Here are questions for the anti-tankers

[Intellectually Honest 996]

Before I ask, let me specify what the tanker position is, before you misrepresent what you think it is and make irrelevant points wasting everyone's time.

The tanker position is just HOPING the team does badly, THIS season, because they lost faith in the current team, especially Matt Ryan, in winning a Super Bowl this year or in the near future, and by doing poorly, will increase the team's CHANCES of getting high draft picks, which in turn will increase the CHANCE of getting a QB they want that has a CHANCE  of turning this team around and winning a Super Bowl. It's the idea that we have a better chance of winning a Super Bowl with a Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields, and for some a Trey Lance IN THE LONG RUN, than continuing to pin our hopes on a declining much older Matt Ryan in the short term or long run.

Tanking is NOT the expectation the team will quit just to make those fans happy.

Let me preface the question, tanking or antitanking, is just a preference. As fans, none of us, no matter what we want, will change the outcome on how the team does or will do. I am not interested in ad hom attacks like "you are a bad fan" or "go root for some other team". That is just lazy thinking. If that is all you are gonna do, don't bother.

So for the anti-tanking group, who are obviously on the Matt Ryan train:

1. How bad does the team have to be, or more specifically, Matt Ryan, before you lose faith in him and desire a different starting QB?

2. Which do you prefer?: Lets say the Falcons, overall record wise, average 9 wins these next 5 years with Ryan, but no Super Bowl win. Or in that same time span, they get a rookie QB, and their average is 6 wins per season, but they do win a Super Bowl in the same time span.

3. What are the chances that the Falcons win a Super Bowl, with Ryan, within the next 5 years, considering he will most likely get a new OC anyway, JJ will retire, and even if the D eventually improves, his skills will continue to decline, and eventually they will need a new QB anyway? You think his chances are very good?

4. Is sticking on the Matt Ryan train more about loyalty to Ryan or more loyalty to the team overall?

[Geneaut 6,741]

This topic has been done to death and no one is going to change their minds.

[Intellectually Honest 996]

2 minutes ago, Geneaut said:

This topic has been done to death and no one is going to change their minds.

You clearly don't want to talk about it.  That's fine. That's your opinion. Clearly others do.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Intellectually Honest

[PriMeTiiMe 7,083]

I am all for a new QB but I was happy to see him rebound this week while under so much scrutiny and still want to see how this season plays out with Quinn out of the picture. Ryan is not getting any younger but despite me wanting a new QB I do want Ryan to do well throughout the rest of this year. As much as I want the top pick it's hard to ever root for a loss. It's easy to say after a loss "well at least we kept our high spot in the draft" but I find it nearly impossible during a game to cheer against a W. 

BTW: Trey Lance looked like dog poo vs the powerhouse Central Arkansas Bears. I don't see anyway we go QB unless its Lawrence or Fields. (Zack Wilson fans calm down)

[Geneaut 6,741]

Just now, Intellectually Honest said:

You clearly don't want to talk about it. That's your opinion. Clearly others do.

Doesn't invalidate anything I said. It's a freaking dead horse.

[Intellectually Honest 996]

1 minute ago, Geneaut said:

Doesn't invalidate anything I said. It's a freaking dead horse.

You gave your opinion. I am not obligated in "invalidating" your opinion. No one is forcing you to speak about the topic. But you don't control what others do or don't want to talk about either. Thanks for bumping the thread.

[jlrfalcon 4,065]

Tankers-

Convinced that a rookie QB will come in and succeed in the NFL without any doubt

Convinced that the Matt Ryan we saw yesterday is ready for retirement

[Intellectually Honest 996]

5 minutes ago, PriMeTiiMe said:

I am all for a new QB but I was happy to see him rebound this week while under so much scrutiny and still want to see how this season plays out with Quinn out of the picture. Ryan is not getting any younger but despite me wanting a new QB I do want Ryan to do well throughout the rest of this year. As much as I want the top pick it's hard to ever root for a loss. It's easy to say after a loss "well at least we kept our high spot in the draft" but I find it nearly impossible during a game to cheer against a W. 

BTW: Trey Lance looked like dog poo vs the powerhouse Central Arkansas Bears. I don't see anyway we go QB unless its Lawrence or Fields. (Zack Wilson fans calm down)

I can see that. As a fan, you want to look on the sunny side. For me it's ultimately about a Super Bowl win and the probability of getting one. I am not against Ryan. I just don't think he is the answer, and as QB, his position is the largest factor on a team's success.

[Geneaut 6,741]

3 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

You gave your opinion. I am not obligated in "invalidating" your opinion. No one is forcing you to speak about the topic. But you don't control what others do or don't want to talk about either. Thanks for bumping the thread.

Passive aggressive much?

[Intellectually Honest 996]

Just now, jlrfalcon said:

Tankers-

Convinced that a rookie QB will come in and succeed in the NFL without any doubt

Convinced that the Matt Ryan we saw yesterday is ready for retirement

So nice misrepresentation of what the tanker position is. Why be dishonest about it?

[Intellectually Honest 996]

Just now, Geneaut said:

Passive aggressive much?

Thanks for bumping the thread again. Appreciate it.

[Geneaut 6,741]

Just now, Intellectually Honest said:

Thanks for bumping the thread again. Appreciate it.

I can do it all day

[Wjcorner 3,606]

1. We’d have to finish the year with a top 3 pick without major injuries all over the roster.

 

2. I’d always prefer the SB. This is a leading question.

 

3. Depends on who we get with our new GM and coaching staff. 

4. Wanting to win has nothing to do with Ryan. If we have a team so bad that they go out there with a smile on their face and only win 2-3 games, then we aren’t a QB away. We’d have some serious issues. So while blowing it up for the future would be nice, it wouldn’t be doable with Ryan’s contract. The smart play is creating an environment for Ryan in his last years on this contract. Then either retain him for cheap or move on. With a new coaching staff and GM with no ties to Ryan, if his play continues on this erratic behavior, I’m sure he’ll have competition to this point. Whether it’s a vet who fizzled somewhere else like Tannehill or the flavor of the month 20 year old the board covets. Either way, with a solid foundation in place, we could then cut ties from a franchise QB contract, and enjoy the benefits of a rookie deal/mid vet deal with more activity in FA to continue to build a solid roster around the rook/mid vet. Losing out doesn’t bring any of this into fruition, other than creating a David Carr-esque situation. 
 

All that said, while it would’ve been nice to play like we did yesterday the whole year, we can only work with what we got. If we were to sneak in the playoffs and make noise would you still be on the tank train?

[Intellectually Honest 996]

Just now, Geneaut said:

I can do it all day

Thanks for supporting the thread. I will appreciate you doing it all day.

[Sun Tzu 7 13,840]

9 minutes ago, Geneaut said:

Doesn't invalidate anything I said. It's a freaking dead horse.

Welcome to the AFMB....

Dead Horses are our favorite topics

[Wjcorner 3,606]

2 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I can see that. As a fan, you want to look on the sunny side. For me it's ultimately about a Super Bowl win and the probability of getting one. I am not against Ryan. I just don't think he is the answer, and as QB, his position is the largest factor on a team's success.

And the last take is ESPN nonsense that I wish would stop being regurgitated. This isn’t basketball, we aren’t a Lebron away from putting role players around him and succeeding.

[Geneaut 6,741]

Just now, Sun Tzu 7 said:

Welcome to the AFMB....

Dead Horses are our favorite topics

I hate this board wasn't around in the Henning days.

[Intellectually Honest 996]

8 minutes ago, Wjcorner said:

1. We’d have to finish the year with a top 3 pick without major injuries all over the roster.

 

2. I’d always prefer the SB. This is a leading question.

 

3. Depends on who we get with our new GM and coaching staff. 

4. Wanting to win has nothing to do with Ryan. If we have a team so bad that they go out there with a smile on their face and only win 2-3 games, then we aren’t a QB away. We’d have some serious issues. So while blowing it up for the future would be nice, it wouldn’t be doable with Ryan’s contract. The smart play is creating an environment for Ryan in his last years on this contract. Then either retain him for cheap or move on. With a new coaching staff and GM with no ties to Ryan, if his play continues on this erratic behavior, I’m sure he’ll have competition to this point. Whether it’s a vet who fizzled somewhere else like Tannehill or the flavor of the month 20 year old the board covets. Either way, with a solid foundation in place, we could then cut ties from a franchise QB contract, and enjoy the benefits of a rookie deal/mid vet deal with more activity in FA to continue to build a solid roster around the rook/mid vet. Losing out doesn’t bring any of this into fruition, other than creating a David Carr-esque situation. 
 

All that said, while it would’ve been nice to play like we did yesterday the whole year, we can only work with what we got. If we were to sneak in the playoffs and make noise would you still be on the tank train?

Thanks for the civil discourse thus far.

Yes, we would need to get a top 3 pick. Top overall for Lawrence most likely.

I am not sure what a "leading question" is. I know what a loaded question is. But the question was not about proving anything anyway. It's just asking for a preference.

I highly doubt Ryan will ever come cheap. He has gotten the most expensive contract (at the time) each signing. Given that it is unlikely Ryan is going to get this team a Superbowl this or next year, I am willing to make a sacrifice, salary cap wise. I don't expect Ryan to give this team a discount. For me it's about the long term.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Intellectually Honest

[ADAMSVILLE GYM 4,815]

32 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Before I ask, let me specify what the tanker position is, before you misrepresent what you think it is and make irrelevant points wasting everyone's time.

The tanker position is just HOPING the team does badly, THIS season, because they lost faith in the current team, especially Matt Ryan, in winning a Super Bowl this year or in the near future, and by doing poorly, will increase the team's CHANCES of getting high draft picks, which in turn will increase the CHANCE of getting a QB they want that has a CHANCE  of turning this team around and winning a Super Bowl. It's the idea that we have a better chance of winning a Super Bowl with a Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields, and for some a Trey Lance IN THE LONG RUN, than continuing to pin our hopes on a declining much older Matt Ryan in the short term or long run.

Tanking is NOT the expectation the team will quit just to make those fans happy.

Let me preface the question, tanking or antitanking, is just a preference. As fans, none of us, no matter what we want, will change the outcome on how the team does or will do. I am not interested in ad hom attacks like "you are a bad fan" or "go root for some other team". That is just lazy thinking. If that is all you are gonna do, don't bother.

So for the anti-tanking group, who are obviously on the Matt Ryan train:

1. How bad does the team have to be, or more specifically, Matt Ryan, before you lose faith in him and desire a different starting QB?

2. Which do you prefer?: Lets say the Falcons, overall record wise, average 9 wins these next 5 years with Ryan, but no Super Bowl win. Or in that same time span, they get a rookie QB, and their average is 6 wins per season, but they do win a Super Bowl in the same time span.

3. What are the chances that the Falcons win a Super Bowl, with Ryan, within the next 5 years, considering he will most likely get a new OC anyway, JJ will retire, and even if the D eventually improves, his skills will continue to decline, and eventually they will need a new QB anyway? You think his chances are very good?

4. Is sticking on the Matt Ryan train more about loyalty to Ryan or more loyalty to the team overall?

[Someday soon 170]

Please add to your questions that need answered this one.  How is the team going to be markedly better next year with the salary cap being what it is.

[Intellectually Honest 996]

7 minutes ago, Wjcorner said:

And the last take is ESPN nonsense that I wish would stop being regurgitated. This isn’t basketball, we aren’t a Lebron away from putting role players around him and succeeding.

No one claimed that it is. The fact is the QB sees the ball more often, than any other player on the team. And it is not even close. Instead of whining about what is being said, rebut it.

[Intellectually Honest 996]

Just now, Someday soon said:

Please add to your questions that need answered this one.  How is the team going to be markedly better next year with the salary cap being what it is.

I don't. If you read the OP, this is about the LONG TERM. 

[Someday soon 170]

1 minute ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I don't. If you read the OP, this is about the LONG TERM. 

I'm with you about the need to switch directions going forward.

[Wjcorner 3,606]

4 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Thanks for the civil discourse thus far.

Yes, we would need to get a top 3 pick. Top overall for Lawrence most likely.

I am not sure what a "leading question" is. I know what a loaded question is. But the question was not about proving anything anyway. It's just asking for a preference.

I highly doubt Ryan will ever come cheap. He has gotten the most expensive contract (at the time) each signing. Given that it is unlikely Ryan is going to get this team a Superbowl this or next year, I am willing to make a sacrifice, salary cap wise. I don't expect Ryan to give this team a discount. For me it's about the long term.

The sacrifice would end up hurting the heir apparent. The whole benefit of a rookie contract is the ability to build strong around the rookie contract. 

 

Google leading question. Any sane person would choose a SB win, which slants any input you’re looking for.

 

If he doesn’t come cheap after this contract you can cut ties without destroying your cap to build around the next guy. Cutting prematurely you handicap yourself with a QB who will probably not play better than Ryan right now, with a worst team. If I’m shooting for a young QB, I want him in a winning position, not behind the 8 ball. 

[Intellectually Honest 996]

1 minute ago, Wjcorner said:

The sacrifice would end up hurting the heir apparent. The whole benefit of a rookie contract is the ability to build strong around the rookie contract. 

 

Google leading question. Any sane person would choose a SB win, which slants any input you’re looking for.

 

If he doesn’t come cheap after this contract you can cut ties without destroying your cap to build around the next guy. Cutting prematurely you handicap yourself with a QB who will probably not play better than Ryan right now, with a worst team. If I’m shooting for a young QB, I want him in a winning position, not behind the 8 ball. 

Preferences aren't "slants". I asked for a preference. If anything I am looking for common ground, to make points. If an anti-tanker and I agree that a Super Bowl is what is most important, than we can use that as a starting point. Don't be so paranoid.