FLOWERY BRANCH, Ga. — Well, the Falcons couldn't find any last-minute magic against the Kansas City Chiefs Sunday like they did in Week 2 vs. the Philadelphia Eagles. Despite a 1-2 start, though, all is not lost for the Falcons. Oh no, playing in step with the back-to-back Super Bowl champions this Sunday should not be taken lightly.
However, there are no moral victories in the NFL. There are only victories. And the Falcons will be searching for a big one this coming weekend as the New Orleans Saints roll into town. Until then, I know you all have questions. Good thing I have answers.
Let's get to this Tuesday's Mailbox.
And remember: If you have a question, you can click here to submit it for The Mailbox, which runs every Tuesday and Friday morning.
Camereon W. from Snellville, Georgia
Hey Tori! Do you like the decision to go for it on fourth down late in the fourth quarter instead of kicking the field goal? I think Coach Raheem made a mistake by not trusting the defense to get the one-stop after the field goal would have made the score 22-20. The score remained 22-17 after not converting on fourth down yet the defense stopped the Chiefs on the next possession. Falcons could have essentially drove down the field and won with a field goal instead of needing a touchdown. The defense played well in my opinion. I think you have to take the points late in the fourth quarter and trust the defense who did get the stop you needed regardless of field goal or not. I know hindsight is 20/20 but man I just think that decision cost us. What are your thoughts?
Tori: I see your point. I really do, especially knowing what we do now which is that the Falcons defense did go out and get a stop on the next drive, giving the offense yet another chance to go with the game. But — to your point — hindsight is 20/20. No one had any way of knowing that was to be the outcome. Truly, we can play the "what if" game all day long.
What if the Falcons don't go for it on fourth-and-5 on the Kansas City 6-yard line, choosing to send out Younghoe Koo for the short field goal to cut the score to 22-20?
OK. Well, what if the defense doesn't get a stop on the next drive? There were spurts of time when the Chiefs had no problem running the ball. What if they break off a few key runs, the Falcons burn all their timeouts and lose the game that way? What if the defense does get the ball back to the offense, down two with less than two minutes to play and what if the exact same thing happens? What if Koo misses a long field goal? What if... What if... What if...
We could go back and forth. And at the end of the day, though, I don't subscribe to the would've, could've, should've(s). The Falcons did what they did. They called what they called. They have to live with it.
David H. from Marshalltown, Iowa
Three games into the season I'm still seeing the glass half full. We've played three upper-tier teams. Our defense is pretty good, but the pass rush is still very quiet. The offense is also improved over last year, but still not able to put a lot of points on the board. The points for/against differential is only -12, which says the team has been pretty competitive. If you are doing some internal scouting, what gets prioritized?
Tori: The offense putting points on the board.
Look, would the defense like to be better at affecting the quarterback? Of course. Every defense would say that. Would they also say they need to stop some of these leaky plays from happening? They're probably say that, too. But when push comes to shove, when the moment comes when the Falcons need a stop, they find a way. The Falcons have been able to be in these three games because of the defense and the opportunities they have given the offense time and time again.
Heck, this defense has only given up four touchdowns in 12 quarters. If they are doing that without generating too much of a loud pass rush, I am kind of OK with that.
The inverse to this is the offense's lack of points on the board. And if I am prioritizing a change, that's the way I am making. Absolutely. And its not even close.
Nick S. from Savannah, Georgia
I was listening to the postgame podcast on my drive into work today and Tori you said something that stuck out to me about it being a tale of two third downs. One where the Falcons offense can't convert on third downs and one where the Falcons defense can't get off the field on third down. If you're choosing one to magically fix by the time the Saints get to town, which one is it?
Tori: My answer to this question goes right in line with my answer to the previous question. I am quite alright with how this defense is performing so far in 2024. Sure opponents have strung long drives together, but even in that they struggle to actually find the endzone. That's why I would prioritize the offensive issues on third down.
Funny enough, I actually went through every single third down situation the Falcons have faced through three games for my notebook Monday. I learned a whole lot in that film study. Like, did you know the Falcons have only converted one of their six third-and-short plays? Or that they have only converted a third down twice in any of the second halves they've played so far?
Well, after all the work I did compiling trends and themes of the tale of the Falcons' third downs, I feel like it is only right I prioritize the offense on third down in the answer to this question.
