so why not start clean. 

O-line too, until literally this season.  If we'd spent some o-line capital in the 1st or 2nd rounds the past 10 years, we'd be looking at a different team.  Even 2 additional pieces over that time changes the whole dynamic of our offensive line.  Instead, we took Peter Konz in 2012 (2nd), Jake in 2014, and then 2 guys this season.  That's it.  Everyone else has been mid- to late-rounders.  ****, Holmes and Mike Johnson in the 3rd is the highest we've picked anyone else in that span.  We've gone entire drafts without picking a single o-linemen in the last decade.

At least on the d-line we spent some draft capital.  On the o-line, we just wait until it's a problem and then throw the draft at it in one off-season.  It's a dumb way to build a team. 

vel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Oh, I don't disagree that he's been a solid pick.  I'm not mad at Jake Matthews.  My point is, we always seem to be picking guys when we need them, not when the best move is to take them.  Jake was the right move because we needed a LT, not because he's a generational player.  Or even the best player on the board at that time.

I mean, he was a 6th overall pick.  It's not that he's a bad player.  It's that we always seem to miss that "this draft is chock full of ________ position," and just fill out the roster with guys at positions of need.  Ridley is the last time I remember us legitimately taking the best player on the board at our pick.  Lindstrom may (or may not) end up being that guy too -- him getting hurt isn't the GM's fault.  McGary was the best tackle on the board at the time if early returns are correct, but I think it's obvious we moved up to get him because we needed a tackle, not because he was a game changing generational player we had to have.

The best move was to take Jake. He was the best LT in the draft Yes, they passed on Donald and OBJ, but without Jake, they don't sniff the SB. I would have loved Mack and wanted him bad in that same draft. But the logical part said "This team goes nowhere without Matt upright" and relying on Sam Baker just so we can add a generational talent was not the move. 

That's just one draft I can't agree with. It was the correct and best move. The rest, you can make that argument. But when you have a $100MM QB being protected by a busted Matt Kalil, you protect him before trying to attack the other team's QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vel said:

The best move was to take Jake. He was the best LT in the draft Yes, they passed on Donald and OBJ, but without Jake, they don't sniff the SB. I would have loved Mack and wanted him bad in that same draft. But the logical part said "This team goes nowhere without Matt upright" and relying on Sam Baker just so we can add a generational talent was not the move. 

That's just one draft I can't agree with. It was the correct and best move. The rest, you can make that argument. But when you have a $100MM QB being protected by a busted Matt Kalil, you protect him before trying to attack the other team's QB.

Let me suggest that is because you are taking that draft in a vacuum.

Sure, in 2014, we had to have a left tackle.  You say that's why we should have taken Jake Matthews, and you are correct.  I'm saying it did not have to be that way if we'd spent more than a couple of seasons every 10 years addressing the o-line in the draft.

vel likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vel said:

The best move was to take Jake. He was the best LT in the draft Yes, they passed on Donald and OBJ, but without Jake, they don't sniff the SB. I would have loved Mack and wanted him bad in that same draft. But the logical part said "This team goes nowhere without Matt upright" and relying on Sam Baker just so we can add a generational talent was not the move. 

That's just one draft I can't agree with. It was the correct and best move. The rest, you can make that argument. But when you have a $100MM QB being protected by a busted Matt Kalil, you protect him before trying to attack the other team's QB.

I'm pretty sure we would have taken Mack had he fallen to us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the obvious thing is we can't touch the QB only rushing 4.. Quinn knows you have to get to the QB to help the secondary and move him off his spot.. So why don't we blitz more?..Falcons are tied for last with the fins at 5 sacks. It's ridiculous! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vafalconfan said:

Well the obvious thing is we can't touch the QB only rushing 4.. Quinn knows you have to get to the QB to help the secondary and move him off his spot.. So why don't we blitz more?..Falcons are tied for last with the fins at 5 sacks. It's ridiculous! 

Because we can't cover even dropping 7.  Granted, coverage may improve if we rush 5 based solely on pressure, but man those 6 better be solid in their assignments, and literally nobody in the secondary is reliable right now, outside of maybe Allen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real problem is lack of discipline and bad players on defense. DeFaildre Dumbbell, Trufart, Kamikazee, Vrex, Oliver are all terrible players. takk has regressed because he is learning essentially a new position and because he lost weight, He is a 4-3 De. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

O-line too, until literally this season.  If we'd spent some o-line capital in the 1st or 2nd rounds the past 10 years, we'd be looking at a different team.  Even 2 additional pieces over that time changes the whole dynamic of our offensive line.  Instead, we took Peter Konz in 2012 (2nd), Jake in 2014, and then 2 guys this season.  That's it.  Everyone else has been mid- to late-rounders.  ****, Holmes and Mike Johnson in the 3rd is the highest we've picked anyone else in that span.  We've gone entire drafts without picking a single o-linemen in the last decade.

At least on the d-line we spent some draft capital.  On the o-line, we just wait until it's a problem and then throw the draft at it in one off-season.  It's a dumb way to build a team. 

Now this is what I fully agree with. It's back to that "good enough" mentality. You knew when you took over the team Dahl and Clabo were 27 years old. Blalock was the only building block. They added Baker, wisely. McClure was already 30 at that point. You literally should have been planning to replace the C, RG, and RT out the gate. Which they did. They added Reynolds, Johnson, and Hawley. But they were middling mid rounders with little upside. Saw that didn't pan out and took Konz and Holmes, more mid rounders, one with a very raw talent base out the gate. At that point, that's what forced them into having to take Jake and begin a full OL rebuild. 

This is why I want a full rebuild. Fresh eyes and take on roster building. Somebody who will look at this roster without existing bias because they are "their players" and look at it for what it is. 

JDaveG and red falcon like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 2:14 PM, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Throw in the Jags and Chargers, too.

Edit: also the Cowboys.

So you're saying we shouldn't be dubbing this abomination Dan's Defunct Defense after all? Just go with Quinn's Queens Quandry? Or, DQ's Soft Serve? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vel said:

Now this is what I fully agree with. It's back to that "good enough" mentality. You knew when you took over the team Dahl and Clabo were 27 years old. Blalock was the only building block. They added Baker, wisely. McClure was already 30 at that point. You literally should have been planning to replace the C, RG, and RT out the gate. Which they did. They added Reynolds, Johnson, and Hawley. But they were middling mid rounders with little upside. Saw that didn't pan out and took Konz and Holmes, more mid rounders, one with a very raw talent base out the gate. At that point, that's what forced them into having to take Jake and begin a full OL rebuild. 

This is why I want a full rebuild. Fresh eyes and take on roster building. Somebody who will look at this roster without existing bias because they are "their players" and look at it for what it is. 

If you look at the Patriots' last 10 drafts, they don't always take 1st or 2nd round o-linemen either.

They also take a lot of d-linemen.

More to the point, they never seem to be reaching.  They're always picking good players, and they have an eye toward stocking the cupboard.  We have an eye toward rushing to Kroger on the way home to pick up dinner at the last minute.  That's why we're always eating TV dinners instead of steak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Because we can't cover even dropping 7.  Granted, coverage may improve if we rush 5 based solely on pressure, but man those 6 better be solid in their assignments, and literally nobody in the secondary is reliable right not, outside of maybe Allen.

Agreed, but here's a quote from Barnwell at ESPN; The Falcons defense is unwatchable. I covered Atlanta's defensive woes in my playoff fallers column last week, and Sunday's loss to the Cardinals wasn't much better. The Falcons allowed Kyler Murray to throw for 340 yards and three touchdowns and failed to come up with even a knockdown of a quarterback who had been sacked on 9.5% of his dropbacks before Sunday. It's one thing to fail because of a lack of talent, but the Falcons continue to blow coverages in incomprehensible ways:

Deshawn Watson had been sacked 10 times in their first 3 games, but like Murray he was not even hurried on a single throw.. So Quinn has to do something different.

 

JDaveG and vel like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

If you look at the Patriots' last 10 drafts, they don't always take 1st or 2nd round o-linemen either.

They also take a lot of d-linemen.

More to the point, they never seem to be reaching.  They're always picking good players, and they have an eye toward stocking the cupboard.  We have an eye toward rushing to Kroger on the way home to pick up dinner at the last minute.  That's why we're always eating TV dinners instead of steak.

No, but they are taking fits and aren't changing their positions. Reynolds to RG? Johnson to RT? Stuff like that. Why pick them then? How many successful 6'7 RGs have there been? The bolded is where we agree and why I say what I say about Jake. We agree. They dug themselves into a hole that they had no choice but filling it. 

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 2:26 PM, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Then we’re talking players then, not scheme.

 

On 10/13/2019 at 3:11 PM, PeytonMannings Forehead said:

Cover-3 is literally almost as old as football. Cover-3 is played at every level of football. It is literally the first coverage installed at OTAs. There is not a single team in the NFL that doesn’t run a heavy dose of it. It’s still the predominant zone coverage call around the NFL.

So how in 2019 are teams just now understanding how to attack it?

All I will say is that Marquand Manuel was the DB coach before being promoted to defensive coordinator. When I look at all-22 all I see is the DB’s are lost as h*ll when the ball is immediately snapped. He followed Quinn to Atlanta from Seattle; Pass rush isn’t the problem in my eyes but if you got QB’s like Mariota and Murray nickel, dimeing, and quartering you in the secondary then there lies the problem. I honestly believe the poor play in the secondary is crippling the 1st and 2nd levels of the defense and we should’ve never let Manuel go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vel said:

Nope. We've always been content. I said that under Smitty and thought it was a Smitty issue but it's a TD issue. It's this "good enough" mentality that they have always had with the DL. I get wanting to rely on Vic and Takk long term, but not supporting them with legit rushers behind them has been foolish. 

That's why I'm for a full regime change. Scrape the whole thing. We continue to see the same issues. We don't know the where the problem is so why not start clean. 

Exactly, if Smitty and DQ has to go then TD's time should be up also. The issue of no pass rush/and or legit pass rushers have been there under both head coaches. Whether thats totally TD's fault or not, hes the common denominator.

vel and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JDaveG said:

we seem to be taking guys because we need them instead of because they're the best choice.  That's Dimitroff's drafting philosophy and it's one I've always hated.

But maybe I'm wrong.  If I am, the alternative is we are picking the right guys and Quinn isn't capable of coaching them to perform.

Always been a proponent of drafting the best players irregardless of need. Drafting for need will have you doing some stupid stuff.

 

Truth is, my friend, it’s probably a lot of both: DQ, whose wheelhouse is supposed to be the defensive line has come up short, and TD hasn’t drafted well in that spot. And we can go way back on that one, long before Quinn got here.

JDaveG and Flying Falcon like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ergo Proxy said:

We could’ve had a number of veterans on a one or two year deal at only half the cost at most!

Quinn is literally going down on that first draft pick.

Oh yeah, I forgot Vic was the first draft pick in the Dan Quinn era. No wonder he seems to be so attached to Vic.

Flying Falcon and Ergo Proxy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Macintez said:

 

All I will say is that Marquand Manuel was the DB coach before being promoted to defensive coordinator. When I look at all-22 all I see is the DB’s are lost as h*ll when the ball is immediately snapped. He followed Quinn to Atlanta from Seattle; Pass rush isn’t the problem in my eyes but if you got QB’s like Mariota and Murray nickel, dimeing, and quartering you in the secondary then there lies the problem. I honestly believe the poor play in the secondary is crippling the 1st and 2nd levels of the defense and we should’ve never let Manuel go.

I could agree with you up until a few weeks ago. Even when we came out the gate falling all over ourselves, I kept pointing out when we did force teams to throw, we were doing a solid job of breaking down the pocket, even though the sack numbers weren’t there. The problem was coverage wasn’t forcing QBs to hold the ball. But it’s been a different story the past few weeks.

Front and back have been totally inept.

 

Agreed on MM. I’ve mentioned Jerome Henderson a few times not getting enough heat for this mess. He’s supposed to be the secondary coach and passing game coordinator and we seem to be getting worse by the week.

SPITFIRE likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

If you look at the Patriots' last 10 drafts, they don't always take 1st or 2nd round o-linemen either.

They also take a lot of d-linemen.

More to the point, they never seem to be reaching.  They're always picking good players, and they have an eye toward stocking the cupboard.  We have an eye toward rushing to Kroger on the way home to pick up dinner at the last minute.  That's why we're always eating TV dinners instead of steak.

Well Belichick places a lot of value in draft picks, as he should, because they're arguably a team's best asset. The more you have, the more likely you are to select good players, and the more financial flexibility and leverage you have. He's constantly stockpiling draft picks, and isn't afraid to cut bait sooner than later in order to maximize value. Belichick may very rarely draft a superstar player like Gronk, but provided he has a competent scout team, he'll always find a couple of good players who perform their job well enough for the team to win. He's pretty much the polar opposite of TD, who tends to swing for the fences to draft [who he thinks are] high caliber players.

To be fair, at the time they were drafted, Vic and Takk were thought to be solid players. That said, if Belichick were running things, Vic would have been long gone, likely after the 2017 season and definitely after 2018. Vic would have likely gotten us a mid-round comp pick.

If you follow NBA basketball, it's why I like Travis Schlenk (Hawks GM) a lot. He's openly stated that draft picks are his most valuable asset, and it's evident in the way he's been dealing players and acquiring draft picks.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now