Jump to content

Do you think that Steve Sarkisian would have gone on to be a great offensive coordinator if the Falcons would have given him more time?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, OrthoPTSD said:

I got it. You do not see the logic of keeping 2 coaches whom were in house 2016 that went 26-6 as head coaches last year.

Who said Sark "rightly" got fired? Go handle that with them if you need that explanation.

My comment was the agreement with OP of hiring in house with 2 coaches whom have thrived since leaving, whom if stayed in their positions from 2016, would have to believe that we/they would have continued to thrive. We didn't even try and that bothers me as  a fan.

What has McDaniel and LaFleur done to PROVE that the Falcons would have continued to post record setting offensive numbers had we kept them? I just pointed out that we know that they wouldn't have done that because nothing they've done since leaving has been better than what Sark did or Keotter for that matter last year. Now you're trying to mention head coaching record which is completely irrelevant. This argument isn't based on any reality other than "I'm pissed the Falcons didn't do what I wanted them to do and no amount of LOGIC is gonna convince me otherwise."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great? I dunno know about that. But he improved quite a bit in his play calling in year 2.    I said it at the time, it was a mistake letting Sark and Manuel go. As last year showed, they weren

Sark was a victim of drops in his first year. Still finished 8th in total yards. In his second year he was 10th in points and 6th in yards. Probably should have been given a third year.

I have been one of his biggest detractors, but Sarks system works. Even Saban mentioned, I think last year, that Sarks system relies on tough power running. Well, his back was Freeman. All sizes don’t

23 minutes ago, AUTiger7222 said:

What has McDaniel and LaFleur done to PROVE that the Falcons would have continued to post record setting offensive numbers had we kept them? I just pointed out that we know that they wouldn't have done that because nothing they've done since leaving has been better than what Sark did or Keotter for that matter last year. Now you're trying to mention head coaching record which is completely irrelevant. This argument isn't based on any reality other than "I'm pissed the Falcons didn't do what I wanted them to do and no amount of LOGIC is gonna convince me otherwise."

Dude you are all over the place and say I'm pissed?

You win pal

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

Dude you are all over the place and say I'm pissed?

You win pal

You keep saying that if the kept those two guys we would have never missed a beat when there is NO PROOF that is the case. You stating HEAD COACHING RECORD is NOT PROOF of their offensive genuis. The Falcons scored more points last year than the 13-3 Packers did. End of discussion. I don't know what more I need to say to PROVE that had we kept them we would NOT have continued to have a record setting offense. But you continue to live in your fantasy land and I'll continue to live in reality. Hit me up when the Packers score 400 points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, octoslash said:

Right. 

But before that happened, Denver explicitly blocked the Falcons from talking to Kubiak, so unless our GM had been this guy, there was no possible way to know Kubiak would leave Denver.  

An Amazing OIB Offer To See The Amazing Kreskin – Only In ...

 

January 5th: Bevell interviews with ATL

January 6th; Koetter interviews with ATL

January 8th: Falcons hire DK 

January 10th:: Kubiak resigns from Broncos

Everyone knew Fangio was not likely to let Kubiak bring in his coaches (Dennison & Pariani).  Once  Kubiak & Fangio met it was a wrap.  If we had not been in such a hurry we could have landed Kubiak

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, AUTiger7222 said:

You keep saying that if the kept those two guys we would have never missed a beat when there is NO PROOF that is the case. You stating HEAD COACHING RECORD is NOT PROOF of their offensive genuis. The Falcons scored more points last year than the 13-3 Packers did. End of discussion. I don't know what more I need to say to PROVE that had we kept them we would NOT have continued to have a record setting offense. But you continue to live in your fantasy land and I'll continue to live in reality. Hit me up when the Packers score 400 points.

LaFleur would have run the ball a whole lot more.  Our fun game would have been much better with him.  And he was great as Ryan’s QB coach.  It would have likely been a much smoother transition with LaFleur

 

“It was 2015 and LaFleur was the 35-year-old first-year quarterbacks coach of the Atlanta Falcons, where Matt Ryanwas about to begin his eighth season as an NFL starter and had three Pro Bowls on his resume.

"I’ll never forget the first time I corrected him on the field," LaFleur recalled.

“To hear LaFleur tell it, Ryan was slinging passes to receivers on skinny post routes. A few of the throws sailed off target. LaFleur stepped in and said something about Ryan’s balance.

"He didn’t like it too much," LaFleur continued.

Ryan's play said differently.

"What was cool about it was for about the next 10 throws, he was ripping the ball," LaFleur said. "So I let it go for a while, and I’ll never forget I just said, ‘Hey, I think I’m going to tick you off every day.’

"Matt and I have a great relationship. He was incredible to work with. I do sincerely mean this. When you’re dealing with a quarterback, it is a partnership. He and I have stayed in contact to this day. I think we have a great respect to one another. I think I probably learned as much from him as he learned from me."

 

 

Ryan on LaFleur: "I think it's a good hire," Ryan said. "I spent two years with Matt in Atlanta. He was a really good quarterbacks coach. Did a great job when he went to L.A. Did a good job in Tennessee. It might be a little under the radar, but I think he's built for long-term success. He has a system that he believes in. I think he'll be a really good fit for what Aaron [Rodgers] does. They can move him around. I think he'll do a really good job in Green Bay." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FalconsIn2012 said:

LaFleur would have run the ball a whole lot more.  Our fun game would have been much better with him.  And he was great as Ryan’s QB coach.  It would have likely been a much smoother transition with LaFleur

 

“It was 2015 and LaFleur was the 35-year-old first-year quarterbacks coach of the Atlanta Falcons, where Matt Ryanwas about to begin his eighth season as an NFL starter and had three Pro Bowls on his resume.

"I’ll never forget the first time I corrected him on the field," LaFleur recalled.

“To hear LaFleur tell it, Ryan was slinging passes to receivers on skinny post routes. A few of the throws sailed off target. LaFleur stepped in and said something about Ryan’s balance.

"He didn’t like it too much," LaFleur continued.

Ryan's play said differently.

"What was cool about it was for about the next 10 throws, he was ripping the ball," LaFleur said. "So I let it go for a while, and I’ll never forget I just said, ‘Hey, I think I’m going to tick you off every day.’

"Matt and I have a great relationship. He was incredible to work with. I do sincerely mean this. When you’re dealing with a quarterback, it is a partnership. He and I have stayed in contact to this day. I think we have a great respect to one another. I think I probably learned as much from him as he learned from me."

 

 

Ryan on LaFleur: "I think it's a good hire," Ryan said. "I spent two years with Matt in Atlanta. He was a really good quarterbacks coach. Did a great job when he went to L.A. Did a good job in Tennessee. It might be a little under the radar, but I think he's built for long-term success. He has a system that he believes in. I think he'll be a really good fit for what Aaron [Rodgers] does. They can move him around. I think he'll do a really good job in Green Bay." 

The Falcons scored more points than the Packers last year. The Falcons scored more points in 2018 than the Titans. Those are the ONLY two years that Matt LaFleur has been a play caller in the NFL. Nothing he has done so far has shown or prove that had the Falcons made him OC we would have continued to have a record setting offense. I'm done with this stupid discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, AUTiger7222 said:

The Falcons scored more points than the Packers last year. The Falcons scored more points in 2018 than the Titans. Those are the ONLY two years that Matt LaFleur has been a play caller in the NFL. Nothing he has done so far has shown or prove that had the Falcons made him OC we would have continued to have a record setting offense. I'm done with this stupid discussion.

Umm...who had more offensive  talent?  I’m pretty sure the Falcons were loaded for bear at every position and averaging 23 ppg was about as bad as we could do offensively.

Packers 8th in Offensive DVOA

Falcons 15th

And a Koetter offense always turns the ball over a bunch (25, 35, 28, 30, 23, 28, 18),   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heading into last season, the Falcons were widely regarded as having the best offensive talent

Thursday, Aug 08, 2019 07:08 AM

NFL's top nine offenses for 2019 season: Falcons own No. 1 spot

 

Headshot_Author_Adam Schein_2019_png

Adam Schein

NFL.COM CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST

 

1) Atlanta Falcons

Steve Sarkisian is no longer calling the plays, and that's a good thing. The return of Dirk Koetter makes it even better........

Bottom line: This offense is poised to reach new heights in the coming months.

2) Kansas City Chiefs

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FalconsIn2012 said:

Heading into last season, the Falcons were widely regarded as having the best offensive talent

Thursday, Aug 08, 2019 07:08 AM

NFL's top nine offenses for 2019 season: Falcons own No. 1 spot

 

Headshot_Author_Adam Schein_2019_png

Adam Schein

NFL.COM CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST

 

1) Atlanta Falcons

Steve Sarkisian is no longer calling the plays, and that's a good thing. The return of Dirk Koetter makes it even better........

Bottom line: This offense is poised to reach new heights in the coming months.

2) Kansas City Chiefs

The Falcons scored 414 points under Sark in 2018. Maybe they should have kept him? Oh wait, I forgot, he was yet another Dan Quinn scapegoat so Quinn could continue to be a ****ty HC instead of Quinn being fired and us keeping good coaches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AUTiger7222 said:

The Falcons scored 414 points under Sark in 2018. Maybe they should have kept him? Oh wait, I forgot, he was yet another Dan Quinn scapegoat so Quinn could continue to be a ****ty HC instead of Quinn being fired and us keeping good coaches.

Sark>Dirk.  No doubt.  But we did go 5 straight games in 2018 without scoring over 20 points.  That’s unacceptable with the resources we have offensively.  
 

You can’t convince me that retaining LaFleur, McDaniel, LaFleur & Scangarello wasn’t the better option.  If the idea was to retain the Shanny playbook, keeping those coaches was the only logical move.  Still can’t believe Flowery Branch said they didn’t like LaFleur’s “work ethic.”  
 

The FO decided to keep just TWO position coaches from 2016’s  historic offense.  TWO.  How exactly were they supposed to run Shanny’s offense?  So freaking stupid.  Should have made LaFleur & McDaniel Co-Coordinators

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FalconsIn2012 said:

Sark>Dirk.  No doubt.  But we did go 5 straight games in 2018 without scoring over 20 points.  That’s unacceptable with the resources we have offensively.  
 

You can’t convince me that retaining LaFleur, McDaniel, LaFleur & Scangarello wasn’t the better option.  If the idea was to retain the Shanny playbook, keeping those coaches was the only logical move.  Still can’t believe Flowery Branch said they didn’t like LaFleur’s “work ethic.”  
 

The FO decided to keep just TWO position coaches from 2016’s  historic offense.  TWO.  How exactly were they supposed to run Shanny’s offense?  So freaking stupid.  Should have made LaFleur & McDaniel Co-Coordinators

True but buddy was rolling before and after then. I wanted to fire him during that five game stretch too, but looking back, the defenses were stout and the execution was trurrible. Dude still ended up with the second best offense in the Ryan era in 2018. Dimi should have waited a week and hired Kubiak, or kept Sark if he couldn't. Even Bevel. He went back to Kutty though. Troffed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FalconFanSince1970 said:

Sark's offense was ranked 10th in the league in red zone scoring (TD Only) in 2018 at 64.0%.

Second highest in Ryan era to only Shanny in 2016 at 64.56%

2018 was definitely better. I wouldn’t say that 10th in the league is some glowing endorsement, though. And considering that the other years were with Koetter and Mularkey the bar isn’t exactly high. 

Feel free to have a read through the below to remind you just how bad 2017 was, though.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/9/7/17830936/atlanta-falcons-steve-sarkisian-terrible-offensive-coordinator-red-zone-misery

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AndySG said:

2018 was definitely better. I wouldn’t say that 10th in the league is some glowing endorsement, though. And considering that the other years were with Koetter and Mularkey the bar isn’t exactly high. 

Feel free to have a read through the below to remind you just how bad 2017 was, though.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/9/7/17830936/atlanta-falcons-steve-sarkisian-terrible-offensive-coordinator-red-zone-misery

Because it wasn't his offense. Of course it was terrible. We let Sark run his offense and scored 414 points. Funny how that works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AUTiger7222 said:

Because it wasn't his offense. Of course it was terrible. We let Sark run his offense and scored 414 points. Funny how that works.

I agree. It was a stupid idea to say “you’ve got to do what Shanahan did”. And then making him go up in the box when he wanted to be on the sideline was stupid too. And then letting him stay during the bad spell only to fire him once things started looking up was stupid. And then replacing him with Koetter, who we were all desperate to get rid of in 2014 because we could predict his plays was stupid. The whole situation was mishandled but I’m not ready to say that Sark was a great OC because he wasn’t. He was fine. Sometimes a little better than that and sometimes a little worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, AndySG said:

I agree. It was a stupid idea to say “you’ve got to do what Shanahan did”. And then making him go up in the box when he wanted to be on the sideline was stupid too. And then letting him stay during the bad spell only to fire him once things started looking up was stupid. And then replacing him with Koetter, who we were all desperate to get rid of in 2014 because we could predict his plays was stupid. The whole situation was mishandled but I’m not ready to say that Sark was a great OC because he wasn’t. He was fine. Sometimes a little better than that and sometimes a little worse. 

I don't think he was great but he could have been with more time. 414 points is a really good offensive season. Anything over 400 points scored in a season is really good. Here's how I explain that 414 points scored is a really good offensive season. The Saints under Drew Brees have scored 414 points or fewer in a season 6 times (2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015). In Brees 14 years as Saints QB they've averaged 447 points scored per season. Now I can hear you saying that 447 is a lot higher than 414 and you'd be right. But that's a bit skewed by 3 amazing offensive years where the Saints scored over 500 points in a season. A 500 point season is extra ordinary and rarely happens and Brees has 3 such seasons under his belt (2009, 2011, and 2018). Take out those 3 years and his yearly average points scored is 427. 427 isn't much different than 414. That's 2 touchdowns somewhere along the course of the season. So yeah, I fully believe we should have stayed with Sark. I believed that before he was fired and cited the trememdous jump from year 1 to 2 under Sark when we actually ran his offense and how Ryan's numbers in 2018 were nearly identical to his 2016 numbers and we had a slew of offensive injuries in 2018 to contend with which wasn't the case in 2016. To make matters worse, we went out and drafted Lindstrom and McCary who would have been perfect fits in Sark's offense. None of it made any sense. Hiring Koetter made the decision look even worse. I just wish for once a Falcons HC would come in and stick with a plan instead of changing everything every couple of years. The reason the Saints offense is always so good is because they run the same thing every year under the same coaches. Nothing changes. That's one of the reasons I've been banging the drum for an offensive minded head coach. If we're always gonna have such a ****ty defense (which has been the case since Blank bought the team) then at least hire an offensive mind who can keep the offense humming year in and year out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I knew we were getting Koetter, I would have stuck with Sarkisian. Sarkisian is a respected offensive mind that had his struggles with the falcons. He was put in a pretty tough position when they asked him to run Shanny's offense without any of Shanny's top assistants. I think Sark would have found his way eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2020 at 12:25 AM, FalconsIn2012 said:

Sark>Dirk.  No doubt.  But we did go 5 straight games in 2018 without scoring over 20 points.  That’s unacceptable with the resources we have offensively.  
 

You can’t convince me that retaining LaFleur, McDaniel, LaFleur & Scangarello wasn’t the better option.  If the idea was to retain the Shanny playbook, keeping those coaches was the only logical move.  Still can’t believe Flowery Branch said they didn’t like LaFleur’s “work ethic.”  
 

The FO decided to keep just TWO position coaches from 2016’s  historic offense.  TWO.  How exactly were they supposed to run Shanny’s offense?  So freaking stupid.  Should have made LaFleur & McDaniel Co-Coordinators

That 5 game losing streak also coincided with injuries on the offensive line. 

But the offense was on fire from Weeks 2 to 8. I mean Ryan had a 5 TD, 0 INT, 350+ yards day against the Saints (arguably the best game he ever played) and we still lost. 

Sark was a scapegoat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2020 at 12:25 AM, FalconsIn2012 said:

Sark>Dirk.  No doubt.  But we did go 5 straight games in 2018 without scoring over 20 points.  That’s unacceptable with the resources we have offensively.  
 

You can’t convince me that retaining LaFleur, McDaniel, LaFleur & Scangarello wasn’t the better option.  If the idea was to retain the Shanny playbook, keeping those coaches was the only logical move.  Still can’t believe Flowery Branch said they didn’t like LaFleur’s “work ethic.”  
 

The FO decided to keep just TWO position coaches from 2016’s  historic offense.  TWO.  How exactly were they supposed to run Shanny’s offense?  So freaking stupid.  Should have made LaFleur & McDaniel Co-Coordinators

You have to look at the bigger picture.  Everyone was so focused on making 2016 happen again they fail to understand there was no guarantee if Shanny had stayed that we'd repeat what we did that year. 

Enter Sark: Our offensive line was as bad as it's ever been during Sark's 2nd season, and we still put up solid numbers.  Ridley was looking like he was going to be an absolute star.

Enter Dirk: The team admits we have awful O-line talent, we sign 2 FA linemen, and draft 2 in the first round. We look awful on offense.  Our talent clearly isn't meshing with this system, and our first round pick from last year goes multiple games with no impact. 

The team ultimately gets it together for a 6-2 run, but was anyone really overly impressed with our offense during that stretch, or was everyone gushing about how Raheem Morris is the new D-coordinator?

And also, LaFleur still hasn't done anything, and I think he's going to be outed as the fraud he is when A-rod goes off to win a Superbowl elsewhere and Jordan Love busts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dr_truth189 said:

You have to look at the bigger picture.  Everyone was so focused on making 2016 happen again they fail to understand there was no guarantee if Shanny had stayed that we'd repeat what we did that year. 

Enter Sark: Our offensive line was as bad as it's ever been during Sark's 2nd season, and we still put up solid numbers.  Ridley was looking like he was going to be an absolute star.

Enter Dirk: The team admits we have awful O-line talent, we sign 2 FA linemen, and draft 2 in the first round. We look awful on offense.  Our talent clearly isn't meshing with this system, and our first round pick from last year goes multiple games with no impact. 

The team ultimately gets it together for a 6-2 run, but was anyone really overly impressed with our offense during that stretch, or was everyone gushing about how Raheem Morris is the new D-coordinator?

And also, LaFleur still hasn't done anything, and I think he's going to be outed as the fraud he is when A-rod goes off to win a Superbowl elsewhere and Jordan Love busts.  

I don't know how many times I've said that to try to get it through the thick skulls of folks here. In NFL history there has NEVER been the same team post back-to-back historical great offensive seasons. It's never happened. Look at the top 10 best offensive seasons ever and there's no repeat teams in there.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...