Tolstoy Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 It is suddenly hitting me (what many of you have been pointing out for some time), but Mularkey has a dismal record with players who were vital to this team's success. M. Williams--benched S. Adams--benched E. Moulds--benched and suspended J.P. Losman--benched W. McGahee--effectively benched every third-down, and inside the ten-yard line How in heaven's name are we supposed to win if the coach can't get his players to play for him? Folks, MM may have some good coaching qualities, but this is a damning record. We are better off without him if only because the players listed above will have a better chance to be productive in the future. Of course, the final nail in the coffin of my support for MM is the way he up and quit one week after declaring he would stay. According to Ron Borges of the Globe, it was because Levy wouldn't give him two-year contracts for his assistant coaches.
tennesseeboy Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 You certainly found one imporant reason he couldn't be a head coach. A review of a few of the games this season would probably give you a bunch of others. I don't fault him for quitting, as it was very unlikely that many assistant coaches would want to play here under his tenuous leadership. If he asked for two year contracts, I think that would have been an uncharacteristically smart move on his part. Good bye Mike..its been pleasure knowing you...It will be a better pleasure not knowing you.
Recommended Posts