Matt Ryan Concerned With Wins, Not being Elite

[dtown8]

"It doesn't matter," Ryan said. "It doesn't matter what I think or what anyone else thinks. It matters how we win. That's where my focus is. Other than that, I don't really worry about it too much. I don't think about it. I don't worry about it."

.......... #refreshing

[cavs4life03]

i like his attitude imo i think he is been very succesfull thus far but it is time to get out of the 1st round haha dont be a romo

[NO-KG-AI]

Well, the Falcons have done OK despite him not being elite, so I guess resting on his laurels is fine, as long as he doesn't plan on winning titles

Seriously, the Falcons are probably capped out in terms of ceiling until Ryan takes a step forward.

[sunshinekids99]

I think the move away from Turner is going to do Ryan and Falcons wonders. Not to mention he has two of the best recievers in football.

[jvalanciunas]

Well, the Falcons have done OK despite him not being elite, so I guess resting on his laurels is fine, as long as he doesn't plan on winning titles

Seriously, the Falcons are probably capped out in terms of ceiling until Ryan takes a step forward.

it has nothing to do with being elite. Ryan is already apart of a very efficient offense. what real football fans know is that the Falcon need a pass rush to have a shot at winning a super bowl.

everybody wants to give mad credit to Eli Manning, but real football fans know the main reason why the Giants won was because of the Giants' front defensive four, which is the best in the league

Brady is a great football player, but their is a reason why the Pats stop winning championship after the traded away Seymour

[sunshinekids99]

^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

[Icness]

Well, the Falcons have done OK despite him not being elite, so I guess resting on his laurels is fine, as long as he doesn't plan on winning titles

Seriously, the Falcons are probably capped out in terms of ceiling until Ryan takes a step forward.

I agree totally, but I think he might make that step this year. He's been a different guy in camp, improved his deep arm.

[burgundy]

^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

wow, their are just so many things wrong here, it just makes me shake my head and laugh about all the casual football fan who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Seymour is a freaking beast and Pats lost alot when he left. his ability to clog up the middle and command double and triples teams was freaking amazing.

you defiantly showed your ignorance when you talking about Seymour's sack total, which has nothing to do with real football. Pats play a 3-4 and that defense is designed to get the LBs sacks NOT THE DL!

sunshinekids99 defiantly has no clue in what he is talking about. Seymour dominated the line and McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin were assigned to go after the quarterback.

when Seymour was on the Pats, New England was averaging 45 sacks a year, when he left, the teams started to only average 35 sacks a year. that is a huge difference that is not a coincidence and has nothing to do with LBs getting slower, because the LBs have not been getting slower. Seymour and Warren were just freaking monsters in controlling the line.

[sunshinekids99]

^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

wow, their are just so many things wrong here, it just makes me shake my head and laugh about all the casual football fan who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Seymour is a freaking beast and Pats lost alot when he left. his ability to clog up the middle and command double and triples teams was freaking amazing.

you defiantly showed your ignorance when you talking about Seymour's sack total, which has nothing to do with real football. Pats play a 3-4 and that defense is designed to get the LBs sacks NOT THE DL!

sunshinekids99 defiantly has no clue in what he is talking about. Seymour dominated the line and McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin were assigned to go after the quarterback.

when Seymour was on the Pats, New England was averaging 45 sacks a year, when he left, the teams started to only average 35 sacks a year. that is a huge difference that is not a coincidence and has nothing to do with LBs getting slower, because the LBs have not been getting slower. Seymour and Warren were just freaking monsters in controlling the line.

I’m a big fan of facts in sports and unfortunately for you, the numbers don’t back you up. Let’s take a quick look at the numbers for the Super Bowl winnings seasons to last year.

2001- Sack Total- 39

2003- Sack Total- 41

2004- Sack Total- 45

2011- Sack Totals- 40

So I’m not seeing this huge discrepancy in Super Bowl winning years to last year for the Patriots. When looking at the numbers the main issue I’m seeing is the personnel on defense. They went from having corner backs like Ty Law and Asante Samuel to Kyle Arrington and Leigh Bodden. Then you get a change in outside linebackers from Mike Vrabel and Willie McGinest to the likes of Adualalis Thomas and Tully Banta Cain. Not to mention the fact guys like Tedy Bruschi and Rodney Harrison flat out got old.

Now to Richard Seymour and what he brought to the Patriots. The guy was flat out a freak. Very strong player that was devastating against the run and for his position got to the QB and a good rate. The problem for Seymour is his last few years with the Patriots he wasn’t the same player. He had knee problems and seemed to lack a desire to get back to his elite level. While a gifted player no doubt, I’m missing the difference in pass rush in Patriots Super Bowl seasons to last years team. If the Pats had traded a young Seymour I agree with you he would have been a too big of a lose to that defense. But they traded the other Richard Seymour and to be honest it was a good move for them.

This Patriots team didn’t get out of the Super Bowl hunt when they moved Richard Seymour. The Pats quite frankly got old on defense and when they those players did get replaced they were replaced with inexperienced players.

I don’t feel you can point to the pass rush and say you need that to be in the title hunt. It’s just quite frankly not accurate. The best thing for teams is to win the turnover battle. While of course a pass rush can assist in that area it is not the end all be all for generating turnovers. The Patriots are also greatly assisted in that area with Tom Brady under center.

I’m all for petty insults to “casual” football fans; I just suggest if you’re going to act like you know the game have the facts to back you up.




I

[burgundy]

^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

wow, their are just so many things wrong here, it just makes me shake my head and laugh about all the casual football fan who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Seymour is a freaking beast and Pats lost alot when he left. his ability to clog up the middle and command double and triples teams was freaking amazing.

you defiantly showed your ignorance when you talking about Seymour's sack total, which has nothing to do with real football. Pats play a 3-4 and that defense is designed to get the LBs sacks NOT THE DL!

sunshinekids99 defiantly has no clue in what he is talking about. Seymour dominated the line and McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin were assigned to go after the quarterback.

when Seymour was on the Pats, New England was averaging 45 sacks a year, when he left, the teams started to only average 35 sacks a year. that is a huge difference that is not a coincidence and has nothing to do with LBs getting slower, because the LBs have not been getting slower. Seymour and Warren were just freaking monsters in controlling the line.

I’m a big fan of facts in sports and unfortunately for you, the numbers don’t back you up. Let’s take a quick look at the numbers for the Super Bowl winnings seasons to last year.

2001- Sack Total- 39

2003- Sack Total- 41

2004- Sack Total- 45

2011- Sack Totals- 40

So I’m not seeing this huge discrepancy in Super Bowl winning years to last year for the Patriots. When looking at the numbers the main issue I’m seeing is the personnel on defense. They went from having corner backs like Ty Law and Asante Samuel to Kyle Arrington and Leigh Bodden. Then you get a change in outside linebackers from Mike Vrabel and Willie McGinest to the likes of Adualalis Thomas and Tully Banta Cain. Not to mention the fact guys like Tedy Bruschi and Rodney Harrison flat out got old.

Now to Richard Seymour and what he brought to the Patriots. The guy was flat out a freak. Very strong player that was devastating against the run and for his position got to the QB and a good rate. The problem for Seymour is his last few years with the Patriots he wasn’t the same player. He had knee problems and seemed to lack a desire to get back to his elite level. While a gifted player no doubt, I’m missing the difference in pass rush in Patriots Super Bowl seasons to last years team. If the Pats had traded a young Seymour I agree with you he would have been a too big of a lose to that defense. But they traded the other Richard Seymour and to be honest it was a good move for them.

This Patriots team didn’t get out of the Super Bowl hunt when they moved Richard Seymour. The Pats quite frankly got old on defense and when they those players did get replaced they were replaced with inexperienced players.

I don’t feel you can point to the pass rush and say you need that to be in the title hunt. It’s just quite frankly not accurate. The best thing for teams is to win the turnover battle. While of course a pass rush can assist in that area it is not the end all be all for generating turnovers. The Patriots are also greatly assisted in that area with Tom Brady under center.

I’m all for petty insults to “casual” football fans; I just suggest if you’re going to act like you know the game have the facts to back you up. I

2001- Sack Totals- 39

2003- Sack Totals- 41

2004- Sack Totals- 45

2008- Sack Totals- 30

2009- Sack Totals- 31

2010- Sack Totals- 36

2011- Sack Totals- 40

41.6 sacks > 34.2 sacks...... yeah that is a huge difference, and you just lost this one, because i guess you don't understand numbers or simple math

Brady is way better than Eli, but Giants' front four of Pierre, Osi, Canty, and Tuck, are just way better than what the Pats have been putting up the last few years. and the falcons don't have any front four that can pass rush like the Giants.

[dtown8]

^^^^^^Really flawed statement. Really doesn't make much sense seeing the Pats could have won that game if plays turned out differently and they are the odds on favorites to represent to the AFC in this year Super Bowl.

Now to your point about Seymour which might even be more flawed. Richard Seymour is not a pass rusher, his career high is 8 with the Patriots. Lets look at the Pats last year, they had two guys at 10 sacks for the season. Yes Seymour was a great player for the Patriots, but that defense also took a hit becasue Bruschi, Harrison, and Vrabel got old.

wow, their are just so many things wrong here, it just makes me shake my head and laugh about all the casual football fan who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Seymour is a freaking beast and Pats lost alot when he left. his ability to clog up the middle and command double and triples teams was freaking amazing.

you defiantly showed your ignorance when you talking about Seymour's sack total, which has nothing to do with real football. Pats play a 3-4 and that defense is designed to get the LBs sacks NOT THE DL!

sunshinekids99 defiantly has no clue in what he is talking about. Seymour dominated the line and McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin were assigned to go after the quarterback.

when Seymour was on the Pats, New England was averaging 45 sacks a year, when he left, the teams started to only average 35 sacks a year. that is a huge difference that is not a coincidence and has nothing to do with LBs getting slower, because the LBs have not been getting slower. Seymour and Warren were just freaking monsters in controlling the line.

I’m a big fan of facts in sports and unfortunately for you, the numbers don’t back you up. Let’s take a quick look at the numbers for the Super Bowl winnings seasons to last year.

2001- Sack Total- 39

2003- Sack Total- 41

2004- Sack Total- 45

2011- Sack Totals- 40

So I’m not seeing this huge discrepancy in Super Bowl winning years to last year for the Patriots. When looking at the numbers the main issue I’m seeing is the personnel on defense. They went from having corner backs like Ty Law and Asante Samuel to Kyle Arrington and Leigh Bodden. Then you get a change in outside linebackers from Mike Vrabel and Willie McGinest to the likes of Adualalis Thomas and Tully Banta Cain. Not to mention the fact guys like Tedy Bruschi and Rodney Harrison flat out got old.

Now to Richard Seymour and what he brought to the Patriots. The guy was flat out a freak. Very strong player that was devastating against the run and for his position got to the QB and a good rate. The problem for Seymour is his last few years with the Patriots he wasn’t the same player. He had knee problems and seemed to lack a desire to get back to his elite level. While a gifted player no doubt, I’m missing the difference in pass rush in Patriots Super Bowl seasons to last years team. If the Pats had traded a young Seymour I agree with you he would have been a too big of a lose to that defense. But they traded the other Richard Seymour and to be honest it was a good move for them.

This Patriots team didn’t get out of the Super Bowl hunt when they moved Richard Seymour. The Pats quite frankly got old on defense and when they those players did get replaced they were replaced with inexperienced players.

I don’t feel you can point to the pass rush and say you need that to be in the title hunt. It’s just quite frankly not accurate. The best thing for teams is to win the turnover battle. While of course a pass rush can assist in that area it is not the end all be all for generating turnovers. The Patriots are also greatly assisted in that area with Tom Brady under center.

I’m all for petty insults to “casual” football fans; I just suggest if you’re going to act like you know the game have the facts to back you up.
I

the old Pats use to force alot of fumbles in their super bowl runs, like 20 a season, and last year they only forced 10 fumbles, so you are not making any good points

[sunshinekids99]

2001- Sack Totals- 39

2003- Sack Totals- 41

2004- Sack Totals- 45

2008- Sack Totals- 30

2009- Sack Totals- 31

2010- Sack Totals- 36

2011- Sack Totals- 40

41.6 sacks > 34.2 sacks...... yeah that is a huge difference, and you just lost this one, because i guess you don't understand numbers or simple math

Brady is way better than Eli, but Giants' front four of Pierre, Osi, Canty, and Tuck, are just way better than what the Pats have been putting up the last few years. and the falcons don't have any front four that can pass rush like the Giants.

One problem with your understanding in numbers....Richard Seymour played for the 08 Patriots. So those numbers are a lot closer then your trying to make them seem to be. This would have been a horrible trade for the Pats if they traded prime Richard Seymour...but they didn't trade that version. They traded the overpaid slowed down by injury version.

Might point is you don't need the Giants front four to win in this league. If you protect the ball and can come up with turnovers which the Pats have been able to, you have a chance to win it all.

[sunshinekids99]

the old Pats use to force alot of fumbles in their super bowl runs, like 20 a season, and last year they only forced 10 fumbles, so you are not making any good points

The 2010 Pats lead the league in turnover ratio. So I'm not sure the fumble recoveries is the measuring stick.

[LAKESHOW]

everybody wants to give mad credit to Eli Manning, but real football fans know the main reason why the Giants won was because of the Giants' front defensive four, which is the best in the league

Brady is a great football player, but their is a reason why the Pats stop winning championship after the traded away Seymour

PREACH ON BROTHA!!

I actually like the Patriots, however, there are flaws...several of which THE SHOW has pointed out...that many a Patriot fan do not wish to address. Will not say any further due to the fact that I will take many Kamikazee attacks for it...

[Icness]

Three factors most identifiable on defenses for teams that make the playoffs:
1. Forced turnovers. This is true even of teams that turn the ball over a lot on their own. This also fluctuates fairly wildly from year to year.

2. Average yards per first down carry. Even in a pass-happy league, teams that can force 2nd & long on run plays have a distinct advantage. Top 4 teams in that stat last year? San Francisco, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Houston. Bottom four teams? Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Oakland, Buffalo. Interestingly the three worst yards per carry defenses on non-1st downs were Detroit, New England, and Green Bay, all playoff teams.

3. Red zone touchdown percentage. Look at the 49ers the last two years. In 2010 they were at 48%, last year they went down to 42%. Houston went from 67% to 48%. Going the other way was Indy, from 50% to 61% and they were at 75% until the final 3 games. Turning TDs into FGs is huge. The Falcons cut their percentage from 56% to 46% last year, good for 8th. Buffalo and New Orleans were the worst, and strangely New Orleans is almost always near the bottom. Gotta love statistical anomalies!