Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Dude, we get it. The defense was a problem last year. You keep repeating yourself over and over and over.

 

At least I'm not the only one who notices...

  • Replies 474
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I kind of think everyone knows that if they had run the ball, NE would have run out of time. Was kind of a big topic after the SB. Kind of was.

No, it doesn't from the few. The defense was the main problem.

 

My memory may be mistaken, but I recall Atlanta's problem as not getting as much pressure on Brady in the second half as they did in the first.

Posted

Wow, you're a special CoTer. :wallbash:

I should be the one banging my head with this post. Don't let facts get in your way. You are wrong.

 

My memory may be mistaken, but I recall Atlanta's problem as not getting as much pressure on Brady in the second half as they did in the first.

If they had run the ball, time would have run out for NE.

Posted

Dude, we get it. The defense was a problem last year. You keep repeating yourself over and over and over.

the thing is, the guy he's directing his posts towards really doesnt "get it" i dont think.

 

but i agree there's no reason to keep repeating it. peoples minds are made up. personally, after reading his posts recently, i'd rather go beat my head on a brick wall for a couple hours rather than try and discuss anything with old school...... so i think the parties involved just need to move on.

Posted

Let's all get along and agree that the defense sucked and Taylor needs to be a better passer.

 

 

Cuz we all know how great the run game is.

100%.... i just believe one unit had much more to do with extending the drought than the other. regardless both points there are valid

Posted

100%.... i just believe one unit had much more to do with extending the drought than the other. regardless both points there are valid

The passing offense was arguably as bad if not worse than any facet of the defense.

Posted

And? Your constant need to argue and try to prove everyone wrong is sad.

 

You're trying to prove something that's impossible to prove and yet here you are posting useless articles.

 

It's arguing objectively with subjective topics.

Posted (edited)

 

It's arguing objectively with subjective topics.

Disagree. The main topic after that game was why Atlanta did not keep running the ball, which they were having great success with.The general thought was that NE would have run out of time. Which having watched the game, they would have. No sack. Time keeps running. Kick the FG. game over.

And? Your constant need to argue and try to prove everyone wrong is sad.

 

You're trying to prove something that's impossible to prove and yet here you are posting useless articles.

It's not really that hard to prove. Run the ball kick the FG, game over. that sack changed the whole game.

Edited by JM2009
Posted (edited)

The passing offense was arguably as bad if not worse than any facet of the defense.

We are talking about an offense that attempted the fewest passes in the league because the rushing attack was the most efficient in the league vs. a Defense that allowed 3 200+ yard rushers, right?

 

Don't know if you're a fan of DVOA or not, but:

Rushing O: 1st

Passing O: 19th

Rush D: 30th

Pass D: 21st

Edited by BuffaloHokie13
Posted

We are talking about an offense that attempted the fewest passes in the league because the rushing attack was the most efficient in the league vs. a Defense that allowed 3 200+ yard rushers, right?

That's the one.

Posted

It's not really that hard to prove. Run the ball kick the FG, game over. that sack changed the whole game.

Are you just being dense on purpose at this point? You do understand what the word prove means right?

Posted

Are you just being dense on purpose at this point? You do understand what the word prove means right?

The percentage that Atlanta wins the game after kicking the FG are very high. That whole week the big question was why didn't Atlanta just run the ball. I'm sure after the game, your friends, family etc. said the same thing. If you actually didn't say the same thing, I don't know what to say. really don't. Or do you act this way in real conversations. hope not. But there is always one.

Posted

Disagree. The main topic after that game was why Atlanta did not keep running the ball, which they were having great success with.The general thought was that NE would have run out of time. Which having watched the game, they would have. No sack. Time keeps running. Kick the FG. game over.

 

It's not really that hard to prove. Run the ball kick the FG, game over. that sack changed the whole game.

JM...it's hard sometimes to have legit conversations with you because you really are incredibly stubborn.

Why the Falcons lost is more than just not running it at the end. Yes they should of and stupid not to but it's a game that had well over 100 plays. This is why it is a subjective topic.

 

Key plays were also:

- Freeman not picking up the blitz and Hightower sacking and stripping Ryan. This is where the momentum changed.

- Edelmans unbelievable catch.

- NE coverts both 2 pt conversions

- Falcons only scoring once in the 2nd half

- Falcons had 6 possessions in the 2nd half. 4 punts and 1 fumble were the results of 5 of the drives.

- Falcons straight up falling apart on defense.

 

This is a subjective topic whether or not you want to agree.

Posted

Are you just being dense on purpose at this point? You do understand what the word prove means right?

Sure do. Myself and other posters put up quite a bit of proof to posters like Old School that post misinformed statements over and over and over again themselves. yet you are silent on that type of "over and over".

Posted

The percentage that Atlanta wins the game after kicking the FG are very high. That whole week the big question was why didn't Atlanta just run the ball. I'm sure after the game, your friends, family etc. said the same thing. If you actually didn't say the same thing, I don't know what to say. really don't. Or do you act this way in real conversations. hope not. But there is always one.

Not running the ball at the end was one reason, not the only reason.

I live in Atlanta and yes people were asking why the Falcons stopped running the ball but they were also asking what happened to the offense in the 2nd half and also why couldn't the defense couldn't stop Brady after the 2nd quarter. When you're up by 25 at any point, one series shouldn't break the game for you.

 

If you think the NFL is about one seriesI don't know what to say.

Posted

JM...it's hard sometimes to have legit conversations with you because you really are incredibly stubborn.

Why the Falcons lost is more than just not running it at the end. Yes they should of and stupid not to but it's a game that had well over 100 plays. This is why it is a subjective topic.

 

Key plays were also:

- Freeman not picking up the blitz and Hightower sacking and stripping Ryan. This is where the momentum changed.

- Edelmans unbelievable catch.

- NE coverts both 2 pt conversions

- Falcons only scoring once in the 2nd half

- Falcons had 6 possessions in the 2nd half. 4 punts and 1 fumble were the results of 5 of the drives.

- Falcons straight up falling apart on defense.

 

This is a subjective topic whether or not you want to agree.

There was only 3 minutes left after that sack. running the ball and kicking the FG makes the game pretty much out of reach. this was the big topic all week.

Not running the ball at the end was one reason, not the only reason.

I live in Atlanta and yes people were asking why the Falcons stopped running the ball but they were also asking what happened to the offense in the 2nd half and also why couldn't the defense couldn't stop Brady after the 2nd quarter. When you're up by 25 at any point, one series shouldn't break the game for you.

 

If you think the NFL is about one seriesI don't know what to say.

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2017/02/super_bowl_2017_patriots_falcons_crazy_finish_poli.html

"They had Super Bowl LI in their grasp, the ball deep in New England territory with the clock on their side late in the fourth quarter. They were an easy field goal away from a two-score lead that almost certainly, even with Tom Brady on the other side of the field, would have been enough to win this game."

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...