Could it be Atlanta that reps the NFC?

The way the media treats them, "they're good but", reminds me ALOT of how the 2005 Hawks team was spoken about. Like that 2005 team, the Falcons have been to the playoffs previously, and fell short as a group. No doubt they learned from it.

That offense is pretty stacked. And, their defense is underrated, again like the Hawks 2005 team.

My gut's telling me they're going to tougher than what the media gives them credit for.

Those fans may have a right to whine about media "disrespect" more than us.

Atlanta does not scare me. While there are a few similarities between this team and our 2005, they don't control the ball like we did with Alexander.

Their passing attack with Ryan to Jones, Gonzalez and the last dude I can't remember are a site to see, but they are very close to becoming a one-dimensional team.

The similarities I referenced we're solely based upon their media attention and perceptions.

My hunch is Smith has been keeping Turner fresh for the playoffs. But, I'm not sure if you can just put a rushing attack on pause.

Aha, then yeah the Falcons are flying under the radar in the same manner as the '05 Seahawks.

In the NFC, I like the Niners just due to their tenacity. They don't seem to quit.

Good point.

I would add Houston in the AFC.

They have a ton of weapons. Personally I think they'd be even better if they made Quiz Rogers the focal point of their running game rather then Michael Turner.

I'll acknowledge that any team can win at any time, but I think that the Falcons won't go anywhere in the playoffs just like always. They are already a one dementional offence, and they have looked way too beatable against teams like Oakland, plus they have lost to a team like Carolina. Same ol' Falcons imo. Obviously y'all can deduce who my first choice for repping the NFC is, second would be the Seahawks, third.... I think everyone rlse out side of the 9ers are scrubbs so I guess I'll go with them.

Atlanta's defense is old and tired. Run the ball at them and they will fold like a deck of cards.

Falons better hope they don't meet us or the 9ers in the playoffs.

There is a lot of people dismissing Atlanta because of past playoff history. That is dumb.

They have the pieces, and they have Mike Nolan. That D is way better than past years.

I don't see Atlanta getting past either the 49ers or the Packers in the playoffs. Maybe the Packers, as they will be at home, but not the 49ers. 49ers defense is just too good and so is the 49ers offense. OK, so if you toss the Giants as a common opponent into the mix, it gets really baffling, as Giants pounded the 49ers on the road, and Falcons pounded the Giants at home, so it's a crazy league, but I think with time to prepare, SF will slow down Atlanta's offense just enough, and the 49ers will make enough big plays and run the ball on the Falcons and have Kaepernick make some plays that will put the 49ers over the top, even on the road.

If Green Bay is the home team in the playoffs against the 49ers, that would be a total toss-up game, and I would go with a red-hot Aaron Rodgers and a decent Packers defense at home, in a very close game.

Seattle can beat any of those teams, but on the road, who knows, but other teams have done that. I'm hoping for a wildcard run to the Super Bowl, like the Steelers in 2005, like the Packers in 2010, and the Giants in 2007. The worst regular season record for a team that ran the table and won the big one as a Wild Card was 10-6, both the 2010 Packers and 2007 Giants.

Atlanta sucks. They are struggling at Detroit.

Scottemojo wrote:There is a lot of people dismissing Atlanta because of past playoff history. That is dumb.

They have the pieces, and they have Mike Nolan. That D is way better than past years.

Falcons have had really great seasons for the last 2 years. They have even been one of the top two seeds previously and they were bounced out of the playoffs each time (one and done). How is that not a valid point?

NWCheeseHead wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:There is a lot of people dismissing Atlanta because of past playoff history. That is dumb.

They have the pieces, and they have Mike Nolan. That D is way better than past years.

Falcons have had really great seasons for the last 2 years. They have even been one of the top two seeds previously and they were bounced out of the playoffs each time (one and done). How is that not a valid point?

Because this year is not last year or the year before, silly.

NWCheeseHead wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:There is a lot of people dismissing Atlanta because of past playoff history. That is dumb.

They have the pieces, and they have Mike Nolan. That D is way better than past years.

Falcons have had really great seasons for the last 2 years. They have even been one of the top two seeds previously and they were bounced out of the playoffs each time (one and done). How is that not a valid point?

Mike Nolan? I think I said that before.

Eh, until they show me that they can brake that trend I still find it to be a valid point. If it was the only reason I had for thinking they were not going to get it done I'd agree that it is silly, but I have more and it is not.

Tech Worlds wrote:Atlanta sucks. They are struggling at Detroit.

And we got beat in Detroit

NWCheeseHead wrote:Eh, until they show me that they can brake that trend I still find it to be a valid point. If it was the only reason I had for thinking they were not going to get it done I'd agree that it is silly, but I have more and it is not.

I see. I thought the thread was asking what could happen in the future but you are more of a historian than a prognosticator. My bad.

Yeah, I don't really feel comfortable dismissing them. What they do, is what they just finished 5 minutes ago. Mostly dominate, anywhere they play.

Scottemojo wrote:

NWCheeseHead wrote:Eh, until they show me that they can brake that trend I still find it to be a valid point. If it was the only reason I had for thinking they were not going to get it done I'd agree that it is silly, but I have more and it is not.

I see. I thought the thread was asking what could happen in the future but you are more of a historian than a prognosticator. My bad.

Actually if you review my previous posts you'd see that I prognosticate just fine without citing historical trends. I just think that it is stilly to entirely dismiss them until a team has proven that they have moved past them. However if that is the only basis for a conclusion, yes that is silly.

After the Hawks beat the skins they will beat the Falcons. It would be great if the Giants could repeat their performance of last season. It would then allow the Hawks to host the NFC Championship.

pehawk wrote:Could it be Atlanta that reps the NFC?

The way the media treats them, "they're good but", reminds me ALOT of how the 2005 Hawks team was spoken about. Like that 2005 team, the Falcons have been to the playoffs previously, and fell short as a group. No doubt they learned from it.

That offense is pretty stacked. And, their defense is underrated, again like the Hawks 2005 team.

My gut's telling me they're going to tougher than what the media gives them credit for.

Those fans may have a right to whine about media "disrespect" more than us.

gotta say the Falcs are a team to be reckoned with, no doubt about it but I also have to say GB and maybe Skinnies are in the tougher divisions? then the NFCW, pound for pound I would say NFCW but their record speaks otherwise..

someone will compile a strength of schedule and at that point it just may be the NFCW? as they played the AFCE (2 games under .500) and the NFCN (3 games over .500)

I have to hope the Rams go 7-8-1 and the cards 7-9-0 to finish up which would salvage a very respectable NFC West @ 36-26-2

mathematically possible for a division to have 4 13-3-0 records, be cool to see that some day, the best 4 team reformation record is the 2007 AFC South at 42-22-0, no team under .500

We've done a good job shutting down #1 receivers, but it'll be fun trying to shut down two of them.

If Seattle doesn't go, it will be Green Bay. Denver will rep the AFC.