Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hukos

  1. In that case, what do you suggest teams that perennially go 7-9 every year do? I know blowing it up isn't likely to bring the change people want, but if you hit 7-9/8-8 for so long, fans get frustrated and resent the folks running the show. "Stop being mediocre" isn't really much of a prescription.
  2. This is a good argument for why Quinn should have been fired in the first place. Why stick around with the "will he or won't he get fired" game with a coach? If you're not 100% convinced that your coach is the guy to take you to the Super Bowl, that coach needs to be canned. If you were considering firing your coach at some point, there was probably a good reason for that and you might as well fire him anyway. Spare me the "they played hard for him" card, if you (the players) love him so much, why did it take you being the worst team in the NFL for 8 weeks before you decided to show up? I can buy "they played hard for him" in the case of a guy like Flores because he's a first year coach. Dan's just finished year five, going on year six. He doesn't get to use that excuse. Example: Falcons go 9-7, backdoor their way into a wildcard and miraculously make into the 2nd round where their lack of talent gets them completely exposed by an actual team (this is basically the best they could possibly do in 2020 - their schedule is insanely brutal). Well then you can argue that Quinn bought another year, but what if he has a 6-10 year following that? Do we just finally take him out back and get rid of him or continue to play this game of figuring out whether or not he'll be fired? At that point, you might as well just cut the crap and get rid of him and find the real long-term answer at head coach. To my recollection, the Falcons have the highest paid offensive line in the NFL which contributes significantly to their current cap issues. They overpaid a bunch of 2nd string OL guys hoping to beef up the line in a desperate "win now" move. Obviously, it didn't work. Realistically speaking, the Falcons won't do a teardown until Matt Ryan retires (which will be... 2025? 2026? Who knows?). Otherwise the investments on offensive line just kind of go to waste.
  3. If you decided that you weren't going to pay your young talent when their time came up, trading them now is probably for the best. I do think the "screw it, we're blowing it up now" mentality is self-defeating but I can see the allure - if you've failed up to now with a talented team, is one more year really going to make the difference? It's easy to just assume that the people in charge don't have what it takes to win it all (and that's often true). Fans get sick and tired of being disappointed as well. What I do think has to happen with teams that want to blow it up is not necessarily blowing up the players but the organization around them. There's more than enough mediocre coaches, GMs, scouts, etc. in the league to go around (My personal hot take is that about 70% of coaches in the NFL are mediocre or worse and that there are very few good coaches to be found). If you have a talented roster and yet you're consistently failing, something at the top stinks and it needs to be replaced immediately. "Blow it up" is self defeating, but I also don't have much patience for the BOBs of the world who are hanging onto their jobs due to nepotism.
  4. The defense absolutely needs a tear-down, but you're not going to completely remake it in a single offseason. It's more like a slow teardown. I actually think the Falcons are set up pretty well on offense for the next 4-5 years, assuming McGary and Lindstrom grow and develop into really good linemen. Their main problem on offense is Dirk Koetter still runs his offense like it's the mid-2000's again. Replace him with someone competent and you'd probably see a huge growth on offense. I'm starting to think that the Falcons have serious player developmental issues on the defensive side of the ball though. That's going to persist regardless of a teardown (assuming you keep the same regime). The cap is a speedbump and only bad GMs get burnt by it. The only reason our cap is in the shape it is in now is because we spent a lot of money on some terrible offensive linemen free agents. If we had held back we'd be in great financial shape. Besides, any theoretical teardown wouldn't be very effective since the pieces on the team that would merit draft capital have absurd dead cap hits if they were traded.
  5. Kyle Allen because he usually gives you a gift when he plays your team.
  6. The new CBA brings a huge opportunity

    I'm talking practical terms, not literal ones. Also if that paragraph is rambling to you, I hate to think how you managed English class.
  7. The new CBA brings a huge opportunity

    Every generation hates every other generation. You should see the stuff millennials say about generation Z. This is a bad faith response, but I'll bite anyway. The end result of a tie is that you do not accumulate a win. The "half-win" that a tie gives you is not enough to make up for the lost ground that you could have had if you had won instead of tying. In my example, a 10-5-1 team is a half game behind an 11-5 team, and a half game ahead of any 10-6 team. In literal terms, the half game seems to have value, but being a half game behind the 11-5 team is significantly more damaging to a team's playoff seeding/standing. This could be the difference between a 1st round bye or playing on wild card weekend (or in some cases, not making the playoffs at all if things are really tight!). So in literal terms, a tie is worth half a win. In practical terms, the half-win is in of itself, worth nothing or at the very least, worth very little.
  8. Everything Free Agency (Rumors, notes and news)

    Is it? If you can use tax-payer funded capital for better investments (better public transportation, more efficient housing, public services, etc.) wouldn't that be preferable to a stadium? A city government's responsibility is to provide the basic framework for a higher quality of living for all of it's residents and based on what I've seen, stadiums are antithetical to that notion. I could be misinformed on this, but I thought revenue sharing was only a thing among teams, and not cities? I've looked up online how the NFL's revenue sharing works and I've found nothing to suggest that cities themselves get a piece of the pie.
  9. The new CBA brings a huge opportunity

    A single tie is functionally similar to a loss though. 10-5-1 is strictly worse than 11-5, which why it's functionally a defeat. Yes, 10-5-1 is better than 10-6, but 10-6 is also worse than 11-5.
  10. Everything Free Agency (Rumors, notes and news)

    This forum probably isn't the best place to post econ articles but: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/ backs me up on this. Virtually everything in economics is built upon modeling, so if their model says it's not worth it, I'm inclined to believe them.
  11. The new CBA brings a huge opportunity

    If economics has proven anything, incentives matter (IE, if you want people to stop consuming sugar, tax sugar more, etc.). Change the incentives, and you change people's behavior. Teams settle for OT because they think they have a better shot in OT than getting one last drive in regulation. Remove that and you'd see a lot of change in how teams operate in the 4th quarter.
  12. Everything Free Agency (Rumors, notes and news)

    It's been economically proven that cities paying for stadiums via tax dollars just never makes back the investment. As much as I love football, it's not a smart decision for a city to do. It's not really worth it in the long run, but a lot of local fans would be furious if their team left. Owners convincing cities to pay for their stadiums is nothing short of rent-seeking (making cash without adding any real economic value).
  13. Bears release WR Taylor Gabriel and CB Prince Amukamara

    Gabriel is a deep threat. He's not worth much more than being a deep threat, but that in of itself has value. When he was on the Falcons in 2016, he wasn't the guy who could do the whole route tree. But his ability to take the top off of defenses was very useful in that Kyle Shanahan offense. He was fast enough that trying to press Gabriel was something that could blow up in your face if he just ran right by you because he was so quick. There's a reason no one presses Tyreek HIll. If you're asking Gabriel to be the feature WR of your offense, you're doing it wrong. But if you're asking him to be your #3 or #4 WR purely as a deep threat, he's fantastic. I'm not a Bears fan (Falcons fan actually) so I don't know really that much about how the Bears operate schematically on offense. But if you're unable to use Gabriel as a #3 deep threat, then you're basically throwing away a roster spot. I will go to bat for Gabriel because guys like him are always criminally under used and utilized in the NFL. Deep threat guys with elite speed that can blow by press coverage are way more useful than a lot of folks think, but they've got to be in the right position to succeed. Explosiveness (ability to generate chunk yardage) is to me the defining feature of great offenses in the modern NFL (see: Kansas City Chiefs) and you need guys like that on your roster to do that consistently.
  14. The new CBA brings a huge opportunity

    This but only for the playoffs. I think ending regular season games in ties makes things interesting in the 4th quarter. If you're down 28-21 with 5 minutes left and the ball at your own 25 - you have to seriously be thinking about going for the 2 PT conversion. The likelihood you score, get the XP, and then get the ball back and get a game winning field goal with time left is extremely difficult. While a tie is technically worth half a win, that's also worth half a loss and that can extra tie can really hurt you down the stretch (losing the division at 10-5-1 to the 11-5 team, for instance). Unless you string together 2-3 ties in a season, a single tie is effectively a loss.
  15. Everything Free Agency (Rumors, notes and news)

    Honestly, if the players do decide to strike, I can find other stuff to do in the interim period. I don't hate the billionaire owners, but if the players go on strike to get what they feel they deserve I don't have any problem with that at all. That's business. Go get yours and don't feel bad about it for a second. No one is entitled the right to watch football.
  16. That person is right, in a strictly technical sense. Capitalism doesn't exist without a federal government creating a federal court system to enforce property rights (if there isn't a court system, what's there to stop me from robbing you at gunpoint and just claiming that your business is mine?) - so without that kind of federal help, there wouldn't exist a fortune for them to own their teams. And generally even people who do manage to create a large amount of wealth through cunning and ingenuity had some kind of help or luck on the way. Or they inherited it.
  17. NFLPA Fact Sheet on new CBA

    Usually it's the more vulnerable members of society that are more willing to take a bad deal if it's superior to what they already have on the table - holding out for something better could completely blow up in their face and then they're left with nothing. If the players union wants to defeat ownership, then they're going to have to tackle this head-on by making sure the more vulnerable players are taken care of during a strike, or else I wouldn't be shocked to see them be the first ones to cross the picket line. If I'm the young guy, I absolutely want to be paid based on performance because pay based on seniority sounds like nepotism/corruption to me. However, if I'm the old guy in this analogy, I believe myself to have earned my position through a long career of hard work and that the young man has it coming for him when he works as long as I have. I'm not really sure what the solution to this is, but if someone can figure out you might have saved unions in the US.
  18. Holy bad faith batman. 1. Performance pre-bye and post-bye was significantly different which muddies their total rating on defense. Keep in mind, they ended up 23rd in points allowed, but only after the improvement in the second half of the season. Their points allowed after the bye: 9, 3, 35, 26, 20, 22, 12, 22. This was a huge leap ahead of the performance in the first 8 games which was: 28, 20, 27, 24, 53, 34, 37, 27. 2. After the first 8 games they were giving up scoring drives at a clip of 57%. Before the bye, they only had four turnovers all season! (The Eagles owned two of those, for what it's worth). 3. Before the bye, the Falcons legitimately had a shot at having the fewest amount of sacks for an NFL team in NFL history until the pass rush improved significantly. Before the bye week, they only had 7 sacks. They had played more games than they had sacks - and it honestly wasn't inconceivable to be the only team in NFL history to not have double digit sacks as a team. 4. Name me dudes on the Falcons defense that could play on the Ravens practice squad. There aren't many. I don't agree with this at all. Looking at the games the Falcons won in the 2nd half of the year, I still see wide open WRs that just aren't being thrown accurate passes. In both Carolina games Kyle Allen had wide open dudes all day but couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. The pass rush wasn't necessarily good, but I thought it was actually the strongest component of the defense. Even the game in New Orleans that we won, Brees could have definitely hit some WRs that he failed to. I don't really think the secondary was truly winning their matchups in those games - it seemed like they were much closer to being exposed if the QB had just a little bit more time.
  19. Bears release WR Taylor Gabriel and CB Prince Amukamara

    It'd be really nice if Gabriel came back to Atlanta, though I still question Koetter's ability to use him. Still, I'd be for it if the price was right.
  20. Some teams have those kinds of rivals, but the only rivals my team has (Atlanta) is New Orleans and Carolina. There just isn't much bad blood with other AFC teams for us.
  21. The new CBA brings a huge opportunity

    I'd rather start it on the 20. Make teams go the long way to score. Even then I think the way college OT works is dumb, but starting on the 25 is really dumb. No overtime in regular season games, ties only. Make teams really consider going for it on 4th down late in games, or going for 2 pt conversions for the win. Post-season, it's just an extra quarter. If at the beginning of OT you go on a 12 play 75 yard drive, you still have another 8 minutes left to hold the fort down.
  22. NFLPA Fact Sheet on new CBA

    See my comment about negotiating. I don't expect it to ever happen, but it's something the players should want, it increases their leverage when it comes to contract years.
  23. NFLPA Fact Sheet on new CBA

    The ideal scenario for the players: - Higher minimum contracts for all positions - Better healthcare/retirement packages - Better money split - More guaranteed contracts (you could start at year 1 being fully guaranteed and go on from there) - Complete elimination of the franchise and transition tag. - Completely revamped drugtesting policy (ie. no more weed bans) - Reducing the power the Commissioner has - Changing the hard cap to a soft cap with a tax (This would give the players more money to play with, I don't necessarily agree with this for competitive reasons, but the players as a whole should absolutely want this) I wouldn't expect to get all of these, and getting some of them is probably going to require some concessions (ie expanded playoff/week structure). The devil is really in the details, what has to be given up to get what exactly.
  24. If you come into work high and unable to function, yeah you should be fired. For consuming it in your own free time and being sober when you do show up to work? That's just being petty.