Your questions

Question: "I am new to football, but losing three games in a row was bad. But now the Chicago Bears, Minnesota Vikings and San Diego Chargers have the same record. Why is it that the Falcons are such a bad football team according to sports pundits and the other teams (with the same record) are still getting a pass?" -- Sharrell

Answer: It surprises me that you're new to football because your question is one a lot of long-time fans never would have thought of. I can say that it's a question I never thought of and I hope I can answer it for you.

This is just my opinion, but I think it has a lot to do with expectations. When looking at the Bears, it's easy to base what they should do this year on the fact that they played in the Super Bowl last season. When looking at the Chargers, you might see a good team with an extraordinary running back in LaDainian Tomlinson that is underachieving. When you look at the Vikings, you might see a team that has a good defense on paper, but it can't really do much of anything on the field because the offense is sub-par.

The Falcons, on the other hand, are in a unique situation - one that many long-time fans of the NFL haven't seen before. Everyone seems to be down on the Falcons because of what happened to Michael Vick during the offseason. Now, that's not to say that if he were still around that things would be any different. People, including die-hard Falcons fans, were very critical of Vick when he was there. Why? Because of the expectations placed upon him. Everyone thought when he came into the league that he was going to change the NFL, and he did. His style of play revolutionized the quarterback position. But he didn't get the results many people expected out of him (for example, no Super Bowl rings, which is what a lot of pundits base "good" and "bad" on).

After it was known that Vick wasn't going to be playing any more and Joey Harrington was going to be stepping in, everyone all of a sudden got down on Harrington, which was something I didn't understand. Harrington has just always carried a bad stigma because he couldn't produce in Detroit. Well, he couldn't produce in Detroit because he had nothing to work with around him. The talent level was very low and very young at the time. Now look at Detroit. Many of the players he was playing with then he would have been playing with now and he probably would have been seeing the same amount of success that the Lions are seeing today and all of a sudden he would be considered a great quarterback.

But when you look at Harrington with the Falcons, he has been no worse than any other quarterback in the league. In fact, he's the 15th-ranked QB in the NFL right now. Not a lot of people notice that or care to notice because of his name. Why does his name matter? Because we've been taught to not expect much out of him, almost to the point where, when he does play well, we pass it off as a fluke because many people see him as a "poor" quarterback.

It's those types of expectations that are difficult to battle through, which is why other teams with higher expectations are getting a "pass" right now. People are saying the Bears and the Chargers are going to come around despite playing terribly the first four weeks of the season. At the same time, Atlanta has shown a great amount of progression since the season started and people are saying Sunday's win was a fluke. I think a lot of outside factors helped the Falcons Sunday, but deep down they have a great base to create a very good football team down the road. That's why yesterday's win didn't surprise me, even though I picked the Texans to win.

I guess the short answer is it's a matter of perspective. If you look at a guy like Harrington and say he stinks, you probably aren't going to give the Falcons much thought at all. If you look at a guy like Tomlinson, you might think he's the best thing to ever wear shoulder pads and expect him turn a football team like the Chargers around even though they're playing worse football than what a lot of people perceive the Falcons are playing.

That certainly doesn't make it right that a lot of people are down on the Falcons, but I think it offers an explanation.

Question: Why did you focus on the defense in Sunday's game story when Harrington had a career day? - Anonymous Caller.

Answer: Harrington absolutely had a career day, as is evident by his stats. He went 23-of-29 for 223 yards and two touchdowns with a QB rating of more than 100. That's exactly how you want your quarterback to play. But when you look at what the defense did Sunday against the Texans compared to the first three games in the season, the defense became the bigger story.

The Falcons defense stopped Houston on all three of its red zone tries. They also came up with huge stops on Houston's two separate goal-to-go situations. For a unit that has ranked near the bottom of the NFL during the first three weeks, the effort it showed against the Texans was more than noteworthy.

As far as Harrington goes, I think the expectations for him have changed. When a poor quarterback plays poorly, it's more noticed than when a middle-of-the-road QB plays great. I've long said that I don't think Harrington is the long-term solution at QB for the Falcons, but I'm definitely thinking about revising that statement. I'm almost to the point now where I expect him to have a great completion percentage and a productive day every time he steps on the field. Maybe that's why the defense overshadowed his fantastic performance on Sunday. It wasn't anything personal. It was just that Harrington did his job against the Texans and the Falcons defense came out of virtually nowhere to stop an offensive team that could have really done some damage.

To get your questions answered, shoot me an e-mail at the address listed all over this blog or feel free to post a comment. I'll be featuring the answers to your questions right here each Tuesday.