Mark VI Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Mularkey has those great " deer in the headlights " expressions and a complete lack of gametime adjustments. He'll soon progress to an outright drooler if the losses continue to pile up. His defense is a complete disaster. He hired the DC. Bullough did know a thing or 2 about defense, which is 2 more than Gray ever knew but had the classic hoof in mouth disease which $$ can't buy..." They took the sails out of our winds " was one of many classic lines. The offense was basically a mess during his tenure. Could either stack up next to Harvey Johnson ? Thoughts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Mularkey has those great " deer in the headlights " expressions and a complete lack of gametime adjustments. He'll soon progress to an outright drooler if the losses continue to pile up. His defense is a complete disaster. He hired the DC. Bullough did know a thing or 2 about defense, which is 2 more than Gray ever knew but had the classic hoof in mouth disease which $$ can't buy..." They took the sails out of our winds " was one of many classic lines. The offense was basically a mess during his tenure. Could either stack up next to Harvey Johnson ? Thoughts ? 484417[/snapback] Kay Stephenson was better than both of them, is he available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Your points have been appreciated and well documented in recent weeks, but if you can't see that our main issues overall have a lot more to do with players than coaching adjustments at this point, then I don't know what else to tell ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 Your points have been appreciated and well documented in recent weeks, but if you can't see that our main issues overall have a lot more to do with players than coaching adjustments at this point, then I don't know what else to tell ya 484431[/snapback] Give that man a cigar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChevyVanMiller Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Mularkey has those great " deer in the headlights " expressions and a complete lack of gametime adjustments. He'll soon progress to an outright drooler if the losses continue to pile up. His defense is a complete disaster. He hired the DC. Bullough did know a thing or 2 about defense, which is 2 more than Gray ever knew but had the classic hoof in mouth disease which $$ can't buy..." They took the sails out of our winds " was one of many classic lines. The offense was basically a mess during his tenure. Could either stack up next to Harvey Johnson ? Thoughts ? 484417[/snapback] That's funny, right there - I don't care who you are. Thanks for the laugh this morning. I needed it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Give that man a cigar. 484436[/snapback] umm thanks, I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Thoughts ? 484417[/snapback] Bullough was much more quotable... Excerpt from: U.S. College Hockey Online USCHO.com Fan Forum Archive, Stupid Athelete Quotes Section 09-24-2004, 10:40 PM by Ed Trefzger. "When Hank Bullough was coaching the Buffalo Bills -- he was fired and Marv Levy took his place -- he was famous for dumb quotes. Two I remember: At the time, the Bills were trying to sign Jim Kelly, who had decided to play with the USFL Houston Gamblers, instead of Buffalo. When asked about trying to sign Kelly, Bullough said, "It's not something I dream about every day I wake up." After a game, Bullough was asked about the opponents' kick off return which was run back for a touchdown right after the Bills scored. Bullough said, "That really took the sails out of our wind." http://board.uscho.com/archive/index.php/t-41672-p-4.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Your points have been appreciated and well documented in recent weeks, but if you can't see that our main issues overall have a lot more to do with players than coaching adjustments at this point, then I don't know what else to tell ya 484431[/snapback] Exactly right. Mularkey's head coaching record in just under 1½ seasons is above .500, at 12-11. It would be interesting to compare some of the top coaches records after 23 games. I doubt Mularkey's is any worse than theirs. A little too early to throw in the towel on MM as a head coach. The big question I always have is - so who do you replace him with? Do you just keep starting over every 20 games of so if they haven't compliled a record better than .750? He hasn't had the benefit of a decent offensive line that can sustain drives, protect the QB, and keep the defense fresh. Not saying Mularkey shouldn't shoulder part of the blame- it is his team afterall. But realistically, how much better would Beliceck, Parcells, Gibbs, etc have done with the same personnel? I've never known a team to succeed that has a chronically ineffective patchwork offensive line, an average defensive line, and their 2 top quartebacks with about 15 starts between them. Having a good punter ain't the key to making a superbowl run. Mularkey may have to take a good look at how competant Clements as the top offensive guy, buy I think Mularkey is still well within his grace period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 In their prime? Mularkey was better. I don't think Bullough had a "prime". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 In their prime? Mularkey was better. I don't think Bullough had a "prime". 484625[/snapback] never had a touch to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Your points have been appreciated and well documented in recent weeks, but if you can't see that our main issues overall have a lot more to do with players than coaching adjustments at this point, then I don't know what else to tell ya 484431[/snapback] Agreed, I think MM is a lot better than GW was. The team seems a little tougher mentally than it was 2 years ago, and he has a much better feel for the game than GW ever did - ie when to punt, when to go for it, when to kick a FG, etc. Plus we actually beat division opponents once in a while (however mediocre they may be), which never happened under GW. As somebody said in another thread, Sam Adams is the only real player on either side of the line. A coach really has to be a miracle worker to overcome that lack of talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Why not Chuck Dickerson? He's so smart. And after each game, he can rip his own a$$ on the radio. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 It's not the coaches, man. It's the gaps. We're just not staying in our gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflo83 Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Exactly right. Mularkey's head coaching record in just under 1½ seasons is above .500, at 12-11. It would be interesting to compare some of the top coaches records after 23 games. I doubt Mularkey's is any worse than theirs. A little too early to throw in the towel on MM as a head coach. The big question I always have is - so who do you replace him with? Do you just keep starting over every 20 games of so if they haven't compliled a record better than .750? He hasn't had the benefit of a decent offensive line that can sustain drives, protect the QB, and keep the defense fresh. Not saying Mularkey shouldn't shoulder part of the blame- it is his team afterall. But realistically, how much better would Beliceck, Parcells, Gibbs, etc have done with the same personnel? I've never known a team to succeed that has a chronically ineffective patchwork offensive line, an average defensive line, and their 2 top quartebacks with about 15 starts between them. Having a good punter ain't the key to making a superbowl run. Mularkey may have to take a good look at how competant Clements as the top offensive guy, buy I think Mularkey is still well within his grace period. 484588[/snapback] There are many things that have me shaking my head this season but the one that drives me crazy is how we can come out of the box, be succesful on that first drive and then move away from what was working on that initial posession. As someone else may have pointed out, if Mularkey scripts the first drive, maybe he needs to take the gameday playcalling away from Clements before it's too late. Gregg Williams let Gilbride continue down the wrong path and it cost him his job. Mularkey is offensively minded, maybe he needs to grab the reins. I think Mularkey can get the job done. But as with all first time head coaches, there will be some growing pains. In addition, this team needs to get it's own act together. The veterans are not getting it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Agreed, I think MM is a lot better than GW was. The team seems a little tougher mentally than it was 2 years ago, and he has a much better feel for the game than GW ever did - ie when to punt, when to go for it, when to kick a FG, etc. Plus we actually beat division opponents once in a while (however mediocre they may be), which never happened under GW. As somebody said in another thread, Sam Adams is the only real player on either side of the line. A coach really has to be a miracle worker to overcome that lack of talent. 484665[/snapback] And we disagree. Williams was also not a great coach, however other than the NE fiasco, of which he at least won one. We always seemed to be in the game. Mularkey seems to want to coach not to lose, and doesn't instill confidence in this team. His players have quit on him and his staff. Cheeseburgers maybe good in paradise, but cheeseburgers and movies as training tools should be left off the menu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Yet another humorous thread turned into gratituous self-expression... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 And we disagree. Williams was also not a great coach, however other than the NE fiasco, of which he at least won one. We always seemed to be in the game. Mularkey seems to want to coach not to lose, and doesn't instill confidence in this team. 484707[/snapback] Honestly I don't know what this means, "coaching not to lose". Are you saying he's too conservative? I thought he tried too many trick plays? He throws deep too much, he doesn't throw deep enough, he doesn't run enough....there have been so many contradicting complaints in recent weeks it's hard to keep track. We just don't have enough players on either side of the trenches to compete and that's really the bottom line. FWIW, there was more than 1 NE fiasco under GW and however "close" those 10-0 or 10-6 games or 17-7 games vs. GB, Dallas, or Miami may have been on the scoreboard, the games were not really that close given that the offense was never capable of making a play, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Honestly I don't know what this means, "coaching not to lose". Are you saying he's too conservative? I thought he tried too many trick plays? He throws deep too much, he doesn't throw deep enough, he doesn't run enough....there have been so many contradicting complaints in recent weeks it's hard to keep track. We just don't have enough players on either side of the trenches to compete and that's really the bottom line. FWIW, there was more than 1 NE fiasco under GW and however "close" those 10-0 or 10-6 games or 17-7 games vs. GB, Dallas, or Miami may have been on the scoreboard, the games were not really that close given that the offense was never capable of making a play, ever. 484797[/snapback] And it is no different now, except now our defense sucks to boot. As far as playing not to lose, he doesn't but in a good game plan, he is just trying to minimize turnovers. That's great but you don't score many points that way. Oh and one trick play per game, the same mickey mouse end around hama jamma, !@#$ me over for 10 yard loss is not really a trick play but the game plan disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 And it is no different now, except now our defense sucks to boot. As far as playing not to lose, he doesn't but in a good game plan, he is just trying to minimize turnovers. That's great but you don't score many points that way. Oh and one trick play per game, the same mickey mouse end around hama jamma, !@#$ me over for 10 yard loss is not really a trick play but the game plan disaster. 484802[/snapback] We had zilch in the way of offensive TD's SEVEN TIMES out of 16 games in 2003. This year we're scoring on every opening possession. I'm not saying our offense is good, but if you don't think it's better now I don't know what you were watching 2 years ago. Yeah, the defense is worse now than it was in '03. But last year they were better than '03 because they went from last to first in turnovers. They sucked in '01 without any players, they sucked in '02 without players and they suck now without any players. When you take away Spikes & Pat Williams we only have 2 real players on our front 7 with Adams & Fletcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv Levy Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 who cares?! They both stink!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts