UConn James Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 From the frontpage: 'But as I see it, Mularkey has qualities you want in a head coach, and that hasn’t changed. He’s a former hard-nosed player who understands how to relate to his team and still has their respect. He has a good offensive mind and believes in a power running team built to win in December, but drawing up the right x’s and o’s isn’t enough. There have to be some real horses to pull the wagon. [Referencing the bold phrase] He does? That's certainly news to me. His excuse for not using the run is like my nephew saying he won't brush his teeth every night because he doesn't brush his teeth every night. Hard to establish something when you don't do it. And, for the record, I will take a HC who knows that the opponents know what he's going to do, and he runs all over them anyway. Better to dictate the game than be dictated upon and "take what the opponent gives you." Mularkey is a chicken, and I'll say it to his face.
nick in* england Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Also hard to establish a power running game when your only ingedient is a powerful runner. When you have 5 powerpuff girls playing OL for you and My Little Pony playing TE you can forget power running.
Billsjunkie Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Also hard to establish a power running game when your only ingedient is a powerful runner. When you have 5 powerpuff girls playing OL for you and My Little Pony playing TE you can forget power running. 537925[/snapback] Barry Sanders had the same thing, turned out that he still ran hard and good. Could it maybe that Willis is also not as good as we all think? Mularkey is still an idiot for not trying more.
UConn James Posted December 20, 2005 Author Posted December 20, 2005 Nick, I really enjoyed your blog entry on the Pats game. Sounds like it was quite an experience. Run-blocking was supposed to be one of the strengths for the OL, MW especially. I don't think it's the fault of their play, it's the lack of the OC (now the HC) calling running plays. He outsmarts himself calling pass plays b/c the Ds show 8 in the box. F--- 8 in the box; call a short pass to keep them honest, but a coach with any stones must show that he won't be dictated upon. In his two years as Pitt's OC, MM first used Bettis and his RBs in great form --- didn't matter what or how, Bettis ran over people in the same way he always ran over us; his second year, he went tricksy, effectively benched Bettis and wasn't missed when he came here. And, I'm at the point where I don't know if Willis is the right RB for such an offense, not that this is in reality a "power running team." That's not really the type of offense he made his bones with at the U.
nick in* england Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Barry Sanders had the same thing, turned out that he still ran hard and good.Could it maybe that Willis is also not as good as we all think? Mularkey is still an idiot for not trying more. 537938[/snapback] Barry Sanders was Barry Sanders. NOONE thinks Willis is in the same class.
Chgrant Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Mularkey is a chicken, and I'll say it to his face. When can we look forward to that?
ricojes Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 From the frontpage:[Referencing the bold phrase] He does? That's certainly news to me. His excuse for not using the run is like my nephew saying he won't brush his teeth every night because he doesn't brush his teeth every night. Hard to establish something when you don't do it. And, for the record, I will take a HC who knows that the opponents know what he's going to do, and he runs all over them anyway. Better to dictate the game than be dictated upon and "take what the opponent gives you." Mularkey is a chicken, and I'll say it to his face. 537899[/snapback] Ed Kilgore is losing it...I think he's forgetting all the idiotic calls that MM master minded: 4th and Goal against the Raiders...hand off to Damian Shelton...His thinking is he thought he could fool them... 4th down at the end of the 1st NE game...uses EM as a decoy in the flat, even though he is having a tremendous day, and sends RP deep...His thinking is he thought he could fool them... 2 years ago he tried a QB sweep with DB....Guess what his thinking was!!! Those are just off the top of my head. So much for smash mouth power football. We need to fool our opponents to win. I honestly have seen enogh of this coaching staff. Maybe MM has some good qualities, but he is a long way from being a good coach. Dick Vermeil had a good comment on ESPN. They asked him what he has learned through his long coaching career, he said that you don't have to be involved in every single decision that goes on with your team. I think that makes sense, it's too much to keep track of everything going on with the offense, defense, ST, and personnel moves. MM puts in 18 hour days, for what!!! That's a little over kill, this is why you have assitant coaches, you need to trust them.
KOKBILLS Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Also hard to establish a power running game when your only ingedient is a powerful runner. When you have 5 powerpuff girls playing OL for you and My Little Pony playing TE you can forget power running. 537925[/snapback] But is that not the HC's Job whan it is exactly what he has promised? MM PROMISED in his 1st Press Conf that he would install a Power Running Offense...Besides bits and pieces here and there he has done no such thing... Come on...Can we stop letting MM off the hook for God's sake? If I was given ropes this long in real life I could call in sick 4 times a week...
tennesseeboy Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Also hard to establish a power running game when your only ingedient is a powerful runner. When you have 5 powerpuff girls playing OL for you and My Little Pony playing TE you can forget power running. 537925[/snapback] If you believe in a power running game, why on earth do you have those powder puffs on the line and why don't you have a big blocking 300 pound tight end. I remember reading an interview of JD Hill, a Bills receiver in the OJ era. Saban told him, the tight ends, and everyone else in the organization were advised that it was an OJ running game that they were going to play and to get with the program. They did...and they put together the Electric Company to turn on the Juice. That's how you put together a running game...not jabbering on about how you're going to play "smash-mouth" football and drafting wide receivers.
John from Riverside Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Barry Sanders was Barry Sanders. NOONE thinks Willis is in the same class. 537950[/snapback] It is amazing how people can envision a player doing things that he really didn't do..... Barry was NOT a power back.....he had moves that made him almost impossible to touch but he is not one of those backs that wore down defenses.... Willis runs over people
sweet baboo Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Willis runs over people 538325[/snapback] he hasn't run over anyone this year
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 he hasn't run over anyone this year 538327[/snapback] He ran over atlanta, new england in the 1st game, the jets, and did decent against miami. 1st miami game he had a 40-45 yard run called back cause of lee evans holding that didn't effect the run anyway. Mcgahee is a lot different back now then he was in college. He needs 25-30 carries a game and a pound it out down your throat rushing offense and he can take over a game. The problem is we dont have the interior players in the oline to make this possible. We also dont have a coach who sticks with the run game anyway even if it's not working all that well as a lot of good coaches do. Yards aren't all that important it's the attempts, and well you can't make a run game off 9 attempts unless your USC and your tailback is named Reggie Bush
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 All calls that work (when it comes to touchdowns or MUST first downs) are ultimately good calls. All calls that totally fail or backfire (in MUST situations) are ultimately bad calls. Some calls that fail are not gross mistakes but unlucky. Some calls that work are not genius but lucky. For example, people were ready to kill Mularkey for an earlier pass on fourth and short to Shelton which failed miserably. Last week the short pass to Shelton was a great call that got us first and goal at the one where Willis scored. Sure, you can argue semantics all you want, but the fake sneak and pitch to Willis was a great call against Seattle last year and it would have been a terrible call if it blew up in our face. That same play call this year was deplorable, but if it went for 20 yards it would have been great. Mularkey's choice of plays have been terrible and easily second guessed because 90% of them have failed. Sure, you can make a lousy "judgement" and luck out, and that same play call may only work 10% of the time, but if you call it and it works, it's a good call. If you call it and it fails, it's not a good call. Unless, obviously, someone just falls or drops the pass alone in the endzone or something along those lines. His play calling has sucked because it hasnt worked.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 All calls that work (when it comes to touchdowns or MUST first downs) are ultimately good calls.All calls that totally fail or backfire (in MUST situations) are ultimately bad calls. Some calls that fail are not gross mistakes but unlucky. Some calls that work are not genius but lucky. For example, people were ready to kill Mularkey for an earlier pass on fourth and short to Shelton which failed miserably. Last week the short pass to Shelton was a great call that got us first and goal at the one where Willis scored. Sure, you can argue semantics all you want, but the fake sneak and pitch to Willis was a great call against Seattle last year and it would have been a terrible call if it blew up in our face. That same play call this year was deplorable, but if it went for 20 yards it would have been great. Mularkey's choice of plays have been terrible and easily second guessed because 90% of them have failed. Sure, you can make a lousy "judgement" and luck out, and that same play call may only work 10% of the time, but if you call it and it works, it's a good call. If you call it and it fails, it's not a good call. Unless, obviously, someone just falls or drops the pass alone in the endzone or something along those lines. His play calling has sucked because it hasnt worked. 538553[/snapback] I understand and agree with this 100%. If it works you're a genius if it fails you're a moron but this isn't my problem with mularkey. My Problem with mularkey is we have no idenity. Theres nothing we do and do well. Are we a vertical passing team? Are we a finese west coast offense? are we a power running team who lacks linemen? There's no commitment to any side of the fence with Mularkey.
ricojes Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 All calls that work (when it comes to touchdowns or MUST first downs) are ultimately good calls.All calls that totally fail or backfire (in MUST situations) are ultimately bad calls. Some calls that fail are not gross mistakes but unlucky. Some calls that work are not genius but lucky. For example, people were ready to kill Mularkey for an earlier pass on fourth and short to Shelton which failed miserably. Last week the short pass to Shelton was a great call that got us first and goal at the one where Willis scored. Sure, you can argue semantics all you want, but the fake sneak and pitch to Willis was a great call against Seattle last year and it would have been a terrible call if it blew up in our face. That same play call this year was deplorable, but if it went for 20 yards it would have been great. Mularkey's choice of plays have been terrible and easily second guessed because 90% of them have failed. Sure, you can make a lousy "judgement" and luck out, and that same play call may only work 10% of the time, but if you call it and it works, it's a good call. If you call it and it fails, it's not a good call. Unless, obviously, someone just falls or drops the pass alone in the endzone or something along those lines. His play calling has sucked because it hasnt worked. 538553[/snapback] Now that the obvious has been stated by Kelly, everyone is a great Monday morning coach....The point about the play calling that I am trying to make is that MM's calls are 90% trickery in critical downs, when the game is on the line. Earlier in the year MM went for a 4th down on the Bills 40 yard line (I believe it was at NE) and the Bills made it. It was a horrible call!!! It was very early in the game and an unnecessary risk. Anyone can sit back and say when a play works its great and when it doesn't it's a bad call, but that's not the point I am trying to make. MM calls are very questionable at best, whether they work or not...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Now that the obvious has been stated by Kelly, everyone is a great Monday morning coach....The point about the play calling that I am trying to make is that MM's calls are 90% trickery in critical downs, when the game is on the line. Earlier in the year MM went for a 4th down on the Bills 40 yard line (I believe it was at NE) and the Bills made it. It was a horrible call!!! It was very early in the game and an unnecessary risk. Anyone can sit back and say when a play works its great and when it doesn't it's a bad call, but that's not the point I am trying to make. MM calls are very questionable at best, whether they work or not... 538879[/snapback] No, because if they worked the vast majority of the time we wouldnt be having this discussion, the Bills would have four more wins and we'd be thrilled with his play-calling, trickery or not. I hate that trickery, too, and think we should pound Willis far more than we do. But that is a judgment, and we don't know whether that would have worked either. We only think it would have.
ricojes Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 No, because if they worked the vast majority of the time we wouldnt be having this discussion, the Bills would have four more wins and we'd be thrilled with his play-calling, trickery or not. I hate that trickery, too, and think we should pound Willis far more than we do. But that is a judgment, and we don't know whether that would have worked either. We only think it would have. 538948[/snapback] Actually we would still be having the discussion. I (unfortunately) have many Pittsburgh fans as friends and even when they were winning and going to the playoffs the play calling drove them nuts. The first thing they said after MM got the job, is that he will make you scratch your head over play calling more often than not. But I do agree 100% with you about pounding Willis, I was looking forward to that all off season. I hate all this gimmick play crap, which is my main concern with the coaching staff.
UConn James Posted December 21, 2005 Author Posted December 21, 2005 No, because if they worked the vast majority of the time we wouldnt be having this discussion, the Bills would have four more wins and we'd be thrilled with his play-calling, trickery or not. I hate that trickery, too, and think we should pound Willis far more than we do. But that is a judgment, and we don't know whether that would have worked either. We only think it would have. 538948[/snapback] So, someone needs to work up a statistical analysis of the success of gadget/trick plays vs. traditional "Just f---ing run people over" plays? I think there's a reason other, successful coaches use those calls sparingly, whereas MM does about 6 per game, which can come to about 10-15-20 percent of a day's plays.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 So, someone needs to work up a statistical analysis of the success of gadget/trick plays vs. traditional "Just f---ing run people over" plays? I think there's a reason other, successful coaches use those calls sparingly, whereas MM does about 6 per game, which can come to about 10-15-20 percent of a day's plays. 538963[/snapback] The Patriots run all kinds of trick plays, reverses, fake reverses, exotic screens, flat passes fullbacks on fourth and short, etc. I am not advocating trick plays and think MM uses far too many. I think he should run Willis four times in a row at the goalline. But the point is only that the plays he calls don't work. It doesn't matter what they are, and it is not a failure because it's a trick play, it's a failure because it didn't work. Every completion for a touchdown or first down, whether it was a perfect spiral or a wounded duck was a good pass.
Spiderweb Posted December 21, 2005 Posted December 21, 2005 Barry Sanders had the same thing, turned out that he still ran hard and good.Could it maybe that Willis is also not as good as we all think? Mularkey is still an idiot for not trying more. 537938[/snapback] Barry Sanders was an absolute freak, and exception, and probably the most exciting, explosive RB in the history of the game. Using him as a comparison is really not fair or legitimate as he did things that only he could do. To see how good (or not so good) McGahee is, it would be nice to see more holes and lanes for him to at least get thru the line. Simple truth is our line suck, plain and simple. Our Guards especially are poor, with Anderson barely able to get out of his stance before being knocked on his butt, and Villerial never having been any better than average and now he plays like an old broken down vet who as he showed against Denver, makes too many stupid mistakes.
Recommended Posts