FLOWERY BRANCH, Ga. — Honestly, y'all? Despite the Falcons' loss to the Commanders on Sunday night, you all submitted some really great questions to the Mailbox this week. I was worried there was going to be a lot of... frustration. And while there was that, too, you also brought forth some insightful inquiries within that frustration.

So, let's waste no time and dive into a few of those on this fine Tuesday.

Chris R. from Sydney, Australia

G'day from AUS!

First off, love the mailbox segment and the honest/straight answers you give the fans.

Secondly, and to my question, it's about a coach knowing when to use timeouts in a game. We were arguably playing a playoff-esque game against Washington, knowing that anything but a win likely has us sitting at home during the playoffs. In that situation, with a rookie QB (who is playing great mind you), and with a plethora of timeouts at the end of each half, why are we not using them? What benefit was there to not taking them? Why would the coach believe it best to allow Penix to have to rush to the line and snap it (heightening the risk of a bad play) when the alternative was to keep more time on the clock and not rush?

Tori: Hello Chris from Australia! Nice to know there is an Aussie contingency of Falcons fans out in the world. Hoping to one day get to your hemisphere! I appreciate you writing in, because your questions are not only good questions but they are valid.

I know I wrote about the decision by the Falcons to not use their timeouts at the end of the first half Sunday night and also after the Darnell Mooney catch in the fourth quarter. However, I thought Raheem Morris' answers to those same questions 24 hours later were more insightful. Here. Let me break it down.

Let's start with the first half, when the Falcons took all three timeouts into the locker room at halftime. Morris said the goal was to end the half with the ball, which makes sense. With the Commanders getting the ball first coming out of halftime, the Falcons didn't want to give them a chance to score in consecutive possessions. So, they were happy to let the clock run down.

"You always want to end the half with the ball. And, you know, we could have burned that one timeout. We had that one on the sideline (to Darnell Mooney), would have saved us about six seconds and potentially gave us two shots as opposed to one to Drake (London) at the end of the half," Morris said. "Because you're going to kick it on fourth down anyway to take the points, to ensure the points. But we could have probably saved about six seconds at the end of the half, but wanted to end the half with the ball, and we were able to do that."

So, there's the reasoning behind that decision. The decision not to use a timeout at the end of the game, however, is a bit more nuanced.

In essence, the Falcons did not want to give the Commanders' defense time to set up an elaborate defensive look following the stoppage of time. The Atlanta staff wanted to give Michael Penix Jr. a more manageable four-man rush. Morris said he believes that if the Falcons called a timeout at the 33 second mark when Mooney was ruled down, it would have allowed the Commanders to cook something up that would have taxed Penix in that situation.

"With my study, knowing the people, knowing the personnel, (Commanders defensive coordinator) Joe Whitt and (head coach) Dan Quinn, on what's going to happen if that clock gets stopped and how it's going to go down for my young quarterback when it comes to protection purposes," Morris explained, "I wanted to get him a regulated four-man rush with my guy standing in the pocket, being able to deliver a throw, and being able to get it done."

The problem — as we all know — was that too much time ran off the clock and the Falcons didn't have time to gain better field position before sending out Riley Patterson for a long kick.

So, there's the reasoning Morris gave for this decision.

Now, I will leave you with this: You do not have to agree with the Falcons' decisions to not use their timeouts. I am just passing along the thought process that Morris laid out when breaking it all down Monday afternoon. If you want to read more from his answer instead of what I have paraphrased here, Terrin Waack posted the entire response on X/Twitter. I have attached it for you below.

Mike S. from Calgary, Alberta Canada

Pending a miracle from the Saints (ugh) it looks like the season ends once again in Week 18 for the Falcons. This one stings as we had a chance to steal one from Washington. Some things never change for the same ol' Falcons. So, my question is this - was this team not more than 1 or 2 wins better than the last few years? This is a playoff caliber roster that isn't bound for the playoffs, so where does the blame go? Easy answer after Sunday night will be Morris, but it took more than one poorly coached week to get here.

Tori: Yes. This team (in my opinion) was better than just one or two more wins more than they've had in the last few years. I think they should have beaten the Saints a second time. They should have hung with the Broncos and Seahawks better. They should have found a way to outpace the Chargers and they could have found a way to defeat the Commanders this past Sunday. But could've, should've, would've(s) get you nowhere.

This was a team capable of 10 wins in my opinion. I said that at the beginning of the season and I stand by that even now, knowing the Falcons in 2024 won't be a 10-win team as the regular season comes to a close.

But that was your first question. Your second question is more difficult to answer, because I am never one to blame one singular person for the shortcomings of an operation that spans over 100 individuals from players to coaches to front office personnel within the organization.

And its not something I am going to start doing now. Because you're right in your assessment that it took more than one performance to get here. As I wrote in my notebook Monday, one moment does not a season make. It's a collection of moments that create a season. And unfortunately for the Falcons in 2024, there weren't enough good and consistent moments in the collection to push them to the offseason. That is unless the Saints have something to say about it, to your point.

Jeff C. from Greensboro, North Carolina

Tori, there is definitely some things to like about the game, but sooo much to dislike. I don't think I've ever seen a team tackle so poorly. But my question is about our nickel. Would you make that a priority in the offseason?

Tori: I'd say it's not even just the nickel position. I think reevaluating the entire secondary is going to be a major priority this offseason. Justin Simmons, Mike Hughes, Richie Grant, Dee Alford and Kevin King could all hit the free agency market in 2025. If that happens the Falcons are losing three key starters and two important role players and depth pieces.

Now, could the Falcons re-sign any collection of this group? Of course. That's always a possibility. But they do have to evaluate what their primary areas of need are and how much money they have to allocate to said position. How expensive will Simmons be to bring back? Would the Falcons want to draft a true partner in crime for A.J. Terrell at cornerback? In the years he's been in Atlanta he's never had a running mate that lasted longer than a year opposite him. These are the type of questions the Falcons have to answer this offseason.

If I am the Falcons, cornerback and/or safety as well as pass rush is Priority No. 1A and 1B of the 2025 offseason.