FLOWERY BRANCH, Ga. — I am going to change up the Mailbox a little on this fine Tuesday afternoon. Instead of taking three different submissions by three different people, I am actually going to highlight three specific questions asked in one submission.
Carl H. from Houston, Texas, I've got your questions on tap for the entirety of this Mailbox installment.
Several teams use their backup quarterback for different things. But, in most cases [backups are used] to their strengths or for limitations of the starter. Since Kirk Cousins has no mobility, do you think they should put in some plays for Michael Penix Jr.? Even if he's not running, we could install some plays that we can move the pocket.
Tori: At this point in time, I do not feel there is any reason to do this. We're only seven games into this thing. This is a new offense, with new weapons and a new quarterback. The expectation should have always been that it was going to take time to click. Falcons leadership has made it very clear from the moment they drafted Penix that Cousins is the starting quarterback now, and Penix is their safety net for the future so they do not go back into the quarterback purgatory of the years following the Matt Ryan trade.
Personally, I have never really subscribed to the in-game substitution of quarterbacks for the sole purpose of running a specific play. If they are in garbage time, the starter is injured or being benched based off performance, then OK. But just to run a specific packaged look? That may work in college sometimes but I don't believe it to be a viable option in the NFL.
If the sole reason for having looks for Penix is based on the fact that Cousins isn't a mobile quarterback, I do not think that is a good enough reason to break up the offensive continuity that is building by throwing Penix in there for a play or two a game. Cousins has never been mobile. That's never been his strength as a quarterback in this league. The Falcons knew that the moment they signed him. They have to account for that lack of mobility in other ways. Against the Buccaneers and Panthers, they did. Against the Seahawks, they did not. I don't think this equates — again, at this point — to bringing in Penix to potentially be able to pick up some yards on a scramble.
On defense, since we generate such little pressure on quarterbacks, do you think should blitz more instead of allowing a quarterback to sit in the pocket for so long?
Tori: The Falcons actually are already blitzing at one of the higher rates in the league after seven games. They are ranked 12th overall in blitz percentage. They were actually top-10 prior to the Week 7 numbers coming in. The problem in the Falcons' pass rush isn't their blitz rate. The problem with the Falcons' pass rush is that its not getting home.
Geno Smith was under pressure on 50% of his dropbacks against the Falcons last Sunday, his highest pressure rate faced in a game this season. In fact, the Falcons generated more pressure without blitzing against the Seahawks than they have in any other game to this point, generating a season-high 50% pressure rate with four or fewer rushers, according to Next Gen Stats.
Again, the problem wasn't necessarily blitzing or not blitzing. The problem was the fact that Smith was still productive even within the scope of the pressure he was under whether the Falcons blitzed or not. He completed seven of his 13 passes when under pressure. That accounted for 123 yards and two touchdowns.
Also, despite all of this, the Falcons still have the league's lowest quarterback pressure rates. They simultaneously still have the least amount of sacks in the league, too. Pass rush productivity is a problem for the Falcons, and they have to find a way to fix it quickly. I just don't know if blitzing more is the answer seeing as they have been blitzing to a higher degree compared to teams in the league.
Are our draft picks so bad that we don't even give them an opportunity?
Tori: I have written this before and I will write it again: The byproduct of having a healthy salary cap means you do not have to play rookies right away. I actually answered a very similar question a few weeks ago that you can read here.
Suffice to say, no, the draft picks are not "so bad" that they don't get an opportunity. It's just that they fundamentally have more experienced players ahead of them on the depth chart. And that is always subject to change, too, seeing as we've already seen that happen.
Ruke Orhorhoro being the example.
He is someone who was inactive for the first few games of the season. He's been active and an important part of this defensive rotation in the most recent run of NFC opponents. I also still hold onto the opinion that we would feel very different about this most recent draft class if Bralen Trice wouldn't have suffered a season-ending injury in the preseason. Had he been available to the Falcons this season, he would have been playing, and we would feel different about how many rookies we are seeing as active participants on game days.
